SECTION 1 of 4
THIS IS SECTION 2 of 4
SECTION 3 of 4
Today, in part 6, we report our attempt, and,
as we find
most often, in that geographical region,
known as the
WORLD WIDE WEB, though that much travelled
gateway known
as a SEARCH ENGINE, the abundant...
"NON-Intelligent Life On the Net?
===========================================================
Here, in this sub-area, amongst the so-called
"skeptics" we have dug deeply, and we have searched among the life-forms,
and actually, on INFOSEEK, (www.infoseek.com) found this stupidity...
========================================================
INFOSEEK advertises "Proof of Intelligent
Life on the Net"
but they are a SEARCH ENGINE that accepts,
automatically,
entries from silly people like "digger".
There's no-one around, at 4 AM, when he does
the
dirty work on INFOSEEK, as all that
he writes
get's placed, and like USENET, no-one decides
if
it's in bad taste, or lacks sense.
The other SEARCH ENGINES, as a whole, examine
the material
before placing it. They exercise judgement
and good taste.
That, it would seem, is why "digger" cannot
place this
ridiculous writing on the other Search Engines.
I have my writing, however, on the other SEARCH
ENGINES,
as I have genuine services offered, not hate
literature.
============================================================
The following quotes are not copyright infringements, as they are forms of criticism, and that makes them in conformity with "fair use policy" in copyright law.
So, as you can see, from this example, INTELLIGENT LIFE ON THE NET is difficult to find.
The Angstrom Medal Page
The Ångstrom Medal is awarded on an
as-needed basis to recognize certain
"accomplishments" that should not go
unnoticed. To be considered for the...
http://www2.polarnet.com/~bhenry/angstrom.html
bhenry@polarnet.com (so-called
"dr." digger)
is also noted for lack of intelligent
life on USENET
According to this bozo, I, and
several others won
his stupid "Angstrom" medal
for:
1.Significant contribution to
the cause of
eradicating a enlightenment,
and promoting general
ignorance, superstition,
and/or deliberate stupidity;
2.Shameless self-promotion, self-agrandizement
and/or self-enrichment,
at the expense of
public welfare;
3.Memorable performance during
greek night at the
double-wide
in Pahrump.
The above is typical lack of intellient life
on the NET,
and such a mentality is described by going
to:
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) SEARCH ENGINE
TYPE: "Skeptics what they do and why"
Ångstrom Medal awardees
Dr. Richard Hoagland guest on the Art Bell show
Bruce Daniel Kettler me
Art Bell
talk show host artbell@aol.com
guest info: www.artbell.com
Earl Curley psychic@globalserve.net
Chuck Shramek amateur
astronomer and
Art Bell show guest
Today, in part 7, we report the results of
our attempt,
and, as we find at times, in that geographical
region known as the WORLD WIDE WEB, though that much travelled gateway
known
as the SEARCH ENGINES, the very rare...
Intelligent Life On the Net
===========================================================
Here, we have dug deeply, and we have searched
among the life-forms, and actually, on INFOSEEK, (www.infoseek.com) and
other search engines, have found this intelligent life...
========================================================
On INFOSEEEK:
The Art Bell
Chat Club World Headquarters
- Denver Colorado
USA Entertainment,
Talk Radio,
Newsletter, meeting notes,
BBS -- Bulletin
Board System, Club purposes,
Chapters located
outside of the Denver
Headquarters
area, chapter pages, etc.
77%
http://www.psicounsel.com/artbellclub/
(Size 10.6K)
Psi Counsel,
Inc.
Spiritual
development, Paranormal Sites,
Spiritual-Psychological
text, web
design, web
hosting, CGI, PERL, Psychic-astrology
readings.
Psychic Development. Controversial Issues,
Web ...
61%
http://www.psicounsel.com/
(Size 13.3K)
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com):
Yahoo! Site Matches (1 - 1 of 1)
Skeptics - What they do and why -
Bruce Daniel Kettler exposes the so-called
"skeptics".
http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
ALTA VISTA (www.altavista.com)
size 9K - 29.May.97 - English
The Facts About the FAQS
(Frequently Asked Questions
of the alt.fan.art-bell n
The following, in
quotes, is from the
alt.fan.art-bell
FAQ's, the Frequently
Asked Questions
of the alt.fan.art-bell
newsgroup. My satirical
comments are
http://www.psicounsel.com/artbellclub/afabfaq.html
26.May.97 - English
============================================================
Monroe Institute Consciousness Development
http://www.monroe-inst.com/
Jack Sarfatti, well-known
author, accomplished
physicist, and spiritual teacher
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/
Famous Talk-show
host Art Bell - talk of paranormal
UFO's, etc.
http://www.artbell.com
A page of WWW links I term:
"Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
===========================================================
Yes, when searching the WEB, discarding the
sickness, the
stupidity, and the lies, one can find:
Intelligent Life on the Net
Now and then, there is such life, and we will
report it
when we find it, and then, also, as we report
what we
come across in our attempt, showing the UN-intelligent
life.
