# Internal Power of Martial Arts (Breathing Technique)



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Nov 12, 2016)

*QiGong , Pranayama, and TenagaDalam*

Certain dynamic (active, moving) QiGong/Pranayama/TenagaDalam methods increase the oxygen uptake by virtue of the greater requirement for chemical energy by the cells. Other more quiescent (inactive, still) methods tend to decrease oxygen uptake due to the the lowering of metabolic activity. It has been found that some practitioners of these traditional practices have refined their ability to the point where they actually enter into altered states where the physiological need for food, air or sleep have been almost completely suspended.

The practice of QiGong/Pranayama/TenagaDalam increase oxygen availability which potentially:

Supports energy (ATP, AMP, ADP) generation.
Generates water as a by product of energy metabolism which contributes a major portion to the lymph supply.
Enhances immune function.
Supports the body's ability to neutralize free radicals.
*1. Power Generation*

Energy of Food + Energi of Air = Body Energy
6O2 + C6H12O6 + (BMR) = Ergs + 6CO2 + 6H2O
Air + Food + (BMR) = Energy + Carbon Dioxide + Water

Oxygen (O2) plus glucose (C6H12O6) through BMR yields energy in the form of high energy phosphate bonds (especially ATP) plus water (H2O) which dissolves carbon dioxide (CO2) and facilitates the hydrolysis of energy yielding phosphate bonds. It seems that the chinese knew, without a particularly refined scientific method, that only a portion of the air and food, the essence, was employed in the process: only 20% of air is oxygen and glucose is approximately 60% of food.

_(Continue reading : Theory of Internal Power (QiGong, Pranayama, Tenaga Dalam, etc.) - Martial Arts Planet )_​==================================================================================

*Getaran Technique (Vibravision)*

Getaran (Vibravision) is an aspect of Silat Merpati Putih (MP) training that focuses on the development of heightened senses and intuition to the point where a Silat practitioner can effectively perceive their surroundings without the use of their eyesight.

This technique allows Silat practitioners to sense the sub-atomic vibrations of their surroundings and to differentiate between these vibrations. Silat practitioners are able to differentiate between the different energies and perceive the weight, volume, velocity, color, shape and substance of ANY object.​
_Getaran Demonstration_





_Sparring Blindfolded_






_(Continue reading : Silat Merpati Putih - The Royal Inheritance of Mataram Kingdom )_​


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Nov 18, 2016)

this is legit, no peek, reading ID card while blindfolded


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 18, 2016)

I mean this with the most politeness as possible. People here don't really buy into super powers. Qigong is ok and all if you'd like to discuss it but once you start suggesting it can read minds or give you mythical powers that is where you will lose many people.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 18, 2016)

Bollocks. Utter bollocks.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 18, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Bollocks. Utter bollocks.



I am wondering what guessing or "seeing" an I'd card has to do with martial arts. Seems more like a magic trick to me.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 18, 2016)

You seem incredibly focused on this one aspect of silat which, if it works might be helpful for the blind, but overall has very little use for the general population. It also does not seem particularly martial, excepting that it comes from a martial art. Is there a reason you are so focused on spreading it?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 18, 2016)

I've always found breathing to be a vital part of my life.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 18, 2016)

Something not quite right here. Perhaps the OP was debunked on another forum. Still though, how does a blind person discern colour through touch? Impossible, unless maybe they are a Jedi. Mhmm, free radicals eh


----------



## Leo89 (Nov 18, 2016)

I've heard you can train your reflexes when you're blind, but I'm not so sure I believe in Ki as anything more than basic human energy, like energy to run or fight, I don't think you'll actually use a ki blast cannon unless you're playing a DBZ/X game.


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Nov 18, 2016)

_*this is how Silat MP teach the blind !*_







we help more than 2000 blind people here in indonesia







*3 month of vibravision training results for the blind *


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 18, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I mean this with the most politeness as possible. People here don't really buy into super powers. Qigong is ok and all if you'd like to discuss it but once you start suggesting it can read minds or give you mythical powers that is where you will lose many people.


I'm right there with you on this one.  I just didn't want to say.  Was hoping that the the OP would settle down a bit and go into some details about her own training.  I just didn't know how to say what I was thinking in a constructive way.   I try to keep an open mind about things, but when people just come out like BAM!, I have Jedi powers, then my mind just pretty much shuts off.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 18, 2016)

Leo89 said:


> I've heard you can train your reflexes when you're blind, but I'm not so sure I believe in Ki as anything more than basic human energy, like energy to run or fight, I don't think you'll actually use a ki blast cannon unless you're playing a DBZ/X game.


ha ha ha. I think we have had enough people test the Ki theory to at least agree that no one should try to challenge someone to punch them unless they can actually stop a tennis ball from hitting them in the face lol.  If the Ki isn't stopping the tennis ball then it probably won't stop the fist, so at that point they can save themselves from being punched.


----------



## Dylan9d (Nov 19, 2016)

The OP is all about promoting her art, with no room of discussion so I will treat this with the same respect.

This gives the rest of us a bad name, we aren't living in a fantasy world.


----------



## oaktree (Nov 19, 2016)

How funny you provide a link to Martial Planet which also includes the Randi challenge and you guys failed!


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 19, 2016)

oaktree said:


> How funny you provide a link to Martial Planet which also includes the Randi challenge and you guys failed!


We all know how these tests usually go:


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2016)

D


Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> _*this is how Silat MP teach the blind !*_
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Kris Angel does it better. Sheesh.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 19, 2016)

This is how I percieve most martial arts to be honest.

"Oh you are going to do that in an actual fight are you?"


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Nov 19, 2016)

I've known blind people to use what is effectively Sonar to help them "see" their surroundings, in which the blind person makes a constant clicking sound and can tell what's around them based on the sound bouncing off the various objects around them. This technique can actually be learned by anyone, not just blind people but there are limits to it, with colour being one of them. As for Qi, I do believe in it as far as it is a form of energy that you can train to use and develop inside your own body, but you cannot project it out externally anymore than you can use a beam of light to hurt someone (sorry Star Wars fans).


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Nov 19, 2016)

This technique uses bioelectrical in your body to absorb vibrations in a around through your skin and visualized in your mind

Randi doesn't debunk anything, he just create many obstacles to make the practirioners fails, he using electrical table to reduce the ability to absorb vibration and he wiped around the eyes of practitioner with antiseptic tissue that makes practitioner's eyes feels very sore and loss concentration

if i claim to be able walk on the tightrope and i can balance my body without any tools. Then Randi put an oil on that rope, do you think i still be able to walk on that tightrope ? ?

Randi can not debunk anything from Vibravision, that's why he did not show it on television, he only show the case when he know the trick, and able to replicate the trick


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Nov 19, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> This technique uses bioelectrical in your body to absorb vibrations in a around through your skin and visualized in your mind
> 
> Randi doesn't debunk anything, he just create many obstacles to make the practirioners fails, he using electrical table to reduce the ability to absorb vibration and he wiped around the eyes of practiioners with antiseptic tissue that makes his eyes feels very sore.
> 
> ...



Bioelectrical perception is an ability inherent in many different animals (most notably in Sharks and other sea creatures which use it to hunt). However, I wasn't aware humans were capable of this to the extent you are implying. There has to be a considerable amount of energy for us to feel it, a lot more than given off by plain inanimate objects.


----------



## oaktree (Nov 19, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> This technique uses bioelectrical in your body to absorb vibrations in a around through your skin and visualized in your mind
> 
> Randi doesn't debunk anything, he just create many obstacles to make the practirioners fails, he using electrical table to reduce the ability to absorb vibration and he wiped around the eyes of practiioners with antiseptic tissue that makes his eyes feels very sore.
> 
> ...


From what I have read the subjects were at statistically guesses. This reminds me of a conversation with a psychologist friend and we were discussing ESP and he said I'll draw a shape on the back of the card and see if you can identify it. I did manage to get 2 out of 5 but statistically it's as good as a guess.
I don't doubt that blind people may have heighten senses due to the nullification of another sense but your science is lacking and reminds me of comic book science rationalization that no real scientist would entertain as a legitimate hypothesis


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Nov 20, 2016)

what kind of trick that this practitioner do ? there is no way he can peek with 3 layers of blindfold. No guessing trick, impossible to do that


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> This technique uses bioelectrical in your body to absorb vibrations in a around through your skin and visualized in your mind
> 
> Randi doesn't debunk anything, he just create many obstacles to make the practirioners fails, he using electrical table to reduce the ability to absorb vibration and he wiped around the eyes of practitioner with antiseptic tissue that makes practitioner's eyes feels very sore and loss concentration
> 
> ...


Okay, so let's forget Randi, though your reply sounds like rationalization to me. If these techniques worked as demonstrated, we'd almost certainly read about them in scientific journals. Scientists get a lot of notoriety and build a great reputation (which can actually help them make more money) if they publish studies that put forth evidence contrary to what other scientists think they know. If this worked, I'd expect some ambitious scientist to be testing it. If those tests showed even a little promise, they would be published in journals. And sensational results like that would certainly be picked up by the media.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> what kind of trick that this practitioner do ? there is no way he can peek with 3 layers of blindfold. No guessing trick, impossible to do that


I know an instructor who did blindfolded knife defense in Madison Square Gardens many years ago. "No way he can peek". I learned from one of his students that he had also been an amateur magician, and used the same techniques (though I don't know what they were) for the demonstration.


