Tag Archives: skeptic

Psychic Methods Exposed – Cold Reading Tricks (Part 1)


Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH0zTYTY7K8

Detecting psychic scams & debunking mediums is easier when you know how psychic methods like cold reading work. Don’t be fooled by psychic misdirection. Cold reading tricks are used by psychics to convince an audience that they know things that they don’t – using high probability guesses, generalized statements, and linguistic techniques. Stay skeptical, dare to be curious, but don’t fall for this bullshit, and don’t drink the koolaid.

Related: Psychic Methods Revealed: Hot Reading

8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud

By via The Soap Box

As I have been observing conspiracy theories, and by extension, conspiracy theorists themselves. From my observations I’ve noticed that some of them may not be entirely truthful in what they believe, and that some of them may be out right frauds.

Here are eight ways to tell if a conspiracy theorist is a fraud:

1. Constant self promoter

It’s one thing for a conspiracy theorist to promote the conspiracy theories they believe in, it’s quite another for a conspiracy theorist to constantly promote their own materials and media concerning conspiracy theories they allegedly believe in.

The fact is, is that some people do make money off of promoting conspiracy theories, and some fraud conspiracy theorists do realize they can make lots of money creating and pedaling books and videos about conspiracy theories.

2. Tells people to ignore facts

While most legit conspiracy theorists will usually ask a person to examine all of the facts before asking you to conclude that they are right, a fraud conspiracy theorist will tell you to ignore any facts other then the “facts” that they present. Some even go so far as to call real facts disinformation. This is done as a way to discourage people from actually examining real facts, and by doing this a person might stop believing a certain conspiracy theory, and thus stop believe the fraud conspiracy theorist.

3. Constantly making up stuff

A fraud conspiracy theorist constantly makes up stuff, and then discards certain “information” when no one believes it any more, or no one really cares about it any more.

One of the main reasons this is done is because it keeps people coming back, wanting “new” information.

4. Claims to be withholding information until a later date

Many fraud conspiracy theorists claim they have “secret information” that they claim they are withholding until a later date. Most of the times this “information” isn’t even revealed at all, or the “information” that is revealed is actually false and made up, and sometimes not even new at all, just reworded.

Continue Reading @ The Soap Box – – –.

The Ultimate Conspiracy Debunker

Via YouTube

Most Conspiracy Theories are stupid. By the power of the internet they spread like wildfire and often poison discussions. But there is hope – we developed a way to debunk conspiracies in just a few seconds…

Conspiracy Theories – Who Believes Them, and Why?

How Can You Determine if They are True or False?

conspiracy box secret package_250pxVia Skeptic.com

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one? For the answers, download this free booklet, created by Michael Shermer and Pat Linse, the founders of Skeptic magazine and your Skeptics Society.

download PDF

When People Talk Backwards

Some people believe that your brain encodes its actual meaning in reverse within everything you say.

Brian Dunningby Brian Dunning via skeptoid
Read transcript below or listen here

Just when you thought there was nobody in the world crazier than yourself, along come people who believe that we all subconsciously say what we really mean in reverse, through the unconscious but deliberate choosing of careful words which, if played backwards, say what we actually mean. Get it? ear_180pxThe idea is that I think some coffee is really horrible but I still want to be polite, my brain will subconsciously choose words to make my polite compliment that, if played backwards, would say: This coffee stinks.

Proponents of this hypothesis call it Reverse Speech, because they were really creatively inspired on the day they named it. This is a small group of people — I believe there were six of them at last count — who take this completely seriously and believe that a whole world of secret information and opportunities is waiting to be unlocked by analyzing peoples’ speech in reverse. They turn first to world leaders, play their speeches backward, and listen to learn what they believe is the truth underlying the speech.

A leading advocate for reverse speech, also called backward masking, is David John Oates, an Australian. He’s written several books on the subject and even used to have a syndicated radio show promoting his theory. backward masking_250pxJust about any time a reverse speech expert is interviewed on television, it’s David John Oates. His web site is ReverseSpeech.com, and it’s loaded with all the examples you could ever hope to hear, as well as quite a few products and services he’d like to sell you if you believe his claims. He believes strongly that the human brain secretly encodes its actual meaning in reverse into a person’s normal speech. You can use this to your advantage in business, by decoding what the people across the table are actually telling you; and you can even use it in personal development by listening to your own speech backwards and learning more about what you really want. One of the examples from ReverseSpeech.com is of this man giving a talk:

And when you play it backwards, turns out he was trying to comfort you with the message “You’re frightened, lean on me”:

