Subject: Re: healing properties?

From: okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 20:26:45 GMT

[email-masked] (Sherry Michael) writes:
> [email-masked] (Michael Solinas) writes:
>>
>>When you get to "mysterious forms of energy," you are building castles in 
>>the clouds.  It is precisely this "mysterious nature" (read that as "there
>>is no evidence", or "complete speculation based on desires") of the energy
>>which I have a problem with.
>
>Hum, I'm sure people thought this way about magnetism, too before
>scientists got smart enough to figure it out. Just because we can't
>measure and dissect something YET, doesn't mean it doesn't exisit.

Last I heard, magnetism wasn't fully understood; part of the elusive
"Unified Theory".  Has this changed?

-- 
One man, a Mr. Darwin, believes that man evolved from an oyster.
This theory is too absurd for further consideration.
                              ---"Goods Book of Nature", 1835

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Solinas)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 21:57:27 GMT

Sherry Michael ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Michael Solinas) writes:
: >When you get to "mysterious forms of energy," you are building castles in 
: >the clouds.  It is precisely this "mysterious nature" (read that as "there
: >is no evidence", or "complete speculation based on desires") of the energy
: >which I have a problem with.
: Hum, I'm sure people thought this way about magnetism, too before
: scientists got smart enough to figure it out. Just because we can't
: measure and dissect something YET, doesn't mean it doesn't exisit.

Bad analogy - one could see the effects of magnetism very clearly, before it
was understood.  This is not true of the hypothetical "mysterious energy"
which crystals may radiate.

: >No, you have it backwards.  "PROOF OF NON-EXISTANCE" of anything is impossible.
: >This holds for crystal energy, the existance of God, the existance of Santa
: >Claus, etc.
: Bah. I can prove a sixth toe is non-existant on my foot.

OK, you have our attention.  Go ahead.  (Consider your bluff CALLED).

: >And equally fun to study - especially the motivational roots for the 
: >beliefs.
: I choose not to be an anthropological study for you, thanks.

Don't take it personally.              

: It's senseless to debate these kinds of things. No one here can prove
: anything one way or another to change the others mind. It's like kids
: going "did not!", "did too!" to each other. I have more productive things
: to do.

"Do Not!!!"

---

From: okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 18:48:04 GMT

[email-masked] (Michael Solinas) writes:
>Phil OKunewick (okunewck@pds16) wrote:
>
>:  When you are trying to isolate a power which does
>: not operate within the realms of the known laws of physics, you can
>: neither prove nor disprove its existance.  All you can say is that
>: either it doesn't exist, or there are some things in this universe
>: which we do not yet understand.  (The latter is obviously true.)
>
>No, you left out one very reasonable option: "there MAY be things in this 
>universe which we do not yet understand."

   There are most certainly things in this universe which we do not
yet understand.  Fermat's last theorem was a mathematical mystery for
many years; it was only recently solved.  There is a mysterious object
way out there which was recently detected by high power telescopes,
which does not fit the current theories about celestial bodies.  One
could come up with all sorts of other examples; let's just say that
there are enough mysteries to keep scientests employed for the next
several centuries.

>:    This is as futile as trying to scientifically disprove the
>: existance of God.

>No, you have it backwards.  "PROOF OF NON-EXISTANCE" of anything is
>impossible.

Isn't that what I said?

>You would be correct in saying that when a skeptic asks for proof of psychic
>energies, he is asking for something as futile as trying to scientifically
>PROVE the existance of God.

   A skeptic is usually more interested in discouraging any possible
believers, than in seeing that something actually does happen.  This
is both futile and closed minded, because when a theory transcends
known science, the skeptic does not have any scientific proof that the
believers are incorrect.  The believers, on the other hand, know that
our current scientific knowledge is incomplete, and are therefore not
willing to accept a "scientific" refutation of their theories.

   Considering the case in point, you will not discourage the
believers by saying "There is no scientific proof of crystal powers",
especially when you erroneously try to qualify them as known forms of
energy.  Darwin's theories were absolutely impossible under the
contemporary theory of man's existance during that time; man's
scientific knowledge has since been adjusted to include evolution.
Perhaps someday our scientific knowledge will include a few powers
which we currently consider to be "paranormal".

>   This holds for crystal energy, the existance of God, the existance
>of Santa Claus, etc.

   This is not a fair analogy.  Many people are willing to say that
God has demonstrated His existance to them.  Many people also are
willing to say that they have seen the effects of crystal powers.  But
I don't think that anybody in their right mind is willing to claim that
they saw Santa Claus.