----------



## oaktree (Nov 20, 2016)

Isn't more believable that this was staged before and carefully choreographed before they started?  Isn't it more believable that the person has an ear piece, street performance is hardly scientific proof.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 20, 2016)

I once saw a documentary about this. A Japanese shotokan practitioner went around the world and fought various fighters from different countries. He even fought a muay thai fighter who he quickly dispatched with an uppercut that left a massive scar on his chest. Anyway, this Japanese shotokan practitioner could launch fireballs from his hands, and spin around in the air as if there was no gravity. It was quite amazing! I need to go find that documentary again, I think I have it laying around somewhere close to my Xbox......


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 20, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> _Getaran Demonstration_




Or he has memorized the layout and has practiced the movements many times.
_


Mouzalina Mahfud said:



			Sparring Blindfolded
		
Click to expand...

_


Mouzalina Mahfud said:


>


Basically fumbling around in the dark until they make contact.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 20, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> anymore than you can use a beam of light to hurt someone


What do you think a laser does?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> What do you think a laser does?



Amuse cats?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Amuse cats?


Works on dogs, too.


----------



## Leo89 (Nov 20, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> What do you think a laser does?


Same thing staring at the sun will do. 

Pretty sure he was trying to say that it's not something you'll shoot out of your palms into an opponent, can we stay on track here?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 20, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> what kind of trick that this practitioner do ? there is no way he can peek with 3 layers of blindfold. No guessing trick, impossible to do that


2:33 - he can walk through the objects easily because, with a little practice and a good memory, he can hear exactly where the objects were placed after they plonked them down with an audible thud.

The color balloons trick is simply a matter of having a predetermined location to place balloons of each color and remembering where they will be placed.

8:06 - That explanation is an example of a false equivalency. The eyes have cells that are sensitive to light, the fingers do not.

The last trick can be the result of audience members being in on the trick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 20, 2016)

Leo89 said:


> can we stay on track here?


We don't do that here on MT.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Nov 20, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> What do you think a laser does?



A light laser can only hurt you if shined directly on the eyes. What you are probably thinking of is plasma that is used in many different industries because it can cut through nearly anything. Anyway the point I was making is that the OP is trying to attribute qualities to things that they simply do not have. On top of this they are trying to imply that humans can have the same capabilities as certain animals despite not having the correct anatomy in order to perform those tasks. For example, in order to detect bioelectricity you need to have special electro-sensory organs, which humans do not have. So, unless the people in the video have undergone some kind of surgery to implant such organs or devices into them, it is simply impossible for them to do the things the OP claims.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 25, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I once saw a documentary about this. A Japanese shotokan practitioner went around the world and fought various fighters from different countries. He even fought a muay thai fighter who he quickly dispatched with an uppercut that left a massive scar on his chest. Anyway, this Japanese shotokan practitioner could launch fireballs from his hands, and spin around in the air as if there was no gravity. It was quite amazing! I need to go find that documentary again, I think I have it laying around somewhere close to my Xbox......



Is that the same one with that yogi who can contort his body to avoid damage to himself? As well as extend his limbs many yards to strike people from a far?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Bioelectrical perception is an ability inherent in many different animals (most notably in Sharks and other sea creatures which use it to hunt). However, I wasn't aware humans were capable of this to the extent you are implying. There has to be a considerable amount of energy for us to feel it, a lot more than given off by plain inanimate objects.


This is different because energy travels through water differently than how it travels through air.  A lot of the animals that have such capabilities live in the water.  At the moment I can't think of a land animal that can do the same.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so let's forget Randi, though your reply sounds like rationalization to me. If these techniques worked as demonstrated, we'd almost certainly read about them in scientific journals. Scientists get a lot of notoriety and build a great reputation (which can actually help them make more money) if they publish studies that put forth evidence contrary to what other scientists think they know. If this worked, I'd expect some ambitious scientist to be testing it. If those tests showed even a little promise, they would be published in journals. And sensational results like that would certainly be picked up by the media.


This is where my doubt comes into play.  What I see is "earth shattering" but the response to it being done isn't "earth shattering"   I don't hear anything about scientific studies being done, or scientist trying to figure out how the body is able to do perform the feat.  

I would be more comfortable with reading scientific studies than seeing a demo.  I'm not calling anyone a liar, it's just that my brain goes into caution overload with stuff like this. Something so big lands in the ocean but doesn't make a splash.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Is that the same one with that yogi who can contort his body to avoid damage to himself? As well as extend his limbs many yards to strike people from a far?


This is why karate sucks,  no range


----------



## Buka (Nov 25, 2016)

Nobody would ever take advantage of an unsuspecting Martial public. Say it ain't so!


----------



## drop bear (Nov 25, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is different because energy travels through water differently than how it travels through air.  A lot of the animals that have such capabilities live in the water.  At the moment I can't think of a land animal that can do the same.



Owls? 

Not sure.  They have something trippy in that department.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 25, 2016)

Buka said:


> Nobody would ever take advantage of an unsuspecting Martial public. Say it ain't so!



There is no system that is better than another.

It is the individual that makes it work.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Nov 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Owls?
> 
> Not sure.  They have something trippy in that department.



Owls just have very good hearing, to the point of being able to hear the sounds we can't. It is said that a barn owl can hear a mouse's heartbeat from 30 feet away. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen, but again owls can do this because their anatomy allows them to do it. I've never known an owl (or any land animal) to use bio-electrical perception, because they simply do not need it. The reason why marine animals use it instead of hearing is because sound travels so fast in water that you can't tell where the sound is coming from. Try it next time you go into a body of water. Put your head under and get someone to make a sound through the water. No matter how hard you try to pinpoint it, the sound will appear to be coming from every direction.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 25, 2016)

Leo89 said:


> can we stay on track here?



Good grief, whatever for? it's not as if 'using the bioelectrical in your body' to do 'magic', is a serious subject, unless of course you believe the OP?


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Nov 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Good grief, whatever for? it's not as if 'using the bioelectrical in your body' to do 'magic', is a serious subject, unless of course you believe the OP?



It's fun to theorise whether it could be possible though. Imagine if you could somehow transplant the relevant organs into your body to allow you to do it.


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Nov 25, 2016)

Military Self Defense US Army VS Indonesian Army (Getaran Technique)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 25, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> Military Self Defense US Army VS Indonesian Army (Getaran Technique)


Those attacks are slow, and the "defender" is starting his block before the attack forms. Looks to me like he knew what the attack would be before it started - that's just choreographed.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Those attacks are slow, and the "defender" is starting his block before the attack forms. Looks to me like he knew what the attack would be before it started - that's just choreographed.


And notice at 0:59 he touches the thing that was in the other guy's mouth to see exactly where it is before he cuts it?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 26, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> It's fun to theorise whether it could be possible though. Imagine if you could somehow transplant the relevant organs into your body to allow you to do it.



Of course lol but telling us to stay on topic is a bit silly on a thread like this isn't it.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 26, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Is that the same one with that yogi who can contort his body to avoid damage to himself? As well as extend his limbs many yards to strike people from a far?


That made me think of Yogic flying:






Strange how no one ever gets to stage 2.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Nov 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Of course lol but telling us to stay on topic is a bit silly on a thread like this isn't it.



True. I do like how the OP is still trying to offer "evidence" to their theory though.


----------



## Buka (Nov 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There is no system that is better than another.
> 
> It is the individual that makes it work.



I agree. But I have no idea how that applies to what I posted - which was tongue in cheek.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2016)

Buka said:


> I agree. But I have no idea how that applies to what I posted - which was tongue in cheek.



So was mine.

But you cant take advantage of an unsuspecting martial public if all systems are as good as each other.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 26, 2016)

Well I guess if the OP believes in this, who is anybody to say otherwise I suppose. Well that what the Fairies told me anyway at the bottom of the garden.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 26, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> Military Self Defense US Army VS Indonesian Army (Getaran Technique)


To me this is more impressive in terms of the blind navigating.  It's that he's able to do what some of the other organisms that naturally use sound do.  He also has more natural movement meaning nothing about his movement screams martial arts.  Unfortunately he died from cancer








I guess what I'm really trying to say is that with things like this, less showmanship is actually more. People become cautious when Martial Arts gets flashy and mystical.  Having these guys navigate a regular room, would be more impressive, because it's practical.


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 26, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> To me this is more impressive in terms of the blind navigating.  It's that he's able to do what some of the other organisms that naturally use sound do.  He also has more natural movement meaning nothing about his movement screams martial arts.  Unfortunately he died from cancer
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, Ben is truely exceptional.


----------



## Steve (Nov 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Those attacks are slow, and the "defender" is starting his block before the attack forms. Looks to me like he knew what the attack would be before it started - that's just choreographed.


its a demo.   Those are off limits, if the folks in the video play for your team.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 26, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> That made me think of Yogic flying:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because it is ********. They are 90 pound people jumping up and down on a mattress. That is not levitating or even flying.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 26, 2016)

Steve said:


> its a demo.   Those are off limits, if the folks in the video play for your team.


 it wasn't a demo though, it was supposed to be a test of the claim "we can do all that with our eyes closed."


