Magical Realist:
I spend lots of time becoming very informed on the latest events around the globe involving uaps and the paranormal.
No you don't. You spend lots of your time drinking the kool aid from the people on one side of the woo fence, while actively avoiding becoming informed about reliable methods of inquiry into such things.
Most involve online news stories, facebook reels, historical websites, paranormal TV documentaries, and youtube videos. How else would I ever be taken seriously about it here?
I think it is far more likely that your viewing is mostly restricted to what you get on your youtube feed. The algorithm must surely know the sort of crap you love to watch very well by now, so you probably don't get to see anything that is skeptical of the woo. You only see the nonsense from the believers, the fraudsters, the naive and the incompetent.
You're not taken seriously around here, by the way. You're widely considered to be the forum's number 1 clown.
As far as bandwagons go, how's the view from your's?
The science bandwagon, you mean? Or the rational thinking bandwagon? Or the common sense bandwagon? Those bandwagons are all doing very well, thanks for asking.
It's so easy to point out your obvious errors, your lies and your shoddy "investigation" methods that even a few amateurs on this forum can easily do it without digging deeply into any of the "cases" you present. Moreover, the stuff you bring is of such poor quality that most of it is literally worthless as evidence of the woo you're so desperately trying to proselytise for.
It basically takes 5 or 6 posters in this forum to even come close to debunking the evidence I post here.
Hardly. It's a bit of fun for a few of us to have a laugh at your latest inanities, but it requires minimal effort on our part. Since you put zero effort into thinking critically about what you bring here, the simplest common-sense question-asking is often sufficient to debunk your crap.
The most interesting discussions about UFOs that we have here never involve you, because you have nothing useful to contribute on the topic. For instance, you have contributed literally nothing towards the analysis of the Pentagon videos ("Go fast", "tic tac" etc.). Either you're simply not capable enough to think such things through rationally, or else (more likely) you're so emotionally glued on to the idea of the woo being real that you're hopelessly biased and you can't bring yourself to devote a brain cell to any analysis that might possibly lead to the woo being "debunked".
That doesn't speak very well of the competence of the Sci Forums groupthink and their critical thinking crusade now does it?
What looks like groupthink to you is just a bunch of sensible, educated people independently reaching the only sensible conclusions it is possible to reach, given the data in question.
This place must be rather different to what goes on in any woo forums you might be a member of. Of course, those places don't need to do groupthink, do they, because the woo is real. Right?
Powell details her attempts to eliminate RPM boards and using multiple camera angles and eyewitnesses. But she admits more could be done to eliminate the possibility of cuing:
"Speaking further within the context of tests conducted with a 13-year-old autistic girl known as “Elisa,” D.H.P. goes on to add that with touch-based facilitative communication there also is
...the potential for subtle cueing. Being touched would be considered a red flag from the standpoint of skeptics. However, when many children are first learning RPM, they do best while being touched by a parent. At the time of testing, Elisa had been using the RPM boards for such a short period of time that she required far more assistance from her mother to communicate than desirable. Anxiety also played a role in creating more need for tactile support. That is particularly the case in initial experiments being filmed on camera. To avoid the issues caused by RPM, I have primarily tested under controlled conditions autistic children who are able to speak and/or type independently [Powell, 2015, 2016]. However, the documentary filmmaker following my research wanted to start by filming experiments that were being set up for the first time and all of my untested children were using RPM. (pp. 279 – 280)
In light of this, D.H.P. went on to state:
After our experiments the entire sound and camera crew walked away with the same impression [that the children were exhibiting telepathy]. No one visually detected an obvious pattern that could be considering cueing. All told, there were at least ten witnesses, some of whom were filming from multiple camera angles. Nonetheless, the conditions were clearly not optimal for proving telepathy and we cannot definitively say that there was no cueing without more tests and a detailed analysis. (p. 280) "----
https://thetelepathytapes.com/dr-powell-defense
It sounds like you're agreeing with us, now.
Powell's experiments didn't eliminate the possibility of cueing, so it can't be ruled out that that is what was going on.
I take it you will now retract your previous claim that these experiments "prove" telepathy in "autistic savants"? Or is that not what you will do? Prefer to double down on another silly claim?