   Sometimes, seeing the effects of something is adequate proof of its
existance to the observer; sometimes it's not (e.g. stage magicians).

>: ...Now if 100,000
>: people claim to have seen a UFO, can you honestly say that they were
>: all mistaken?  On the other hand, can you believe that *any* of the
>: 100,000 actually did see one?
>
>Are you referring to a specific event, or quoting popular folklore?

   Many people think they have seen a UFO; I don't know the exact
number.  I'd say that 100,000 is an accurate guess, plus or minus a
few decimal places.

---

From: okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick)
Date: 2 Mar 94 22:17:12 GMT

[email-masked] (Jay Morris) writes:
>[email-masked] writes:
>>[email-masked] (Jay D. Morris) writes:
>>>
>>>It seems to me that radiance is mearly the refraction of portions
>>>of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ergo the only things that are emitted
>>>from non-radioactive crystal structures can be found in the ambient
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>enviroment. That is in a completely dark room a translucent rock
>>>will not emit/refract the portion of the spectrum that contains
>>>visible light.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>
>I stand by my original position. Crystals in a dark room will
>*not* refract visible light because there is no visible light
>to refract

   No, but they will still absorb and retransmit energy in different
forms.  My example of the quartzite and the piezoelectric flash was
meant to show that a type of energy completely unrelated to
electromagnetic energy could still be converted into visible light,
and in this case by a crystalline rock.  There are plenty of other
examples too.

>I was differentiating between refraction and classical radiation.
>But you are correct, I should have clarified my position parameters.
>"from non-radioactive, chemically stable crystal".               

   You know this, and I know this, but just try telling it to the
quartzite :-).  But seriously, there are many exceptions to this
theory.  Microwave ovens emit RF energy on a very specific wavelength
- if your dark room is inside a microwave oven and you put an ice
crystal in there, the crystal will absorb the RF energy and radiate
thermal energy.  When the power is turned off, the ice will continue
to radiate thermal energy on its own until it reaches equillibrium
with its environment.  To finish the scenario, the thermal energy
could be channeled through some device to convert it into light.  If
the entire operation runs below 32F, the ice will not be changed by
this channeling.

   The basis behind crystal beliefs is that they either refract or
radiate some mysterious form of energy, which they may be converting
in the process.  A ceramic plate in a microwave oven is totally
passive to the microwave energy, but an ice crystal is an excellent
receptor and channeler of it, converting the microwave energy into
heat.  Likewise, some crystals may be receptors and converters of
bizarre powers to which every other substance is totally passive,
which the crystals convert into effects on people.  It's probably pure
bunk, but it's a fun theory.

>The believers need to do more than say "you cannot disprove, therefore
>it is". They need to offer a hypothesis about these "energies"
>and give examples concerning their purported effects. The para-
>psychologists have been trying for years to give *one* verifiable
>example of the effect of the "energies" they study. So far they
>have failed miserably. Perhaps one of the believers can provide
>the long awaited revelation.

   This is as futile as trying to scientifically disprove the
existance of God.  When you are trying to isolate a power which does
not operate within the realms of the known laws of physics, you can
neither prove nor disprove its existance.  All you can say is that
either it doesn't exist, or there are some things in this universe
which we do not yet understand.  (The latter is obviously true.)

   There have been many examples of paranormal effects reported; these
are therefore possible evidence of the existance of strange powers.
But few of these reports had any kind of control, so they are not
considered reliable from a scientific point of view.  Now if 100,000
people claim to have seen a UFO, can you honestly say that they were
all mistaken?  On the other hand, can you believe that *any* of the
100,000 actually did see one?

   Just for the record, I think that most paranormal beliefs are pure
bunk.  But they're fun to watch.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sherry Michael)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 19:44:17 GMT

>"Unified Theory".  Has this changed?

I realize that. That's why I didn't say "we know all about magnetism". I
ways saying we figured out that it EXSISTS. 

Geez. Nitpickers. There are few things we thoughly understand.

---Sherry Michael---
The rain, it raineth on the Just and the Unjust fella.
But chiefly on the Just because
The Unjust steals the Just's umbrella.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sherry Michael)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 20:23:13 GMT

>which crystals may radiate.
And I can feel it very clearly. Magnetism was thought to be "magic" (which
it is) before it was understood. Hand someone a magnet who has never heard
of it and used it before. Think they can figure out what it does right
away? No. In order to feel magical power you need to be taught and an open
mind. Rocks have it, trees, everything. It's mundane, not "mysterious".
You have to learn to use it first to "proof" it's there. Otherwise, like
the magnet to the person who has never seen one, it's nothing. Just a
scrap of metal.