Pretty interesting, but not necessarily convincing to a skeptic. A skeptic is more likely to dismiss these guys as conspiracy nuts and laugh at what paranoid delusionals they are, but it’s actually way cooler and more interesting (and more constructive) to ask if there is any science behind what they’re claiming. backwards masking_300pxI’m not talking about science supporting the claim that people say what they actually mean in reverse; I’m talking about science behind the perception of order from chaos. And, it turns out, there is good science behind it. The journal Science published an article in 1981 by Remez, Rubin, Pisoni, and Carrell called Speech perception without traditional speech cues. By playing what they called a “three-tone sinusoidal replica”, or a complicated sine wave sound, they found that people were able to perceive speech, when in fact there were no traditional speech sounds present in the signal. So rather than laughing at a reverse speech advocate, instead appreciate the fact that there is good science driving their perception of what they’re hearing. They’re not making anything up, they’re just unaware of the natural explanation for their phenomenon.

To better understand what these authors did in their experiment, listen to this brief cue consisting of nothing but sine waves:

It almost does sound like speech, doesn’t it? But it’s not quite clear what it’s saying. Well, suppose someone told you that it says:

Now listen to it again:

This time, it’s almost impossible not to hear the words that you’ve been preconditioned to hear. Let’s play another one, this one is harder . . .

MORE – – –

PageBreak_half

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

why-people-see-ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts (and gods, angels, demons, and aliens and why they float, fly, and travel out of their bodies)

via Skeptic.com

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience like the examples that we list in this FREE PDF booklet? If so, you know how compelling they can be. A life can be changed or an entire religion founded on the basis of a single brain-generated hallucination. These phenomena are so powerful that throughout history seekers of knowledge have sought to induce them. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be more than a waste of time and energy. It can be dangerous for both the individual and larger society.

While science has made considerable progress in discovering how the brain is hard-wired to produce these illusions, the public is largely unaware of much of this research. This is where your Skeptics Society comes in—we provide the scientific explanation.

DOWNLOAD the free PDF

Derren Brown – Messiah

Intro by Mason I. Bilderberg

Derren Brown_300_250pxI’m not one to sit and watch lengthy videos on my laptop. So when i suggest you watch a 49 minute video, you can trust me – it’s worth watching.

Have you ever heard of Derren Brown? I’ve been following Derren Brown for over a decade, i’ve read many of his books and i think i’ve seen all of his performances. I’m never disappointed.

Here is how WikiPedia describes him:

Derren Brown (born 27 February 1971)[3] is a British illusionist, mentalist, trickster, hypnotist, painter, writer, and sceptic. He is known for his appearances in television specials, stage productions, and British television series such as Trick of the Mind and Trick or Treat. Since the first broadcast of his show Derren Brown: Mind Control in 2000, Brown has become increasingly well known for his mind-reading act. He has written books for magicians as well as the general public.

Though his performances of mind-reading and other feats of mentalism may appear to be the result of psychic or paranormal practices, he claims no such abilities and frequently denounces those who do.

From Derren Brown’s webpage (2012):

Dubbed a ‘psychological illusionist’ by the Press, Derren Brown is a performer who combines magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship in order to seemingly predict and control human behaviour, as well as performing mind-bending feats of mentalism.

In a nutshell, while repeatedly reminding us he doesn’t have any kind of magical abilities, Derren Brown mimics with perfection all those who DO claim to have magical abilities.

In this video, Derren takes on the following roles:

  • A psychic that can see what you’re drawing when you’re in a different room,
  • The ability to convert people to Christianity with just a touch,
  • A new age entrepreneur with a machine that can record and play back your dreams,
  • An alien abductee who was left with the ability to sense your medical history and
  • A psychic medium that communicates with the dead.

He is so convincing in these roles that he gets endorsements for his “special powers” from the “experts” who witnessed his performances.

I believe he will convince you too!

Enjoy! 🙂

Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)

More:

derren brown books_600px

About those 97% of climate scientists . . .

menu choice 04By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB) – June 23, 2014

As you know, i am a global warming skeptic. If you wish to catch up on what i believe and why, i recommend looking to the menu at the top of each page where it says “Global Warming.”

Very briefly, this how i split the issue:

I have always had issues with the question, “Do you believe in global warming?”, because it’s really two questions:

  1. Has the earth warmed (over some time frame)?
  2. Are humans responsible?

Because simply answering “yes” to the above question can be misunderstood to mean you agree warming has occurred AND that humans are primarily responsible, i always split the issue:

  1. I do agree there has been some warming over the last 100 years, BUT
  2. I’m not convinced humans are the main cause. I’m inclined to think our climate is primarily driven by the same natural forces that have driven our climate since the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago – and humans are a small part of that natural cycle.