Yes, folks, anyone, and I do mean *anyone*, can post to USENET, or put writing up on the WEB and in the search engines.
There's no screening process, as the sickest, most stupid, immature, and fanatical liars write, and most of it is garbage.
You have to learn to sift through it, wipe off the filfth and get rid of the stink, and find what is
HONEST
CIVIL
and
MAKES SENSE
It's difficult, and there is value on the INTERNET, but one must search with caution.
Today, in part 8, we report the results of
our attempt,
and, as we find so often, in that geographical
region known as USENET, that most prevelant...
UN-Intelligent Life On the Net
===========================================================
Del Mulroy neykomi@winternet.com wrote:
<snip> psychic that was jailed in
L.A. after she told of a missing
nurses murder, told the police where
the body was found, and then found it
herself when the police didn't take her
seriously, She was jailed for the murder.
The real killer confessed just 4 days later,
and the psychic was let out of jail.
She sued the City of L.A., and the L.A.P.D.
and won a $30,000.00 settlement! more then
15 years after this case, she is still on the
L.A.P.D. payroll as a consultant!
The above means:
1. Psychic told of missing nurse's murder
2. Told police where body could be found
3. She found the body herself
4. She was arrested by police because she
knew too much
5. 4 days later murderer confessed, psychic
released from jail
6. Psychic sued Los Angeles, and settled
for $30,000.00
7. Psychic is now a consultant for the City
of Los Angeles
This is not about whether the above is true, or not.
Dan Pressnell, dpressne@ns.vvm.com wrote:
> That's right folks! This is a case
"solved by a psychic!"
> The police arrested her, but she solved
it and got the
> killer in jail! How many people do
you think are stupid
> enough to fall for this internally inconsistent
lie,
> Mr. Mulroy?
Dan Pressnell says it's "internally inconsistent,"
a
shown lie, just from the way it was stated.
The
information about the criminal had been given
before
the psychic was jailed. The point was
not whether
she "solved it," in the legal sense,
but rather
whether the information she gave to the police
had been correct.
She had, obviously, been correct. For
what other
reason would it have been good enough for
her to
be jailed for knowing too much?
Does Dan Pressnell's statement make sense?
No.
Is Del Mulroy's writing "internally inconsistent"?
No.
Conclusion:
This is an example of writing that lacks sense,
from Dan Pressnell
It shows a clear example of UNIntelligent life
on the NET.
========================================================
Join us again as we make our increasingly
difficult
search for "Intelligent Life on the Net."
It's there, but you just have to search.
See part 10 for information on filtering out
the garbage,
using a newsreader.
IN ALT.PARANORMAL NEWSGROUP:
sense-honesty-civility [in parts]
Intelligent Life on The Net? [in parts]
As we enter into this realm that is sometimes
called "cyberspace," we look at the life forms in this part of
space, and then descending in our spacecraft
and
operating our sensors, we search and note
that, though
often the search is vain, through the many
lifeforms
with abundant insanity, illogic, falsity,
and hostility,
now and then we find...
"Intelligent Life On the Net
Now and then, there is such life, and we will
report it
when we find it, and then, also, as we reported
what we
come across in our attempt, showing then
the UN-intelligent
life.
Today, in part 9, we report the results of
our attempt,
and, as we find at times, in that geographical
region known as the WORLD WIDE WEB, though that much travelled gateway
known
as the SEARCH ENGINES, the very rare...
Intelligent Life On the Net
===========================================================
Here, we have dug deeply, and we have searched
among the life-forms, and actually, in ALTAVISTA (www.altavista.com)
have found this intelligent life...
This does not mean that every part of these
FAQs shows
intelligent life. It is only the part
quoted that we
give such an endorsement for.
From the SCI.SKEPTIC FAQs:
Sci.skeptic is not an abuse group. There is
a
regrettable tendency for polite discussion
here to
degenerate into ad-hominem flames about who
said
what to whom and what they meant. PLEASE
DO NOT FLAME. You won't convince anyone.
Rather the opposite.
From this page:
http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html
The Scientific Method
[Bracketed writing are my comments -- BDK]
1.1: What is the "scientific method"?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion.
