I hate to impose, but if somebody would be me a huge courtesy and tell me if, in their mind, is this thread worth reading? I’ve avoided it for 32 pages, but I’m wondering of there is something of substance in here somewhere. The first couple pages and this page seemed there wasn’t much, but should I commit the time to go through the other 29 pages? Thanks.
hmmm
Sheesh. I must not be fully awake. I had to read that sentence three times to understand your point. When did I ever even remotely imply that you were believers?
So what exactly would ever prove any aspect of the paranormal to you? Do you expect science to come up with some test that will provide proof? Isn’t it essentially true, from how I understand your world view, that the only way you would ever believe in the supernatural would be if you had a personal experience?
If you enjoy running at full speed headfirst into brick walls, then I say sure! Go for it.
OTOH, in this thread we haven’t solved all the problems of the world. Or even one, for that matter.
This threads takes some rather interesting twists and turns but you would probably enjoy investing your time into something more productive. Than again, it does sort of address the most intriguing question that any human ever asks: What happens to us when we die?
Is that about as clear as mud?
Fascinating…
I learned something today. For some reason I had always assumed this had faded away long ago.
GOM, I’ve seen posts in the past by others who suggested that Atheists (for example) are really true believers who are in denial; that nobody really doesn’t believe in God. The “interesting…” at the end of your post made me think you might be suggesting the same sort of thing. If I misinterpreted, I apologize.
Not at all. I don’t have to experience it myself, I just need to see verifiable, repeatable, unbiased evidence, that leaves no room for a more prosaic explanation, such as cold reading. So far I’ve seen none.
GOM You and I may disagree on the metaphysical, but that was funny. 
Mind you, I might have gone for more of an “If your idea of fun is a Jabenero enema, then dive in,” but that’s just me. 
Ah. Now I see…
I learned two things here today. That’s a good thing. I’ve never heard of that perspective before.
No apologies needed. Message boards are difficult to communicate effectively on even between two people who agree.
Have a great weekend. I’m outta here.
What’s that supposed to mean???
It’s the weekend, so maybe he’s got an out of body experience planned.
Well, there’s always the James Randi $1,000,000 prize.
Funny thing – when Randi insists on a carefully controlled experiment, most of the applicants for that prize leave in a huff.
Interest in Reich got a little shot-in-the-arm in the 1960s. The man invented the term “sexual revolution”, and that got many hippies’ attention.
Not surprisingly, my dad found out about Wilhelm Reich while we were living in Berkeley, California, the hippie capital of the world.
Gotta love berkeley. Peoples park, suicide hill…
I’ve thought of doing a brief synopsis of this thread for those who unwarily wander here.
I’ve decided to explore.
I’m actually going to visit some local professional or expert psychics myself.
I’ll have to use a tape recorder so that later I can generate a transcript.
My initial inclination is to ask as suggested “Are you asking me or telling me?” Lekatt said that they love that.*
Any other suggestions as to the “how” of how I should go about this business and make an accurate record of the experience?
I want to remain respectful and I don’t want to bait them or sabotage or booby trap them. Think naturalist documentation/survey not scientific experiment. It seems like it could be a fun hobby for a while to collect recordings of psychic readings done for me.
I’ve heard that psychics can be leery of being recorded. I wonder how true that is.
Would it be moral/legal for me to record my sessions w/o prior consent? Don’t journalists and cops, (and wildlife surveyors), do that sort of thing all the time?
On another point:
I recieved respones from the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park MD in regards to the muster rolls from the USS Kenneth M. Willett (DE-354)
Jan 1, 1955 to Dec 31 1956 RL-1110
Jan. 1, 1957 to Dec. 31, 1958 RL-1481
I haven’t heard back from the people in St. Louis about McMoneagle. I’ll re-mail them week comin.
Hamlet,
You should read every single post. Every time you come a place where someone says “I already answered that,” or “I already provided a cite for that,” or “I never said that,” go back and search through the hundreds of previous posts and find out if is so instead of merely reading ahead. Re-read the thread.
YMMV
*This is a rough paraphrase of what Lekatt said. Any resemblance between the concept conveyed by the sentence indicated and what Lekatt posted is purely intentional. Any instances of error are unitntentional and subject to remedy.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention-
I’m gonna tell them “I wanna talk to dead people.”
Moral? Sure. Legal? Not so sure. State laws vary on it. I think in general it would be perfectly fine, but I don’t know for sure. Saying you were not recording if asked could possibly get you in trouble. Again, it depends. Should probably look it up before you do…
Ooh, another thing they just love: Give them no feedback. If they say “I sense that the deceased was close to you,” don’t say “yes” or “no”. Just keep a poker face. Maybe say “okay” if they’re looking to see if you’ve heard and understoon their words or not, but give them nothing more. Why, they’ll just love you to pieces for letting them do their work unimpeded by your interruptions, and will certainly give you the bestest reading ever!
We’ve had a ton of psychic and paranormal themed shows here in Denmark lately. The most popular one seems to be the old talking to the dead bit (with the added complication that the medium only speaks English and can use the language barrier to dodge any wrong readings)
Danmarks Radio (the local equivalent to the BBC) is doing a multipart series on scepticism or lack thereof in modern times. (They’ve even got James Randi). They’ve set up a local expert panel consisting of a doctor and expert on the brain and mind, a defense lawyer, and a nuclear physicist.
They team up with a person who claims to have supernatural abilities and devise a test they all can agree would prove or disprove said person’s ability. A couple of days ago they did the exact thing SimonX is proposing. The head of the Danish Clairvoyants agreed to read three people whom she’d never met before. The three people had been instructed not to say anything but yes or no. I’ll spare you the details, but she was waaaay off.
Anyway, she was later asked what sort of test would demonstrate her abilities and she said that her reading of the three people should be more than adequate. When shown the tape (she hadn’t heard the results earlier) she paused. She said she was very surprised. She asked what the purpose of the show was. She then claimed (I couldn’t believe it!) that since the show was sceptical in nature mischievous spirits had deliberately fed her wrong information! While I was trying to wrap my mind around that one the segment ended, presumably with her asking them to leave her alone lest the spirits would haunt her forever.
The show’s great fun and I hope it’ll stem the tide of psychic TV (I’m looking at you, Pet Psychic).
No. Just out of my mind!
Okay. That makes complete sense. I never heard that connection before. Leary was getting most of the publicity back then, IIRC.
Good idea – but why have a nuclear physicist on the show?
I’m reminded that Targ and Puthoff, the two guys who were bamboozled by Uri Geller’s cheap stage tricks, were both quantum physicists.
My immediate guess would be that they wanted someone with knowledge of physics. It seems a reasonable area to cover in combination with the other two on the panel.
Would you disqualify him because two (perhaps gullible) people in a similar profession were fooled?
Besides, if they’re fooled, I mean, convinced, there’s still Randi’s final test.