Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Swami]
    #1845088 -

blahblah: "Whoever askes for proof, knowing bloody well, there will be none, is being stoopid..."
-----------------------

That statement reflects the wrong attitude. 

Would Jordan be such a star if for every shot he took he'd think: < I'm not going to make this shot... > ?  :oogle:

The wrong attitude stems from: "... knowing bloody well, there will be none..."

Are you absolutely sure that is a correct statement?

[*Aside-  Your statement CAN be true if you meant that, those who are convinced that there is no chance of proof, are the ones being stoopid...*]
========================





Swami: "So I am stupid to start with the premise that another's claims might actually be true, then ask them to show me how they come to such a conclusion?"
-----------------------------------


Au contraire, mon ami...  La verite commence avec les questions de recherche.  Vous avez un bon attitude ! 


One should not say they have something until they can show how they came to their conclusions.
 
:lipsrsealed:



   


--------------------


Dei Gratia de integro,

Veni Vidi Vici:

In Nomine Domini..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Swami]
    #1861756 -

hahhaha..  I see I got someone annoyed. :laugh:

Quote:
Proof requires neither a lab nor a coat (yet another time-worn "believer" response).



it is a time-worn observation from a person, not a believer as you assume I am.

in general terms, atheists have very similar belief structures from my observations.  I always found that peculiar. 

I don't find it a necessity have belief structures.  I can't seem to hang on them, slides off me like I was teflon.  *scratch head

Certainly, you can use your own facutlies and means to figure out if such phenonemons are provable or not.  It's your right.  it just won't be scientifically acceptable  unless devised in labs.

Quote:
This is a ridiculous question. I could list a near-infinite variety of examples.



Matter of perspective. 

Quote:
And...? There are more answers with science than without it.


My reasons were obvious.  Collectively, it knows very little about "us."

I'm sure if death came calling for ya, you wouldn't wait around for Science to find the answers.

Quote:
More nonsense. What is stopping YOU and other believers from advancing common knowledge about spirituality? Must one wait for scientists to study something that interests you? Science studies the physical plane. Experimental tests on spirituality all fall flat.


Stopping?  Do I need to is the question.  Grounded these 'outer-rim' metaphysical subjects in some intellectual form take years.  I barely begun.  If I found any subjects of interest, I would. 

those studies fall well short of fairer methods. 

My experiments yeild results.  That's proof enough to me. at least, its working progress <-- key phrase.

Quote:
Huh?


what don't you understand?

ethocentric = (ethos) The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement.
(centric) central. in other words, self-centred, fundamental reality.

taken that a belief in proof as a -value- in extreme is certainly ethocentric. Is like passing judgment. Not bad but add the fuel of negative emotions, which underline personal issues, would already cloud one's clarity.


Quote:
It certainly is when the receiver makes claims of repeatability. "Prayer worked for me and it can for you to!"



well, take it with a grain of salt.  Your example is referencing an egocentric view. 

You weren't there.  Unless you have good knowledge or experience of what that prayer was about, you have little basis to use the proof model to immediately validate the claim.

Quote:
How is it even remotely unfair to ask people to demonstrate what they claim is demonstrable?



hehe.. Why must you?  What's the main premise?  Why would you care that much to question the claim? HOw the *smeep* is the claimer suppose to demonstrate over this medium?  there are limitations on how much is demonstrable between anonymity and in person.

Quote:
So I am stupid to start with the premise that another's claims might actually be true, then ask them to show me how they come to such a conclusion?



No, you're not.  But you can be. what you're asking are the reproducibles from one unique environment with unknown variables to another where both parties have no broad scope of insight and controlling it.  Do you understand those kinds of variables that haven't been mapped out?  Our brain? Personality? Chemistry? Not even socall scientific studies can account for it. Can you?

If you have no experience or knowledge in this area, the traditional proof model is irrelevant - depending on what claim it is. It can't be used in every scenario involving metaphysical ahem hooey. However, reframing the claim, with some psychological and social-relational basis, is more positive in the discussion.  Because that is what it is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: blahblah]
    #1861834 -

blahblah said:
Quote:
long answer:

like yours, circular reasoning are among many skeptics vs whomever in debates and flamefests.  :laugh:


Circular reasoning? What I said was the Truth. You are misunderstanding the angle that I am coming from, however. I whole-heartedly agree with subjective reality. Believe whatever you want to believe, because only us create our reality.

What I am rallying agansit is when someone has this subjective "evidence" and blasts it out to everyone in the world, saying that it is "THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH" and then prove it with saying it is impossible to prove wrong..

