| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astrology Forum » Demonstration... |
|
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| A B... |
 Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
An offer for Chris Krolczyk and Bob Officer.
You have both posted several times recently declaring that we are all
mistaken and astrology is useless. Would either of you give me a chance to
show otherwise?
I'd like one or both of you to post the date, time and place of birth of
somebody you know, without saying anything else about them. Somebody with a
strongly marked personality would be best, because if the person was very
average the description would apply to lots of people, and it would look as
if I was just fudging. I'd also prefer to know whether the person was male
or female, just to avoid having to write "he/she".
When I've looked at the person's astrological chart, I'll post a brief
description of the person's character as indicated astrologically, together
with any other facts that seem clear from the chart.
If anyone else here wants to have a try, they're welcome (if you don't
object, of course).
When we've all had a chance to try it out, you can say what the real
answers were, and whether I got it right. If not, then of course I'm going
to look pretty silly, but I'll risk that.
Come on, let's see what happens.
A. B. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
female
joliet,illinois
08/31/1942
08:04 am
do my chart.
>never been 'average' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| A B... |
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thank you very much Rita. I'll have a go at that. It does take quite a
while to do a chart, especially when you're as out of practice as I am and
keep forgetting about it anyway. But expect my attempt in a week or two.
It's so good to find somebody who is happy to try it out and see whether it
does work or not.
Where is Chris Krolczyk in all this? Is he going to risk testing me?
I am disappointed with Bob Officer's replies. This is the kind of
non-reasoning that can give science a bad name.
[quote:b03701e8d7]However we did have one Astrology, which was self described as 100%
accurate 100% of the time. In three out three of his claims, he was
show to be 100% wrong. His sin was cherry picking his data sources.
[/quote:b03701e8d7]
You mean Ray Murphy, don't you? I saw that article - was it yours? I
didn't realize. I'm sure he didn't really say he was 100% accurate. I
think he has more sense than to claim that in the present state of
astrology. The test was specifically of a technique called chart
rectification by progressions. Astrologers have always been divided on
whether this actually works, and that article indicates that it doesn't -
despite, I might add, not being statistical in the least.
[quote:b03701e8d7]Maybe you need to read in a few other fields of science.
The human brain ... will try to create patterns even when no real
pattern exist.
[/quote:b03701e8d7]
I know that perfectly well, thank you (although I didn't know it was called
apophenia). But suggesting how astrology could be false does not prove that
it IS false. I don't think someone who never bothers to state his evidence
should tell other people they don't understand science.
Anyway, I now have the data I wanted. I'll complete the experiment in due
course. If I succeed and you still think it was luck, you can always send
me another lot to make sure.
[quote:b03701e8d7][Edmond Wollman] came in second in a contest with two entries.
No. The contest is just about to begin...[/quote:b03701e8d7]
A. B. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| A B... |
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Forgot to say, Bob Officer needn't bother asking "backwards Bill" his birth
date. It doesn't sound to me like OCD, so that would just be a waste of
time. Thanks anyway.
A. B. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Info... |
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <12acc759-4d18-4042-bbd3-8ee91e081c4b at (no spam) p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
arcturianone at (no spam) earthlink.net wrote:
[quote:b2fef77ae1]
I already have proven I am
[/quote:b2fef77ae1]
An asshole! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Officer... |
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 9 May 2009 20:22:28 +0100, in alt.astrology, "A B" <a at (no spam) a>
wrote:
[quote:b5da91ce4b]Thank you very much Rita. I'll have a go at that. It does take quite a
while to do a chart, especially when you're as out of practice as I am and
keep forgetting about it anyway. But expect my attempt in a week or two.
It's so good to find somebody who is happy to try it out and see whether it
does work or not.
Where is Chris Krolczyk in all this? Is he going to risk testing me?
I am disappointed with Bob Officer's replies. This is the kind of
non-reasoning that can give science a bad name.
