No. There are not. This answer would not stand unchallenged for five minutes, if it came from Lekatt.
You cannot provide thousands of ways to solve a crime. You cannot even provide hundreds of ways to solve a crime. If the police cannot solve a crime using their methods and you discount the possibility that remote viewing can be used to solve the crime, what exactly are your “hundreds” of other ways to solve crimes? If you really know hundreds of ways, police departments around the world will be knocking at your door tomorrow to hire you. There are unsolved crimes out there waiting for you.
Btw, I’m not saying remote viewing can solve a crime. I haven’t seen evidence for that. However, if you demand proof from Lekatt about his statements, you should also be willing to provide proof to back up your statement.
To throw my two cents in, I’d have to say you don’t accept eyewitness testimony on two occasions:
When it’s the only evidence.
and
When the claim is out of the realm of the ordinary. For example, if I claimed that aliens came to me and demanded that the world recognize my authority, then I’d say I’d want some proof other than my testimony.
THE REALITY OF SASQUATCH
**
Most of those who do not believe that Sasquatch is a real, living creature have not taken any time to study the subject. **In reality, there is too much evidence that they are real, and no evidence that they aren’t. Hoaxers play a very small role in Sasquatch research, and are usually quickly discovered with very little effort. To fake a “Real” Sasquatch footprint would simply take too much effort, highly sophisticated equipment, and a strict background in Podiatry in order to produce authentic looking Sasquatch tracks.
Films, on the other hand, can be easily faked with modern equipment, but that equipment did not exist in 1967 when Patterson shot his footage. Today, most photos and films are suspect of being hoaxed, but the Patterson film remains the best bit of evidence yet offered to the world.
Hair and fecal samples have been collected and analysed, and found to be that of an unknown primate. Since primates do not exist in the areas where this evidence was collected, they must be that of the Sasquatch.
Although people often mistake known animals for Sasquatches, the legitimate reports describe a very similar animal. **Usually the eyewitnesses never believed in Sasquatch until they actually see one. **Sometimes footprints accompany the sighting, making the sighting more credible. I have interviewed scores of people who have witnessed a Sasquatch, and all but two were likely telling the truth. I’ve also seen three sets of tracks of which all were convincing, with huge strides of giant feet … in hard packed ground.
Okay. Back on topic.
I’m curious Meatros,
How would you propose to gain additional evidence about an NDE?
To be honest, I don’t know. Speaking for myself, I would accept someone’s (whom I knew to be an honest person) testimony about the afterlife. I wouldn’t say the NDE was a fact, but I would believe them.
Sort of like what Gould said about the two magistras, one for science and the other for religion/philosophy. An NDE, IMO, would fall under the religion/philosophy magistra and that wouldn’t necessarily cross over into the science magistra.
All this being said: If there was a way to test for NDE accuracy, then I’d probably be more inclined to rely on that then on my friend (depending on what science would uncover about it).
I agree with Meatros. Eyewitness testimony by itself* is never sufficient. That doesn’t mean it’s false, simply that it’s not sufficient. Look at all the people who’ve seen UFO’s and testified to what they saw, only to have the object later identified as something completely different from what they described. They thought they had an explanation, only to find later that it didn’t match the facts.
(Interestingly enough not even a carcass would convince 100% of the doubters.)
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~rfthomas/papers/results.html
Results of a Questionnaire on the Sasquatch
What would convince the doubters? Not surprisingly, all 14 who answered the question indicated that a live sasquatch would convince them. Next would be a carcass (12); a “long duration sighting by several naturalists” (9);** personal observation of a sasquatch **(8); “film by a team of naturalists” (5); and “leg-bone from a sasquatch” (5). One respondent mentioned that she would be convinced if some of her personal friends had seen one; another that she would be convinced if there were a “compelling ethnological and psychological framework for ordering the available evidence.”
I don’t think this is that unusual, I mean after all hollywood puts out a lot of convincing illusions. So I don’t think that it’s that hard of a stretch to imagine some bored artist (or creature designer) ‘creating’ a bigfoot and placing it somewhere to get a few yucks.
Fair enough. I’m not sure I completely understand your answer, but I’m about out of time for now…
Anyway, let’s say that** you** happen to have an NDE. I hope you don’t, but let’s pretend you did. How would you convince anyone here of what happened to you?
I probably wouldn’t seek to convince anyone here, but then again it would depend on the NDE. If I was 100% convinced that what I saw wasn’t a result of the last second chemical firing of some brain cells, then I think I would put up my experience as anecdotal. I’d let people take shots at it, and if my experience turned out to be more of a case of wishful thinking, then I would say so.
In all likelihood though, I think I would share it with a decided note of “I believe this, but that doesn’t mean you have to” shot of reality in there.
Which is basically what this whole thread has been about. People are free to believe whatever they want. When they present anecdotes and opinion as proof however, skeptics feel compelled to point out the fallacies in their arguments.
GOM, in the Sasquatch site you first linked too, there were a lot of assumptions presented as proof. There was a lot of speculation but no real proof was cited. One of the significant points was that the Patterson footage couldn’t have been faked:
I imagine we’ve all seen that footage at one time or another; probably several times. The focus is not great, and the stills produced from it hardly offer proof that it’s not a suit, and certainly it’s not clear that there’s no zipper. Plus the gait certainly looks human to me. Keep in mind that even though currently available methods weren’t available then for altering footage, that’s no proof that it isn’t fake. Besides, what do Russian “experts” have to do with anything? That’s just an appeal to authority.
Now, let me just say, I’m not an authority. My arguments above are my own and may be entirely wrong. My point is that the arguments and statements at the website aren’t sufficient in and of themselves. Plus, computer enhancement of a fuzzy image is a variable proposition at best. It’s not that difficult to “enhance” an image to make it look like whatever you want it to.
Once again it comes down to “who are you going to believe?” In all the cases presented so far in this thread the “evidence” has been based on conjecture, hearsay and anecdote. Conclusions are drawn based on the notion that “there’s no other explanation” when in fact there is.
The difference between that and Lekatt’s testimony, is that according to your account, Dannion Brinkley was certifiably, physically affected, i.e. he experienced death in his Near Death Experience. So, yes, I’m more likely to accept the testimony on a Near Death Experience from one who has actually come physically close to death.
I recall mention in the previous NDE thread of doctors placing objects where the patient could never see it, but it would be plainly visible if the patient’s body was observed above. The objects were supposedly visually distinct, so they would be noticable. Of all the NDE claims made by patients in these circumstances, none could identify the planted object.
Holy hell, you’re sure attributing me with a whole lot I didn’t say!
Yes, I probably could provide hundreds of ways he could find out how a crime was comitted. There are many ways, after all. You want proof that I could supply “hundreds or thousands” of possible alternative scenarios to remote viewing the answer? Okay. He could have hired a PI to investigate. He could have guessed right. He could have even been told by the person who did it. He might have stumbled across a clue one day, completely by accident, that the police needed to solve the crime, and held onto it for his own purposes. Hell, he could have been the one that committed the crime. Want me to come up with more, or will you take my word on my own imagination? I said there were hundreds of ways he could have solved the crime, not that there were hundreds of ways that all would have worked inclusively. If he solves the crime, congratulations, he’s solved the crime. If he’s claiming he solved it because he “saw” it, there are still alternate ways he might have actually done it. Or are you saying it’s impossible for him to have found out about the crime a different way, and then just lie about how he solved it?
Now then, please point out where I discounted the possibility of remote viewing. I didn’t. What I did was point out that there is the possibility of alternate answers. And considering his failure rate in the past, it seems quite likely that the alternate answers are the truth.
This sentance seems to be in direct contradiction of you claiming that I couldn’t think of any ways he might have gotten the answer. Either you’re saying that remote viewing is the solution, or you’re admiting that some other scenario may be the solution. You can’t have it both ways.
If I thought I’d had an NDE I’d be willing to entertain notions that the experience wasn’t all that it seemed. I’d also have very good reason to think that I was dead.
I’ve witnessed an NDE along the lines of Lekatt’s. It was like Lekatt’s in that there was no reason to think that my friend was dead or dying other than his subsequent report. As far as I can tell my friend took his experience to be very real. He remembered things that definitely did not happen. The unlikely scenario that he remembers as real involved not only God and dying, but the Devil, UFO’s and aliens, the ET kind. The experience had PROFOUND effect on his life for years since to this day almost two decades later.
Was it real? It was to him. Certainly not “proof” of anything though- not even eyewitnesses saw anything close to what he did. I was there.
If I was him I’d prob’ly be very concerned for my mental health. Which he was. We all were, of course.
No. I do not claim remote viewing can solve crimes. Ed Dames says he can solve crimes using remote viewing. I do not “remote view”. I consider it a dangerous practice. My comment addresses only this point: I have never personally seen proof that remote viewing has solved one crime. Tha’t’s all. For all I know, many crimes have been solved using remote viewing. OTOH, it’s also possible that no crimes have ever been solved using remote viewing.
And of course some other scenario could be the way Ed solves the crime. However it appears to me that you belittle the capability of the Japanese police to detect Ed at cheating, which you seem to imply is the only way he could ever solve any case. I say let him take a shot at it with his method and let’s see what the results are. Then you can criticize his results. Btw, I am not overly impressed with his success rate to date, but if he convinces the Japanese police I think that should carry at least some credibility with you.
