Recent content by derekcbart

David, did you even look at it? It was a simple example of how things, in that particular instance horoscopes, that are descriptively vague can be interpreted to have special meaning when they do not actually have special meaning. May I be allowed to provide a written description of the...

Absolutely not true. I may have a higher threshold for evidence than others may have, but if there is sufficient evidence to prove a paranormal ability then I, and others, would have no choice but to accept it and then come up with new scientific protocols to figure out how the ability works...

For an example of what I mean by descriptively vague, please take a look at this YouTube video: VIDEO OF FUNDAMENTALIST CHARLATAN REMOVED Yes, it is from James Randi and I know that some people have some problems with his tactics, but there shouldn't be any of those types of concerns with this...

Hello. Forgive me for what may seem like a wet blanket response, but I do not see the level of success that others do. Neither said that it was a ship, let alone a very large ship. Neither said that it was underwater. Gulliver said that it had "Reflection as if off water" but that...

My apologies. I didn't click on the link originally. Based on David's email I thought something new had happened. -Derek

Hi there. I mentioned this in a private email to David (I didn't know that there was a thread here), but I do have significant issues with Michael Shermer. The primary one is that he is a bit of a pompous ass. There is some dirty laundry between the Skeptics Society (Shermer's organization)...

Honestly, we thought that this would make the demonstration easier for the remote viewer. By telling the remote viewer where to look it removes the trial and error of figuring out where to look. If we said where Jim was then the viewer would not need to figure out where Jim was because where...

Hello. It seems pretty clear from the consensus that this particular remote viewing test was a failure. However, all that this means is that the viewer failed at this one attempt. It does not mean that another viewing will be a failure or that all remote viewings are a failure. Only...

I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with thegreenman's proposed test, but how is remote viewing a picture of a place a better test than remote viewing the place itself? That is what I don't understand. -Derek

Okay, I will revoke the offer of an informal demonstration. I was asked by David and Tommy to put forward some thoughts on this so I did. Unfortunately, what is seen as inflexibility on my part by some I see as inability to do what is claimed on the part of others. The reason that prior...

Hi there. Just so you understand, when the IIG tests someone we do not care about their theories of how something works, or previous articles that say that it works, we just want to see IF it works. So, it doesn't matter if there are mountains of prior evidence. Can a person do what they...

The problem is that I think the History Channel website pulled the episode from their online viewing. If you do a search for Morristown you don't get any results related to UFO Hunters. -Derek

This just in from Jim Underdown: I have all 4 envelopes on the couch in my office under a Skeptical Inquirer magazine 1 contains a number 1 contains a word 1 contains an image 1 contains a card (not necessarily a playing card.) Best regards, James Underdown Executive Director...

Yes. I will ask Jim to add one. -Derek

There is no time limit as far as the IIG is concerned. When/if we get an email then we will announce the results. -Derek