Today i want to revisit an aspect of the global warming theory that i covered in my article “Global Warming: I Have Questions.”

Specifically, i want to add an addendum to my previous challenges of the much touted “97% of scientists agree global warming is real” meme.

For some background, this 97% figure comes from a study conducted by climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and it is quoted ad nauseam by global warming reality deniers as proof that “97% of climate scientists agree global warming is real and humans are the cause.”

global warming weather_500px
To date, i had been unable to track down a copy of this 2013 study. I thought maybe i had just been looking in all the wrong places, then i come to find out “the University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists (John Cook) to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.[1]

More on the University of Queensland threatening lawsuits over the use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal can be found here, here and here.

global-warming-Gore 02_225pxInteresting, eh? 97% of scientists agree but nobody can use the data in a rebuttal. Gotta love it.

But alas, i finally found a PDF copy of this elusive study and i’ve had a chance to read through it for myself (PDF copy here) and below is my rebuttal.

This rebuttal of the study doesn’t get into the questionable methodology used by John Cook and his fellow authors. I’ll leave that for another day and another time. Why? Because i don’t want to muddy the waters. I don’t need to. Taken at face value, the study does NOT say “97% of scientists agree global warming is real.”

Let’s start on page 3 of the study where they explain how the total number of papers examined was determined:

method

The results and their findings are then depicted on page 4 of the study, in this table. The colors are not in the original table; I added these colors to make it easier to follow along with my breakdown that follows.

table 3 02

These colors will help you follow along with my breakdown, below.

Interpretation of this data is as easy as 1, 2, 3 …

  1. 11,944 papers were analyzed.
  2. 3,896 of these papers expressed a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming (agw).
  3. 3,896 is 32.6% of the 11,944 papers.

CONCLUSION: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.

That’s it. I’ve done nothing to adjust or interpret these numbers. What you see is what you get: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.

The 97% figure could only be obtained by completely ignoring 7,930 out of 11,944 papers.

The 97% figure could only be obtained by completely ignoring 7,930 out of 11,944 papers.

What? What am i missing here? How does Cook et al twist 32.6% into the oft-quoted 97%?

I’ll tell you what’s missing – and it explains why the University of Queensland is threatening lawsuits over the use of this data for any scientific rebuttals:

They simply ignore the 7,930 papers not expressing a position.

That’s right, they simply ignored the 7,930 papers  not expressing a position and qualified their 97% findings by saying the “percent of papers with a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)“.

The bottom line is, without any interpretation, taken at face value, without any qualifying language, this study says:

32.6% of scientists agree global warming is real!

That is the plain language of this study. Period.

Now remember i said i wasn’t going to get into the methodology of this study? Well, i’m not. But somebody far more qualified than myself has, and this 32.6% gets horribly worse for the authors of this study.

Find out why there is only a 0.3% climate consensus!

🙂

Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)


Also See:

10 Lies Anti-vaccers tell

The Lockeby The Locke via The Soap Box

The anti-vaccination has caused alot of harm over the years with their fear mongering and lies. These lies have caused parents to become to afraid to vaccinate their children, and themselves as well, despite the danger in not doing so.

The following is a list of ten lies the anti-vaccination movement has told, and why they are just bogus:

10. Studies indicate that vaccines cause autism.

autism einstein 02_250pxWhile there are “studies” that claim that vaccines cause autism, only one of these so called studies have been published in a well respected, peer reviewed scientific and medical journal. That study, the Wakefield study (which was published in The Lancet in 1998) was retracted in 2010 after it had been discovered that the main author of the study, Andrew Wakefield, had committed fraud. On top of that the findings in the study itself had been long since discredited and disproved before the formal retraction.

The studies that followed since the Wakefield study that claim that vaccines cause autism have never been published in any credible medical or scientific journals. The only places that these studies have ever been published are either in non-credible pay-for-publish journals, or websites that promote alternative medicine and/or conspiracy theories.

9. Signs of autism show up in children only after they have been vaccinated.

As the old skeptics’ saying goes “correlation does not equal causation”.

Just because a child starts to show obvious signs of autism after they have had their vaccinations, it’s far more likely that they were showing signs of autism before they received their vaccinations and that no one noticed simply because the child was to young to show any noticeable signs of autism to anyone but trained professionals.

8. Adverse reactions to vaccines are common, often severe, and can cause death.

Guess which child was vaccinated.

Guess which child was vaccinated.