[It's the best way the writer, and many of
those reading
this, know of. Still, with that
opinion, we have intelligent
life on the NET]
The simple version looks something like this:
1.Observe some aspect of the
universe.
2.Invent a theory that is consistent
with
what you have observed.
3.Use the theory to make predictions.
4.Test those predictions by
experiments or
further observations.
5.Modify the theory in the light
of your results.
6.Go to step 3.
This leaves out the co-operation between scientists
in building theories, and the fact that it
is
impossible for every scientist to independently
do every experiment to confirm every theory. Because life is short, scientists
have to trust other scientists. So a scientist who claims to have done
an experiment and obtained certain
results will usually be believed, and most
people will
not bother to repeat the experiment.
Experiments do get repeated as part of other
experiments.
Most scientific papers contain suggestions
for other
scientists to follow up. Usually the first
step in doing
this is to repeat the earlier work. So if
a theory is the starting point for a significant amount of work then
the initial experiments will get replicated
a number
of times.
Some people talk about "Kuhnian paradigm shifts".
This refers to the observed pattern of the
slow
extension of scientific knowledge with occasional
sudden revolutions. This does happen, but it still
follows the steps above.
Many philosophers of science would argue that
there
is no such thing as *the* scientific method.
[The above paragraph is an *excellent* point.]
1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?
In popular usage, a theory is just a vague
and fuzzy
sort of fact. But to a scientist a theory
is a
conceptual framework that explains existing
facts
and predicts new ones. For instance, today
I saw
the Sun rise. This is a fact. This fact is
explained
by the theory that the Earth is round and
spins on
its axis while orbiting the sun. This theory
also
explains other facts, such as the seasons
and the
phases of the moon, and allows me to make
predictions about
what will happen tomorrow.
This means that in some ways the words fact
and
theory are interchangeable. The organisation
of
the solar system, which I used as a simple
example
of a theory, is normally considered to be
a fact
that is explained by Newton's theory of gravity.
And so on.
A hypothesis is a tentative theory that has
not yet
been tested. Typically, a scientist devises
a
hypothesis and then sees if it "holds water"
by
testing it against available data. If the
hypothesis
does hold water, the scientist declares it
to be a
theory.
An important characteristic of a scientific
theory
or hypotheis is that it be "falsifiable".
This means
that there must be some experiment or possible
discovery
that could prove the theory untrue. For example,
Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions
about the results of experiments. These experiments
could have produced results that contradicted
Einstein,
so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.
Now and then, there is such life, and we will
report it
when we find it, and then, also, as we report
what we
come across in our attempt, showing the UN-intelligent
life.
Yes, folks, anyone, and I do mean *anyone*, can post to USENET, or put writing up on the WEB and in the search engines.
There's no screening process, as the sickest, most stupid, immature, and fanatical liars write, and most of it is garbage.
You have to learn to sift through it, wipe off the filfth and get rid of the stink, and find what is
HONEST
CIVIL
and
MAKES SENSE
It's difficult, and there is value on the INTERNET, but one must search with caution.
UNIntelligent Life On the Net
===========================================================
Prior to the following, Dan Pressnell, dpressne@ns.vvm.com
had asked Del Mulroy neykomi@winternet.com and myself for information
about
crime cases that were solved by psychic detectives.
This was during July of 1997. This, "Intelligent Life
On the Net," is a regularly disseminated series, so it's important
we show what
Month and Year this occurred, so
people may check the archives for the full content of the postings:
http://www.dejanews.com
KudzuFL kudzuFL@aol.com wrote:
> Greta Alexander Delevan IL
> Jim Hecker Wilmington NC
> Andrea Kramer Los Angeles
> Johh Monti Dunedin FL
> Nancy Myer Greensburg PA
> Kathlyn Rhea Novato CA
> Dayle Schear Zephyr Cove NV
> Noreen Renier Orlando FL
> I'm looking forward to the results of your investigation,
> Dan. You will provide the names and addresses of law
> enforcement agencies you contact along wtih their
> comments, won't you?
DAN PRESSNELL REPLIED:
> No. <snip> I've been told that all I have to do is
> grovel and ask, and I'll be provided the details. <snip>
> I've grovelled and asked, and now all I get is "why don't
> you check it out, Dan."
I, BDK, WROTE:
> No-one is simple-minded enough to believe you either
> would or should accept the details as fact, without
> your own investigation.
> Shall we get the police, the records keepers, and
> take the criminals out of jail, and the psychics,
> so they can come to your house to visit you?
DAN PRESSNELL ANSWERED:
If you want. Or Del Mulroy could do what he said
he would do after I grovelled, now that I've grovelled.