>OK, you have our attention.  Go ahead.  (Consider your bluff CALLED).

Gimmie you're snail address and I'll send you a photo, sans toe.

>Don't take it personally.              
Just wanted to let you know...don't send me a questionare! :)

>: going "did not!", "did too!" to each other. I have more productive things
Heh, heh.

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Solinas)
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 05:15:51 GMT

Sherry Michael ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >Bad analogy - one could see the effects of magnetism very clearly, before it
: >was understood.  This is not true of the hypothetical "mysterious energy"
: >which crystals may radiate.
: And I can feel it very clearly. Magnetism was thought to be "magic" (which
: it is) before it was understood. Hand someone a magnet who has never heard
: of it and used it before. Think they can figure out what it does right
: away? No. In order to feel magical power you need to be taught and an open
: mind. Rocks have it, trees, everything. It's mundane, not "mysterious".
: You have to learn to use it first to "proof" it's there. Otherwise, like
: the magnet to the person who has never seen one, it's nothing. Just a
: scrap of metal.

If you can feel it - fine.  Be careful you are not fooling yourself, as
dowsers often do.  It is VERY, VERY easy to convince yourself you feel 
something.  Have you tried "testing" yourself?  I mean a real experiment. 
I assume different stones feel differently (why else would one discuss
the various properties of the different types.)  So - try a double - blind
experiment.  Have someone place, say, 3 stones with different "energies in 
a box or behind a screen.  Randomly.  If you really can tell them apart, 
you really do have "the power."  If not, you just thought you felt stuff.
BTW - if you can do this, you could easily pick up a couple of hundred
thousand dollars winning awards.        

: >: Bah. I can prove a sixth toe is non-existant on my foot.
: >OK, you have our attention.  Go ahead.  (Consider your bluff CALLED).
: Gimmie you're snail address and I'll send you a photo, sans toe.

You probably own Aldus Photostyler and have airbrushed out that offending
appendage, you six-toed devil you.

: >: >And equally fun to study - especially the motivational roots for the 
: >: >beliefs.
: >: I choose not to be an anthropological study for you, thanks.
: >Don't take it personally.              
: Just wanted to let you know...don't send me a questionare! :)

I can't stand questionaires, phone surveys, and opportunities to earn
thousands of dollars in my spare time at home sitting on my fat ass.
(grin!)

You won't get a questionaire from me.

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Solinas)
Date: 3 Mar 94 21:34:55 GMT

:    No, but they will still absorb and retransmit energy in different
: forms.  My example of the quartzite and the piezoelectric flash was
: meant to show that a type of energy completely unrelated to
: electromagnetic energy could still be converted into visible light,
: and in this case by a crystalline rock.  There are plenty of other
: examples too.

:    The basis behind crystal beliefs is that they either refract or
: radiate some mysterious form of energy, which they may be converting

I like your examples, but have a problem with the crystal beliefs regarding
the "mysterious form of energy."  Your examples are excellent, but focus on
measurable, quantifiable forms of known energy.  

: bizarre powers to which every other substance is totally passive,
: which the crystals convert into effects on people.  It's probably pure
: bunk, but it's a fun theory.

Quack cures are a fun theory until someone forgoes medical treatment for 
belief in them.   

: >The believers need to do more than say "you cannot disprove, therefore
: >it is". They need to offer a hypothesis about these "energies"
: >and give examples concerning their purported effects. The para-
: >psychologists have been trying for years to give *one* verifiable
: >example of the effect of the "energies" they study. So far they
: >have failed miserably. Perhaps one of the believers can provide
: >the long awaited revelation.
:    This is as futile as trying to scientifically disprove the
: existance of God.

No, you have it backwards.  "PROOF OF NON-EXISTANCE" of anything is impossible.
This holds for crystal energy, the existance of God, the existance of Santa
Claus, etc.

:    There have been many examples of paranormal effects reported; these
: are therefore possible evidence of the existance of strange powers.
: But few of these reports had any kind of control, so they are not
: considered reliable from a scientific point of view.  Now if 100,000
: people claim to have seen a UFO, can you honestly say that they were
: all mistaken?  On the other hand, can you believe that *any* of the
: 100,000 actually did see one?

:    Just for the record, I think that most paranormal beliefs are pure
: bunk.  But they're fun to watch.

And equally fun to study - especially the motivational roots for the 
beliefs.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sherry Michael)
Date: 4 Mar 94 02:00:16 GMT

>This holds for crystal energy, the existance of God, the existance of Santa

Bah. I can prove a sixth toe is non-existant on my foot.