What is true for one person is not true for another. Believe in something that there is no objective evidence of can not be passed on as the Truth to everyone. While there is really good subjective evidence to the person that experienced whatever it is, and that is what truly matters, the same evidence can not be used to pass on the belief to everyone else. They will either have to experience it for themselves, or find some sort of concrete evidence (of which there is none). They could also go on believing in the thing without any sort of evidence of any kind, subjective or objective, but I find that to be sort of ignorant.

Does anyone truly understand the power of beliefs. I believe that I do (hehe). However, understanding this, it is obvious that subjective beliefs can not be passed on to others without them either experiencing it for themselves, or them coming to believe it on their own from concrete, objective evidence.

And, as I said in my quote, without improving our instruments which can "prove" things for us, (which, in fact, requires some sort of previous belief to hold what it encounters as true), there is no way something that can only be "proved" by people's own, subjective experiences can be held as true universally. Am I correct?

It is the same thing to believe that there is absoultely no proof towards some idea, so that it can't be true, as it is to believe that the idea is universally true with no objective proof. It doesn't mean that believing in that idea is wrong for the person who believes in it;however, it is wrong to try to push the idea onto everyone with not giving them the proof to experience the idea for themselves.

Myself, I believe strongly in beliefs that I have stuctured myself (for myself) and in subjective reality, as far as myself is concerned.
Peace. 


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: fireworks_god]
    #1861876 -

Circles, around we go: I was commenting on the connotation of your statement - circulatory reasoning in such debates. Sorry, if I didn't explain it clearer.

Balance POV: I agree. it's a balancing act.

Beliefs: Yes, but you didn't answer the other question.. the origins. Speaking in exceptions, of course.Beliefs don't just come out of thin air. Some are inborn. Since some of us here are the exceptions to society's orthodoxes, the collective beliefs here don't usually come from our immediate environments but serve as catalysts, and trigger points.

it's chicken-egg paradox. So how do you plead? I create the beleifs or do the beliefs create me? I guess you won't know until you draw your last breath. hehe



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: fireworks_god]
    #1861877 -

If you want proof of the paranormal all you need to do is look. Here are a few cases that are exceptional in quality. It would be arrogant to assume that everyone but yourself is blindly ignorant and incapable of critical thought.

Is it gullible to believe several eyewitnesses to a spontaneous event just because it doesn't correspond to your personal experiences? I don't think so. And further more, the evidence itself often defies logical explanation.


1. The Watseka Wonder, 1887. Stevens, E.W. 1887. The Watseka Wonder, Chicago; Religio-philosophical Publishing House, and Hodgson R., Religio-Philosophical Journal Dec. 20th, 1890, investigated by Dr. Hodgson.

2. Uttara Huddar and Sharada. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, 1980. 'A preliminary report on an unusual case of the reincarnation type with Xenoglossy'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 74, 331-348; and Akolkar V.V. 'Search for Sharada: Report of a case and its investigation'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 86, 209-247.

3. Sumitra and Shiva-Tripathy. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, and McLean-Rice, N 1989. 'A Case of the Possession Type in India with evidence of Paranormal Knowledge'. Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration 3, 81-101.

4. Jasbir Lal Jat. Stevenson, I, 1974. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (2nd edition) Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

5. The Thompson/Gifford case. Hyslop, J.H. 1909. A Case of Veridical Hallucinations, Proceedings American Society for Psychical Research 3, 1-469.

6. Past-life regression. Tarazi, L. 1990. 'An Unusual Case of Hypnotic Regression with some Unexplained Contents'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 84, 309-344.

7. Cross-correspondence communications. Balfour J. (Countess of) 1958-60. 'The Palm Sunday Case: New Light On an Old Love Story'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 52, 79-267.

8. Book and Newspaper Tests. Thomas, C.D. 1935. 'A Proxy Case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs Osborne Leonard'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 43, 439-519.

9. "Bim's" book-test. Lady Glenconnor. 1921. The Earthen Vessel, London, John Lane.

10. The Harry Stockbridge communicator. Gauld, A. 1966-72. 'A Series of Drop-in Communicators'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 55, 273-340.

11. The Bobby Newlove case. Thomas, C. D. 1935. 'A proxy case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs. Osborne Leonard'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 43, 439-519.

12. The Runki missing leg case. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. 'A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Runolfur Runolfsson'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69. 33-59.

13. The Beidermann drop-in case. Gauld, A. 1966-72. 'A Series of Drop-in Communicators'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 55, 273-340.

14. The death of Gudmundur Magnusson. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. 'A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Gudni Magnusson', Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69, 245-261.

15. Identification of deceased officer. Lodge, O. 1916. Raymond, or Life and Death. London. Methuen & Co. Ltd.

16. Mediumistic evidence of the Vandy death. Gay, K. 1957. 'The Case of Edgar Vandy', Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 39, 1-64; Mackenzie, A. 1971. 'An Edgar Vandy Proxy Sitting'. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 46, 166-173; Keen, M. 2002. 'The case of Edgar Vandy: Defending the Evidence', Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 64.3 247-259; 'Letters', 2003, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 67.3. 221-224.

17. Mrs Leonore Piper and the George "Pelham" communicator. Hodgson, R. 1897-8. 'A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 13, 284-582.

18. Messages from "Mrs. Willett" to her sons. Cummins, G. 1965. Swan on a Black Sea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

19. Ghostly aeroplane phenomena. Fuller, J.G. 1981 The Airmen Who Would Not Die, Souvenir Press, London.

20. Intelligent responses via two mediums: the Lethe case. Piddington, J. G. 1910. 'Three incidents from the Sittings'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 24, 86-143; Lodge, O. 1911. 'Evidence of Classical Scholarship and of Cross-Correspondence in some New Automatic Writing'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 25, 129-142.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1862045 -

Quote:
12. The Runki missing leg case. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. 'A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Runolfur Runolfsson'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69. 33-59.


Hehe "missing leg case", that one sounds fun... do you have any more details about it? :smile:

On a more serious note, I for one am not disputing that strange things happen. The question is what do such happenings prove? If there is no systematic effect there is no way to test any theory about what's causing the effect. For example, if someone finds that a JPEG-encoding of my face is present somewhere among the digits of "pi" that doesn't prove that those digits were caused in any way by my existence.
 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: blahblah]
    #1862248 -

blahblah said:
Circles, around we go: I was commenting on the connotation of your statement - circulatory reasoning in such debates. Sorry, if I didn't explain it clearer.


I am not using circulatory reasoning, I am not even arguing for or agansit whatever this is about (hehe). What I am pointing out is circulatory reasoning. And how it is bullshit. hehe

Quote:
Beliefs: Yes, but you didn't answer the other question.. the origins. Speaking in exceptions, of course.Beliefs don't just come out of thin air. Some are inborn. Since some of us here are the exceptions to society's orthodoxes, the collective beliefs here don't usually come from our immediate environments but serve as catalysts, and trigger points.

it's chicken-egg paradox. So how do you plead? I create the beleifs or do the beliefs create me? I guess you won't know until you draw your last breath. hehe


Beliefs have many different origions. However, I myself have taken the liberty of examining all the beliefs that have been held inside my head, examined them, and find out which ones I should actually hold, which ones I shouldn't, so on, so on...

No matter who ingrained beliefs into me before I was capable of actively controlling them, I have now taken it as my duty to actively manage my beliefs...

Quote:
Mindtrap said:If you want proof of the paranormal all you need to do is look. Here are a few cases that are exceptional in quality. It would be arrogant to assume that everyone but yourself is blindly ignorant and incapable of critical thought.

Is it gullible to believe several eyewitnesses to a spontaneous event just because it doesn't correspond to your personal experiences? I don't think so. And further more, the evidence itself often defies logical explanation.


If you mistook me as saying that everyone but myself is blindly ignorant and incapable of critical thought, I blame your own thinking. hehe

What I did say is that everyone's reality is at the mercy of our own subjective views. These views might be reflections of "objective reality", they might not be, it doesn't matter; as there is only us and ideas, and there is no definition of what is right to believe in, and what is wrong (except for when people take it on their own to decide that for others, which is still just an idea, not the ultimate definition)

"Is it gullible to believe several eyewitnesses to a spontaneous event just because it doesn't correspond to your personal experiences?"

Yeah, I think so. This isn't about believing several eyewitnesses. They obviously have some belief as to what they saw, what they experienced, etc, and that's all right with me. What they choose to believe makes it real to them.

Since I had no experience, I am not about to judge what really happened, or say "yes, that must have happened", or "no, it couldn't have", because I wasn't there. I am not saying paranomal occurences occur, I am saying that I was not there, did not experience in sort of sensory input, so I will not jump to conclusions about what it was that was experienced or the cause of it.
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: fireworks_god]
    #1862374 -

Well I'll have to disagree with you there.

I assume if a tree falls down in the woods and you weren't there to see it then it didn't happen in your world.

Not all eyewitnesses to paranormal events are gullible fools. That is arrogant on your part and igorant as well in my opinion.

The Runki's leg case involved a drop in communicator that provided verifiable evidence of his (Runki) previous existance. Check it out for specifics.

To tell me that all of these cases are bogus simply because you did not see them is ignorant. There are cases which can not be explained even by fraudulent means. For instance the case of Patience Worth which I did not list.

I think fireworks_god is more of a contrarian than a true dibeliever though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1862468 -

MindTrap said:
Well I'll have to disagree with you there.

I assume if a tree falls down in the woods and you weren't there to see it then it didn't happen in your world.

Not all eyewitnesses to paranormal events are gullible fools. That is arrogant on your part and igorant as well in my opinion.

The Runki's leg case involved a drop in communicator that provided verifiable evidence of his (Runki) previous existance. Check it out for specifics.

To tell me that all of these cases are bogus simply because you did not see them is ignorant. There are cases which can not be explained even by fraudulent means. For instance the case of Patience Worth which I did not list.

I think fireworks_god is more of a contrarian than a true dibeliever though.



You misunderstand me. That's where the problem is arising. In no way am I saying that these cases are bogus simply because I have not experienced them. All I have been saying is that without concrete evidence, there is really no way to back the story up to others. And if there is evidence, then there is no problem, right?

I am not saying in any way that I don't believe that paranormal events take place. In no way do I believe that "what you see, is what you get" in this world. I haven't really experienced anything that can be described as that, but I am not saying that the possibilites that they occur or even that they do occur are not possible.

What I am saying is that I can't take up any beliefs without some sort of evidence... whether it is me experiencing something for myself or some logical thinking on my part, or if it is concrete evidence from the objective world.

And my original reason for posting was to demonstrate that this "circular reasoning" or whatever works in both directions (hhmm... circular....). It just bugs me when someone claims something's glorious and triumphant TRUTH, with an unshakable belief in it, and then dismiss arguements agansit is as "it can't be proven wrong"... If it can't be proven right, then how can you even begin to express its omnipotency to others? Even if you still have the belief in it, or whatever, that's fine. It's your Universe, do with it what you want.

No, I am not overly skeptic or an "unbeliever". I might be a "contrarion", but I guess that depends on your viewpoint.. if you are implying that I get off on contradicting what others say, you are wrong... What I am usually trying to express is that of which lies beyond our normal perceptions and thinking patterns.. That we are just part of a system where the truths in that system only apply to that system...

You assume that if a tree falls in the forest, and I am not there to witness it, then it doesn't fall in my world? Haha. The first thing that you must realize is that the tree doesn't exist..

What you are saying is coming from not fulling understanding the way I think, which is much to expansive to get acrossed in even a few posts, and sometimes appears to contradict itself because I purposely try to not have anything set in stone, as far as thought, beliefs, etc. are concerned..

I am not saying that you have to experience something to believe it exists, or anything remotely close to that. I have basically no consciousness of what is going on inside my own body, this world, this solar system, this galaxy, this Universe (and whatever it consists of, who fucking knows?), so only relying on personal experience would be pretty shallow, individualistic, and damned ignorant..
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: fireworks_god]
    #1862481 -

I agree.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1862489 -

Communication... Its a blessing... ?takes rock and motions frantically with accompanying grunts?
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1862553 -

I think beliefs are to be taken with a grain of salt simply because we are incapable of truly understanding the big picture.

If I were to witness, with my own eyes, a solid object move through another solid object (which people have) I would attempt to justify this using my very human understanding of physics. If I could not do this then I would most likely try to create a scenario to explain these events.

This does not mean that my scenario is correct or that the event even occured (hallucination for instance is a good explanation). It just means that I observed it with my own eyes.

Now if an outside observer (independant verifier) witnesses the same occurance (as has been the case) then I need to put less emphisis on internal causes such as hallucaination in favor of more external causes. Even still there is a possiblity that both parties were hallucinating the event at the same time which is almost as paranormal as the event itself. Still I can not justify these events based on my current level of knowledge.

All I can say for sure is that I observed a solid object moving through another solid object and it has been verified by an outside witness.

We can not (with our current level of understanding) possibly know for certain what caused the object to move through the other object. We can however look at all of the verifiable evidence (in this case anecdotal evidence) we do have and come up with theories to explain these events.

You could say that the event was suggestive of either a mass hallucination or dematerialization. These would be considered beliefs to most people.

I personally try not to explain these things too much. I don't think we are even capable at this stage to truly understand these things. Thus the paranormality of it all.

I do believe though that things do happen which can not be explained by science. Although I can never be 100% positive of this fact I can say that due to some of my personal observations I am 90% sure of this.

Subjective indeed. If I were to tell you about how I saw a solid object move through another solid object you would obviously be skeptical. You would be a fool not to be.

I do not think you would be a fool to "believe" (be open-minded to the possibility) of an event that was observed by 20 eyewitnesses (some of whom are very well educated and respected in their communities and whom have collected physical evidence of the occurance which is available for observation.

Has anyone ever checked out the Enfield poltergiest case?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1863513 -

Swami,
I don't know why you even bother discussing stuff here on this forum. Your quest for proof of the supernatural is going nowhere. You ask the same questions and get the same replies again and again. I would love for you (and me) to find some proof, but I doubt if it will crop up here. What keeps you persevering here in particular? It seems to me that you are totally wasting your time. It is nice to discuss things and your threads are generally quite interesting and your comments are intelligent. But why keep going at this stage? The discussions keep going round and round in circles. It all seems so pointless.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Phalanxx]
    #1863521 -

Because if someone doesn't do it, then this forum would spin off into the infinite nonsense of mythical, unfounded spritual shit..
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: fireworks_god]
    #1863562 -

Aye, Swami is a hero. Fear him.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Phalanxx]
    #1864870 -

Someone has to tend the fire...


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: blahblah]
    #1865956 -

[regarding prayer]

what you're asking are the reproducibles from one unique environment with unknown variables to another where both parties have no broad scope of insight and controlling it. Do you understand those kinds of variables that haven't been mapped out?

So in a unique environment with unknown variables, you trust the observer's ability to pick out the one crucial variable? I do not!

Example: Mother whose child has leuekmia and is getting the latest medical care attributes healing to prayer.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1865961 -

For example, if someone finds that a JPEG-encoding of my face is present somewhere among the digits of "pi"...

Then I will worship you as the Anti-Christ.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
    #1865986 -

I do not think you would be a fool to "believe" (be open-minded to the possibility) of an event that was observed by 20 eyewitnesses ...

It has NOTHING to do with the intent, integrity, honesty or number of witnesses to an event, but to an understanding of how our perceptions are formed by preconditiong.

There were some 10,000(!) witness to the Phoenix Lights case who were ALL WRONG in thinking that they say alien spacecraft, when independent analysis of the videotapes clearly showed the lights dropped at the same rate of speed as military flares, were not directly over Phoenix as witnesses claimed, but were some 50 miles away, and happened to be over a military air base.

This case is important as it was one of the few that could be easily examined AFTER the event and by the fact that there were dozens of videotapes from different sources.

I tend to believe that many of the weird cases that you presented as evidence of something paranormal would turn out equally as prosaic if there was a way to do more research as there was in this milestone case of mass self-deception.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Swami]
    #1865987 -

Swami said:
I sincerely doubt if you took a spaceship filled with babies in hibernation and no library on board and sent to another planet, that few, if any, of these ideas would even be dreamed up.



Well it all depends on circumstances, if they are faced with similar circumstances then their human DNA will tell them to react on a similar way we did. Example: If they discover psychedelics, they might start beliving in a higher power, much like humans on earth did. And then because of their human desire to be part of Something they will create "groups" or religions, then one of the babies will be a leader and ban all drugs, leaving the group without tought just following orders, much like humans, and then.... wait i should make this into a MOVIE!!!!!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Albert Einstein quoted sleepy 2,137 6 11/03/07 12:30 AM
by Grok
* Einstein's Internal Conflict
( 1 2 all )		 Sclorch 4,669 32 06/06/03 03:51 PM
by Zero7a1
* Albert Einstein
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Swami 8,014 95 12/11/04 08:53 AM
by Annom
* formal education versus studying independently Epigallo 2,024 19 08/19/08 10:22 AM
by Epigallo
* Einstein was smart enough to believe in himself not God
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 hitch hiker 8,644 83 05/30/08 12:31 PM
by backfromthedead
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )		 BleedingSickness 6,365 42 10/07/02 04:00 PM
by Zahid
* Einstein: Religion and Science trendalM 1,723 13 01/25/04 11:15 AM
by trendal
* Einstein palmersc 1,492 13 05/31/06 11:09 PM
by Schwammel

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
11,659 topic views. 1 members, 76 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.