[/quote:b5da91ce4b]
Astrology isn't a science it is scam.
Trying to apply the label science won't work.
You make the claim to what a specific Astrological combination
creates and then we can test it.
I went through this with a few other "professional" astrologers. Pete
Stapleton was caught cherry picking databases and ignoring people who
didn't fit his model. Ray was caught trying to create a cold read,
using Chart progressions rectification. It backfired after he
resorted to using google. When he tried to come up with the corrected
chart.
Astrology doesn't work.
[quote:b5da91ce4b]However we did have one Astrology, which was self described as 100%
accurate 100% of the time. In three out three of his claims, he was
show to be 100% wrong. His sin was cherry picking his data sources.
You mean Ray Murphy, don't you? I saw that article - was it yours? I
[/quote:b5da91ce4b]
No pete stapleton, he was shown time and time again to be far less
than perfect, actually if you bet against his predictions you might
end up with a one or two tenths of points of an advantage over random
guessing. and I didn't do the stats on that one.
I did the work on his mining disasters and ship wreaks, And caught
him cherry picking data. His 100% influence disappeared when all the
data was used. (sort of like a repeat of Jung's claim of Moon signs
and marriage)
[quote:b5da91ce4b]didn't realize. I'm sure he didn't really say he was 100% accurate. I
think he has more sense than to claim that in the present state of
astrology. The test was specifically of a technique called chart
rectification by progressions. Astrologers have always been divided on
whether this actually works, and that article indicates that it doesn't -
despite, I might add, not being statistical in the least.
[/quote:b5da91ce4b]
It works as well as astrology does. Not at all. The real problem is
you fail to recognized the basic Premise is bad. "As above, so
below", is completely false.
[quote:b5da91ce4b]Maybe you need to read in a few other fields of science.
The human brain ... will try to create patterns even when no real
pattern exist.
I know that perfectly well, thank you (although I didn't know it was called
apophenia). But suggesting how astrology could be false does not prove that
it IS false. I don't think someone who never bothers to state his evidence
should tell other people they don't understand science.
[/quote:b5da91ce4b]
You're a new comer, I don't wish to rehash old ground. Edmond by the
way becomes criminal if he tries to claim to be a counselor or use
psychology in a professional manner as a counselor.
[quote:b5da91ce4b]Anyway, I now have the data I wanted. I'll complete the experiment in due
course. If I succeed and you still think it was luck, you can always send
me another lot to make sure.
[Edmond Wollman] came in second in a contest with two entries.
No. The contest is just about to begin...
[/quote:b5da91ce4b]
I suspect you need to understand one of his claims to fame is getting
awarded an honorable mention in a field of Two entries. Not second
place. third.
Astrology, until you can come up with a real testable claim is
rejected as nothing more than an old superstition, false. The primary
premise is "as above, so below" is the entire basis of all the OCD
like manipulations of modern day astrologers.
Have fun.
--
Ak'toh'di |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Edmond Wollmann... |
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 10, 4:53 pm, ritalo... at (no spam) webtv.net wrote:
[quote:f94e5ca4ca]i' m very pleased that you'll do my chart.
and of course i realise it will take awhile.
thank you
[/quote:f94e5ca4ca]
Oh a couple of years I would say! Oh this should be a hoot,
considering how objective and "off the cuff" it is considering they
have been discussing your chart in AAMod for some years now.
Yeah, real spontaneous and unprepared everyone must be!
 ))
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astrology.moderated/msg/ac0e11b929e17dc7?hl=en
"I have waited a lifetime
Spent my time so foolishly
But now that Ive found you
Together well make history!
And I know that it must be the woman in you!
That brings out the man in me
I know I cant help myself
Youre all that my eyes can see
And it feels like the first time
Like it never did before
Feels like the first time
Like weve opened up the door
Feels like the first time
Like it never will again, neeever agaaaaaaaain!!!
