RICH MOONEY RESULTS?

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 9:04 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>-----Original Message-----
From: Morenski, John D. [*******]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 3:57 PM
To: 'gmattson '
Cc: 'William Glasheen '; Morenski, John D.
Subject: For the Record--Do What Thou Wilt

Gentlemen:

Should, for some reason, this become an "issue" this is what I gleaned from
my records--including all of the original e-mails.

An individual either appeared or was invited to post concerning his powers.

Bill asked a rhetorical concerning the Randi prize.

Individual wrote rather less-than-cordial description of Randi and his
ethics.

Randi asked me to post a slightly-on-the-harsh-side-of strict rebuttal.

GEM, Bill, and I ruminated on Randi's kind words until the individual
insulted me personally and Bill posted it unedited.

A bit of a row follows. . . .

George proposes a test. I pass it to Randi. Randi offers a simpler one.
It is the basis of the test. Rewatching his PBS NOVA episode, I figure out
how to make the damn thing double-blind. Bill and I hash out some of the
details.

And, of course, individual offers some extraordinary claims as to what would
be a positive reasult. I am more than happy to dredge up the e-mail. I
mention this because he did not approach his own offered standards. I would
also mention that he had claimed he would "meet" Randi at "any time" to
prove "my powers are real," yet never did despite numerous offers, including
the promise that Randi would not involve himself in his organization's test.

Summer Camp comes. At this point I am very discouraged that a proper test
will occur. GEM pushes both Bill and I to create a test. Based upon the
mechanism, we inspect a site offered by George. I test the area and decide
we need to black out windows and the like. I then spend lunch
purchasing--with GEM's $--materials. We complete putting together the site,
Bill marks the cards, and we test the area for possible breaks.

I volunteer to leave--bad chi. Perhaps I should mention that Randi promised
to think "happy thoughts" from Fort Lauderdale. Bill runs the test. The
participants wish to know preliminary results, and Bill releases them. I
find out about the results from various excited participants. Bill quietly
mentions that the "fat lady is clearing her throat."

Dust settles. After a number of months, I write up the results and submit
it for publication. I speak on the phone with Joe Nickel, an investigator
for CSICOP well-known for his Shroud of Turin investigations, who makes very
important suggestions on how to report the results. I offer coauthorship to
Bill, for his continued imput and actually running the test, GEM for his
support, initial ideas, and dog'd persistence when Bill and I began to think
the thing impossible, and Randi for suggesting changes along the way. Both
GEM and Randi state they are happy with a simple "plug" for their web pages
and organizations.

That, as they write, is that. Ye may file it, delete it, or post it. I
doubt that it will sooth the considerations of the true believers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I stand corrected on the details.

- Bill

Post by **gmattson** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 9:10 pm

I was pulling for Sifu Mooney at the test. I promised not to embarass him in any way based on his cooperation and willingness to test his honest belief in his ability to move a subject without touching him/her.

I reviewed the article in question after witnessing the actual test and data. I believe the article to be accurate and fair.

Like Bill, I would have preferred different results. As I've told Sifu Mooney and publically proclaimed: I was and am most impressed with his martial arts abilities. He doesn't need to convince anyone of anything in my book. Sifu Mooney's talents are not in question, nor were they at the camp. We were all eager to learn more about "empty energy" and were rooting for Sifu througout the test.

Nothing would have made me happier than making J.D. eat crow. But on this particular day and under scrupulously fair and impartial conditions, Sifu Mooney was unable to replicate the feats he performed earlier in the day under different conditions.

And to Sifu Mooney's credit, while we were discussing the test methods, he was the first to admit that he was as interested in the results as everyone who participated.

This attitude reflects an open mind and an explorer mentality. He practices and explores a new and exciting field. Hopefully he will take the data revealed by the test and use it as a basis for testing his art as he continues to practice and study.

At next year's camp, we are attempting to create a test for Acupuncture and "healing hands". I'll keep you posted as we proceed with the model for these two studies.

------------------
GEM

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 12:26 am

Let me first say I am pleased and proud to be part of a martial art or group of martial artists that would even sponsor such an event.

I was at class in another martial art a friend is taking, and they have an upcoming test and are cramming their forms in. The instructor and students both passionately believe, and I am in agreement, that the techniques therein are artificial, completely different from the way they fight, rely on dozens of unrealistic assumptions to work, and are generally, in their words, "useless," and "stupid." Yet train they will.

Uechi-Ryu and its adherents think a bit more about what they do than that, and I'm thankful that the college karate class I selected blindly turned out to be this one.

That said, a couple of other points/questions:

1) How can Bill's bias explain that the subjects themselves reported no consistent effect from the force? Did Bill's negative chi do this? *Was this an issue before the test?*

2) What was wrong with the facility, or the tests, except that they orginated in biased craniums or were employed by those with biased craniums?

3) Was fatigue brought up before the test was undertaken? Is there any evidence that this power fatigues? Has Sensei Mooney endorsed this theory? Did he at the time?

4) What is it about a background in scientific investigation that is irrelevant to measuring the effect? The tester had to know how to test, not how to do empty force. If my job is to assess the effect of hollowpoints v blanks on living sujects, one would think I would be able to do this without any prior knowledge of what guns were or how they worked.

5) What remains of any example of kyusho in action after this level of disbelief is applied? For one, if bias invalidated this study by preventing an action from occuring (though I am not sure how), could not bias ensure an action occuring (that is, KO)?

Mind you, I love skepticism. It just must come from the statement of specific plausible criticisms, or, statement of specific failings (like lack of specifics or explanations) in what one is being skeptical about.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 5:51 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MetaBaron:

I am curious as to why CHI may be a difficult concept to grasp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I left you with this impression I apologize. I don't think it is a difficult concept to grasp. I merely state that I could care less whether it actually exists or not. I can make that same statement about a number of things... equally as controversial to many, I might add.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

It may have to do with Western methodology in the ideal that anything that cannot be proven by Western means in therefore false.

Oh, I don't know about that... At this point in my life, my Eastern indoctrination has been just as complete as my Western indoctrination, and those are equal to my "other, not defined above" indoctrinations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I, as are you, are living proof that CHI exists.

Wow! And I thought all this time, that I was just living proof that my ancestors over the last ~300 years (800 years if you make the "leap of faith" across two generations of records lost in a fire, but since there's no proof, I wonder if they even existed

) had sexual relations!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Perhaps too much hype has been
given to the concept. I find it less mystical and more a simple part of life, such as
breathing. Perhaps if you could define what this is, then also you hit the crux of
what all else in the universe also is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would venture to say that those who are attempting to test certain mystical phenomina are indeed attempting to get beyond the "hype".

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited October 23, 2000).]

David Kahn · Post by **David Kahn** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 6:29 am

I was one of the "participants" in the experiment.

Has anyone received any response from Sifu Mooney once the report was released?

In light of the results, how does he feel about the fairness of the test?

I'd like to hear from him first-hand.

David Kahn

------------------
email: <A HREF="mailto:chgouechi1@aol.com">chgouechi1@aol.com</A>
website: http://members.aol.com/chgouechi1

Rick Wilson · Post by **Rick Wilson** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 7:11 am

Evan:

Rich claimed to be able to move people even through a barrier. Video was posted showing him cause a dramatic effect upon people through a door. Not a waiver, not a wobble, but DRAMATIC pull or push.

The test simply had Rich attempt to do this when his subjects did not know what he was to do.

And he failed.

If someone claims to be able to move someone through a door then surely they should be able to do it? And the "where" should have no effect.

As to the testers and the design of the test, sorry I was around these forums while all was discussed so that just does not wash. And looking at the test I can only slap my forehead and wonder what fairer test could have been designed to test a person who said he could move people through a door????????

As for JD, he stayed very clear of the test site for the very reason that you might shout "unfair".

As for the test subjects, AS ONE OF THEM, I can assure you there is no out down that avenue either.

Bottom line is that, in this test, empty force was not proven. PERIOD. I was there and there CLEARLY was no affect on anyone but two subjects, and we know who they were (if we are going down the bias road).

As a firm believer in the existence of Qi this whole post-test approach saddens me greatly because JD predicted that if the test did not prove empty force this very line of complaints would start -- again one of the reasons he stayed very clear of the test. It was why all the terms of the test were clear and agreed to first so that NO complaints about the "test" could be raised later. Yet here we are.

IN THIS TEST THERE WAS NO PROOF OF EMPTY FORCE AND IT WAS A FAIR TEST OF THE CLAIMS MADE. End of story, move on. For some this may mean dismissing empty force for others it may not affect that study at all.

For others they will look into the effect of "intent" which Rich could clearly demonstrate.

In all of this and from my meeting him at camp I respect Rich Mooney. Even though I do not think he has empty force. He honestly put it on the line because he believed he did. The test ruled out any other affect other than empty force, so he had to believe he had it to agree to it. And I respect that. I also feel he is a talent martial artist and worthy of anyone studying under regardless of the non-existence or existence of empty force.

Evan accept the results as they are valid, as one who was there, THERE IS NO OTHER CONCLUSION to draw. I was there I saw that there was NO affect on all but two people. Go on work hard, come up with another test. But it must rule out suggestion, intent and leave only the affect of empty force -- you know like this one.

If this post is somewhat passionate it is because I hate to see JD proved right

, and as a Qi believer I am very disappointed in the complaints being brought forward.

Sorry,

Rick
http://www.wilsonkarate.com

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 2:24 pm

Amen.

Nobody needs to be hanging their head. Nobody needs to be dancing. We move on and study other possible reasons why great martial artists are great.

The winners are never "these guys" or "those guys". The winner is always the truth. Those that ignore it will - sooner or later - get beaten by it. The winner should be the best ideas and the best methods. Anyone who claims to have all that figured out is a fool.

It isn't the destination that defines the greats - it's their journey.

- Bill

Rich Mooney · Post by **Rich Mooney** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 7:34 pm

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 9:49 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The one thing that was not accounted for was this: many times when I do my energetic extension, if I intend to push, the person will unconciously push against the projection. If I intend to pull, they pull against the projection. This is a variable that was not considered.

This could explain a lack of effect in a given person. Do you feel it explains the difference between two series of people, one dramatically affected (if I correctly udnerstand your demonstrations prior to the test went well), and one not? I see only one variable between the two groups, a door.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

lastly, it truly was double blind. I could not see the participants and did not know who they were when they were on deck. so as far as anyone being able to "help" me, that is impossible. I do not even know if the projections I sent out made the ones who "knew" me do what was intended.

If I am correct you mean to say that two chi believers could not have been helping you because they would not have known which effect to replicate. This is surely true. I believe the issue of their belief was raised because they would be presumably more likely to interpret natural postural sway as effect or to "go with" a natural sway since they may have been more expecting to mbe moved. In other words, they may have been more "suggestible."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I feel the test was interesting, more variables could have been brought into play,
and it could have been better constructed.
Like I said before, the only way to get to the bottom of the practice, and the ability gained from it, is to practice it yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which variables would you like to have seen included and how? In other words, how specifically would you liked to have seen this counter-push influece accounted for? As for practicing the practice, the prophecy will be self fulfilling no matter whether it works as described by the skeptics or the adherents. Those who succeed in training to the point of belief will naturally believe it. Everyone else will not, or will not rely on personal success for belief. Those who fail could always be said not to have trained enough, or believed enough, and those who succeed could always be said to have learned only suggestion or to believe they got it because they believed at the outset.

Thus study will distinguish those the system personally rewards from others. To distinguish empty force from suggestion, some kind of objective independent observation will be required.

Thanks for your replies, sifu.

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited October 24, 2000).]

David Kahn · Post by **David Kahn** » Tue Oct 24, 2000 10:41 pm

Bill:

Rich's statement concerning variability in how test subjects respond to feeling pushed/pulled is legitimate. However, it would appear unlikely that all but 2 of the participants resisted Sifu Mooney's force.

Is there a practical way to conduct the test in such a manner that it will take into account a person, whether consciously or not, who pushs/pulls against the projection?

David Kahn

------------------
email: <A HREF="mailto:chgouechi1@aol.com">chgouechi1@aol.com</A>
website: http://members.aol.com/chgouechi1

Rick Wilson · Post by **Rick Wilson** » Wed Oct 25, 2000 3:33 am

Rich:

"The test results are as they came back. In that venue, I did not succeed."

An honest statement from a man of respect!

Yes, it is only one test.

Yes, there may be other variables you would like to see considered in another test.

But, "In that venue, I did not succeed."

Thank you, Sifu Mooney!

Rick
http://www.wilsonkarate.com

Rich Mooney · Post by **Rich Mooney** » Wed Oct 25, 2000 5:11 am

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Wed Oct 25, 2000 5:14 am

During the “experiment” , I observed one individual [ dark haired, tall, thin…I believe he was to join the special forces…] really sway forward like he was being pulled forward by an unseen force.

Why is this individual not mentioned in the test results? I am sure I was not dreaming when I saw that!!

------------------
Van Canna

David Kahn · Post by **David Kahn** » Wed Oct 25, 2000 5:25 am

Rich:

We all appreciate your comment. I dont think anyone involved in the test or in the discussion feels that the test invalidates your training. However, it does appear to invalidate the claims you made at the time of the test.

Again, I would be interested in hearing what your opinion of the methodolgy of the TEST is. Would you agree that the test showed NO correlation between your actions and the subjects' responses AT THE TIME OF THE TEST?

Thanks,

David Kahn

------------------
email: <A HREF="mailto:chgouechi1@aol.com">chgouechi1@aol.com</A>
website: http://members.aol.com/chgouechi1

paul giella · Post by **paul giella** » Fri Oct 27, 2000 12:57 pm

Sifu Mooney and others,
Please don't be so quick to dismiss the results of the study. Though imperfect, they do reflect a carefully thought out effort to control variables and test whether an effect could be measured. If we all simply dismiss the results ("proponents will still be proponents, skeptics will still be skeptics")they may as well not have bothered to do the study in the first place.In my experience as a behavioral scientist I can tell you that one of the hardest challenges in science is to let go of cherished beliefs when new data calls them into question.Someone once said;" The hardest thing about getting new ideas in is getting the old ideas out."