----------



## Steve (Nov 26, 2016)

Isn't that what a demo is?  We can do all that with our eyes closed is not materially different to me than a demo of "we can do all of that against multiple attackers" or "we can do these things against people,with guns/knives/bazookas."


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Nov 26, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Wow, Ben is truely exceptional.



Echo-location, as I mentioned before in this thread, is something a lot of blind people are learning to do now-a-days. It really is incredible to watch a blind person doing this, although it is something that anyone can learn to use.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 26, 2016)

Steve said:


> Isn't that what a demo is?  We can do all that with our eyes closed is not materially different to me than a demo of "we can do all of that against multiple attackers" or "we can do these things against people,with guns/knives/bazookas."



A demo is purposely designed to have a lot of fluff in it. It is made for that purpose which is to get people to sign up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 26, 2016)

Steve said:


> its a demo.   Those are off limits, if the folks in the video play for your team.


Unless the demo is used as evidence of something it actually doesn't show. I'm perfectly willing to allow that demos are typically unrealistic, but if someone points to a demo and says, "This shows great ground defense," but it doesn't, I'll call BS on that claim. That doesn't mean the art shown doesn't have great ground defense, but the hypothetical demo video doesn't show it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 26, 2016)

Steve said:


> Isn't that what a demo is?  We can do all that with our eyes closed is not materially different to me than a demo of "we can do all of that against multiple attackers" or "we can do these things against people,with guns/knives/bazookas."


A demo is normally designed to show an art in the best light possible to the intended audience. It can rarely be used as evidence of anything, because it is typically fairly staged. I've participated in demos that were not staged, and took a training knife to the neck during one such.


----------



## Steve (Nov 26, 2016)

Given that demos are flyffy, intended to show an art in the best possible light, aren't evidence of anything  and frequently overstate what the art actually teaches (fighting blind fold or fending off multiple crazed pcp addicts in a dark alley or whateved) I just don't see any problem with this one.  Its The same as the rest.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 26, 2016)

Steve said:


> Given that demos are flyffy, intended to show an art in the best possible light, aren't evidence of anything  and frequently overstate what the art actually teaches (fighting blind fold or fending off multiple crazed pcp addicts in a dark alley or whateved) I just don't see any problem with this one.  Its The same as the rest.


I never said there was anything wrong with the demo. I just said it's not evidence of what the OP posted it for.


----------



## Steve (Nov 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I never said there was anything wrong with the demo. I just said it's not evidence of what the OP posted it for.


They never are.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Unless the demo is used as evidence of something it actually doesn't show. I'm perfectly willing to allow that demos are typically unrealistic, but if someone points to a demo and says, "This shows great ground defense," but it doesn't, I'll call BS on that claim. That doesn't mean the art shown doesn't have great ground defense, but the hypothetical demo video doesn't show it.



Ok but what about all the really good non demo examples that don't make it to youtube?

Because the bulk of good training isn't filmed.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Because it is ********. They are 90 pound people jumping up and down on a mattress. That is not levitating or even flying.



You have to understand that it is being done on mats with rules.

The street is a lot different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok but what about all the really good non demo examples that don't make it to youtube?
> 
> Because the bulk of good training isn't filmed.


What does that have to do with the statement I just made, which was entirely about demos?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You have to understand that it is being done on mats with rules.
> 
> The street is a lot different.



In the street or on the matt or on a mattress it is still bs.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> What does that have to do with the statement I just made, which was entirely about demos?



If you are only discussing entirely about demos you see on you tube then are only looking at half the evidence. There is also all the evidence you cant see on YouTube. Because only a small percentage of evidence is you tube.

You would also have to accept the OPs rirst hand evidence.

Which is Vibravision works. 

I believed she even used science to support her claim.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok but what about all the really good non demo examples that don't make it to youtube?
> 
> Because the bulk of good training isn't filmed.


That doesn't stop some people from using YouTube as the sole source of 'evidence' for the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a martial art they have never studied.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 27, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> A demo is purposely designed to have a lot of fluff in it. It is made for that purpose which is to get people to sign up.





Steve said:


> Given that demos are flyffy, intended to show an art in the best possible light, aren't evidence of anything and frequently overstate what the art actually teaches (fighting blind fold or fending off multiple crazed pcp addicts in a dark alley or whateved)



Not any demo I have been a part of. Our demos usually just show examples of what is learned in class. We tend to try not to do anything so spectacular that potential students might think 'I could never learn to do that'.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Not any demo I have been a part of. Our demos usually just show examples of what is learned in class. We tend to try not to do anything so spectacular that potential students might think 'I could never learn to do that'.


im pretty sure that, if asked, these guys would say they learned these skills in class, too. 

yiu believe what you're leaning works because that is what you've been told.  And your demos are only superficially different from any other.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you are only discussing entirely about demos you see on you tube then are only looking at half the evidence. There is also all the evidence you cant see on YouTube. Because only a small percentage of evidence is you tube.
> 
> You would also have to accept the OPs rirst hand evidence.
> 
> ...


Absolutely.   Who are we to suggest it's not real?   Sounds like a bunch of elitist nuthuggers around here.   


RTKDCMB said:


> That doesn't stop some people from using YouTube as the sole source of 'evidence' for the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a martial art they have never studied.


Like what you're doing now?   Have you ever trained in any Silat, much less this flavor of It?   If you're not an expert in it, you just don't know.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> yiu believe what you're leaning works because that is what you've been told.


Am I to infer from this that you believe that the only way to know what I am learning works is to use it in a competition?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> Like what you're doing now?



And in which of my comments exactly do you feel gives you that impression?



Steve said:


> Have you ever trained in any Silat, much less this flavor of It? If you're not an expert in it, you just don't know.



And where have I said or implied that I have trained in it or know enough about it to judge the system as a whole?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> That doesn't stop some people from using YouTube as the sole source of 'evidence' for the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a martial art they have never studied.



I know what you mean.  It i is basically disrespectful to people who have studied vibravision not to believe their first hand accounts


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 27, 2016)

Way to be obtuse about it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so let's forget Randi, though your reply sounds like rationalization to me. If these techniques worked as demonstrated, we'd almost certainly read about them in scientific journals. Scientists get a lot of notoriety and build a great reputation (which can actually help them make more money) if they publish studies that put forth evidence contrary to what other scientists think they know. If this worked, I'd expect some ambitious scientist to be testing it. If those tests showed even a little promise, they would be published in journals. And sensational results like that would certainly be picked up by the media.



I also believe seeing scientific proofs are useful in supporting beliefs.  I think there are two problems with this approach in regard to the OP's belief and support as it has been expressed.

First, in order to get the study you wish, a professor or scientist would have to get funding.  Just based on the reactions here in this thread, and other threads which speak of the use of Gi, where do you suppose the money for a study would come from?  And how much control over the outcome would anyone providing the funding require.  

Second, if the use of Gi is from a faith foundation,  how do you scientifically study that?  Then if you believe there are good and bad influences in the world, would you also wish to scientifically study from which influence that ability came, and how would you conduct such studies?

My personal belief is that the OP believes what she is posting (assuming that the OP is female from the avatar photo only).  I am not prepared to believe what she posts until I can personally learn, or test the abilities of practitioners.



JowGaWolf said:


> This is where my doubt comes into play.  What I see is "earth shattering" but the response to it being done isn't "earth shattering"   I don't hear anything about scientific studies being done, or scientist trying to figure out how the body is able to do perform the feat.
> 
> I would be more comfortable with reading scientific studies than seeing a demo.  I'm not calling anyone a liar, it's just that my brain goes into caution overload with stuff like this. Something so big lands in the ocean but doesn't make a splash.



Scientific studies are indeed useful.  One just needs to research the funding, methodology, and the statement at its beginning to see if any bias is detected.

And on the others side, one needs to be observant for attempts by charlatans to deny participation, or methodology as an excuse not to participate in a study or in an attempt to debunk a study. 

I don't think it would be an easy thing for a scientific study by believers or detractors


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you are only discussing entirely about demos you see on you tube then are only looking at half the evidence. There is also all the evidence you cant see on YouTube. Because only a small percentage of evidence is you tube.
> 
> You would also have to accept the OPs rirst hand evidence.
> 
> ...


No, I don't have to accept it. I won't say for certain it doesn't - that's not good science - but I will say the evidence they posted is not good evidence. I can also point out evidence that conflicts with their claim - again, good science.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> im pretty sure that, if asked, these guys would say they learned these skills in class, too.
> 
> yiu believe what you're leaning works because that is what you've been told.  And your demos are only superficially different from any other.


Most people believe that they're learning works because it has worked in whatever context they've used it. That's not always a valid contextual test for what they believe they're training for, but the point is that few people would believe something worked only because they'd been told so, if it wasn't working in class.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> I also believe seeing scientific proofs are useful in supporting beliefs.  I think there are two problems with this approach in regard to the OP's belief and support as it has been expressed.
> 
> First, in order to get the study you wish, a professor or scientist would have to get funding.  Just based on the reactions here in this thread, and other threads which speak of the use of Gi, where do you suppose the money for a study would come from?  And how much control over the outcome would anyone providing the funding require.
> 
> ...


Actually, a simple initial study wouldn't be expensive, and there are plenty of graduate students who could do those preliminary studies. A preliminary study would be far from conclusive, but if it showed a statistically significant effect, those results would lead to a larger study and so forth. Funding for that type of study on a controversial topic like this comes after promising results. The complete lack of such studies doesn't mean there's not a measurable effect, but it makes me more skeptical. Let's face it, this would be groundbreaking, changing rules of science as we know them. There are a ton of PhD candidates who would sacrifice much to put their name to a study that even remotely suggested that sort of upheaval.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Nov 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you are only discussing entirely about demos you see on you tube then are only looking at half the evidence. There is also all the evidence you cant see on YouTube. Because only a small percentage of evidence is you tube.
> 
> You would also have to accept the OPs rirst hand evidence.
> 
> ...



~~|~~@Com~~ What is Fishy about Merpati Putih - Vibravision?

This is a report of a vibravision test done under scientific conditions, stating that vibravision is nothing more than guesswork. So who is right?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 27, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't think it would be an easy thing for a scientific study by believers or detractors


It would be much easier to do a PhD project on it though.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> There are a ton of PhD candidates who would sacrifice much to put their name to a study that even remotely suggested that sort of upheaval.


There is a guy who received his PhD from one of the Universities where I live who did his study in support of the obsolete Expanding Earth hypothesis, so anything's possible.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Am I to infer from this that you believe that the only way to know what I am learning works is to use it in a competition?


  We can know intellectually that some things work, but that doesn't mean you can Do them.   And competition isn't the only way.  Its just the most practical and effe rice for anyone who doesn't do these things professionally can hope for.  

But this is all beside the point which is that demos are always unrealistic.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> And in which of my comments exactly do you feel gives you that impression?
> 
> 
> 
> And where have I said or implied that I have trained in it or know enough about it to judge the system as a whole?


You clearly haven't.  So why do you feel like its okay to deride it?   Hanzou gets a lot of grief for doing what you're doing now.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Most people believe that they're learning works because it has worked in whatever context they've used it. That's not always a valid contextual test for what they believe they're training for, but the point is that few people would believe something worked only because they'd been told so, if it wasn't working in class.


Look at politics in this country and you can see how effective controlling the message and the context can make anything seem plausible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> Look at politics in this country and you can see how effective controlling the message and the context can make anything seem plausible.


I'm not sure that generalizable to MA training.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> What does that have to do with the statement I just made, which was entirely about demos?


Nothing. I believe drop bear was making an off-topic joking reference to arguments in other threads where one side claims that the really good stuff in their system isn't documented on YouTube.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Nothing. I believe drop bear was making an off-topic joking reference to arguments in other threads where one side claims that the really good stuff in their system isn't documented on YouTube.


I know his reference. I'm actually one of those, because I've never seen any actual classwork from any of school in our styles on the web. I've seen a couple of demos, and even portions of some tests, but never a class or even a seminar. He has actually challenged me on that, asking why I haven't rectified that by posting some of my own training. I don't actually see it as a problem that requires rectification, and still haven't gotten around to getting any decent video of any classes I teach.

And none of that has anything to do with my comment, since I was discussing the validity of the demo as evidence. He's just doing what he does when he feels so inclined.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> Absolutely.   Who are we to suggest it's not real?   Sounds like a bunch of elitist nuthuggers around here.
> 
> Like what you're doing now?   Have you ever trained in any Silat, much less this flavor of It?   If you're not an expert in it, you just don't know.


I'm not sure about elitist. It's the approach that the op used.  For example had the OP started with the blind student on the floor training then the responses would have been different.


----------



## oaktree (Nov 27, 2016)

The op has been debunked already, In fact seems more about advertising if you check multiple sites, well let me do some advertising too then, we are making a super cute video game with a ninja monkey


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I know his reference. I'm actually one of those, because I've never seen any actual classwork from any of school in our styles on the web. I've seen a couple of demos, and even portions of some tests, but never a class or even a seminar. He has actually challenged me on that, asking why I haven't rectified that by posting some of my own training. I don't actually see it as a problem that requires rectification, and still haven't gotten around to getting any decent video of any classes I teach.
> 
> And none of that has anything to do with my comment, since I was discussing the validity of the demo as evidence. He's just doing what he does when he feels so inclined.



And the premis you basically made was if the demo was not a real representation of the validity of the art. And that the demo was the only representation of the validity of the art that we can access.

We should therefore consider the art valid because we cannot access all the information that exists. Using science. (which got presented) Or ancecdotal evidence (which was presented)

Which is nuts.

And yes. I am outright saying that this vibravision has presented as much evidence for its validity as akido. And so people who do martial arts may want to consider that association when they are supporting their own claims.

Doing what I do is forcing people to think. And not just accept.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And the premis you basically made was if the demo was not a real representation of the validity of the art. And that the demo was the only representation of the validity of the art that we can access.
> 
> We should therefore consider the art valid because we cannot access all the information that exists. Using science. (which got presented) Or ancecdotal evidence (which was presented)
> 
> ...


Actually, no. The points I made were:

1) A demo (actually any video) is not a guaranteed representation of any art or style. As such, it cannot be used as conclusive proof that an art or style is crappy. It's evidence, but being such a small population (compared to the hours of training) and possibly being out-of-context, it's problematic to consider it conclusive.

2) There are types of evidence other than video. This is not even arguable, in my opinion. What is arguable is which pieces of information we should consider valid as evidence. Among those will be some of the anecdotal evidence, but certainly not all.

You try REALLY hard to make people statements absolutes, even when they clearly are not made as such. Perhaps that's because you seem to often take absolute positions. Many of us recognize that extremely little in life can be boiled down to 100% right vs. 100% wrong.

EDIT: And your comparison to Aikido (and here I refer to Ueshiba's art, as I believe you do, rather than the group of arts) is valid from your standpoint. For those who have actually experienced effective Aikido, there's more evidence, but it's not something we can point to for you.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, no. The points I made were:
> 
> 1) A demo (actually any video) is not a guaranteed representation of any art or style. As such, it cannot be used as conclusive proof that an art or style is crappy. It's evidence, but being such a small population (compared to the hours of training) and possibly being out-of-context, it's problematic to consider it conclusive.
> 
> ...



The point is to make your art more than a belief system. It should be valid from the other persons stand point. How much ineffective akido do I have to experience before I can expect evidence before investing?

As is my way when I am inclined.

For those who have actually experienced God, there's more evidence, but it's not something we can point to for you.

Which is what I thought of from that statement.



I don't have to try that hard to make peoples statements absolutes. Peoples statements generally are absolutes. It is a martial art thing.
         .


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The point is to make your art more than a belief system. It should be valid from the other persons stand point. How much ineffective akido do I have to experience before I can expect evidence before investing?
> 
> As is my way when I am inclined.
> 
> ...


It's not a "belief system" to those who have actually experienced it being effective. They simply have an experience others do not. What I can't speak to is whether that effectiveness is universal, or was because of the way the individual used it. It might be that Aikido has limited effectiveness. Or it might be that it's highly effective. My experience with that art is fairly limited, so all I can speak to is that limited experience. I know the physical principles are sound, and I disagree with some of the focus that (based on my experience) probably limits the effectiveness, but that's all based on my limited experience. I've met and worked out with some folks whose Aikido was effective in a training environment against me, so I have that experience to draw on, but we weren't going all-out and I don't know how much of that effectiveness was simply because that person had decades of experience.

You can expect exactly as much evidence as you need before investing. Know that you are not the target market for Aikido, from what I see. You'd be focused on getting to combat effectiveness as quickly as reasonably possible, and no Aikido school I have visited seemed to have that speed as a goal. That said, most folks don't select for the most combat effectiveness - they select for a level of effectiveness they feel is achievable within their willingness to commit.

And, no, people's statements generally are not absolutes. Take a look at the way I word mine. I am usually careful to be clear that I see room for disagreement. Only occasionally do I view something as inarguable, and those statements are usually very narrowly focused. In fact, I watch for absolutes in others statements, because research has actually shown that the more bombastic and hyperbolic a statement, the more likely it is to be either incorrect or backed by illogical reasoning.


----------



## oaktree (Nov 27, 2016)

Demos at least in Japanese and Chinese arts are really just basics or the surface superficial representation and not the actual art, understand to show the actual art in olden times would allow other people to steal and counter which is why you see the omote set or public in demonstration and the ura the hidden and only to members.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, a simple initial study wouldn't be expensive, and there are plenty of graduate students who could do those preliminary studies. A preliminary study would be far from conclusive, but if it showed a statistically significant effect, those results would lead to a larger study and so forth. Funding for that type of study on a controversial topic like this comes after promising results. The complete lack of such studies doesn't mean there's not a measurable effect, but it makes me more skeptical. Let's face it, this would be groundbreaking, changing rules of science as we know them. There are a ton of PhD candidates who would sacrifice much to put their name to a study that even remotely suggested that sort of upheaval.



While I agree with all you have said, I still don't believe many graduate students would wish to lend their name to such a study, much less get funding for it.

And I still point out that I am not agreeing with the OP, just stating science would never look askance at anyone saying they wished to conduct such a study.  I also believe a preliminary would have as much chance of being funded these days as a more rigorous study.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> While I agree with all you have said, I still don't believe many graduate students would wish to lend their name to such a study, much less get funding for it.
> 
> And I still point out that I am not agreeing with the OP, just stating science would never look askance at anyone saying they wished to conduct such a study.  I also believe a preliminary would have as much chance of being funded these days as a more rigorous study.


Preliminaries typically require very little funding, which makes them easier to do - can often be done with time between other studies, and grad students are cheap.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 27, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> It would be much easier to do a PhD project on it though.



It might reduce the number of detractors, but likely not their vehement reaction against it.  Amongst other thins needed to convince a committee, would be that the study would significantly add to human knowledge.  If the committee starts out disbelieving, they would not likely think it would, and would no doubt have many other useful studies to recommend to the applicant.



RTKDCMB said:


> There is a guy who received his PhD from one of the Universities where I live who did his study in support of the obsolete Expanding Earth hypothesis, so anything's possible.



It seems their are number of people with good credentials arguing for and against Expanding Earth theories, with studies for and against the two theories, that might not be such a difficult sell to a committee really.

The problem concerning Gi, there are no legitimate studies either way that I am aware of.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Preliminaries typically require very little funding, which makes them easier to do - can often be done with time between other studies, and grad students are cheap.



Then I would wonder why none have been done.  Could it be that the scientific community has so much disbelief in the concept that they see no reason to expend time and grad students on an impossibility?  I don't know, but it just doesn't seem to be getting done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Then I would wonder why none have been done.  Could it be that the scientific community has so much disbelief in the concept that they see no reason to expend time and grad students on an impossibility?  I don't know, but it just doesn't seem to be getting done.


Likely, any that have considered it haven't been able to find any evidence to suggest success in the study. Remember I said the allure would be the chance of presenting evidence that would be ground-breaking. If there's not much chance of that, there's not much chance of anyone taking the time to do the study. Basically, for the same reason nobody in chemistry is doing studies on converting led into gold via alchemy.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Likely, any that have considered it haven't been able to find any evidence to suggest success in the study. Remember I said the allure would be the chance of presenting evidence that would be ground-breaking. If there's not much chance of that, there's not much chance of anyone taking the time to do the study. Basically, for the same reason nobody in chemistry is doing studies on converting led into gold via alchemy.



I think that is a different way of saying what I have been saying: nobody is going to be willing to fund such studies. 

Defending differing reasons for willingness or non-willingness is a different matter, but does come into play as to if people are willing to fund or not willing to fund.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 27, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think that is a different way of saying what I have been saying: nobody is going to be willing to fund such studies.
> 
> Defending differing reasons for willingness or non-willingness is a different matter, but does come into play as to if people are willing to fund or not willing to fund.


My point was that funding is probably not the limitation for a preliminary study. They cost so little that funding can be had from fairly generic sources - they can be useful teaching exercises, even if the topic isn't likely to produce valuable results, and often further the cause of basic research by providing evidence contrary to conventional wisdom. Lack of interest by potential researchers would likely be the limiting factor.

In the end, you're right. We're saying the same thing, just arguing over which point in the process becomes the obstacle.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 27, 2016)

Why are people arguing with drop bear about the effectiveness of a "TMA"?

It is literally pointless. He is in the crowd of if it's not mma it's crap.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Why are people arguing with drop bear about the effectiveness of a "TMA"?
> 
> It is literally pointless. He is in the crowd of if it's not mma it's crap.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


>



Oh you saw my post about punching that clown in that haunted house?


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure that generalizable to MA training.


It's the same then.  If I convince you I'm an authority on something and tell you something you want to believe, you will figure out a way to believe it,   On a larger scale, this is what happens in both MA and in politics.   Everyone has a team.

I'm on the team that likes to limit the scope of claims to things we can demonstrate are true in an individual level.  In fighting, there aren't very many ways to do this.  Just like defining a learning objective, the key is to be specific and keep things measurable.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Why are people arguing with drop bear about the effectiveness of a "TMA"?
> 
> It is literally pointless. He is in the crowd of if it's not mma it's crap.


What's funny to me is that, in this thread, drop bear is defending this particular TMA.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You can expect exactly as much evidence as you need before investing. Know that you are not the target market for Aikido, from what I see. You'd be focused on getting to combat effectiveness as quickly as reasonably possible, and no Aikido school I have visited seemed to have that speed as a goal. That said, most folks don't select for the most combat effectiveness - they select for a level of effectiveness they feel is achievable within their willingness



That is kind of a martial arts constant.

You get out what you put in. Unless the system doesn't deliver like say vibravision.  And then you just loose money and time.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> What's funny to me is that, in this thread, drop bear is defending this particular TMA.



Sarcastically.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Sarcastically.



I do everything sarcastically.


----------



## senseiblackbelt (Nov 28, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I've always found breathing to be a vital part of my life.[/QUOTE
> your funny. @Tez3


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> So why do you feel like its okay to deride it?


And in which comment do you feel I have derided the martial art (or any martial art for that matter)? I have made comments on specific claims in specific videos about how the effects seen occur without magic but i have said nothing about Silat in general or that martial art in particular.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> If I convince you I'm an authority on something and tell you something you want to believe, you will figure out a way to believe it,


Not if he has the ability to think critically.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> It's the same then.  If I convince you I'm an authority on something and tell you something you want to believe, you will figure out a way to believe it,   On a larger scale, this is what happens in both MA and in politics.   Everyone has a team.
> 
> I'm on the team that likes to limit the scope of claims to things we can demonstrate are true in an individual level.  In fighting, there aren't very many ways to do this.  Just like defining a learning objective, the key is to be specific and keep things measurable.


There is a strong tendency to rationalize our decisions after they are made, so I can see where you're coming from on this. I suppose it depends upon whether people bring their own natural skepticism or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> What's funny to me is that, in this thread, drop bear is defending this particular TMA.


Only to create a strawman argument of what he claims others have stated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> That is kind of a martial arts constant.
> 
> You get out what you put in. Unless the system doesn't deliver like say vibravision.  And then you just loose money and time.


True.

My point was that each person has their own pre-investment requirement of proof. This is part of how we find the right MA for us, individually. If your level of proof required is low, then the first one that looks like fun will probably do. If your level of proof required is high, you'll pass up those that can't show up-front evidence of effectiveness that meets that requirement. It's immaterial in both cases whether the art is highly effective or not. For the first person, they didn't care about effectiveness so much, so a lack of evidence isn't a big deal. For the second, it couldn't show enough evidence, so the level of actual effectiveness is irrelevant.

I'll use my own school as an example. If someone came to me and asked me to demonstrate the full effectiveness of the art, I can't. I don't have any students who are advanced enough to take the ukemi at that speed nor to demonstrate at that speed with any safety, and I won't operate at that speed with an unknown uke (the person requesting the demonstration, for instance). I could demonstrate some of the effectiveness, but I couldn't go anything close to full-speed. Maybe if the person asking was well-trained in something that gave me confidence in their control, judgment, and ukemi (BJJ and Judo come to mind). _(Of course, then we'd probably just be in a mini-contest, and that'd be more about the fun of mixing it up, and would mostly show which does better at handling the other art, which isn't a useful method of analysis for potential self-defense.)_

Now, put me at the school an hour away, on a day when they have their advanced students training, and I can pull one I know and ask him to attack hard. Then I can demonstrate with some force and speed. But not at my school. And I'd have no problem with someone deciding to pass up because of that. I started the art because of a demonstration by a senior instructor who just used the attendees (myself included, because he heard I had Judo background). I joined because of the effectiveness of what he did to me.


----------



## Steve (Nov 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> There is a strong tendency to rationalize our decisions after they are made, so I can see where you're coming from on this. I suppose it depends upon whether people bring their own natural skepticism or not.


It's about teaching to the test and controlling outcomes.  The key is to associate one thing with another so that they become synonymous.  This is a common tactic in politics and martial arts.

In martial arts, it's this idea that if you can do X then you can do Y.  I think we should stick to, if you can do X, then you can do X.

The problem occurs with styles that don't have a vehicle for application.  They don't have an apples to apples option, because there is never any actual application.  People just don't move out of the laboratory.

Competitive styles offer application.  Is this the answer to everything?  Of course not.  But it provides very specific feedback on application.

I mentioned in another thread (I think) that a friend of mine used to own a magic store.  He's pretty good and has shown me several magic tricks over the years.  I can't do any of them convincingly, even though I know how.  I've practiced them.  I have had expert instruction.  He can do them, so I know that they work.   What's the difference between him and me?


gpseymour said:


> Only to create a strawman argument of what he claims others have stated.


Oh, come on, man.  It's not a strawman.  He's making a point you disagree with.  That's not a strawman.  It's just disagreement.  We see this all the time around here.  People jumping on anyone they perceive as an MMA or BJJ nuthugger. 

The reality is that if Hanzou or Drop Bear had taken an critical position on these videos, some of the folks around here would have jumped to its defense just because


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> Oh, come on, man. It's not a strawman. He's making a point you disagree with. That's not a strawman. It's just disagreement. We see this all the time around here. People jumping on anyone they perceive as an MMA or BJJ nuthugger.
> 
> The reality is that if Hanzou or Drop Bear had taken an critical position on these videos, some of the folks around here would have jumped to its defense just because


Actually, much of his commentary here has been directed at arguments I made previously about the nature of evidence. And, yes, he created a strawman argument (asserting that I'd say we have to accept an art's efficacy because we can't see evidence of the training that didn't get recorded).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> t's about teaching to the test and controlling outcomes. The key is to associate one thing with another so that they become synonymous. This is a common tactic in politics and martial arts.
> 
> In martial arts, it's this idea that if you can do X then you can do Y. I think we should stick to, if you can do X, then you can do X.
> 
> ...


As you and I have discussed before, I don't disagree with this position. Competition is one way to bring practice to application. It's not my favorite, though I see some distinct advantages in it. Because I don't personally care for it - either for myself or as a training tool for what I teach - I don't use it. I've helped students in the past develop application for competition, but it's pretty far from the application we train for, so we have to find other ways to get as close to true application as we can (almost always an impossibility for self-defense to get to true application in training).


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> People jumping on anyone they perceive as an MMA or BJJ nuthugger.



When has anyone here called someone a nuthugger? I never seen that happen.


----------



## Steve (Nov 28, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Why are people arguing with drop bear about the effectiveness of a "TMA"?
> 
> It is literally pointless. He is in the crowd of if it's not mma it's crap.





Ironbear24 said:


> When has anyone here called someone a nuthugger? I never seen that happen.


hmmmm.  Didn't you just post this yesterday?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> hmmmm.  Didn't you just post this yesterday?



That isn't calling anyone a nuthugger. I'm simply pointing out the fact that dropbear doesn't seem to value anything that is not commonly found in mma.

Is it not true?


----------



## Steve (Nov 28, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> That isn't calling anyone a nuthugger. I'm simply pointing out the fact that dropbear doesn't seem to value anything that is not commonly found in mma.
> 
> Is it not true?


Lol.  I am genuinely not sure of you're joking or actually don't understand.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> Lol.  I am genuinely not sure of you're joking or actually don't understand.



What is there to not understand? I asked you when anyone was called a nuthugger and you quoted me, a post where I did not call anyone a nuthugger.

So the question of "when was anyone called a nuthugger?" Still never has been answered.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> That isn't calling anyone a nuthugger. I'm simply pointing out the fact that dropbear doesn't seem to value anything that is not commonly found in mma.
> 
> Is it not true?



No It is a big bag of lies. people just say it a lot to make gullible people believe it

And yes that is exactly like calling someone a nut hugger.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, much of his commentary here has been directed at arguments I made previously about the nature of evidence. And, yes, he created a strawman argument (asserting that I'd say we have to accept an art's efficacy because we can't see evidence of the training that didn't get recorded).



At which point you start doing back flips. 

Your arguments are not consistant.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No It is a big bag of lies. people just say it a lot to make gullible people believe it



 and what exactly am I trying to get people to believe here? That you like MMA over "TMA"? I don't even have to try to do that, you do that yourself by what you post here of your own free will. 




drop bear said:


> And yes that is exactly like calling someone a nut hugger.



No it isn't, it is saying you prefer MMA and do not value "TMA". Calling you a nuthugger would be saying "Dropbear is a nuthugger" which I never did.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 28, 2016)

Well this has been an education,  I have never heard of 'nuthugger' before so had to look it up after which I was thinking 'wow! people are calling each other this on MT' I mean really? Urban Dictionary: nut huggers


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 28, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Well this has been an education,  I have never heard of 'nuthugger' before so had to look it up after which I was thinking 'wow! people are calling each other this on MT' I mean really? Urban Dictionary: nut huggers



That's what I want to know, I never heard it used here before.


----------



## Steve (Nov 28, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> What is there to not understand? I asked you when anyone was called a nuthugger and you quoted me, a post where I did not call anyone a nuthugger.
> 
> So the question of "when was anyone called a nuthugger?" Still never has been answered.


I think you're putting me on now.   I don't believe you're not able to track how that term applies to what you said.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> At which point you start doing back flips.
> 
> Your arguments are not consistant.


Show me - with quotes - where I've been inconsistent, and I'll be happy to either retract or clarify, as applicable.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Nov 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> I think you're putting me on now.   I don't believe you're not able to track how that term applies to what you said.



You are reading what you want to see, rather then read what is actually there.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 29, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Well this has been an education,  I have never heard of 'nuthugger' before so had to look it up after which I was thinking 'wow! people are calling each other this on MT' I mean really? Urban Dictionary: nut huggers



Thanks Tez3.  I didn't know either.  Boy was I wrong!


----------



## Steve (Nov 29, 2016)

Nuthugger:  an individual who worships another individual; mark, fanboy/fangirl.

I'm a little surprised by the mock outrage going on.  I can't believe that crass people like tez3 are genuinely concerned about her delicate, virgin ears.  

 I also can't believe that some of you are denying you have dismissed people who disagree with you as fanboys or something similar.   If the idea of a synonym is beyond you, there is no hope.


----------



## oaktree (Nov 29, 2016)

If you nut hug to tight it might bust


----------



## Transk53 (Nov 29, 2016)

oaktree said:


> If you nut hug to tight it might bust



You worn spandex, damn that have crushed


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Dec 3, 2016)

why i got banned for a week ? weird, i didn't  do something wrong


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Dec 3, 2016)

You can check this "vibravision" on new youtube channel, they had a lot testimony from outsider, optical expert, and a doctor


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Dec 3, 2016)




----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Dec 3, 2016)

.


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Dec 4, 2016)

Shooting targets with AK47 (*blindfolded*)


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Dec 4, 2016)

.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 4, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> Shooting targets with AK47 (*blindfolded*)



Sorry, but this has to be scripted. The shooter must have had an idea where the target was, and probably filmed a few times. I would imagine a lot would recoil in horror, if that was real.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 4, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> Shooting targets with AK47 (*blindfolded*)


Okay, so he can vibra-see a target at that distance well enough to hit it with a shot, but misses by a couple of inches reaching for the object on the ground at his feet. That's inconsistent.


----------



## Dylan9d (Dec 5, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> why i got banned for a week ? weird, i didn't  do something wrong



Probably for promoting voodoo


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 5, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> why i got banned for a week ? weird, i didn't  do something wrong



Could be down too the somwhat heavy posting about subjects, that would probably not be understood without some proof of pudding I guess. I'd PM the senior mod.


----------



## Steve (Dec 5, 2016)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> why i got banned for a week ? weird, i didn't  do something wrong


Did you actually get banned?  Huh.  That's funny.


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Apr 25, 2017)

Silat Merpati Putih live on FOX13


----------



## oaktree (Apr 25, 2017)

Mouzalina Mahfud said:


> Silat Merpati Putih live on FOX13


Looks staged and common magician tricks again. We had this same talk a year ago and here you are again peddling more B.S.


----------



## DanT (Apr 25, 2017)

What's really upsetting is the fact that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're peddling this nonsense as legitimate.


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Apr 26, 2017)

Silat Merpati Putih help more than 2000 blind people here in indonesia


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 26, 2017)

Just nonsense!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 27, 2017)

When you say 'helped' what do you mean? that they can see or have they been given aids like a guide dog. As others have said you are peddling nonsense and I don't quite know what you expect us to say or do. I help the blind by donating to Guide Dogs for the Blind, Sightsavers and at the moment I'm doing a sponsored thing for the Blind Veterans charity ( we are knitting squares to entirely cover a Spitfire which is going to be displayed at an Air Show in August then the squares are being made into blankets for an animal rescue centre).


Sightsavers is a British based charity but is international in it's work, if anyone wants to actually help blind people I'd suggest donating and helping this charity rather than believe the spurious claims of this poster. Sightsavers | International charity fighting preventable blindness


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 27, 2017)

You know, I'm sure we'd be a lot more convinced by all this if you could show us some scientific study that have proved what you are claiming.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> You know, I'm sure we'd be a lot more convinced by all this if you could show us some scientific study that have proved what you are claiming.


Agreed. This is the sort of thing a scientist could make a name with, if it is true. So, if so many are being helped, I find it difficult to believe there wouldn't be some enterprising researcher conducting a double-blind experiment to get his or her name into a journal.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. This is the sort of thing a scientist could make a name with, if it is true. So, if so many are being helped, I find it difficult to believe there wouldn't be some enterprising researcher conducting a double-blind experiment to get his or her name into a journal.



A while back, Beijing university of Traditional Chinese medicine (the Harvard of TCM in China) was working to find a way to study this kind of thing and their stance, last I knew, was anyone claiming to project Qi or use it to find or sense things, outside of themselves, by projecting it....were fake.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Apr 27, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> A while back, Beijing university of Traditional Chinese medicine (the Harvard of TCM in China) was working to find a way to study this kind of thing and their stance, last I knew, was anyone claiming to project Qi or use it to find or sense things, outside of themselves, by projecting it....were fake.



Is that what the OP is claiming to be able to do? Project Qi to sense objects? It's hard to tell because in all the videos they have linked, none of them even attempt to explain what they are doing. It's just "here is our amazing superpower, gaze in wonder!"

As I said at the beginning of this thread, I know of humans using echolocation like bats do to tell the size and position of objects around them by listening to the sound waves that bounce off those objects. This is well documented and researched by a number of different organisations. This isn't the case here however, and by looking purely at the videos, it seems all you need to do to use vibravision is wave your hand around a bit.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 27, 2017)

Guangzhou university of Chinese medicine has also come to the same conclusion about projection qi. The university uses a scientific method in the south.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Guangzhou university of Chinese medicine has also come to the same conclusion about projection qi. The university uses a scientific method in the south.



OH...so you're saying in the north the DON'T use the scientific method!? Is THAT IT!!!!!!


----------



## oaktree (Apr 27, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> OH...so you're saying in the north the DON'T use the scientific method!? Is THAT IT!!!!!!


Hmm not sure wasn't with a northern girl long enough to find out


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> A while back, Beijing university of Traditional Chinese medicine (the Harvard of TCM in China) was working to find a way to study this kind of thing and their stance, last I knew, was anyone claiming to project Qi or use it to find or sense things, outside of themselves, by projecting it....were fake.


And I think anyone making that claim has failed to update their usage. 1200 years ago, "chi" was an attempt to explain some phenomena. Today, we (as a people) can explain them more accurately. "Chi" is still a useful shorthand (I still refer to "ki" in my teaching, but my students know it as a shorthand), but shouldn't be used literally, or you end up believing things can be done that are not real. IMO.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And I think anyone making that claim has failed to update their usage. 1200 years ago, "chi" was an attempt to explain some phenomena. Today, we (as a people) can explain them more accurately. "Chi" is still a useful shorthand (I still refer to "ki" in my teaching, but my students know it as a shorthand), but shouldn't be used literally, or you end up believing things can be done that are not real. IMO.



Qi = energy.... that's about it


----------



## Buka (Apr 28, 2017)

Chi whiz, I'm so confused.


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Guangzhou university of Chinese medicine has also come to the same conclusion about projection qi. The university uses a scientific method in the south.


the scientific method is not even close to explaining the power of placebo. In many trials they have got similar positive results to the new wonder pill, just because the subject believed the sugar pill was the new wonder pill. Once you take the fact that the power of the mind and belief in the effectiveness of the treatment can in fact give significant health benefits, it then only a short step to concluding that traditional medicine can infact work, if they believe it will. The divining factor is if the body is capable of self healing which ever ailment is under consideration


----------



## oaktree (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> the scientific method is not even close to explaining the power of placebo. In many trials they have got similar positive results to the new wonder pill, just because the subject believed the sugar pill was the new wonder pill. Once you take the fact that the power of the mind and belief in the effectiveness. Of the treatment can in fact give significant health benefits, it then only a short step to concluding that traditional medicine can infact work, if they believe it will. The difivining factor is if the body is capable of self healing which ever ailment is under consideration


Why do you try to tell me how and what is done in Guangzhou university are you a student there do you know anyone there?  My comment was what is done in Guangzhou university and unless you are a student or know someone who goes there your comment is meaningless. 

Let me make it clearer, at Guangzhou university they do not just study Chinese medicine they actually study Western medicine and science and do Western experiments, from what I remember they do work on dead bodies and use rats and rabbits in Western science experiments.


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Why do you try to tell me how and what is done in Guangzhou university are you a student there do you know anyone there?  My comment was what is done in Guangzhou university and unless you are a student or know someone who goes there your comment is meaningless.
> 
> Let me make it clearer, at Guangzhou university they do not just study Chinese medicine they actually study Western medicine and science and do Western experiments, from what I remember they do work on dead bodies and use rats and rabbits in Western science experiments.


my reply was to the suggestion in your post that the scientific method was in someway automatically superior to the traditional method. When infact the scientific method gets faith healing results that it cant explain


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> the scientific method is not even close to explaining the power of placebo. In many trials they have got similar positive results to the new wonder pill, just because the subject believed the sugar pill was the new wonder pill. Once you take the fact that the power of the mind and belief in the effectiveness of the treatment can in fact give significant health benefits, it then only a short step to concluding that traditional medicine can infact work, if they believe it will. The divining factor is if the body is capable of self healing which ever ailment is under consideration


That's why a double-blind study is needed. If it's a placebo effect, it will show up on both sides of a properly-designed study. And, if it's a placebo effect, then it's not the treatment that's doing anything - it's the perception of a treatment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> my reply was to the suggestion in your post that the scientific method was in someway automatically superior to the traditional method. When infact the scientific method gets faith healing results that it cant explain


Except that it doesn't. It fairly consistently shows a placebo effect, which will be roughly equal with the control and the placebo (hence the name). That illustrates that the target treatment isn't having a specific effect. If we test a new drug and find equal efficacy in the control (placebo) and treatment groups, then we can infer that the new drug may have very little efficacy, since a placebo was as effective.


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's why a double-blind study is needed. If it's a placebo effect, it will show up on both sides of a properly-designed study. And, if it's a placebo effect, then it's not the treatment that's doing anything - it's the perception of a treatment.


yea, but its impossible to tell what % of the real pill results are the treatment and which are faith.

but any successful result on the sugar pill side show the effectiveness of faith healing


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Except that it doesn't. It fairly consistently shows a placebo effect, which will be roughly equal with the control and the placebo (hence the name). That illustrates that the target treatment isn't having a specific effect. If we test a new drug and find equal efficacy in the control (placebo) and treatment groups, then we can infer that the new drug may have very little efficacy, since a placebo was as effective.


well no, all that shows it the treatment is no more effective than faith healing, that doesn't mean it doesn't work in its own right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> yea, but its impossible to tell what % of the real pill results are the treatment and which are faith.
> 
> but any successful result on the sugar pill side show the effectiveness of faith healing


It's actually not impossible to get a percentage. The differnce between control and treatment is the difference between the actual drug and a placebo. In other words, if the control group sees a 25% efficacy and the treatment group sees a 35% efficacy, we can infer that the treatment has approximately a 10% efficacy rate.

And, no, sugar pill isn't the same thing as "faith healing" effectiveness. That implies that it's the actual act of faith healing that conveys the improvement, but the control would show that any similar placebo has that same effectiveness. That does show that faith healing can be useful, in that it brings about the body's placebo-induced healing. But the faith healing process, itself, is a placebo. Anything similarly believed will have the same effect.


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

its also been observed that the colour of the pills has a marked effect on how good they are at treatment. And injected medicine, more effect that pills, this being true for both sides of the study

so even if you have the real pill, if its blue instead of red it won't be as effective


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> well no, all that shows it the treatment is no more effective than faith healing, that doesn't mean it doesn't work in its own right.


Actually, it means precisely that. If a drug has no more effectiveness than a neutral placebo, then the drug isn't actually having a positive effect. It's just relying on the natural placebo effect, and the neutral placebo is equally effective, lacks side effects, is less expensive, etc. A drug showing an effect quite similar to a placebo is ineffective, as a drug. The same is true of any other treatment that doesn't significantly outperform a control (placebo).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> its also been observed that the colour of the pills has a marked effect on how good they are at treatment. And injected medicine, more effect that pills, this being true for both sides of the study
> 
> so even if you have the real pill, if its blue instead of red it won't be as effective


In a properly controlled study, there would be no visible difference. Having that difference would make it no longer a double-blind study, and/or would introduce confounding variables.


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It's actually not impossible to get a percentage. The differnce between control and treatment is the difference between the actual drug and a placebo. In other words, if the control group sees a 25% efficacy and the treatment group sees a 35% efficacy, we can infer that the treatment has approximately a 10% efficacy rate.
> 
> And, no, sugar pill isn't the same thing as "faith healing" effectiveness. That implies that it's the actual act of faith healing that conveys the improvement, but the control would show that any similar placebo has that same effectiveness. That does show that faith healing can be useful, in that it brings about the body's placebo-induced healing. But the faith healing process, itself, is a placebo. Anything similarly believed will have the same effect.


yes and a quarter of the control group got better with out a drug, how does that not support faith healing?


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> In a properly controlled study, there would be no visible difference. Having that difference would make it no longer a double-blind study, and/or would introduce confounding variables.


in controlled studies in to the placbo effect they have multiple groups and change to colour of the pills to see if that affects results.
if they get a higher cure rate with red pills, of both the real drug and the sugar pill, then its clear that red pills are more effective


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes and a quarter of the control group got better with out a drug, how does that not support faith healing?


Because faith healing is a specific treatment, which does not consistently out-perform the control group.

Now, perhaps you and I are using the term "fath healing" differently? To me, it refers to healing through religious intervention - an approach not found to consistently out-perform placebo approaches. If you're referring to the body's ability to heal itself (or at least to relieve symptoms), that's pretty much what accounts for much of the placebo effect. Mind you, we'd also need a second control group that receives absolutely no treatment, to establish that the placebo group improves at a significantly higher rate. If 23% of our no-treatment group improves, and 25% of our placebo group, that's probably not a statistically significant difference (unless we have a very large study population). If the no-treatment group sees a 10% rate of improvement, we have a high incidence of placebo effect, which implies faith-healing might achieve that same efficacy with people who believe in its effect. As would any other treatment they believed would work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> in controlled studies in to the placbo effect they have multiple groups and change to colour of the pills to see if that affects results.
> if they get a higher cure rate with red pills, of both the real drug and the sugar pill, then its clear that red pills are more effective


Agreed.


