HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hzuker@sierra.com (Hunter Zuker)
Subject: Re: fire walking
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:56:30 GMT

In article <2283@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:
>In <1992Jul17.183103.15336@sierra.com> hzuker@sierra.com (Hunter Zuker) writes:

>    (He does also relate a history of his interaction with scientists as they 
>    have investigated firewalking.  He has responded to them as they propose
>    various theories.  He's even walked on a hot metal plate for them, 
>    instead of hot coals.

>I'd like to hear from the scientists who he says saw him walk on a hot
>metal plate.

The Robbins Institute, in San Diego, should be able to provide you
with that information.  They usually can point you to, or provide 
information on subjects that Tony is involved in.

I did not personaly witness his walking across the metal plate.  I don't
even remember if Tony mentioned it in his seminar.  The conversation
I had was with one of his permanent staff members, who described the
event to me.

Apparently, at a regular firewalking seminar, a "scientist" with some
helpers replaced the coals with a hot metal plate.  (The fire/coals are
left unattended at times.)  When the group came out to walk on the
coals, the scientist and his helpers dared Tony to walk on the hot metal
plate.  Which he did successfully.

As I said this is all second hand.  I suspect that the incident happened.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the experiment or the abilities of
the scientist involved.  (Certainly his ethics can be called in to 
question.)

Hunter
-- 
        Hunter Zuker            (206) 822-5200     
        Sierra Geophysics       ...!uunet!sgihbtn!hzuker -OR-
        11255 Kirkland Way      hzuker@sierra
        Kirkland, WA  98033     Any opinions are mine and not those of Sierra's.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: There are no atoms! [LONG]
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:54:40 GMT

]In article <1992Jul22.172952.22812@aquila.sni-usa.com>, raj@capri.sni-usa.com (Raj Alur) writes:
>
>|> >I thought that Einstein didn't believe in QM.  Didn't he make the
>|> >remark about god not playing dice with the universe?
>|> 
>|> He didn't like some of the results of QM, but his Nobel prize was for work in
>|> QM:  The photoelectric effect, in particular.
>|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>
>-- 
>Photoelectric Effect predates QM.

Sure.  And Kepler's laws of planetary motion predate Newton's law of gravity.
And Brahe's observations of planetary position predate Kepler's laws of motion.
However, how likely would it have been for Newton to have formulated his theory
had he not had Kepler's laws of motion at hand?  Or for Kepler to develop his
laws of motion had he not had Brahe's observations?  The photoelectric effect
was similarly an important part of the foundation for QM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Subject: Re: Testing for "Auras"
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:18:26 GMT

In <1992Jul20.231943.16236@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.203459.1603@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
>> A person who claims to have been abducted also claims to be able to see
>> auras.  The person is willing to be tested under stringent conditions.
>> We are considering devising trials to test this claim.  We have a
>> number of ideas already, but we'd be interested in hearing about any
>> methodology readers of this newsgroup can recommend.  Thx.

>  As stated, it is impossible to falsify the claim.  How do you know
>I am not "seeing auras" right now?  The question is, just what information
>does this person claim to be able to derive from the aura?

This is exactly what we hope to test.  So far, the person has been
fairly vague about the claims.

We will post the results of the tests, and our methodology.

Thx to everyone who replied here and thru e-mail.

-- 
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Another thought problem.
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:41:33 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <GERRY.92Jul30104409@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>   > Suppose we have a cannonball, suspended over an infinit plain, by
>   > a lightyear long piece of wire.  You cut the wire at the top, speed
>   > of light limitations say that the cannon ball can't know that the top
>   > has been cut for a year, so it can't start to fall for at least a year.
>   > So the question is: What holds the cannon ball up during that time.
>Gravity acts on each particle in the wire, so the minute it is cut,
>the entire system will start to accelerate downwards.  

Gravity acts on each particle in the wire _before_ it's cut too, and before
it's cut the wire still remains hanging.

It's the tension in the wire which keeps the ball hanging.  Gravity only
"affects" it when the change in tension caused by cutting has propagated down
to the cannonball; otherwise, gravity has no more effect than before the wire
was cut.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: The Search for Noah's Ark
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:14:53 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

>As far as facts go, there is no evidence that humans DID evolve from
>other primates, only that they COULD HAVE.  As science, this is fine.
>Likewise, there is no evidence that Noah DID NOT make an arc.  Since
>there is no evidence that he did, it would be poor science to say that
>hi did.

