Quote:

---

nice1 said:
Hes had 25 published studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, one of which was the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

I'm trying to find out which jounals from his site but its a lot of info to read through...

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:
Yea, I went to his site too but I got bored and left. 

Ive never heard of The Journal of Scientific Exploration.  I bet its a crackpot journal for crackpot ideas and researchers...

---

Quote:

---

nice1 said:
In science Pris, you check the method and then try the experiment then formulate a hypothesis. 

---

Quote:

---

nice1 said:
A medium is a medium not a source.  A news story can come through a respected journal and also one thats not respected.  Your logic is to point out 1 of the mediums and use that to disregard the entire source and experiment. 

---

Quote:

---

Over the last few years we have investigated telephone telepathy experimentally (Sheldrake & Smart 2003a, 2003c). In our tests, a participant received a call during a prearranged period from one of four potential callers.

Participants were asked to choose callers from among their friends or family members. Callers and participants were usually several miles away from each other, and in some cases thousands of miles apart. On a given trial, the participants knew who the potential callers were but did not know which one would be calling. The caller was picked at random by the experimenter. When the telephone rang, the participant guessed who was calling before the other person spoke. The guess was either right or wrong. By chance, participants would have been right about one time in four. For a total of 571 such trials on telephone telepathy, involving 63 participants, the average hit rate was 40%, significantly above the 25% expected by chance. The effect size was 0.35 (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003a).

We then carried out a second series of tests under more rigorous conditions, with the participants videotaped continuously. Their guesses were recorded before they picked up the telephone. In a total of 271 trials, 45% of the guesses were hits (effect size .45) (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003c). In a recent replication at the University of Amsterdam the hit rate was also significantly above chance (Lobach & Bierman, 2004). In a test filmed for a British television show, the hit rate was 50%) (Sheldrake, Godwin, & Rockell, 2004).

In this paper, we describe a series of tests for telepathy in connection with e-mails following similar procedures. Our primary objective was to find out if hit rates were at or above chance levels. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether there was a difference in hit rates with familiar and unfamiliar e-mailers. Surveys have shown that telepathy mainly occurs between family members and close friends. In our experiments on telephone telepathy, hit rates were significantly higher with familiar than with unfamiliar callers (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003a, 2003c).

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
and yet you've not posted up the respectable peer reviewed journals

---

Quote:

---

nice1 said:
Have you heard about RAN as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab

People can effect random number generators with thought or high emotion against all probability.

They've even tried using RANs in different locations in the world and noticed that when a big event happens both rans will correlate.

---

Quote:

---

nice1 said:

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
and yet you've not posted up the respectable peer reviewed journals

---

I'm not questioning the guys legitimacy or judging his work based on what other people think though.

I have independent thought and research.

---

Quote:

---

johnm214 said:

Quote:

---

Even science, as much as I love it, cannot grasp everything.  To think otherwise turns it into a faith.  Science only deals with things we can quantify, so we should only use it to the extent that we can and understand its limitation.

---

Back that up, please.  How is this true? Seems pretty dubious- qualitative analysis is done all the time without any quantitative aspects being used.  Sounds like another dubious criticism of science- irronically from the same person who claims some scientific evidence exists for 'something' (not quite clear what).

---

Quote:

---

nice1 said:
OK
but thats not how all people (scientists) perceive it.  Often absence of evidence is used as evidence of absence. 

Thats the thin line between objective science and scientific faith.

We have to accept that some things cannot be quantified.  As I said we as humans cannot control things that are beyond our control and therefore may not be able to use science to measure them with repeatability.  To ignore this is to ignore the rest of the universse that science has yet to grasp - as it simply can't.

---

regarding this post and one before. you explain really well this barrier that SOME scientists and people that rely on scientific authority for repeatability have regarding events and experiences that they find impossible to explain.
I see the 'repeat method' trip originating from the industrial Ford model and the conveyor belt (I am not saying it it worthless obviously. Only when it is religiously applies to all reality). That is the image I get. If something cannot be industrially produced to demand, and patented, and churned out then it is worthless and /or doesn't exist. That to me is the crux of this mechanistic paradigm, and this 'other' phenomena will not obey its rules, like a rebel spirit on the conveyor belt will spiritfully fuck everything up. LOL I just got the image of Charlie Chaplin doing it in that film. Man that comedian had SUCH insight!!

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
The PEAR lab found that

The PEARL research is to this day a painful embarrassment and ugly mark on Princeton university.

---

Quote:

---

PEARL operated from 1979 until it closed in 2007. Their results have been attributed to bad experimental design rather than a real measured effect. After peer-review of the results, other scientist have stated that the lab deliberately fudged results when they couldn't generate them honestly. There is an audit trail of changed numbers that are inconsistent with other audit trails of what should be the same data. Physicist Robert Park has called PEARL an "embarrassment to science".

---

Quote:

---

Peer review: the myth of the noble scientist"Peer review is supposed to combat fraud, but it can just as easily hold back radical discoveries, says Terence Kealey" [read on]

---

Quote:

---

In other words, when nearly 30 years of trying to find evidence of psi failed miserably, the PEARL scientists, who are fallible humans after all, began to FAKE THE DATA in order to produce results. In 2007 this sorry example of not-science was finally closed and Princeton can't put it behind them fast enough.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think all researchers, and scientists, would agree this research "failed miserably".

---

Quote:

---

One could arge that the VAST majority of science and society agrees in the mechanistic materialistic physicalist worldview, but that dont make it 'the reality'.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
a problem with scientists who conclude absence of evidence is evidence of absence

By this reasoning I should believe in the Tooth Fairy because there is an absence of evidence for her existence and clearly no one has proved she doesn't exist.

It's absurd.

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, it is well known that people often see what they want to see even when it isn't there. Even with the best of intentions. This is why scientific tests, and especially drug safety and efficacy tests, are conducted with double-blind protocols where neither the patient nor the clinician knows if a drug or a placebo is being given. When the clinician knows ahead of time, the results are ALWAYS skewed because no matter how hard we try, humans can't be completely objective.

---

Quote:

---

Peer review is supposed to combat fraud, but it can just as easily hold back radical discoveries, says Terence Kealey

Sometimes, trusting what scientists tell us can be a bit difficult. One day we are told that artificial sweeteners help prevent obesity; the next, that they actually cause it.

One day coffee is bad for us, then it's good, then it's bad again. The generous explanation for these see-saws is that science is always developing our understanding. But there is a more sinister concern: fraud.

No fewer than 15 per cent of scientists at the National Institutes of Health (the American government's top health laboratory) recently admitted to bending data to fit their theories.

The myth is that science is the noble search for truth. The reality is that scientists are selfish. In the old days, scientists often published secretly to safeguard - and profit from - their discoveries.

On writing a paper, a researcher at a university might deposit it in a college's safe, publishing it only if someone else made the same discovery later. The first scientist would release his data to make sure everyone knew he had got there first.

The same principle was behind the use of codes to protect intellectual property. In 1676, Hooke published his law of elasticity as a Latin anagram - "ceiiinosssttuu".

This made sure that he would be credited for the idea, which he later revealed to be "ut tension sic vis": stress is proportional to strain.

Inevitably, this secrecy caused problems, so during the 17th century Robert Boyle created a club within which scientists did reveal everything to their fellows. Among the group, people still worried about being scooped, but as members kept their findings secret from non-members, the insiders enjoyed huge advantages.

The name of this association was the Royal Society.

The conventional narrative holds that, as the advantages of pooling knowledge became obvious, all scientists adopted the Royal Society's conventions: now, scientific papers are published freely.

But that's not quite true. Actually, scientific journals are as closed as the Royal Society once was. The gatekeeper is "peer review": that is, papers are screened by experts, who judge if the experiments the manuscripts describe are credible.

But how, without having actually witnessed the experiments, can experts determine that? Reviewers have to trust the authors to have told the truth. Consequently, the most important part of a paper is the name at the top.

If a well-known scientist submits a paper, it will probably be accepted; if an unknown submits one, it will probably be rejected. Science is still a closed club - partly to ensure that only accurate papers are published, but largely to prevent fraud.

But peer review carries dangers. First, it allows dunderheads to block unexpected ideas. Everybody within the scientific community knows of researchers such as Barbara McClintock, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for discovering gene jumping, a process by which scraps of DNA move about the genome.

She was forced to publish her findings informally, in the annual reports of the Carnegie Institution, because she could not persuade peer reviewers to accept them.

Moreover, peer review is slow, and allows unscrupulous reviewers to plunder their competitors' papers and to block their publication.

As we enter the Wiki-world, peer review will lighten. Scientific publishing is being transformed by the web: people once paid for hard copies of journals, but now free periodicals such as Public Library of Science Biology proliferate online.

They are still peer-reviewed, but soon reputable scientists will start to publish their own electronic papers. The convenience will be irresistible.

Some form of peer review will need to survive, to deter fraudsters, but it will probably resemble the one practised by the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, in which, essentially, distinguished friends simply vouch for each other.

And a good thing, too. Peer review was always an illusion, providing a deceptive imprimatur of objective truth.

Less formal arrangements will remind us that new science is always provisional - and that validation comes only after publication, when others try to reproduce the work.

---

Quote:

---

Given that, and given how psi completely flies in the face of a thousand years of careful scientific observation, which is more likely, that psi exists or that people see psi where they want it to exist?

---

Quote:

---

zzripz said:
Your 'science' is more a religion.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
a problem with scientists who conclude absence of evidence is evidence of absence

By this reasoning I should believe in the Tooth Fairy because there is an absence of evidence for her existence and clearly no one has proved she doesn't exist.

It's absurd.

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, it is well known that people often see what they want to see even when it isn't there. Even with the best of intentions. This is why scientific tests, and especially drug safety and efficacy tests, are conducted with double-blind protocols where neither the patient nor the clinician knows if a drug or a placebo is being given. When the clinician knows ahead of time, the results are ALWAYS skewed because no matter how hard we try, humans can't be completely objective.

---

Quote:

---

Peer review is supposed to combat fraud, but it can just as easily hold back radical discoveries, says Terence Kealey

Sometimes, trusting what scientists tell us can be a bit difficult. One day we are told that artificial sweeteners help prevent obesity; the next, that they actually cause it.

One day coffee is bad for us, then it's good, then it's bad again. The generous explanation for these see-saws is that science is always developing our understanding. But there is a more sinister concern: fraud.

No fewer than 15 per cent of scientists at the National Institutes of Health (the American government's top health laboratory) recently admitted to bending data to fit their theories.

The myth is that science is the noble search for truth. The reality is that scientists are selfish. In the old days, scientists often published secretly to safeguard - and profit from - their discoveries.

On writing a paper, a researcher at a university might deposit it in a college's safe, publishing it only if someone else made the same discovery later. The first scientist would release his data to make sure everyone knew he had got there first.

The same principle was behind the use of codes to protect intellectual property. In 1676, Hooke published his law of elasticity as a Latin anagram - "ceiiinosssttuu".

This made sure that he would be credited for the idea, which he later revealed to be "ut tension sic vis": stress is proportional to strain.

Inevitably, this secrecy caused problems, so during the 17th century Robert Boyle created a club within which scientists did reveal everything to their fellows. Among the group, people still worried about being scooped, but as members kept their findings secret from non-members, the insiders enjoyed huge advantages.

The name of this association was the Royal Society.

The conventional narrative holds that, as the advantages of pooling knowledge became obvious, all scientists adopted the Royal Society's conventions: now, scientific papers are published freely.

But that's not quite true. Actually, scientific journals are as closed as the Royal Society once was. The gatekeeper is "peer review": that is, papers are screened by experts, who judge if the experiments the manuscripts describe are credible.

But how, without having actually witnessed the experiments, can experts determine that? Reviewers have to trust the authors to have told the truth. Consequently, the most important part of a paper is the name at the top.

If a well-known scientist submits a paper, it will probably be accepted; if an unknown submits one, it will probably be rejected. Science is still a closed club - partly to ensure that only accurate papers are published, but largely to prevent fraud.

But peer review carries dangers. First, it allows dunderheads to block unexpected ideas. Everybody within the scientific community knows of researchers such as Barbara McClintock, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for discovering gene jumping, a process by which scraps of DNA move about the genome.

She was forced to publish her findings informally, in the annual reports of the Carnegie Institution, because she could not persuade peer reviewers to accept them.

Moreover, peer review is slow, and allows unscrupulous reviewers to plunder their competitors' papers and to block their publication.

As we enter the Wiki-world, peer review will lighten. Scientific publishing is being transformed by the web: people once paid for hard copies of journals, but now free periodicals such as Public Library of Science Biology proliferate online.

They are still peer-reviewed, but soon reputable scientists will start to publish their own electronic papers. The convenience will be irresistible.

Some form of peer review will need to survive, to deter fraudsters, but it will probably resemble the one practised by the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, in which, essentially, distinguished friends simply vouch for each other.

And a good thing, too. Peer review was always an illusion, providing a deceptive imprimatur of objective truth.

Less formal arrangements will remind us that new science is always provisional - and that validation comes only after publication, when others try to reproduce the work.

---

Quote:

---

Given that, and given how psi completely flies in the face of a thousand years of careful scientific observation, which is more likely, that psi exists or that people see psi where they want it to exist?

---

Quote:

---

zzripz said:
How come you debunkers always use the same cliches? I honestly wish that since I have been online, since proper 2004, I had noted all the come-backs I have had from debunkers, and I bet you it would be funny. You all say the same thing--"Tooth Fairy' is a very common one.

---

Quote:

---

So let as LOOk at this. When you are a child and lose you baby teeth mommy says that if you put it under the pillow when you sleep in the morning you will find a sixpence (it used to be that when I was a little kid), and low and behold in the morning you find the money and imagine that a tooth fairy actually put it there when the reality is your mum secretly slipped it there.
Same is so with Santa Clause, and presents.
So you now use this to patronize and call the WHOLE of people's anomalous experiences a LIE, and that anyone who 'believes' it are like children. Don't you?

---

Quote:

---

Sometimes, trusting what scientists tell us can be a bit difficult. One day we are told that artificial sweeteners help prevent obesity; the next, that they actually cause it.

One day coffee is bad for us, then it's good, then it's bad again. The generous explanation for these see-saws is that science is always developing our understanding. But there is a more sinister concern: fraud.

---

Quote:

---

No fewer than 15 per cent of scientists at the National Institutes of Health (the American government's top health laboratory) recently admitted to bending data to fit their theories.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, scientific journals are as closed as the Royal Society once was. The gatekeeper is "peer review": that is, papers are screened by experts, who judge if the experiments the manuscripts describe are credible.

---

Quote:

---

But how, without having actually witnessed the experiments, can experts determine that? Reviewers have to trust the authors to have told the truth. Consequently, the most important part of a paper is the name at the top.

---

Quote:

---

But peer review carries dangers. First, it allows dunderheads to block unexpected ideas. Everybody within the scientific community knows of researchers such as Barbara McClintock, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for discovering gene jumping, a process by which scraps of DNA move about the genome.

She was forced to publish her findings informally, in the annual reports of the Carnegie Institution, because she could not persuade peer reviewers to accept them.

---

Quote:

---

The Tooth Fairy didn't exist.  The evidence for it is on the same level as your evidence for psi.

---

Quote:

---

( “the "Scientist's Creed" - all Scientistic sects profess a common faith in the premise of materialism and the method of reductionism)

---

Quote:

---

” Materialism holds a commanding position in science throughout the world today. The materialistic world-view has earned this position because it has been extremely fruitful for the scientific work of the last few centuries, not only in the physical sciences, but in biology, too. The "clock-work" model has created and reinforced the strong belief that, given enough time and money, materialistic science will eventually explain everything, including life and consciousness. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper, wryly characterized this belief as "promissory materialism." Indeed, promissory materialism is a fundamental article of faith in Scientism.”

---

Quote:

---

Scientism's spirit taboo presents serious challenges to anyone who wishes to understand life, consciousness, and the self—especially one who earns his or her living in academic science. If a young scientist today wants to study consciousness, he or she is advised to abandon that wish and convert to Neuralism instead. Heretical scientists no longer lose their lives, but those who challenge the authority of Scientism still risk their livelihoods. They suffer from difficulty obtaining funding, shunning by the community, and denial of access to publishing in the professional literature. That's why true "academic freedom" is freedom from the academy. It's also why the consciousness paradigm shift will make its greatest progress without the help of the established academic institutions.”

---

Quote:

---

Can you not see this?

---

I can barely understand what you are talking about. 

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

Can you not see this?

---

I can barely understand what you are talking about. 

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
yet it doesnt mention the dozen other times the mother woke up believing
something was wrong and her children were just fine

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Exactly! It's a textbook case of Skinner superstition.

---

Quote:

---

zzripz said:
I find it very odd how~~~how can I put it. OK, psychedelics really have enouraged me to re~member the magical nature of reality. Also correspondingly modern physics has also revealed a very strange magical physical energetic depth to reality, and yet and yet, when I see people who frequest psychedelic forums, who I ASSUME are no strangers to psychedelic experience (though some people who use these forums aren't) cling onto these utterly outdated, defunct, mechanistic, behaviouristic, theories--it just amazes me. I find it incredibly sad. Sad in that, if I met someone who believed all this, I would recommend psychedelics as a Medicine to get them over it, but what do you say to someone who already is "psychedelically experienced"...?

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Skinner was

I see. When you can't refute a line of reasoning, you switch to the Neener Neener debate tactic and call it names instead.

---

Quote:

---

zzripz said:

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Skinner was

I see. When you can't refute a line of reasoning, you switch to the Neener Neener debate tactic and call it names instead.

---

not JUST Skinner, but most of so-called Psychology!

---

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
How can someone act so mechanical and need proof for everything?

---

Quote:

---

nice1 said:
I abandoned ship due to lack of evidence.

I still like to note though - there are spontaneous phenomena that science is incapable of grasping because they cannot be reproduced to be measured because they are spontaneous.

Some psy phenomena and ghosts and ET visitations etc are real but the evidence is all spontaneous, witness testimony.

So I sit in a strange camp where I know from personal experience some paranormal events are certainly real yet also loving the scientific method while realizing its inability to deal with spontaneous events. 

---

Quote:

---

One day we may have the ability to control these things like capture a ghost in one of those things like ghost busters have in the film and then we can measure it and define and all say OK its real but for now its all down to your own personal experience if you cannot accept witness testimony.

---

Quote:

---

After having personal experience you become more accepting of the mass of witness testimony.  Yes I accept much of it is hoax but I know my experience wasn't a hoax so therefore I don't assume all other people around the worlds are as well. 

---

Quote:

---

This is my problem - some scientists are unwilling to admit that out of this mass of witness testimony that maybe some percentage of the phenomena MAY be real.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
I still like to note though - there are spontaneous phenomena that science is incapable of grasping because they cannot be reproduced to be measured because they are spontaneous.

That may be true. However, every paranormal claim that CAN be tested has failed miserably when proper scientific controls are in place that prevent anyone from cheating (or kidding themselves). This applies to people (including several Shroomerites) who claim they can do ON DEMAND, telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, and a slew of other magical powers.

When they're pressed, they revert to giving excuses for why they can't do what they say they can do. Eventually as the discussion progresses, they almost always resort to insulting the skeptic who is simply asking to see a demonstration.

---

Quote:

---

nice1 said:
This is my problem - some scientists are unwilling to admit that out of this mass of witness testimony that maybe some percentage of the phenomena MAY be real.  They use the "lack of evidence" claim but how can that be applied to a phenomena that we understand cannot be measured by science due to its spontaneous  nature   To me thats the flaw.


So thats where the thin line lies - thats when it becomes a faith because the scientific method does not allow for absolutes.  Its just theories of likeliness.  If they are claiming something spontaneous cannot exist - that is faith and its not science.

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:
I think its important to realize that though ' absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', the opposite is also true.  'Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.'

There is copious amount of evidence against the existence of both the tooth fairy and this so called 'psi'.

---

Quote:

---

zzripz said:
not JUST Skinner, but most of so-called Psychology!

---

Quote:

---

sonamdrukpa said:
the problem with the trace evidence for spontaneous events like ghosts and especially UFOs is that it's all bunk.

---

Quote:

---

sonamdrukpa said:

Proof?  Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof so I can't believe you sorry.

---

Quote:

---

I all I see here is "I havn't done enough research".  Theres plenty of trave evidence that holds up, Nuclear Physicist Stanton Friendman has catalogued 4000+ cases but when I bring up something like a photo of the ground with a soil sample showing un natural alteration or witness testimony backed up by physical alteration then people just raise the bar for evidence again.

---

Quote:

---

We already discussed this anyway, the impossible bar for evidence.  I've even met people who told me specifically they would not believe even if an alien got out and shook their hand.  Humans don't want to believe because we are too content in our egos to believe we are at the top of the pecking order and fully in control.

---

Quote:

---

The concept of beings with greater technology threatens people deeply and they reject it on that basis alone despite the glaring facts; Age of universe VS Size VS age of Earth and Human kind tell us in all probability there are beings millions of years more advanced than us already out there.

---

Quote:

---

You havn't done the research or choose to ignore it or require impossible proof.  It always comes back to that.

---

Quote:

---

Einstein wrote this in a letter to a friend in 1952.”
“Weinberg and Maddox are part of what seems to be a little-discussed, quasi-covert twentieth century ìreligionî known as ìScientism.î Adherents of scientism are convinced that within the established scientific community resides by far the best, most reliable description of existence. Believers in Scientism consider that religion, spirituality, and ìpseudoscienceî (which includes everything from cold fusion to ESP research to UFO investigations) are the prime dangers to humankind (never of course their science and philosophy). They are further convinced that the world is composed of only matter (whatever that is!) and electromagnetic radiation in a space-time plenum, and that all of existence and consciousness can be reduced to existing physical laws governing these. Even if they were correct about the latter, their religious zeal in excoriating any other possible cosmologies is offensive and, in fact, unscientific.
Science, not Scientism, should govern our actions in investigating all of existence. Science, with a capital letter, gives meaning to life. Scientism, when decomposed to its basic elements, is fundamentally a covert ìreligionîñone, ironically, that denies the efficacy of reason.” “…today the high priests of Scientism, such as physicist Weinberg and APS flak Robert Park, are trying to ìcut the throatsî of all who disagree with their pseudo-religion.”

---

Quote:

---

sonamdrukpa said:
Bring out your cases, and we'll have a discussion about them.  No hypothetical cases that we hypothetically couldn't debunk.

---

Quote:

---

sonamdrukpa said:
The problem is that you want to both claim that the scientific method has its limitations and that it's rational to believe things that aren't shown by it.  That's a hair's breadth away from a blatant contradiction.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

---

Quote:

---

There are other rational ways of correctly coming to beliefs about things besides the scientific method (for example, here is an argument for the existence of certain non-material objects I find quite compelling: Mary's Room).  However, this is a problem for you, because all of them require adherence to logic, something you disavow.

---

Quote:

---

sonamdrukpa said:
Give me one piece of trace evidence that holds up.  One.  Not a reference to 4000 supposedly strong cases.  You haven't gone out and examined them all either.  I call hypocrisy here.

---

1
O'hare airport, a whole bunch of airport staff and 2 pilots report seeing a disc shaped craft hovering over the airport.  Its their duty to protect the airspace and their jobs are on the line.
The craft leaves a hole punched in the cloud allowing blue sky to show through - demonstrating its a physical object and allowing us to estimate the energy required to punch a hole in cloud cover suggesting its a form of technology and by implication built by an intelligence.

This has happened several times - similar accounts from other countries of hovering discs punching through clouds.

Debunking explaination:  A reflection.    How does a reflection break through a cloud.


2
Stephen Michilak and his grid like burns after a close encounter with a landed disc shaped craft
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb33330f58c7.jpg

Doctors records exist stating the high unusual nature of the burns stating they were anomalous and seemed like radiation burns of some kind but didn't know what could cause them.

Debunking explaination: A hoax   why anyone would do this to theirself or how they could produce such strange effects seems wish full thinking to me.


3
The Delphos glowing ring.

After a UFO encounter the family photograph the circle it has left - police were informed and observed the ring and soil samples are sent to a lab for analysis.  The soil was found to be hydroscopic and contain unusually high traces of elements suggesting something real was there and made the impression.  It appears unlikely the family could of hoaxed this and its not known how humans could fake the properties found in the sample or polaroid photo of the ring.

debunker explaination:  A hoax - again seems like more wish full thinking (i.e ufos don't exist so its a hoax even though that makes no sense and we don't know how anyone could even hoax this)


4
Belgium triangle

Hundreds of ground observations from the public.  video and photo from the public.  radar data from 3 seperate ground radars and 2 F-16 fighters sent to intercept.  testimony from the hundreds of observervations.  Testimony from the chief of airforce and the pilots.  Again no reason this could all be a mass hoax.  A whole country in on a hoax?  Hundreds of witnesses and forging all the radar data?

Theres a few for you get started with.

Quote:

---

zzripz said:

It's not contradiction. I, with Eisntein, and others, are pointing out to you devotees of scientism that just because your method cannot detect what it is limited to detect doesn't mean that this makes your worldview you impose on others 'the reality'.

---

Quote:

---

Here is what Einstein thought of your position:

---

Quote:

---

nice1 said:
I can pull up another 100 but why should I bother when it falls open deaf ears and closed made up minds.

---