> On Jul 11, 12:26 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Jul 9, 8:16 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>

>>> On Jul 10, 8:29 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:

>

>>>> On Jul 9, 2:59 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>

>>>>> A very interesting programme started of Aus TV last night, where seven
>>>>> psychics are put through their paces, where a membmer of the Aus
>>>>> sceptics, and a npwn psychic sit in judgement.

>

>>>>> The first one involved a child being hidden in dense bush, whee each
>>>>> oner in turn was given 15 minutes to locate.

>

>>>>> There was a y shaped track, and the child was hidden so it could not
>>>>> be seen from the track. Actual contact had to be made.To make it more
>>>>> interesting, a tracking device was screened, showing the location and
>>>>> the movement of the subject.

>

>>>>> One made it in a couple of minutes, one in about forteen, one was 30
>>>>> seconds away, and dead on track, two were also dead ontrack but missed
>>>>> by a few minutes, and two were totally off track.

>

>>>>> The sceptic was asked about the first one. "Just lucky" was the reply.
>>>>> The face of the other judge spoke volumes with her big wide grin.

>

>>>>> Should be an interesting series.

>

>>>>> My prediction has already started accurately. There is no way on
>>>>> "lifes" earth, that the sceptic will admit even slightly, that there
>>>>> is any validity to. To a neutral, he looked like a dogmatised
>>>>> believer. (Belief of disbelief are two sides of the same coin)

>

>>>>> Nothing to do with 'crystal ball gazing'. When you look through the
>>>>> lense of a sceptic, you see only validation of the lense. Quite right
>>>>> too. The lense is a protection for the sensitive nature of the viewer.
>>>>> Of course, that could equally be argued for the psychic. In this
>>>>> case,I suspect the evidence will be a strong as any empirical evidence
>>>>> can be.

>

>>>>> Im also quite sure that this programme will be a big hit, which speaks
>>>>> volumes for people who are interested in some evidence of what they
>>>>> have been accepting as 'suggestion' for generations...I speak of
>>>>> course, of religious dogma. All of which is based on second hand
>>>>> experience, and is why many churches discourage such activity.They
>>>>> want to remain in control, believing their flock are not capable, like
>>>>> the sceptic, of handling such revelation.

>

>>>>> A very appropriate word "flock" when you think about it.

>

>>>>> At least recently 'they' have stopped burning at the stake. They just
>>>>> suggest that will take place after death, eternaly !!!

>

>>>>> What a pity they couldnt recruit the Pope as a celebrity judge while
>>>>> he is over here next week :-).

>

>>>>> The programme is called "The One" and is on channel 7.

>

>>>>> BOfL

>

>>>> It would seem the best way to get some insight would be to get half a
>>>> dozen people who say they are not psychic but who are hunters or
>>>> trackers and let them have a go.  One could then compare the
>>>> performance of the two populations.- Hide quoted text -

>

>>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>>> Wouldnt work in Aus. All the aboriginal trackers "are"
>>> psychics ....:-)

>

>>> An early mentor of mine was a lecturer in biochemisty at W.A uni, and
>>> for fun, set up a pyramid with a blunt razor blade to see if there
>>> were any effects.

>

>>> The prof found out, and gave him a roasting.

>

>>> "Whats the problem" asked G? "What if it works, there is no scientific
>>> explaination? We are scientists."

>

>>> When I heard this, I was very annoyed, but many years later, I can see
>>> the prof was perfectly correct.

>

>>> BOfL- Hide quoted text -

>

>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>> So don't use aborigines, there must be white hunters in Australia.

>

>> I'm not sceptical about the psychics, I'm sceptical that their ways of
>> doing things are more productive than the non-psychic's.  A legitimate
>> question is whether a person who is a trained psychic is better at
>> finding the child than a non-psychic who is a trained outdoorsman, on
>> average.- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> Ive had enough first hand experience, to need no such comparison. To
> watch a tracker at work, which I have done in Africa, is completely
> different to the way one particular lady walked straight to the boy.
> He didnt leave any tracks, as he was taken there from a different
> location to where the search started.
>
> She had 360 deg to chose from, and went straight there in two minutes.
> Had she have been 1/2 a degree off, she would have walked straight
> past. She also stated, during the event, that he was "just beyond
> these rocks".
>
> She also 'got the picture' from looking at the map befor she took off.
>
> I dont see your query as scepticism.
>
> BOfL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -