'Extraordinary Evidence Demands Extraordinary...'

[JimBowie1958]

Pop-culture astronomer Carl Sagan is responsible for the phrase. Sagan also told the world that the planet was doomed if Saddam ever lit off the oil wells during the Gulf War. Saddam lit them off, American technology put them out and the world barely burped. Extraordinary claims call for mundane evidence.

Well in his defense he was a hack that lots of sheeple still follow. Don't hold it against them.

Why not? They are being stupid.

We cannot hold willful stupidity against anyone now? IS that just too judgmental these days?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie's marvelous revelations are only for him and are not evidence of anything for others.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, I don't know what all Jake the Fake Starkey is posting, but odds are, he is still better on IGNORE, lololol

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie is a false Christian who typically wants to silence opposition and who wants to use his faux Bible positions to batter others into submission about his beliefs.

JB, you can believe whatever you want, but if you don't have validated proof it don't mater.

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://youtu.be/G6ogwRp6AV0]Bullet catch - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bullet catch - YouTube

lol, no rifling marks on the bullet he supposedly caught. He palmed it and the assistant swapped in a rubber bullet and didn't even hit the center of the plate, but the upper left corner.

If you noticed how easily the bullet fell into the rifle, it can slide out just as easily.

Old silly trick, but still very risky.

Suppose his assistant is murderously pissed at him? Slipping in another lead bullet and aiming center body would be easily explained as a mere accident.

 

[daws101]

Bullet catch - YouTube

lol, no rifling marks on the bullet he supposedly caught. He palmed it and the assistant swapped in a rubber bullet and didn't even hit the center of the plate, but the upper left corner.

If you noticed how easily the bullet fell into the rifle, it can slide out just as easily.

Old silly trick, but still very risky.

Suppose his assistant is murderously pissed at him? Slipping in another lead bullet and aiming center body would be easily explained as a mere accident.

thanks for proving you're just as ignorant about illusion science as you are everything else....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bullet catch - YouTube

lol, no rifling marks on the bullet he supposedly caught. He palmed it and the assistant swapped in a rubber bullet and didn't even hit the center of the plate, but the upper left corner.

If you noticed how easily the bullet fell into the rifle, it can slide out just as easily.

Old silly trick, but still very risky.

Suppose his assistant is murderously pissed at him? Slipping in another lead bullet and aiming center body would be easily explained as a mere accident.

thanks for proving you're just as ignorant about illusion science as you are everything else....

lol, then prove me wrong, ass hole, and don't just declare me wrong and walk off. That convinces no one of anything other than what a retard you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JB, you normally post in ignorance and then get mad when called on it. Tough to be you.

The OP Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings? has been answered that yes churches generally should not have to accommodate same sex weddings while at the same time marriage equality is generally approved.

Jonathan and Charlotte Pendragon used to perform the 'catch the bullet' on TV every year for awhile some twenty years ago.

 

[daws101]

lol, no rifling marks on the bullet he supposedly caught. He palmed it and the assistant swapped in a rubber bullet and didn't even hit the center of the plate, but the upper left corner.

If you noticed how easily the bullet fell into the rifle, it can slide out just as easily.

Old silly trick, but still very risky.

Suppose his assistant is murderously pissed at him? Slipping in another lead bullet and aiming center body would be easily explained as a mere accident.

thanks for proving you're just as ignorant about illusion science as you are everything else....

lol, then prove me wrong, ass hole, and don't just declare me wrong and walk off. That convinces no one of anything other than what a retard you are.

ok shithead, no bullet was fired.
the plate or glass panel (it depends on who's doing the trick) is broken by either a tiny squib or by pressure from the stand /holder or whatever the illusionist is using to hold the thing to be broken in place.
it's an integral part of the trick (misdirection)
as to the bullet nonsense, you did notice it was a muzzle loader?
very few muskets have/ had their barrels rifled.
why ,the ramrod would damage the rifling and the weapon would not fire straight.
that's why there is no marks on the bullet (btw I've seen it done with rifling too)
but since there was no bullet in the gun to begin with it really doesn't matter if it slid easily.

how do I know this? I've been a designer and technician in live theatre for better than 30 years..

 

[JakeStarkey]

The catch the bullet is one of the older tricks in the business.

No magic only misdirection no firing of the bullet.

 

[daws101]

The catch the bullet is one of the older tricks in the business.