Foreigner, Feels Like the First Time
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2009 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
i' m very pleased that you'll do my chart.
and of course i realise it will take awhile.
thank you |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| A B... |
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Edmond Wollmann" <AArctophilax at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote (11th May):
[quote:bc041bbc48]Oh this should be a hoot,
considering how objective and "off the cuff" it is considering they
have been discussing your chart in AAMod for some years now.
Yeah, real spontaneous and unprepared everyone must be!
[/quote:bc041bbc48]
Me, anyway. I'm new remember. I've never come across Rita before, and I
promise not to look at the archives - despite you helpfully providing a
link. Do you actually want me to cheat? Well I'm not going to.
A. B. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| A B... |
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers at (no spam) 127.0.0.7> wrote (10th April):
A. B. wrote:
[quote:39be380d07]I am disappointed with Bob Officer's replies. This is the kind of
non-reasoning that can give science a bad name.
Astrology isn't a science it is scam.
Trying to apply the label science won't work.
[/quote:39be380d07]
I didn't say it was. I was referring to your attempts at testing it, which
are surely intended as science.
[quote:39be380d07]I don't think someone who never bothers to state his evidence
should tell other people they don't understand science.
You're a new comer, I don't wish to rehash old ground. Edmond by the
way becomes criminal if he tries to claim to be a counselor or use
psychology in a professional manner as a counselor.
[/quote:39be380d07]
All right, but in that case, don't accuse me of ignoring the evidence when I
don't know what it is or where to find it. I am left with no particular
reason to believe astrology doesn't work, that is, exactly where I started.
I'll just have to wait for the present experiment to run its course. And I
can't see what Edmond Wollman's claims have to do with it.
[quote:39be380d07]Astrology, until you can come up with a real testable claim is
rejected as nothing more than an old superstition, false. The primary
premise is "as above, so below" is the entire basis of all the OCD
like manipulations of modern day astrologers.
[/quote:39be380d07]
In other words, guilty until proven innocent. And what on earth do you mean
by "OCD-like"?
A. B. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 9, 2:22 pm, "A B" <a at (no spam) a> wrote:
[quote:2c3f932a55]Where is Chris Krolczyk in all this?
[/quote:2c3f932a55]
Doing more important stuff, up until now. That - and
the fact that my name doesn't turn up in the header -
is the reason I didn't bother to respond.
[quote:2c3f932a55] Is he going to risk testing me?
[/quote:2c3f932a55]
"Testing" you in what? The fact that you'll make up the usual broad-
ranging
cold-read guesses when I decide to hand over a date?
Well, okay, here 'tis:
2/1/21
Go to it. I strongly suspect that you won't even come close on most
of your attempts to cobble something together. Plus, what serves as
proof to you that any of my denials won't be as "disappointing" as
Bob's responses?
[quote:2c3f932a55]I am disappointed with Bob Officer's replies. This is the kind of
non-reasoning that can give science a bad name.
[/quote:2c3f932a55]
Astrology isn't "science". The more you post pomposities
like this, the more I get the feeling that Cujo is *completely*
accurate in assuming that you're an Edmo sockpuppet. That,
or you're his latest shill. Nice "work", if you can get it.
-Chris Krolczyk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 12, 12:49 pm, "A B" <a at (no spam) a> wrote:
[quote:647cb3265c]"Bob Officer" <boboffic... at (no spam) 127.0.0.7> wrote (10th April):
A. B. wrote:
I am disappointed with Bob Officer's replies. This is the kind of
non-reasoning that can give science a bad name.
Astrology isn't a science it is scam.
Trying to apply the label science won't work.
I didn't say it was. I was referring to your attempts at testing it, which
are surely intended as science.
[/quote:647cb3265c]
Not really. Disproving something as rickety as astrology doesn't even
need to rise to the level of elementary-school general science
courses,
since what's being "disproven" is as vague and nonsensical as it
gets.