>And equally fun to study - especially the motivational roots for the 

I choose not to be an anthropological study for you, thanks.

It's senseless to debate these kinds of things. No one here can prove
anything one way or another to change the others mind. It's like kids
going "did not!", "did too!" to each other. I have more productive things
to do.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sherry Michael)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 15:11:02 GMT

>thousand dollars winning awards.        

Just one point, I have no special powers. The above test you describe is a
game witches play on sabbats. You'd be suprised at the results. (I want
my check...) Most stones only have a "low" or "high" vibration. I can pick
those out no prob.

>appendage, you six-toed devil you.

Dang! How'd you know my SO worked for Silicon Graphics?!

>You won't get a questionaire from me.

Good, or I'd use my magic rocks to curse you with a sixth toe!

---

From: okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 18:45:48 GMT

[email-masked] (Sherry Michael) writes:
>>: >No, you have it backwards.  "PROOF OF NON-EXISTANCE" of anything is
>>: >impossible. This holds for crystal energy, the existance of God, the
>>: >existance of Santa
>>: >Claus, etc.

   I'm afraid that won't be adequate proof.  Sure, you can prove to
yourself that you do not have a 6th toe, but you will have a hard time
proving it to somebody on the net.

   I've heard stories about extra digits, especially when fertility
drugs are involved in the conception.  Whether these stories are true
or not I don't know, but they certainly lend credence to the
possibility.

   Next, we know you only through your email postings and so have no
way of telling whether a photo of you is authentic.  Even if we were
to meet you in person, we still wouldn't know for certain if we were
talking to the person who originally stated that they did not have a
6th toe.  As for the original poster, we don't know that they can
actually count, or whether they're even being truthful when they say
that they don't have a 6th toe.  Or they may even be ignorant of
something - an X-ray may reveal a 5th and 6th toe welded together
under the same skin!

   The point is, there is no way to tell for certain whether a poster
has 6 toes or not, just as there is no way to tell for certain whether
or not a poster saw a true paranormal effect from a gemstone.  Proof
is a tough thing, especially when the results are not necessarily
repeatable.  That's where assumptions comes in, which are totally
bogus ways of drawing conclusions.  (Today I think we'll just assume
that you are correct when you say that that you don't have a 6th
toe. :-)

   But on the other hand, a theory is not considered acceptable by the
scientific community unless it produces repeatable results.  Before it
gets taken seroiusly, the use of a rock for a paranormal purpose has
to produce a result often enough to preclude random chance.  (Do lucky
charms really work, above and beyond random chance?)  In addition, it
has to be shown that there were no other unknown variables mucking up
the experiment.

   For instance, if a person consistently picks the "correct" magic
rock from behind a blind, was it actually the rock that identified
itself, or some subliminal message from another person who knew which
rock was correct?  Even the reaction of the pupils of the tester's
eyes when the subject reaches for the correct rock, noticed
subconsciously by the subject, could contaminate the experiment.

   So much for proof.  We can't prove that these paranormal effects
don't happen any more than we can prove that they do.  All we can do
is decide whether we're going to believe people here or not.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jay D. Morris)
Date: 7 Mar 1994 19:37:30 GMT

>my check...) Most stones only have a "low" or "high" vibration. I can pick

I do not believe you. {And yes Sherry, I know you do not care if I believe or not}
These "witches" and "magicians" have for centuries declaring their super-natural
abilities. Never have they been able to demonstrate those abilities in controlled
test circumstances. If given a substantial number of trials, the success rate
will follow the laws of probability {which some find to be mystical}. 
I asked in an earlier post for examples, and explanation of the powers the
crystals/users of the crystals have. If the readers of this group will 
compare the two "authoritive" explanations, it will appear that the crystals
are irrevelant. The real power is in the user {in the user's imagination?}.

People who believe in "magicks" or "powers" are deluding themselves.
Perhaps some deep seated desire to understand something that no one else
understands, "I am better than you are because, I know the truth"
mentality.

One poster said I did not understand. They are correct. I do not understand
why individuals believe in things for which they have *no* basis for.

Jay

---

From: okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 02:39:52 GMT

[email-masked] (Jay D. Morris) writes:
>
>I do not believe you.  These "witches" and "magicians" have for
>centuries declaring their super-natural abilities. Never have they
>been able to demonstrate those abilities in controlled test
>circumstances...
>

   Okay Jay, put your money where your mouth is.