No causal proof that smoking causes cancer!  Film at 11!

Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:06:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Iowa

mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) responds:

[my previous post deleted]

>You wasted a lot of time beating up on ideas that you simply made up 
>and said were what I thought.  If you want to know my opinions, ask,
>don't put stupid words in my mouth.  Talk about patronizing.
>
>Anyway, this is all irrelevant to my questions.  Aside from the fact that
>you think I am an idiot for "believing" in photons, will you PLEASE 
>answer my questions.  (By the way, you managed to avoid indicating
>whether YOU believe in photons or not.)  Attacking my alleged
>philosophical faults is NOT an answer to my questions.  
>
>I repeat my questions and challenge you to give me a straight answer.
>I emphasize that I am asking for the benefit of your own personal
>experience, which we BOTH agree is important, and we BOTH agree is
>valid.
>
|>> What I really wnat to know is:  What happens while you are (or feel
|>> you are) out of your body?  What is the "you" that is outside?
|>> How can it "see" light (photons) without any of the ususal retina
|>> and neural apparatus?
|>> And most of all, "What, if anything, leaves the body during your OBE?"
>
>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

My response was not irrelevant to your questions.  I simply need to 
determine what kind of answer you want.  Your questions imply that you
believe that perception depends upon material interactions, that
photons "really" exist, etc., etc.  Since no one can have direct knowledge
that these things are true, that indicates to me you want an answer
consistent with faith in the untestable assumptions basic to science
and/or an answer that fits with your acceptance of "truth" by virtue
of authority.  If that is not the kind of answer you want, then why
frame your questions within that context?  Exactly which words
I put in your mouth are words you yourself would not put in your own
mouth?

Are you interested only in answers that appeal to only those
authorities you find acceptable?  Are you interested only in answers
that fit with your faith in the assumptions of science?

*****        _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize         *****
Karl Boyken, system programmer | Although you wonder me, with your majestic and
Department of Computer Science | superior cackling hen, your people I do not
The University of Iowa         | understand, so to you I shall put an end, and
boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu      | you'll never hear surf music again.-J. Hendrix
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Alzheimer's Disease
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:13:09 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Jul30.095645.8587@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, pensyl@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>Is Alzheimer's Disease really a disease in the context of decreasing/
>undermining human performance?   Or, is it one/any/more than any of
>the following:
>
> o  overwrite of the afflicted (apparently afflicted) person's memory;
>    suggesting that the afflicted has used all of memory, or

Well, if a computer system overwrites memory when it's not supposed to, that's
generally considered a bug.  Besides, with Alzheimer's, it tends to be the
recent memories that aren't handled properly.

> o  premature contact with their god such that their mind is caught up
>    in thinking beuond this earth and daily concerns (to them) merit no
>    thought, or

If that were the case, Alzheimer's patients wouldn't be as emotionally
distraught as they tend to be.

> o  (closely coupled with the above) a protective feature where these
>    people have had enough earthly pain and the mind begins to erase
>    thoughts of earth and are (the afflicted) trying to appeal to their
>    god to whisk them away?

Again, if Alzheimer's patients tended to be happy about the disease, this
hypothesis might have some merit.  But they DON'T tend to be happy about the
disease.  This hypothesis comes much closer to fitting schizophrenia than
Alzheimer's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: ghost story on NPR
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:04:36 GMT
Distribution: sci

In article <1992Jul30.232959.4604@math.utexas.edu>, mike@max.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:
> 
>     I just heard a "news" report on National Public Radio's show "All
>     Things considered" about a "ghost" in some place called Tanglewood
>     Maner. They interviewed a woman who runs a restuurant there. She 
>     went on about all the cute things the "ghost" does. Her statements 
>     were taken by the interviewer at face value. There were no skeptical
>     questions. Did anyone else here this report? Does anyone know what is
>     behind the ghost story itself? I got the impression that the woman
>     (I did catch her name) was trying to drum up business. 