No magic only misdirection no firing of the bullet.

didn't I just say that?

 

[JimBowie1958]

thanks for proving you're just as ignorant about illusion science as you are everything else....

lol, then prove me wrong, ass hole, and don't just declare me wrong and walk off. That convinces no one of anything other than what a retard you are.

ok shithead, no bullet was fired.

That is one possibility, but not necessarily the case. And the trickster would still have to palm the bullet as I said. Leaving the barrel MOSTLY empty ( it still has the wadding and powder) causes its own complications.

the plate or glass panel (it depends on who's doing the trick) is broken by either a tiny squib or by pressure from the stand /holder or whatever the illusionist is using to hold the thing to be broken in place.
it's an integral part of the trick (misdirection)

But then how would other acts do it that have plainly visible holes created and flying glass out of the back side of the glass, dumbass? Penn and Tellers trick does in fact cause a hole in the glass, if you had ever seen it.

as to the bullet nonsense, you did notice it was a muzzle loader?
very few muskets have/ had their barrels rifled.

LOL, you are stupidly ignorant about guns. Black powder guns today are in the vast majority of cases muzzle loading rifles.

why ,the ramrod would damage the rifling and the weapon would not fire straight.

roflmao

that's why there is no marks on the bullet (btw I've seen it done with rifling too)
but since there was no bullet in the gun to begin with it really doesn't matter if it slid easily.

No, it does matter as the easy sliding of the bullet enables them to more easily remove it and palm it.

how do I know this? I've been a designer and technician in live theatre for better than 30 years..

Then you are incompetent and an idiot as well. You have gotten at least three facts totally wrong (rifled muzzle loaders, ramrods damaging rifling, and easy sliding having no affect on the performance of the trick) and you have made two unjustified assumptions about the performance of this particular trick when there is no basis for said assumption (assuming that there was no bullet at all when a harmless substitute would do, and that the glass was broken in a particular method when it is not consistent with other similar bullet catches done by other artists).

Again, you FAIL and illustrate what a lack of critical thinking ability you have, doofus.

 

[daws101]

lol, then prove me wrong, ass hole, and don't just declare me wrong and walk off. That convinces no one of anything other than what a retard you are.

ok shithead, no bullet was fired.

That is one possibility, but not necessarily the case. And the trickster would still have to palm the bullet as I said. Leaving the barrel MOSTLY empty ( it still has the wadding and powder) causes its own complications.



But then how would other acts do it that have plainly visible holes created and flying glass out of the back side of the glass, dumbass? Penn and Tellers trick does in fact cause a hole in the glass, if you had ever seen it.



LOL, you are stupidly ignorant about guns. Black powder guns today are in the vast majority of cases muzzle loading rifles.



roflmao

that's why there is no marks on the bullet (btw I've seen it done with rifling too)
but since there was no bullet in the gun to begin with it really doesn't matter if it slid easily.

No, it does matter as the easy sliding of the bullet enables them to more easily remove it and palm it.

how do I know this? I've been a designer and technician in live theatre for better than 30 years..

Then you are incompetent and an idiot as well. You have gotten at least three facts totally wrong (rifled muzzle loaders, ramrods damaging rifling, and easy sliding having no affect on the performance of the trick) and you have made two unjustified assumptions about the performance of this particular trick when there is no basis for said assumption (assuming that there was no bullet at all when a harmless substitute would do, and that the glass was broken in a particular method when it is not consistent with other similar bullet catches done by other artists).

Again, you FAIL and illustrate what a lack of critical thinking ability you have, doofus.

all those paragraphs and still nothing....

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie is wrong . . . again.

Jim, email Charlotte Pendragon (her address is easy to find on the web and in FB) of the world-famous The Pendragons. She and her former partner stunned audiences for decades, each earning Magician of the Year at least twice.

Charlotte and Jonathan Pendragon were the guides for Morgan Fairchild for the trick on TV so many years ago. She will tell you there is never a fired bullet.

 

[itfitzme]

The commonly repeated phrase 'Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.' would seem to be an example of confirmation bias.

An assertion or claim only seems to be extraordinary due to existing theories or experience sets. The Confirmation Bias' fallacy says that we tend to tailor evidence to meet our expectations and so we shouldn't allow our expectations to influence our perceptions. The scientific method is alone the valid method to be used.