MY COMMENT -- BDK --
The names of prominent psychics, and cities of
police departments are all Dan needed to enable him to
investigate. Addresses and phone numbers were offered
to him by KudzuFL, to be sent via e-mail, if he would
select a certain few psychics from those listed above.
Additionally, in a previous post, I had quoted names of
people involved in cases, the psychics names, and the
cities of police departments.
========================================================
Besides, the following was posted by Del Mulroy and I
noticed a copy in DEJANEWS. It had also been forwarded
to Dan Pressnell via e-mail. I, myself, made a copy
from DEJANEWS, reposted it, and received a posted
inquiry from Dan Pressnell, as to its origin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: South Dakota KiD <neykomi@winternet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:42:44 -0500
Organization: PSI-WALKER, INC.
Lines: 344
Message-ID: <33CD6A78.F6811AF2@winternet.com>
Reply-To: neykomi@winternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-67-35.dialup.winternet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
PSI-WALKER, INC.
P.O. Box 11274
Mpls./St.Paul Intnl. Airport
Saint Paul, MN 55111-11274
INTERNET:
Neykomi@winternet.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
612-729-1506
(Voice/VoiceMail)
612-729-1506 (Fax)
612-980-8600
(Pager/VoiceMail)
612-518-1746 (Cel)
"PSYCHIC PHENOMENA"
Last Update: JULY 16, 1997
<snip>
One of the loudest skeptics in this news group [alt.paranormal]
is a man by the name of Mr. Dan Pressnell.
I have repeatedly asked Mr. Pressnell why he feels compelled not to
investigate a single case
of documented psychic or paranormal phenomena,
<snip>
Here is the case for your review and investigation:
Case 1: In 1980, Etta Louise Smith, a 39-year-old mother of three
children and employee at
Lockheed, reported a vision to the L.A.P.D regarding a murder, and
pointed out a location on
a map where she thought the body would be found.
She had an interview with L.A.P.D. detectives and showed them on a map
in their office the
area that she felt the body was at. A place called Lopez Canyon.
When Etta found that the L.A.P.D. was not taking her seriously, her
and her sister set out for
Lopez Canyon. Etta found an area that looked identical to the
area that she saw in her vision.
She and her sister walked up a small dirt road from the highway and
made the discovery, the
body of the missing person. The L.A.P.D. was immediately called
in.
The body of Melanie Uribe, a murdered nurse, was found at that location.
Smith was jailed for four days without being charged, and she sued the
city of Los Angeles
successfully. She was awarded $24,184.00 To this day, Etta
Louise Smith is a "consultant" for
the L.A.P.D.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BONUS CASE:
The murder trial of Bruce Dumaine attracted worldwide attention.
But the court case was not
noteworthy because the killing was particularly brutal, or because
the killer or victim was
famous. This trial was important because it was the first time
psychic evidence was upheld in
a court of law.
After a man with whom he had a drug deal was found dead, Dumaine
participated in a seance during which the murdered man's spirit spoke
to him. Dumaine
admitted to the killing, apparently in hope that the spirit would leave
him alone. However, a
prosecutor learned of the events and contacted the woman who
conducted the seance. The
case was brought to trial, the woman was the star witness, and based
on what she said,
Dumaine was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
<snip>
NOTES:
If you find the Dumaine case was with
a
fraudulent psychic, you set a man who
is serving "Life in Prison" free.
Imagine Mr. Pressnell, a U.S. Court
upheld
a psychics testimony.
I trust Mr. Pressnell that this is suitable
for
your review at this time. The
Etta Louise Smith
case is yours to investigate.
Please post
your findings to this news group when
you are
finished.
<snip>
PSI-WALKER, INC.
Del R. Mulroy
President
cc: Mr. Dan Pressnell
<dpressne@vvm.com>
==============================================================
Let's look at the above events:
1. Dan Pressnell asked for details of psychic crime solving.
2. Dan Pressnell was given details,
and he answered the posts.
3. Dan Pressnell said he was not given details,
says he'd been asked to "grovel" for the details.
4. The quite logical fact is that he should not and would
not be expected to believe without his own investigation,
and he was told that. Under such circumstances,
the only
details necessary are the city names and psychic names,
as the details have to be verified anyway. Phone numbers
of police departments are prominently listed in the phone
books and through information operators.
5. Dan Pressnell was asked if he'd like people to take
the evidence to his house to examine. It was obvious
sarcasm.
6. Dan Pressnell answered by saying, "if you want."
7. Dan Pressnell was asked to check on details.
8. Dan Pressnell refused to check on the details he
had asked for, and received.