The report was about an Inn called Highwood Manor in Lenox, MA, located very
close to the Tanglewood Summer Music Festival location.  I would offer the
opinion that NPR as usual was offering some "lite" news fare late in the
afternoon, as they are prone to do.  

I would also like to hear from anyone in proximity to this location who may be
able to spend some time investigating this story.  Reason: one of the claims of
the woman was that there are verifiable, observable physical manifestations of
some unknown cause.  She specifically stated that her "hair was removed from in
front of her shoulders to the rear in the presence of two witnesses."  I see no
reason to interview the witnesses, but if this type of activity occurs, it
should be easy to attempt to replicate.  Secondly, she indicated that lights
are observed going on after everyone is thought to be out of the Inn.

Any takers?

GXKambic
standard disclaimer
From: hpky@gauguin.cc.rochester.edu (Hanan Polanski)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Weekly World News (was Re: Human Parthenogenesis?)
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:00:20 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Jul26.195458.17918@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> wilson@glitch.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson) writes:

>In article <25JUL199219485091@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>>its legs).  Some sci.skeptic folks should make some contributions and
>>see if any get printed.

>"Discussion On Usenet Takes Place Without Flames!"

What Flames?

Or did you mean "Spontaneous Human Combustion"? I-)

					James Willer email to jmw1388@cs.rit.edu
{The opinions above are probably NOT those of
 Hanan Polansky. I don't know. I never asked.}
>-Dwight
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UFO book list (was Re: n)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:07:08 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Jul30.233827.11023@mprgate.mpr.ca>, spani@mprgate.mpr.ca (Leonard Spani) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.212251.5341@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
> |> Since my joke posting on the Weekly World News's handling of UFOs, I've
> |> received an extremely long mailing from a UFO addict .  It consists
> |> of a list of must read books for those who wish "to join the debate
> |> about the reality of the saucers."  A quick perusal of the list can
> |> give one an idea of where this person's beliefs lie.
> No. A quick perusal of the list can give one an idea of where this
> person's *interests* lie. Whether this person swallows everything in these
> books is another matter. I saw no indication in the book descriptions of
> severe bias or "believerism."

The descrtiptions maybe, but anyone with knowledge of the books and the authors 
(namely me) would interpret all of these books as filled with "believerism." 
Why isn't Klass on the list? (Hint" he don't like UFO's as LGM containers?)

GXKambic
standard saucer-shaped disclaimer
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13480 talk.religion.misc:13148
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Questions from an interested party
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 07:32:32 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Jul13.072530.23475@u.washington.edu> <62009@cup.portal.com>
  <1992Jul15.202050.11320@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> <62208@cup.portal.com>
  <l6bdd4INNi07@news.bbn.com> <1992Jul22.210958.18867@pony.Ingres.COM>

Dear Bob, kbq, Kevin, Jason, and Bill:
I read your comments and it warms my heart.
John Winston.
From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: possible inclusions and subjects for FAQ
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:30:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I was going to send this to Paul Johnson, but decided to post it instead
for at least three reasons:

	1.  I don't have the time to add any more to this, but clearly
	    in most cases I haven't said enough.
	2.  Even where I have developed a point, other people may have
	    a different view, and Paul doesn't deserve to be flamed for
	    including my language or ideas.
	3.  Some of my suggestions may not be needed (or even desirable)
	    for the FAQ file.

I suggest that people send Paul reactions on this material; flames or
discussion you can either post or mail to me directly.

Tom Marlowe
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Troublesome JFK Posts
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:05:41 GMT

revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
: 
:         I'd like to recommend a small action to take to keep the JFK posts 
: the hell off of sci.skeptic. Namely, mailing the posts that appear on 
: sci.skeptic back to the poster, with a note saying, "Please stop 
: cross-posting JFK material to sci.skeptic."
: 
:         It's not menat to flood anyone's mailbox, or cause a bandwidth 
: problem. But it's got to be done, sooner or later.
: 
:         If we wanted to read more conspiracy theories, we can subscribe to 
: alt.conspiracy or alt.conspiracy.JFK. But we've been flooded with this stuff 
: for a while now. 
: 