   Now, I personally know of no test of paranormal effects which has
been conducted in a controlled environment that did not show effects
outside of random chance, because I don't know of any controlled
tests.  To me these theories are totally untested; I have absolutely
no factual basis from which to refute these claims.  This doesn't say
that I believe them; I just don't have any solid evidence with which
to refute them.  However, you apparently do know of tests like these,
or you yourself would be saying here, "I am better than you are
because, I know the truth."

   So, you're on.  Enlighten us with examples of failed experiments.
Or do you just *believe* that these paranormal effects are impossible,
a belief which *you* have no basis for?

>>>>>>did too!
>>>>>did not!
>>>>did too!
>>>did not!
>>did too!
>did not!
I'll be darned if *I* know for sure! :-)
-- 
One man, a Mr. Darwin, believes that man evolved from an oyster.
This theory is too absurd for further consideration.
                              ---"Goods Book of Nature", 1835

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Solinas)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 05:11:01 GMT

Sherry Michael ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >a box or behind a screen.  Randomly.  If you really can tell them apart, 
: >you really do have "the power."  If not, you just thought you felt stuff.
: >BTW - if you can do this, you could easily pick up a couple of hundred
: >thousand dollars winning awards.        
: Just one point, I have no special powers. The above test you describe is a
: game witches play on sabbats. You'd be suprised at the results. (I want
: my check...) Most stones only have a "low" or "high" vibration. I can pick
: those out no prob.

All kidding aside - if you can do it under controlled conditions, you will
be able to pick up a couple of hundred grand.  Try it - objectively, and if
you are successful, I can get you in touch with people.

: Dang! How'd you know my SO worked for Silicon Graphics?!

: Good, or I'd use my magic rocks to curse you with a sixth toe!

Well, I have more than six.  Ten acutally.  But they _ARE_ spread over
two feet.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sri Palindrome.151)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 13:56:19 GMT

:    Now, I personally know of no test of paranormal effects which has
: been conducted in a controlled environment that did not show effects
: outside of random chance, because I don't know of any controlled
: tests.  To me these theories are totally untested; I have absolutely
: no factual basis from which to refute these claims.  This doesn't say
: that I believe them; I just don't have any solid evidence with which
: to refute them.  However, you apparently do know of tests like these,
: or you yourself would be saying here, "I am better than you are
: because, I know the truth."

:    So, you're on.  Enlighten us with examples of failed experiments.
: Or do you just *believe* that these paranormal effects are impossible,
: a belief which *you* have no basis for?

Tests were conducted in 1990 in the Soviet Union to determine the 
effectiveness of a "psychic healer" in affecting the blood pressure, 
pulse and brain wave activities of a test subject.  The tests were 
conducted under standard double-blind conditions.  The healer was asked 
to affect each of the above three parameters in sequence, and also to let 
researchers know when he was "in touch" with the subject's body.  The 
results:  no noticeable effects were found in the subject, despite the 
healer's claims that he was affecting one of these circumstances.  Not in 
single experiement did the healer manifest any affect upon the subject, 
despite the healer's saying that he *was* creating an effect.

Extensive double-blind studies of abilities to view objects from a 
distance have been going on since the 1960's.  In every experiment 
carried out upon psychics in which there could be no signals exchanged 
(intentionally or otherwise) between the researcher and subject, results 
conformed exactly to what would be expected from pure probability.

Again in the Soviet Union, tests were carried out upon psychic "mediums" 
to determine the validity of their claimed ability to know the details of 
a person's life from an object they had owned, or from an image of that 
person. The photos/objects were those of Ted Bundy, noted American serial 
killer.  Not one of the psychics picked up on the fact that the 
individual in question had committed murder or been sentenced to death.  
In fact, results from the photograph were more like, "He's a nice 
person.", which was the general opinion of non-psychics viewing the same 
photograph.  Again, these experiments took place in 1990.

Experiments were also carried out in various universities to determine 
the healing ability of various "magickal" stones upon sick/injured plants 
and animals during the 1980's.  As a control, some of the subjects 
received crystals, others received blocks of wood, and still others were 
exposed to nothing at all.  No difference in the healing and recovery 
rates of rats, rabbits, monocellular organisms, or plants was noted 
between the three groups in any of the experiments.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jay D. Morris)
Date: 8 Mar 1994 17:31:37 GMT

>a belief which *you* have no basis for?

I accept the challenge. I will see what the literature has to say.
If the ODU lib is short, I will check William&Mary this weekend. Failing
that I am returning to New Haven for a brief visit at the end of 
the month, surely Yale has 
something one way or the other.

Perhaps somebody from the opposing view would do the same, I would
not want to be accused of lying by omission.

