Twirling around in a circle shouting "unsupportable nonsense" - as you so often like to do - does not change the fact that Psychics have helped police solve crimes. Meet the psychic who uses gift to solve FBI cold cases https://nypost.com/2016/08/01/meet-the-psychic-who-uses-gift-to-solve-fbi-cold-cases/
it's amusing you think sourcing to someone else making the same unsupportable claim you did is evidence lol. If you can provide your scientific evidence, with repeated experimentation that people have paranormal psychic abilities, then you'd have a point. Until you can do so, it remains unsupportable nonsense.
Dude I made no such claims - I simply stated that Psychics have helped Police to solve cases - upon which you started twirling around crying "unsupportable nonsense". I then proved my claim by giving you an example.
No I didn't - a real example was provided - one you did not even read. You are in mindless denial mode. I did not even claim to believe in this stuff myself - I stated a simple fact - that Police sometimes use Psychics to solve cold cases - and in at least some cases - it has worked. It is not like this hasn't aired on documentary TV .. It has ... many times. And some of these cases are interesting. That's it - no need to get hysterical - as nothing I have stated is "unsupportable nonsense". So when you get over that one .. let me know.
I read it. It claimed, with zero evidence, that a psychic helped solve a crime. That is repeating an unsupportable claim. again, when you can show humans possess psychic paranormal abilities, you might have a point. Until you can demonstrate this, it's unsupportable nonsense.
When remote viewing provides leads that clearly contribute to the solving of crimes involving stalled investigations, the successful outcome is the same as far as the court is concerned regardless of whether or not any psychic contribution is involved.
When you can get over the fact that nothing I said was unsupportable nonsense ... do let me know. If you want to look at some interesting cases ... google it
That has been done. Obviously you didn't follow the details given by the statistician or you just ignored the facts presented. It appears that you are more interested in advertising your bravado by coming out on top as the winner in arguments. The nature of the subject under discussion doesn't seem to play much of a role in what drives your motives. Your focus is on contention featuring dismissal and denial. The generous support/approval from other hardliner posters has fed your habit until it seems to have grown into an obsession.
No, it hasn’t been done. You can not in any way demonstrate that any human has psychic paranormal abilities. If you could, you would have the Nobel prize and be the most famous scientist in history.
This is funny: https://abcnews.go.com/US/private-detective-claims-psychic-powers-solve-crimes/story?id=44355584 "Oh look, that dog I found a body with my vision"...
That same argument is made against the atheist claim . They say no creator or god exists. Neither claim can be proven. It is a philosophical point and outside of science. It takes faith in both exclamations. Science only deals with what can be measured inside of this universe..It cannot know if or what might lie outside of it. To make the claim that something does or doesn't lie outside of this universe is unknowable. Even by you.. The only honest thing to say is...I dont know but neither side can or will admit the obvious .
nope. as theism is an active belief, whereas atheism is the lack of belief. There are some that assert no god exists. I am not one of them. I simply lack the belief in a god or gods.
Did you know that there is a species of mushrooms that have space vehicles capable of traveling 50 times the speed of light? While that seems impressive there are jelly fish that can travel 117 times the speed of light. Can you prove that neither exists? If you can't prove that something doesn't exist are you expected to believe that all kinds of imaginary things do exist without any rational basis to believe in them? Sure, mushrooms and jelly fish and primitive space ships do exist but neither mushrooms or jellyfish have ever created a space ship. Zombies, liches, ghosts, spirits, angels, demons, gods and devils are all imaginary characters that give comfort to superstitious twits. They don't exist.
So, confronted with facts that you can’t directly dispute, you try to skirt around them using diversionary rhetoric that amounts to a false and misleading generalization. However, this matter can’t be judged fairly using a critique that dismisses anything lacking overwhelming empirical weight. I should not have to repeat the key facts already given in the presentations, but you insist on playing dodge ball. The statistical report is that the paranormal aspect in question has been verified to occur with an average accuracy of 1 out of 3 times, which is significantly more than the standard 1 out of 4 achieved at random/chance (by guesswork). As clearly stated, this figure has been obtained from multiple efforts at many different times and locations by many different parties and is remarkably consistent across sources. Paranormal abilities are not uniform among the general population. Some individuals are far more capable than others. The military found out the hard way, wasting money trying to instill it in teams of troops without screening for latent potential. I don’t care whether any of this convinces you to accept it. There’s now more in the rest of the world who can see the justification in realizing that some paranormal phenomena are a small but definite part of reality. It’s important to understand that the kind of physical reality operative in this worldly domain maintains a close consistency between cause and effect wherein logic and reason can almost always by relied upon. The paranormal is an anomaly that breaches that linkage. It must be a minimal part of experience else the linkage would be too often compromised, and such inconsistency would tend to undermine the learning process, making it less effective and less efficient. That also explains why the paranormal is so elusive and resistant to the kind of controlled replication demanded by ordinary science. Perhaps the Nobel Prize should have gone to Uri Geller. He demonstrated his abilities to many different people under many different circumstances. He showed that he could even put thoughts into people's heads. He admitted that he sometimes could not do any such things, but averaged about 70% functional times. The reports on him are very polarized, leaving room for much controversy. Some insist that he was a total fake and was exposed as such, but that seems unrealistic and more like overt efforts to discredit him. There is far more info describing what witnesses saw him accomplish.
you haven’t presented any facts. Just unsupportable claims. All of this is unsupportable nonsense. You can in no way demonstrate that any human has psychic paranormal abilities. You can only continue making baseless claims.
I don't have to claim anything. The professionals in the presentations presented the facts and claims, but you insist that none have been provided. Most people would be embarrassed for repeatedly parroting such an ostrich-head-in-the-sand response.[/QUOTE]
No, they made the same unsupportable claims as you did, and provided no evidence. I’m just pointing out reality. It won’t change. So I’m not sure why you think I can or would post anything differently?
Are you claiming that those professionals have no credibility, and that you won't accept any of their stated facts or claims without seeing the documentation/data that they have collected, that backs up their facts and claims?
I’m pointing out they made the same unsupportable claims as you did, and provided no evidence. if it was proven that someone has psychic paranormal powers that person would be the most famous person alive.
It's not clear what that evidence should consist of. Nor what would be deemed acceptable proof, acceptable by whom, nor who or what would convey the status of famous thereby.
When an expert tabulates the experimental evidence and reports the logical assessment of that evidence, you label the expert's offer as not evidence and can dismiss it. That's a very convenient position for your skeptical preference since it involves a phenomenon not previously accepted widely and not yet popularized by the mainstream. You can go on pretending that what so many experts offer has no credibility, but I don't see that kind of stubborn purist approach as practical and worthy, i.e. no forward thinking allowed to make breakthroughs and gain credibility until it is overwhelmingly convincing.
they didn't tabulate and provide any experimental evidence. They made unsupportable claims, like you did. Again, if there was proof that a human had psychic paranormal abilities, that person would be the most famous person alive. They would be like a Marvel Super Hero.