I agree.  The JFK stuff in sci.skeptic is getting really annoying.
Unless somebody comes up with a better idea, I think I'll start doing
as Brian suggests.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I want to dress you up
Rosemount Inc.                                |as TALLULAH BANKHEAD and
                                              |cover you with VASELINE and
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |WHEAT THINS..
From: kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day (Reprise)
Date: 21 Jul 92 09:52:30 GMT
Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO
In-reply-to: cruiser1@milton.u.washington.edu's message of 16 Jul 92 20:09:01 GMT

>>>>> On 16 Jul 92 20:09:01 GMT, cruiser1@milton.u.washington.edu (Walter D. Pullen) said:


Walter> INVITING THE EXTRATERRESTRIALS TO LAND!

Walter> As we know, the Intergalactic Confederation of
Walter> Planets has their own version similar to Star Trek's "Prime Directive"
Walter> which means that they don't interfere with the course of human
Walter> evolution. However, if enough of us know or believe that they are out
Walter> there, then they will have no further reason to stay hidden, since
Walter> open landings won't alarm groups of people or harm the human race as a
Walter> whole. 

For GOD'S SAKE people don't sign this guy's petition! I AM a certified
Intergalactic Confederation Lawyer (correspondence course advertised in
the back of "High Times" magazine) and have read ICF code 31459 section
27182, the so-called "Prime Directive". Sure, when translated into
English or any other human language it sounds like a non-interference
law, but when translated into VOGON it's a RECIPE, do you hear me A
RECIPE!!?! The whole damn ICF code is a COOKBOOK in VOGONESE!!!!
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent.Dalton@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics          * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-319            */  
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A      *   FAX: (303) 226-9556                  */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525  *                                        */
/**************************************************************************/
Did you move a lot of KOREAN STEAK KNIVES this trip, Dingy?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:59:20 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Iowa

In article <zlsiida.1062@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
writes:

[my earlier post deleted]

> I can't taste, touch, hear, smell, or see YOU either, bub.

I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that you can't taste me. :-)

[my earlier post deleted]

> The simple fact is that it's because X persons AGREE on what's out there 
> that we may assume that something really is out there.  The rest follows 
> quite straightforwardly.  However, your inner experiences are yours and 
> yours alone - why on earth should we believe any of it?

This is the point of view of a skeptic--that the theory with the most votes
wins?  I've never heard the scientific method framed in those terms before.
But let's say that's true.  If the entire population of the world were to
vote on what's real and what isn't, I'm pretty sure you'd be in the
minority on quite a few issues.  As has been pointed out by others, there
has been anecdotal evidence of the paranormal in every culture throughout
history--_no_ scientific concept or theory can make that claim.

> 
> >Thus, the belief that photons exist requires faith--faith in the basic
> >assumptions of science, and, if you have not conducted the experiments your-
> >self, faith in the authority of the scientific establishment.  Hardly the
> >stuff of skepticism.
> 
> Belief yes, faith no.  There's a big difference.
> And the whole point of science is to keep prodding the assumptions to make 
> sure they reflect what really goes on in the world.

There are certain assumptions science doesn't prod--it can't, because these
assumptions are the basis of the whole structure of science.  For example,
supposed I claimed that photons did not exist until the first experiments
that indicated that light might be quantized, around the turn of the century.
To refute that claim, you have to assume that physical "laws" do not change
with time or place--a basic _assumption_ of science, one that is untestable
and unproveable.  If you pull that assumption out from underneath, the whole
structure of scientific belief comes crashing down.

[part of my previous post deleted]

> Hey there's no experiential proof for the electricity running your system.
> Better get a new job before somebody finds out it's all a fake and fires 
> you.

You are confusing an abstraction for the phenomenon itself.  A phenomenon can
be modeled in a useful way by systems other than science--hard for the
faithful to grasp, but true nevertheless.  For example, fire was used long
before the model of combustion provided by chemistry--truly amazing, eh?

*****        _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize         *****
Karl Boyken, system programmer | Distant cousins, there's a limited supply, and
Department of Computer Science | we're down to the dozens, and this is why:
The University of Iowa         | big-eyed beans from Venus--oh my, oh my!
boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu      |                           -- Captain Beefheart