I seem to recall a 60 mins episode where some guy would put a piece
of paper on a nail/pencil, something like that, then cover the
setup with an inverted fish tank. He then waved his hands around and
circled the table upon which it rested. Low and behold the paper would
begin to rotate because of his mental *powers*. It turned out that he
was circling the table and gently blowing air at the base of the tank.
You see there would be slight irregularities in the tank and in the 
table top. When the crew replaced the tank with one that would seal
his *powers* seemed to fail. Amazing, huh? Perhaps he would have
had more luck if he would have used a rock :)  Just kidding, everyone,
don't get your quartz in a bind.

The point is that when these people are put to the test, they invariably
come up short. The amazing Kreskin for example, reading minds on the 
tonight show. It turned out his assistant that did the mingling was bugged.
Then there is the "physic friends network", give me a break.

What about individuals who honestly report the amazing things the
pychics have done to/for them, well, even a blind hog finds an acorn
once in a while.
 
The old adage, there is a sucker born every minute is still quite valid.

Jay
Eli from Hell

---

From: [email-masked] (Kelly A. Madsen)
Date: 8 Mar 1994 18:25:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>test circumstances. If given a substantial number of trials, the success rate

[snip]

>why individuals believe in things for which they have *no* basis for.

I believe in magick and the Craft because *I* want to. I wouldn't care
if every single other entity in the Universe disagreed with me. It's
my choice to believe what I want to believe.

You, in similar fashion, can go ahead and believe, or not believe,
anything you please, as long as you keep some respect for the beliefs
of other people. If you don't give others respect you can't expect
them to give it to you. It seems a lot to me that you yourself are
doing the "I am better than you are because I know the truth" when
saying that people who believe in magick are deluding
themselves. We're not. Are you?

I don't give a damn whether people have been able to prove their
powers through "controlled test circumstances" or not. It's enough for
me to believe that it works for me and for others around me who
believe as I do. Other people don't try to "prove" their religious
beliefs in "controlled test circumstances", why would I?

I don't think I'm "better than you are" or anything stupid like that.
Believing something that someone else doesn't believe doesn't make you
better than them, or worse than them. IT JUST MAKES YOU DIFFERENT. And
I'd much rather have the world full of all sorts of different people
than people who were all the same.

Kelly A. Madsen (aka Triona ni Danu)      :           Blessed Be!
          [email-masked]                  : "You can't expect to wield supreme
Student Consultant Leader                 : executive power just because
  Macintosh Shareware Server Administrator: some watery tart threw a sword
  Asst. Workstation Lab Administrator     : at you!"
Academic Computing and Network Services   :   -- Monty Python, of course!
Northwestern University                   :                           <6/pi>

---

From: [email-masked] (Sherry Michael)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 22:16:20 GMT

>Phil OKunewick (okunewck@pds16) wrote:
<Deletia: who was talking about "paranormal" and "psi"? Did I miss something?>
>between the three groups in any of the experiments.

Did they just drop the stones in with the animals, or did someone perform
magic or work a spell? Heck I can use a stone, wood, and nothing at all to
perform a spell. Objects are not the point.

As far as healing goes sometimes there is nothing anyone can do about it.
A doctor can't cure all either. (I would never in my right mind tell
anyone to use magic instead of seaking medical attention. Remember before
doctors had University degrees, doctors were also spirtual leaders, so a
combo of magic and medicine is best)

Okay here is some "pro magic" studies:

(dang forget the school: maybe Cal tech or Berkley. It was all over
the news)
A Recent experiment showed that the adverage person could affect a random
marble dropping machine. The test was for the subject to study a pattern
of marbles, and then project the pattern into the machine and make the
marbles fall into the chutes in the pattern. (looks like a change sorter)
This was a scientificly significant in favor of the mind having some
effect on the objects, even after retesting on another machine.

(Shoot, I'm bad on references today. Just like Ross Perot, "I an't makin'
this stuff up")
Stats say prayer helps the sick heal faster, no matter if they are praying
or someone is praying for them, even if the ill person has no idea. Most
Mages think prayer is just another form of magic, no matter what religion
you are.

---

From: okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 23:34:41 GMT

[email-masked] (Sherry Michael) writes:
>[email-masked] (Sri Palindrome.151) writes:
><Deletia: who was talking about "paranormal" and "psi"?

paranormal = not scientifically explainable (per webster)
I believe that covers strange effects that certain stones might have.

>Did I miss something?

