19 replies to this topic

[Robot]

Old Guy, on May 3 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

Robot, on May 3 2010, 05:37 AM, said:

This is from a Professor with more than 30 years of Paranormal Investigative experience.

"The data your robot gathers will have limited value. Ghost hunters with their fancy equipment are just flaunting their ignorance and conceptual naivete.

That brought out a chuckle. I-R-O-N-I-C!!! Or maybe I mean moronic. 30 years and what has he given us? Since there's been nothing in the way of advancement in that time, why would one persist?!? ($?) If you haven't found anything tangible, conclusive, or repeatable yet, look elsewhere. IMHO - That puts folks like us squarely on the leading edge.

"The data your robot gathers will have limited value."
Uhhh... unlike the Trifield meter, the Ovilus, voice recorders, or countless other items that have done NOTHING in the name of paranormal research???

Oh. I take that back. There's the Parabot. It just HAS to work!

Keep the faith, Bro. And keep up the fine work.

(Please post or PM the URL to that discussion. I'd like to read through it in my leisure...)

I havent lost the "faith", it has actually been a very good learning experience. Ill PM with details.

It may not be the "device" so much that helps gather data, as the "observers" influence on the device/data.

Edited by Robot, 03 May 2010 - 10:40 AM.

[CaveRat2]

I would have to question anyone who makes a statement "The data your robot gathers would have limited value." How can such a statement be made unless he knows exactly what data it will collect? Obviously if the improper sensors were usedthe data would be useless. But the use of the correct sensors would gather data remotely. And that is the reason for a robot anyway.

I see a robot as deice to go intoan area and conduct a variety of experiments using various sensors. Some will not work, some will. But to make such a blanket statement shows a lack of understanding of the basic concept of a remote operated vehicle.

As was stated in the first post, the value of such a robot remains to be seen But it certainly is a positive step to conduct the research and see where it leads.

[Robot]

CaveRat, on May 3 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

I would have to question anyone who makes a statement "The data your robot gathers would have limited value." How can such a statement be made unless he knows exactly what data it will collect? Obviously if the improper sensors were usedthe data would be useless. But the use of the correct sensors would gather data remotely. And that is the reason for a robot anyway.

I see a robot as deice to go intoan area and conduct a variety of experiments using various sensors. Some will not work, some will. But to make such a blanket statement shows a lack of understanding of the basic concept of a remote operated vehicle.

As was stated in the first post, the value of such a robot remains to be seen But it certainly is a positive step to conduct the research and see where it leads.

You and I, come from the "same" perspective, agreed.

"Where it leads" is the problem, Standard Scientific Methodology seems to be having a difficult time, even with improving equipment. Scientific Methodology and associated tools may not apply "directly". Just as "Classical Physics" has no support for "Quantum Mechanics".

Better instruments may not be the answer, "different" instruments may help. In terms of PSI(PK) ocassionally Random Number Generators have proved useful.

"His" perspective is that, in such "Paranormal" matters, 100+ years of "evidence" and data gathering, by "credible" people "seems" to indicate "PSI",(PK) contamination/generation of the evidence is a real possibility/probibility. I am starting to agree................

There will be many smarter than I at the SSE conference, (June). I should be further enlightened. Perhaps my perspective can be clarified.

[Illuminated One]

Robot, on May 3 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

CaveRat, on May 3 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

I would have to question anyone who makes a statement "The data your robot gathers would have limited value." How can such a statement be made unless he knows exactly what data it will collect? Obviously if the improper sensors were usedthe data would be useless. But the use of the correct sensors would gather data remotely. And that is the reason for a robot anyway.

I see a robot as deice to go intoan area and conduct a variety of experiments using various sensors. Some will not work, some will. But to make such a blanket statement shows a lack of understanding of the basic concept of a remote operated vehicle.

As was stated in the first post, the value of such a robot remains to be seen But it certainly is a positive step to conduct the research and see where it leads.

You and I, come from the "same" perspective, agreed.

"Where it leads" is the problem, Standard Scientific Methodology seems to be having a difficult time, even with improving equipment. Scientific Methodology and associated tools may not apply "directly". Just as "Classical Physics" has no support for "Quantum Mechanics".

Better instruments may not be the answer, "different" instruments may help. In terms of PSI(PK) ocassionally Random Number Generators have proved useful.

"His" perspective is that, in such "Paranormal" matters, 100+ years of "evidence" and data gathering, by "credible" people "seems" to indicate "PSI",(PK) contamination/generation of the evidence is a real possibility/probibility. I am starting to agree................

There will be many smarter than I at the SSE conference, (June). I should be further enlightened. Perhaps my perspective can be clarified.

Keep up the good work Robot! Very impressive! keep us informed on futher developments regarding your work.

~IlluminatedOne

[Robot]

Illuminated One, on Jun 15 2010, 02:05 PM, said:

Robot, on May 3 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

CaveRat, on May 3 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

I would have to question anyone who makes a statement "The data your robot gathers would have limited value." How can such a statement be made unless he knows exactly what data it will collect? Obviously if the improper sensors were usedthe data would be useless. But the use of the correct sensors would gather data remotely. And that is the reason for a robot anyway.

I see a robot as deice to go intoan area and conduct a variety of experiments using various sensors. Some will not work, some will. But to make such a blanket statement shows a lack of understanding of the basic concept of a remote operated vehicle.

As was stated in the first post, the value of such a robot remains to be seen But it certainly is a positive step to conduct the research and see where it leads.

You and I, come from the "same" perspective, agreed.

"Where it leads" is the problem, Standard Scientific Methodology seems to be having a difficult time, even with improving equipment. Scientific Methodology and associated tools may not apply "directly". Just as "Classical Physics" has no support for "Quantum Mechanics".

Better instruments may not be the answer, "different" instruments may help. In terms of PSI(PK) ocassionally Random Number Generators have proved useful.

"His" perspective is that, in such "Paranormal" matters, 100+ years of "evidence" and data gathering, by "credible" people "seems" to indicate "PSI",(PK) contamination/generation of the evidence is a real possibility/probibility. I am starting to agree................

There will be many smarter than I at the SSE conference, (June). I should be further enlightened. Perhaps my perspective can be clarified.

Keep up the good work Robot! Very impressive! keep us informed on futher developments regarding your work.

~IlluminatedOne

Thanks Buddy!

I'm currently considering some instrumentation changes