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Because faith healing is a specific treatment, which does not consistently out-perform the control group.
> 
> Now, perhaps you and I are using the term "fath healing" differently? To me, it refers to healing through religious intervention - an approach not found to consistently out-perform placebo approaches. If you're referring to the body's ability to heal itself (or at least to relieve symptoms), that's pretty much what accounts for much of the placebo effect. Mind you, we'd also need a second control group that receives absolutely no treatment, to establish that the placebo group improves at a significantly higher rate. If 23% of our no-treatment group improves, and 25% of our placebo group, that's probably not a statistically significant difference (unless we have a very large study population). If the no-treatment group sees a 10% rate of improvement, we have a high incidence of placebo effect, which implies faith-healing might achieve that same efficacy with people who believe in its effect. As would any other treatment they believed would work.


I'm using faith healing in its widest sence, that is the treatment requires faith in the treatment, it could be laying on of hands, or powdered rhino horn or sugar pills, it matters not if the subject believes in it


----------



## Kadral (Jun 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> What's really upsetting is the fact that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're peddling this nonsense as legitimate.


I find it upsetting that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're ignoring other methods of rehabilitation for the blind because you don't understand it. I understand why you are skeptical. It is healthy to be a skeptic but it's not going to do anyone any good if people just deny something without figuring out what really is going on. Once it is disproven then, we can say its non-sense. But as of right now. Vibravision is very new and this is why we don't see any journals in science (in the west at least). I am sure in the next year or so, some universities are going to want to verify this ability. Think of the good this can do (assuming it is real). Which for myself I know it to be true. But we need more scientific proof before it is taking more seriously within the community. Only time will tell.


----------



## jobo (Jun 24, 2017)

Kadral said:


> I find it upsetting that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're ignoring other methods of rehabilitation for the blind because you don't understand it. I understand why you are skeptical. It is healthy to be a sceptic but it's not going to do anyone any good if people just deny something without figuring out what really is going on. Once it is disproven then, we can say its non-sense. But as of right now. Vibravision is very new and this is why we don't see any journals in science (in the west at least). I am sure in the next year or so, some universities are going to want to verify this ability. Think of the good this can do (assuming it is real). Which for myself I know it to be true. But we need more scientific proof before it is taking more seriously within the community. Only time will tell.


no that's not how science works, if you say it works then you need to prove it to be so, with some properly designed studies. Other wise you shouldn't be inflicting it on people


----------



## Kadral (Jun 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> no that's not how science works, if you say it works then you need to prove it to be so, with some properly designed studies. Other wise you shouldn't be inflicting it on people


What do you propose if they are working on university studies and it is an ability anyone can learn? Should they just keep quiet until a reputable study has come out or can they show what they can do, start to rehabilitate then the study come later?


----------



## jobo (Jun 24, 2017)

Kadral said:


> What do you propose if they are working on university studies and it is an ability anyone can learn? Should they just keep quiet until a reputable study has come out or can they show what they can do, start to rehabilitate then the study come later?


there are con men the world over with cures, if its not a con then show it to be true


----------



## Kadral (Jun 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> there are con men the world over with cures, if its not a con then show it to be true


You didn't answer my question. But I get your point.

I know you need the proof, once I get the study I will send it your way. Other then that I guess, I have nothing else to say. Because this kind of stuff can never be proven over a video. I have my own personal videos but even then I could just stage the whole thing so that is unreliable.
This is new to the western public so it's only a matter of time before it becomes more known.


----------



## jobo (Jun 24, 2017)

Kadral said:


> You didn't answer my question. But I get your point.
> 
> I know you need the proof, once I get the study I will send it your way. Other then that I guess, I have nothing else to say. Because this kind of stuff can never be proven over a video. I have my own personal videos but even then I could just stage the whole thing so that is unreliable.
> This is new to the western public so it's only a matter of time before it becomes more known.


I'm open minder about the power of the mind,but not that gullible that I accept as true what I'm told is true by someone I've never met


----------



## DanT (Jun 24, 2017)

Kadral said:


> I find it upsetting that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're ignoring other methods of rehabilitation for the blind because you don't understand it. I understand why you are skeptical. It is healthy to be a skeptic but it's not going to do anyone any good if people just deny something without figuring out what really is going on. Once it is disproven then, we can say its non-sense. But as of right now. Vibravision is very new and this is why we don't see any journals in science (in the west at least). I am sure in the next year or so, some universities are going to want to verify this ability. Think of the good this can do (assuming it is real). Which for myself I know it to be true. But we need more scientific proof before it is taking more seriously within the community. Only time will tell.


WRONG. You need to prove that it works, I don't need to prove that it doesn't.


----------



## Kadral (Jun 24, 2017)

Kadral said:


> You didn't answer my question. But I get your point.
> 
> I know you need the proof, once I get the study I will send it your way. Other then that I guess, I have nothing else to say. Because this kind of stuff can never be proven over a video. This is new to the western public so it's only a matter of time before it becomes more known.





jobo said:


> I'm open minder about the power of the mind,but not that gullible that I accept as true what I'm told is true by someone I've never met



Well good, I like your way of thinking. I think this is a good trait. But this also says we are both wasting our time since you won't accept something as true that was told over the internet by someone you have never met.

I teach this martial arts and I know everyone in those videos (the american ones anyways). Now I will say I cannot do this stuff because when I first joined, I didn't quiet believe it either thus neglecting to put much time into the practice. But over time, working with these people, becoming friends, they have proven to me on what they can do. Honestly that is all I need at the moment. The research will come in time. Until then we will keep working to rehabilitate the blind and practicing our own skills to become more and more precise and consistent in what we do.


----------



## Kadral (Jun 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> WRONG. You need to prove that it works, I don't need to prove that it doesn't.


I could be wrong but this seems pretty hostile. I may also be reading into things. 

Anyways, we will prove soon enough to the public of what we can do, so that will come in time. But as I said earlier, there is little reason to prove something to a person on the internet forum that I have never met. We are both wasting our time but I think open minded skepticism is more beneficial than outright denial. How would anyone ever study something if they don't ask questions about it. I don't see how anything can be studied in science if we deny everything without proper questioning of a subject. You don't have to say this is true but I think someone saying "what if this is possible" will gain a lot more from a discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2017)

Kadral said:


> What do you propose if they are working on university studies and it is an ability anyone can learn? Should they just keep quiet until a reputable study has come out or can they show what they can do, start to rehabilitate then the study come later?


"They" can do what they like. The point is that "we" don't have to accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. In this case, the claims are not dissimilar to some that have been made in the past by shysters. So, this is how science works for something like this: a test is put together that should produce random results if the thing doesn't work. It has a control group (involves some people who were taught the technique and some who were taught something that is reasonably known not to work), preferably double-blind (participants don't know which is the control group, and the observers don't know which group each participant is in), controlled by someone who has no personal gain in "proving" the thing works, and has other controls (random select, etc.). If it passes that (produces significantly better results in the treatment group than the control group), then there's reasonable evidence to try to figure out how/why it worked.


----------



## Kadral (Jun 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> "They" can do what they like. The point is that "we" don't have to accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. In this case, the claims are not dissimilar to some that have been made in the past by shysters. So, this is how science works for something like this: a test is put together that should produce random results if the thing doesn't work. It has a control group (involves some people who were taught the technique and some who were taught something that is reasonably known not to work), preferably double-blind (participants don't know which is the control group, and the observers don't know which group each participant is in), controlled by someone who has no personal gain in "proving" the thing works, and has other controls (random select, etc.). If it passes that (produces significantly better results in the treatment group than the control group), then there's reasonable evidence to try to figure out how/why it worked.



Yes sir, you are correct, that is how science conducts experiments.

We are willing to have any university who studies vision or consciousness contact us to test what we can do. We want the tests and studies done to verify in the scientific community that we can help the blind. But until that happens we just have to keep on pressing forward and do what we do out here.

Here is a clip from our immersion workshop from a blind man..... How blind is he?? Well this man "Mike Armstrong" is a blind advocate and you can find youtube videos of him taking out his eyes (yes both eyes).... This isn't proof by any means because its a video online but it does raise questions.






and here is a video of him taking out his eyes like 6 years ago...


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> "They" can do what they like. The point is that "we" don't have to accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. In this case, the claims are not dissimilar to some that have been made in the past by shysters. So, this is how science works for something like this: a test is put together that should produce random results if the thing doesn't work. It has a control group (involves some people who were taught the technique and some who were taught something that is reasonably known not to work), preferably double-blind (participants don't know which is the control group, and the observers don't know which group each participant is in), controlled by someone who has no personal gain in "proving" the thing works, and has other controls (random select, etc.). If it passes that (produces significantly better results in the treatment group than the control group), then there's reasonable evidence to try to figure out how/why it worked.



You know he is saying it works in the street. Don't you? And even backed it up with anecdotes.

I have seen this sort of evidence before from someone.

Why are you being such a ****


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You know he is saying it works in the street. Don't you? And even backed it up with anecdotes.
> 
> I have seen this sort of evidence before from someone.
> 
> Why are you being such a ****


Oy. You never will get it. Hopeless, mate.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Oy. You never will get it. Hopeless, mate.



Yeah hopefully.


----------



## Mouzalina Mahfud (Jul 22, 2017)

Getaran technique / Vibravision Video compilations


----------