The reason why professional stage magicians - hardly anyone's idea
of a "scientist", though there's no law that says that they can't be
familiar with the scientific method - are so good at deflating
astrologers,
"psychics" and faith healers is that they know the techniques of mis-
direction and cold reading by dint of their profession. You don't have
to be a scientist to do any of that.
(snip)
[quote:647cb3265c]Astrology, until you can come up with a real testable claim is
rejected as nothing more than an old superstition, false. The primary
premise is "as above, so below" is the entire basis of all the OCD
like manipulations of modern day astrologers.
In other words, guilty until proven innocent.
[/quote:647cb3265c]
You're not on trial, here. Your choice of words is interesting, though
-
either you have some unstated guilt feelings concerning a rube or two
you tried to scam in the past, or you've got the usual kooktics of
"I'm
being oppressed"! when somebody challenges you.
Just out of curiosity, how long *are* you going to take in doing this?
-Chris Krolczyk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I JST CHECKED THE ARCHIVES.
THERE'S HARDLY ANYTHING THERE!
ONLY 2-3 REPLIES TO MY QUESTION,AND NOT MUCH ELSE! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Officer... |
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:25:45 -0700 (PDT), in alt.astrology,
arfiend2009 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
[quote:2f02c99bf8]On May 9, 2:22 pm, "A B" <a at (no spam) a> wrote:
Where is Chris Krolczyk in all this?
Doing more important stuff, up until now. That - and
the fact that my name doesn't turn up in the header -
is the reason I didn't bother to respond.
[/quote:2f02c99bf8]
Chris did you get to see the amgen this year?
[quote:2f02c99bf8] Is he going to risk testing me?
"Testing" you in what? The fact that you'll make up the usual broad-
ranging
cold-read guesses when I decide to hand over a date?
Well, okay, here 'tis:
2/1/21
Go to it. I strongly suspect that you won't even come close on most
of your attempts to cobble something together. Plus, what serves as
proof to you that any of my denials won't be as "disappointing" as
Bob's responses?
I am disappointed with Bob Officer's replies. This is the kind of
non-reasoning that can give science a bad name.
Astrology isn't "science". The more you post pomposities
[/quote:2f02c99bf8]
AT LAS That seems to BUG him a little
[quote:2f02c99bf8]like this, the more I get the feeling that Cujo is *completely*
accurate in assuming that you're an Edmo sockpuppet. That,
or you're his latest shill. Nice "work", if you can get it.
[/quote:2f02c99bf8]
--
Ak'toh'di |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Officer... |
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 13 May 2009 00:37:09 +0000 (UTC), in alt.astrology, Cujo
DeSockpuppet <cujo at (no spam) petitmorte.net> wrote:
[quote:3f8236f6c3]arfiend2009 at (no spam) gmail.com wrote in news:f13307cf-e702-417f-8b92-
7dd42867142f at (no spam) n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
On May 9, 2:22 pm, "A B" <a at (no spam) a> wrote:
Where is Chris Krolczyk in all this?
Doing more important stuff, up until now. That - and
the fact that my name doesn't turn up in the header -
is the reason I didn't bother to respond.
Is he going to risk testing me?
"Testing" you in what? The fact that you'll make up the usual broad-
ranging
cold-read guesses when I decide to hand over a date?
Well, okay, here 'tis:
2/1/21
Go to it. I strongly suspect that you won't even come close on most
of your attempts to cobble something together. Plus, what serves as
proof to you that any of my denials won't be as "disappointing" as
Bob's responses?
I am disappointed with Bob Officer's replies. This is the kind of
non-reasoning that can give science a bad name.
Astrology isn't "science". The more you post pomposities
like this, the more I get the feeling that Cujo is *completely*
accurate in assuming that you're an Edmo sockpuppet. That,
or you're his latest shill. Nice "work", if you can get it.
I don't recall claiming AB is an Edmo sock.
[/quote:3f8236f6c3]
AT LASt reason sets in,
BUGG ED over it.
--
Ak'toh'di |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:50 pm
|
|