The charter of this newsgroup?  :-)

---

From: okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 16:02:29 GMT

[email-masked] (Jay D. Morris) writes:
>the month, surely Yale has something one way or the other.
>

   Cool.  Exchange of substantiated information always beats the
did-too/did-not game.

>his *powers* seemed to fail. Amazing, huh?

   I saw the same show, where he did a few other "magic" feats as
well.  The TV show brought in a professional magician as a consultant
to reveal his tricks.  In this case, he was intentionally fraudulent.
Damn shame too - he would have made an excellent stage magician.

   BTW, I consider stage magic to be a very valid form of entertainment.
It's a nice puzzle to figure out just how a trick is done.  But there's
absolutely nothing paranormal about stage magic.

>Then there is the "physic friends network", give me a break.

   The difference is, magicians are not among "these people".  When a
magician puts on a stage show, it's entertainment.  But when a
magician tries to seriously convince the world that he has "powers",
knowing very well he has none, he stoops to the same level as
plagurists and exam cheaters, and he does as much damage as
researchers who fabricate data in accepted scientific fields.

>pychics have done to/for them, well, even a blind hog finds an acorn

   So true.  That's why controlled experiments with repeatable results
are so important, and false claims are so harmful.

   Now, as anybody who has been following this thread can tell, I
firmly believe in keeping an open mind and evaluating the available
evidence, examining all possibilities, rather than just accepting or
rejecting a claim.  In pursuit of this end, I have gone to significant
effort to put the skeptical debate on an intelligent level, were we
can hear of actual evidence for or against paranormal effects, instead
of just watching a childish did-too/did-not debate.  And because of my
efforts, I feel that I have earned enough leeway to be forgiven when I
take a little levity and say the following:

THEY'RE JUST ROCKS, OKAY?????
:-)

---

From: [email-masked] (Alan E. Bell)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 19:31:38 GMT

I agree that they are just rocks, at least in terms of healing powers, 
magic abilities etc.

On the otherhand the folklore these stones have to offer, tell us alot 
about the past, and create a marvelous romantic background that we can 
appreciate almost as much as the stones.  If people want to believe if 
unsubstansiated claims let them.

I belive James "THE AMAZING RANDY" has tested quite a few claims and has 
yet to see anything hold up to double blind testing. 

As far as healing powers go....Well the human body is a really amazing 
thing and tends to mend itself.  90% of the time if your sick your gonna 
get better without the help of stones, medicine or anything other than 
rest and good food.  The whole stones as tools for healing concept, seems to 
come out of a disregard for science.  (Obviously these are my 
own unscientific opinons)  People seem to need something to blame for 
there ills. It always amazes me how many folks blame the problems of 
today on Science and Scientists.  These arguments are 
sometimes true but on a whole I think it's pretty clear that science has 
made the world a better place.  Take a look at historical records and it 
doesn't take a brain surgeon to see what scientific methods have done for 
us.  I think most people who take very old folktales as fact are in a way 
saying "hey the grass was greener 2000 years ago."  The fact is the grass 
wasn't greener!  It's pretty darn green today and only gettin greener if 
you ask me.  

Here is a bit of folklore on Amethyst:
(taken from a course at G.I.A.)

The god Bacchus, neglected by the goddess Diana, decide in a fit of spite 
that the first person he met would be devoured by tigers.  The beautiful 
maiden Ameythyst crossed his path.  When the beasts attacked her, she 
called on Diana for protection, and the goddess responded by turning her 
to stone.  Penitent, Bacchus poured wine over her petrified body, giving 
it its purple hue.  This connection with Bacchus, the mythical god of 
wine, led to the belief that drinking wine from an amethyst cup would 
prevent drunkeness.

I think that's a pretty good bit of folklore don't you?

Alan
-- 
o-----------------------o-------------------------------------o 
|  [email-masked]   | "Diagnosis: A physician's forecast  |
|  or [email-masked]   |  of disease by the patient's pulse  |
|  AKA -Alan Bell-      |  and purse.   -Ambrose Bierce-      |
o-----------------------o-------------------------------------o

---

From: [email-masked] (Khanada)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 19:38:51 GMT

Ugh! This discussion (flamewar) is just like the Energizer Bunny -- you 
get the rest....

I bean you all on the head with one of my amethyst geodes...and that 
isn't very "healing"-like, now is it?

--Khanada (kuh-nay-duh)
"I don't believe in dragons or blue." --Duran Duran
Disclaimer: My netname has nothing do with _Akira_! So stop shouting 
"Tetsuo" everytime you see me!!!!!!!!!