Actually only about one out of every 300 people will have adverse reactions to vaccines. Most of the time these adverse reaction are mirror, short lived, and are more annoying than debilitating.

Occasionally a person will have a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine, some of which can be fatal, but these types of adverse reactions are very rare, only about one to two out of every million people. You have better odds dying in a car wreck to get a vaccination than you from the vaccination.

7. Vaccines have never been shown to be effective against reducing the spread of disease, and has even been shown to increase the spread.

I’m sure smallpox and polio would disagree. Actually alot of diseases would disagree because it’s been proven time and time again that anytime vaccines were in wide spread use the rate of infections of a disease that the vaccines are meant to protect against will go down dramatically, sometimes even eliminating a disease in an area.

6. Natural immunity is superior to immunity via vaccination.

Life before vaccinations

Life before vaccinations

If you try to get natural immunity from a disease (i.e. getting infected and sick from said disease) there is a pretty good possibility that the disease that you hope to make yourself or your child immune from will actually kill you or your child, or atleast cause a permanent disability. Also in many cases it takes several weeks for this form of immunity to happen, during which time you will be sick as heck.

On the other hand immunity via vaccination is much faster, doesn’t leave you sick, and is far, FAR less likely to kill you than getting immunity from a disease by getting infected by that disease.

MORE – – –

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

I am a global warming climate change climate disruption skeptic. I catch a lot of heat (pun intended) for my skepticism.

global-warming-Gore 02_225pxBut i have my reasons and this video does a very level-headed job of explaining where skeptics are coming from in the global warming climate change climate disruption debate.

If you’re a global warming climate change climate disruption believer and you wish to understand the skeptic’s perspective, i ask you to watch just the first 2 minutes.

The first 2 minutes of this video does an excellent job of spelling out the very thin line between believers and skeptics. So close, yet so far.

This video appears to be based on an article written by Dr. David M.W. Evans called The Skeptic’s Case. As such, you might find the video easier to understand if you read along with the original text (The Skeptic’s Case) or download the PDF here.

Actually, the PDF text version is worth downloading as a standalone resource for those times when people ask why you’re a global warming climate change climate disruption skeptic.

Enjoy 🙂

Mason I. Bilderberg


By Dr. David M.W. Evans via YouTube

5 Things I’ve noticed about… Mike Adams

by via The Soap Box

Mike Adams, the creator of the website Natural News, and one of the biggest promoters of alternative medicine there is, also known as non-science and non-evidence based medicine.

Now many things have been said about him and the way he acts, and I myself have noticed a few things about him as well.

So here are five things I’ve noticed about Mike Adams:

5. He’s a conspiracy theorist.

mike adams straight-jacket 02Mike Adams, despite the fact that his website, Natural News, constantly writes about stuff related to medicine (by that I mean bad mouthing science and evidence based medicine and promoting alternative medicine, no matter how ridiculous or dangerous it is) is neither a doctor, nor a scientist. He is a conspiracy theorist who promotes just about every conspiracy theory there is, although he mainly promotes “big pharma” conspiracy theories.

Even if he was an actual doctor or scientist with a legitimate degree in either science or medicine it still wouldn’t matter, because what he’s promoting is non-science based medicine, as well as other types of conspiracy theories besides just the big pharma ones, and he’s using fear mongering and paranoia inorder to promote these things, as well as bash science and evidence based medicine.

Pretty much his only “connection” with the health industry is his self appointed title of “The Health Ranger”, and that his website is used as an example by those in the health care industry and those who promote science based medicine as what a bad science website looks like.

4. He’s against all forms of science based medicine.

Mike Adams isn’t just someone whom believes that there are a few types of science based medicines and medical techniques that are bad for you. Nope, he’s against them all, Natural News's Facebook page.no matter how much scientific evidence there is showing that something works, like chemotherapy, or vaccines, or drugs that help fight HIV (which he thinks doesn’t exist in the first place).

It almost seems like anything that’s accepted and promoted by a valid and respected medical organization is automatically viewed by Adams as dangerous and part of a conspiracy. I bet he would even tell people who come to his website not to use homeopathy, acupuncture, or chiropractic “medicine” if several legitimate medical associations were to come out and say that this stuff works and works well. Infact I bet he would claim that people in homeopathy, acupuncture, or chiropractic “medicine” were hiding the fact that their stuff doesn’t work, and that they were sending out shills, or just using brain washed idiots to spread disinformation and make threats to try to scare off people who questions them, and even go so far as to sue people who criticize them…

Hopefully you see the irony in the that last sentence there.

MORE – – –

%d bloggers like this: