D’oh! Must…remember…preview…is…good!
Here are some symptoms of the “required mind state for accurate remote viewing to occur.”
:insert joke here)
Okay. Then I must ask you: Remember the “extinct” Coelacanth?!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/185239.stm
Before 1938, when a fishing trawler landed a 12kg specimen while operating off the South African coast, **coelacanth were thought to have been extinct for 65 million years. **
Ooops! How did scientists make such a silly mistake? An example of one threw their** opinions **into the trash.
I see your point. I think you probably see mine.
Ah, yes. The coelacanth. I trust you’ll recall that the coelacanth is a deep see fish that occasionally swims to depths at which it can be caught. Bigfoot is supposedly wandering around the forests, where anybody can go if they want to and have the supplies and time.
The fact is, if somebody had gone around saying “I saw a coelacanth,” without ever producing one, only a few people would have believed it. (Yes, they would have ultimately been proven right, in that case, but that’s not the point) So, why should we believe the people who claim they’ve seen Bigfoot or Nessie or any of the other Crypto-creatures?
As I said once before, show me a corpse that passes inspection and isn’t stitched together out of old parts of bear and orangutan and I’ll say “wow, it does exist.” In the meantime forget it.
SimonX, I don’t know how much of that website you looked at, but I found their link to
mind-tek.com, where one can purchase products to learn how to do TRV, which included the QLink pendant, which helps to “tune one’s natural energy field.” Or, as they put it themselves:
(emphasis mine)
So we see that the inestimable Wilhelm Reich’s band of merry followers continue to try and squeeze money out of the easily conned. Isn’t that nice?
You know about Wilhelm Reich???
His Holiness the Dope speaks on Wilhelm Reich.
Let me say, I don’t mean to imply that Reich himself was a con-man. It seems that he believed in what he was pitching. That doesn’t mean that others haven’t grabbed onto his ideas to make a buck though.
Doesn’t everybody?
-
A common mistake. Linking unrelated topics and then rejecting them all.
-
Okay. It’s your choice, of course. Forget all the physical evidence for sasquatch. Is that your perception of how science works?
Huh?!
Did I just slip into the Twilight Zone?
:::: You are now entering a world where everyone knows about Wilhelm Reich. Fasten your seatbelts. ::::
there’re even Reich for dummies/beginners books available
GOM, You brought up the coelacanth. I merely pointed out that, until the actual fish was found, there was no more evidence to support its continued existence than there is yet to support the Crypto-creatures. Testimony isn’t the same as evidence, as you should know by now.
I thought you had read the previous posts in this thread. I have no problem with evidence and with scientific research as long as it’s conducted properly. The cryptozoologists, particularly the Bigfoot hunters, deal in speculation and hearsay. The “evidence” is dubious at best. The Patterson film has been “enhanced” in ways that defy optics and film resolution, which means the people doing the enhancing have replaced what’s actually there with what they want to see.
Appologies for the length of time before my reply. I was without net access for the weekend…
And again I’ll ask you to not attribute something to me that I did not say. What I said was that if he does solve a crime, remote viewing is not the only way he could have solved it. Therefor, it is useless as “proof,” and anyone’s opinion on it (Wether it’s me, you, the Japanese police force, or a 2-year-old kid) is irrelevant. However, if you really want to drag Occam’s Razor into it, which do you find more likely? That he solves the crime through some supernatural ability that there is no solid evidence for at all, or that he somehow got ahold of information related to a crime and is going to use that information to “miraculously” solve a crime? Occam’s Razor is not very friendly to any claims of supernatural phenomenon.
The only conclusion I can draw before the fact is that, considering his past record, the chance that he could remote-view the solution to a crime sucessfully seems rather low.
Huh? What “proof” are you refering to? Or are you attributing something to me that I didn’t say, again?
Occam’s Razor nothing. “Of all possible answers, the simplest one is most likely right.” It has no relevance here. It deals with how likely something is, out of all possible scenarios. So by Occam’s Razor, that particular scenario you singled out is probably the least likely one I put up (And it is). But it does not change the fact that it is one of the many possible scenarios. Are you saying that the scenario is 100% absolutely impossible of happening? Because if it is not 100% impossible, it is possible.
I did not say it was likely. In fact, I’d say it’s so ludicrously insane that it’s almost impossible, and I had considered not including it because I knew you would single that one event out to attack, but I felt that the further clarification that would come if you did would be worth it. Wether something is “almost impossible” or “almost certainly true,” it’s still “possible.” I am not claiming anything, and I’m certainly not accusing him. What I am saying is that, even if he does solve the crime, there are ways other than “remote viewing” that he could have used. Can you honestly claim there is no other way he could possibly solve a crime?
Do you really need me to write out every possible scenario that I can think of to see that there are indeed other possible scenarios? Because I know for a fact that I can not think up every possible scenario that could happen. I have no mystic insight into how things are happening. I’m sure there are plenty ways he could get the answer that I can’t think of. I have to be very vague in my “possible scenarios” because I don’t know names, locations, what happened in the crime, etc. My five scenarios I already put forward could cover hundreds just by changing what person gives him the information (Was it the victim’s relatives? A witness that feared going to the cops but couldn’t resist a sizeable amount of money? Maybe the criminal was boasting about what he did? Or maybe he was a fan of Ed’s and told him information that would solve the case, so that Ed could “miraculously” solve the crime after the criminal had died, and his time has finally passed?), or what the information is (Did he get exact names, or did he get a single clue that led to a chain of events that eventually led to the full truth? Or maybe just a “close enough” that it was worth a little guess), or many other factors.
In any case, all of this side-tracking is irrelevant. You’ve said yourself “some other scenario could be the way Ed solves the crime.” So you’re now saying exactly what I said at the begining, and still claiming that what I said is unreasonable?
My question is this: Van Praagh, Jon Edward, etc. seem to specialize in contacting the recently departed. If we postulate that all souls eventually end up in Heaven, what about the billions of people who have passed on in the past 6000 years?
Does Julius Caesar’s approximately 2000-year sojourn in the great Beyond affect his ability (or willingness) to communicate? Why isn’t W. Shakespearejust bursting with ideas to send on to us (the living)?
Really, my biggest criticism of these so-calledpsychics, is the dearth of contacts with people who could really tell us something…like Ceasar, F.W.Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, etc. Why can’t the psychics contact these kind of people, instead of bothering somebodies’ Uncle Al or Aunt Em?
James Van Praagh and John Edward are specialists who do concentrate on the newly departed. They can only communicate with those “dead people” who are around the ones they are reading. These “dead people” are there because they have emotional ties to the living.
As for Caesar, Shakespeare, etc., they would not be around since they have no emotional ties to the living who are being read.
They don’t bother these “dead people”, they want to communicate or they wouldn’t be there.
I hope this helps.
Love
Leroy
And you know this, how?
They don’t bother any dead people. They only bother the living while drilling them for information to make themselves look good.
I knew you couldn’t stay away.
Look who’s come back from the dead!
**
Nitpick, Occam’s Razor, or the Principle Of Parsimony is “Never multiply entities beyond necessity.”
Says the man who’s MetaConscious Mind keeps communicating with him in his dreams. What did you think the meant? I would think that a strenous climb up a mountain and then down the wall of the volcanic crater at its summit, in order to hae counsel with a wyrm of molten gold and shining vermillion would be pretty clear.
I think I’ve established my bona fides as a psychic here. . . Unless, of course, this means Lekatt thinks more maturity has been shown recently.
Lekatt drops in every time there is a question he feels he can answer. Then we start asking hard questions, like how does he know? Then we approach meltdown because Lekatt can’t answer. Then he leaves again.
Simple.