From  Sat Mar 12 11:40:55 EST 1994
Article: 69 of alt.folklore.gemstones
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.haiti,alt.current-events.russia,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.current-events.ukraine,alt.current-events.usa,alt.cyberspace,alt.discrimination,alt.dreams,alt.dreams.lucid,alt.drumcorps,alt.education.bangkok,alt.education.disabled,alt.education.distance,alt.education.ib,alt.education.research,alt.etext,alt.exotic-music,alt.fashion,alt.fishing,alt.folklore.college,alt.folklore.gemstones,alt.folklore.ghost-stories,alt.folklore.herbs,alt.folklore.urban,alt.fraternity.sorority,alt
galactic-guide,alt.genealogy,alt.gothic,alt.great-lakes,alt.guitar,alt.heraldry.sca,alt.history.living,alt.history.what-if,alt.hk.spcc,alt.housing.nontrad,alt.hypnosis,alt.image.medical,alt.individualism,alt.internet.services,alt.iq.endless-discussion,alt.isea,alt.japanese.text,alt.journalism,alt.lefthanders,alt.locksmithing,alt.lycra,alt.magic,alt.magick,alt.manga
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!cslaw
From: [email-masked] (Laurence A Canter)
Subject: Green Card Lottery Information and Assistance available.
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 00:46:52 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: bigblue.oit.unc.edu alt.current-events.haiti:55 alt.current-events.russia:1744 alt.current-events.somalia:5 alt.current-events.ukraine:506 alt.current-events.usa:1598 alt.cyberspace:4703 alt.discrimination:15494 alt.dreams:15498 alt.dreams.lucid:1922 alt.drumcorps:3281 alt.education.disabled:817 alt.education.distance:1225 alt.education.ib:126 alt.education.research:336 alt.etext:497 alt.exotic-music:2315 alt.fashion:2398 alt.fishing:7790 alt.folklore.college:7561 alt.folklore.gemstones:69 alt.folklo
re.ghost-stories:3663 alt.folklore.herbs:2182 alt.folklore.urban:114514 alt.fraternity.sorority:1795 alt.galactic-guide:1857 alt.genealogy:327 alt.gothic:14264 alt.great-lakes:3661 alt.guitar:24590 alt.heraldry.sca:269 alt.history.living:417 alt.history.what-if:4170 alt.hk.spcc:11 alt.housing.nontrad:381 alt.hypnosis:1606 alt.image.medical:745 alt.individualism:13243 alt.internet.services:18008 alt.japanese.text:363 alt.journalism:1755 alt.lefthanders:1720 alt.locksmithing:4957 alt.lycra:890 alt.magic:4558
 alt.magick:20663 alt.manga:3186

The Green Card Lottery is a completely legal program giving away Green
Cards to persons born in certain countries.

PERSONS BORN IN MOST COUNTRIES QUALIFY, MANY FOR FIRST TIME.

Only countries not qualifying are:  Mexico; India; P.R. China;
Philippines & Korea.  There are also several countries that are
uncertain at this time.  They are:  Canada; U.K.; Taiwan; Jamaica; Viet
Nam and Dominican Republic.

Lottery registration will take place soon.  55,000 Green Cards will be
given to those who register correctly.  NO JOB IS REQUIRED.

THERE IS A STRICT DEADLINE. THE TIME TO START IS NOW!!

For FREE information via Email, send request to Canter & Siegel
Immigration Attorneys 3333 E Camelback Road, Ste 250, Phoenix AZ  85018
602 661 3911 (telephone)    602 451 7617 (fax) [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Dean Edwards)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 08:08:01 GMT

My fiance recommended the following:  Time lapse photography and
time lapse filming would be very interesting on minerals and gems
that crystallize and contain crystals.  It simply hasn't been done.
It's been done a lot with various plants, trees, mushrooms, forest
floor greenery, insects, etc. and the results are simply stunning.
There are lots and lots of crystal minerals, as well as the various
gem crystals, and it would be interesting to compare time lapse
upon these crystal minerals after they are mined or removed from
wherever they can be found and placed in controlled environments
(shade, sun, rain, with mixed crystals around them, with dirt, with
plants, on and on).  Curiosity arose when my fiance purchased some
amethyst crystals which were pretty and had the flat plane sides and
small points.  Within 4 months she said that the points had blossomed
kind of like a flower, with other planes forming at the tips, and she
was astounded.  A friend asked her for the crystals, who was a physics 
major at Stanford, but she hasn't heard from him for a year, and she
didn't get them back from him.  (Also, time lapse filming with various
close up devices such as microscopics and possibly other interesting
photographic time lapse devices)