How is demanding a higher level of evidence for anything that disrupts our current view of Reality NOT confirmation bias and a violation of objective testing?

Uh.... no. You are neither understand confirmation bia or the specific meaning of the phrase "Extrardinary claims.,." In the context of existing evidence.

There is nothing in the concept of "Extraordinary claims..." that is confirming anything . Confirmation bias has the word "confirmation" in it.

Confirmation bias is the process of ignoring all evidence to the contrary of a belief held and selecting anechdotal evidence in favor.

The guiding rule of "Extraodinary claims.." guards against confirmation bias that goes against all established evidence and understanding.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Anyone can access science. The process is a self-correcting mechanism because the people who study those subjects are forcing themselves to show the work and it has to be repeatable.

Trust, but verify.

Ah yes, this "self-correcting mechanism" is so very sophisticated that every person alive uses it, as does every animal alive, as does every plant alive. Roots search for water, and find it! Leaves search for light, and find it! Cut off a branch and the tree does not die. It self-corrects!

Science isn't so fast.

"Self-correcting Mechanism"



Ah, but godless Leftists insist with a condescending air of smug self-satisfaction, "Science has a mechanism of self-correction". Well duh! So does every human alive. So does every animal alive. So does every plant alive. How does this common trait of living organisms make "science" the ultimate, magisterial enterprise they pretend when in fact it is as ubiquitous as, and practiced by, bacteria ‽ (interrobang)

Moreover, science's "self-correcting mechanism" is arguably the slowest such mechanism known to man. For example, Haeckel's drawings, ostensibly demonstrating the evolutionary saw , "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," was exposed as a fraud in 1859 in a German court. Ernst Haeckel admitted that he faked the drawings because everyone faked science. His phony drawings continued to be published as "science" as recently as 2003.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

 

[JimBowie1958]

Uh.... no. You are neither understand confirmation bia or the specific meaning of the phrase "Extrardinary claims.,." In the context of existing evidence.
There is nothing in the concept of "Extraordinary claims..." that is confirming anything . Confirmation bias has the word "confirmation" in it.
Confirmation bias is the process of ignoring all evidence to the contrary of a belief held and selecting anechdotal evidence in favor.
The guiding rule of "Extraodinary claims.." guards against confirmation bias that goes against all established evidence and understanding.

There is no claim within Natural laws of the universe that merit being rated as 'extraordinary' without examination.

The threshold of testing these 'extraordinary' ideas are the same as any other theorems as said theorems may not seem extraordinary to other scientists.

Asserting that the Earth is creating its own heat through the radioactive decay of nuclear material at its core was once thought an extraordinary claim, as was Continental Drift, Punctuated Equilibrium and a gazzillion other ideas.

The mere use of the phrase 'extraordinary claims' indicates bias and to raise the threshold of proof or evidence for it is not part of the Scientific Process.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Uh.... no. You are neither understand confirmation bia or the specific meaning of the phrase "Extrardinary claims.,." In the context of existing evidence.
There is nothing in the concept of "Extraordinary claims..." that is confirming anything . Confirmation bias has the word "confirmation" in it.
Confirmation bias is the process of ignoring all evidence to the contrary of a belief held and selecting anechdotal evidence in favor.
The guiding rule of "Extraodinary claims.." guards against confirmation bias that goes against all established evidence and understanding.

There is no claim within Natural laws of the universe that merit being rated as 'extraordinary' without examination.

The threshold of testing these 'extraordinary' ideas are the same as any other theorems as said theorems may not seem extraordinary to other scientists.

Asserting that the Earth is creating its own heat through the radioactive decay of nuclear material at its core was once thought an extraordinary claim, as was Continental Drift, Punctuated Equilibrium and a gazzillion other ideas.

The mere use of the phrase 'extraordinary claims' indicates bias and (sic) ("in order") to raise the threshold of proof or evidence for it is not part of the Scientific Process. (which is exceedingly sanctimonious and holy, always, and above all else - wink, nudge)

Is not all this dialogue mere sound and fury, signifying nothing?
I am smarter than YOU!
(No, I am smarter than YOU!)

 

[JimBowie1958]

Is not all this dialogue mere sound and fury, signifying nothing?
I am smarter than YOU!
(No, I am smarter than YOU!)

No, not really.

Being smarter than someone is really a subjective thing in most cases, and something that successful people do not concern themselves with at all.