Conclusion:
a. Dan Pressnell declared he wanted to know about
psychic crime solving, and has refused to investigate
and verify the evidence.
b. This is evidence of UNIntelligent life on the Net.
========================================================
========================================================
After the above from July 1997 had been repeatedly shown on USENET, Dan Pressnell commented upon it again, and the following exchange was recorded on USENET during Feb. 1998.
=========================================================
From: Dan Pressnell <dpressne@ns.vvm.com>
Subject: Re: Intelligent Life On The Net? Investigating Psychics
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 03:33:09 -0600
In article <01bd2eb9$0e7f67a0$c7057cce@dann.dimensional.com>,
"DanKettler" <dan@psicounselSPAM_YOT.com> wrote:
> > So, how do you test your "tested psychics", Bruce?
> And, that activity shows again, as in the above question,
> dodging the issue.
The issue, as I mentioned in the previous post, <snip> is you having volunteered to investigate psychic detectives, and _still_ even now not having done so even though the data you asked for was provided. THE issue was, and is, not a business venture of mine.
>>> Yeah. A whole lot of dodging the issue going on here.
> The issue is about you investigating psychic
> detectives, not investigating my business.
>>>Oh, I see. It has to be a psychic DETECTIVE, not a
>>>"psychic." And it has to be OTHER psychics.
Let's look at this logically. Since there was a discussion about
psychic detectives -- "OTHER" psychics, as this part 10 shows and
the archives can verify (www.dejanews.com) and you were involved
in that discussion, and since I've written repeatedly that I am
not willing to write about my business, it is reasonable to
assume that THE issue is psychic detectives, not my business?
To make it your business, or _THE_ issue, you would have to be
involved in law enforcement, with me having committed a crime.
Then again, had I volunteered to discuss it, and then declined,
that would make it an issue.
>>>Okay, that leads me to another question.
>>>How is it that so many wonderful psychics, with
>>>so many wonderful and true talents say that
>>>OTHERS should be investigated, and not themselves?
I cannot speak for the others. However, as for myself,
I can only repeat what I have already written. Since
an issue was raised, and you were involved in _THAT_
discussion, and you volunteered to investigate psychic
detectives and have not done so, you seem to still be
avoiding _THE_ issue. There are no other issues.
>>>Yes, a lot of dodging going on.
No, if you ask me a question, and I say that I don't want to get
involved in a discussion, that is not dodging an issue. There
is
no issue to dodge.
>>>Dan,
>>>The told-to-go-look-elswhere Psychic Investigator
No, Dan, the told-to-look-at-THE-issue Psychic Investigator.
So, if you truly wish to face the issue, you will investigate
Join us again as we make our increasingly difficult
search for "Intelligent Life on the Net."
It's there, but you just have to search.
========================================================
The Newsreader FORTE AGENT has a "killfile" capability.
You can actually select *to read* the writing of
certain authors, and automatically screen out the rest.
Also, you may read all but certain writers.
Only the postings that you want to read are placed in
your computer memory, and you can read and respond while
not connected to the INTERNET.
The above is a perfect way to avoid wasting time with UNintelligent
life on the Net. You can
rely upon our force
of cesspool sifters to help you know who to killfile.
Stay tuned to our series for a longer list in the future,
and for now, your recommended killfile list consists of:
Dan Pressnell
Enter, in your FORTE AGENT, newsreader: author:
Dan Pressnell with your "add kill filter" command.
========================================================
Join us again as we make our increasingly difficult
search for "Intelligent Life on the Net."
It's there, but you just have to search.
========================================================
The Newsreader FORTE AGENT has a "killfile" capability.
You can actually select *to read* the writing of
certain authors, and automatically screen out the rest.
Also, you may read all but certain writers.
Only the postings that you want to read are placed in
your computer memory, and you can read and respond while
not connected to the INTERNET.
The above is a perfect way to avoid wasting time with UNintelligent
life on the Net.
You can rely upon our force
of cesspool sifters to help you know who to killfile.
Stay tuned to our series for a longer list in the future,
and for now, your recommended killfile list consists of:
Dan Pressnell
Enter, in your FORTE AGENT, newsreader: author:
Dan Pressnell with your "add kill filter" command.
Yes, folks, anyone, and I do mean *anyone*, can post to USENET, or put
writing up
on the WEB and in the search engines.
There's no screening process, as the sickest, most stupid, immature,
and fanatical
liars write, and most of it is
garbage.
You have to learn to sift through it, wipe off the filfth
and get rid of the stink, and find what is...
HONEST
CIVIL
and
MAKES SENSE
It's difficult, and there is value on the INTERNET, but one must search
with caution.
Click here for part 3 of 3 parts