This is a free ebook called magic of the future…
http://www.hscti.com/magicofthefuture.pdf
is it a hoax?
BTW if you get tense or sweaty when thinking about it, I do too.
Here are technological applications of it:
http://www.hscti.com/c_supermanifestation.html
http://www.hscti.com/316_mindcontrol.html
http://www.hscti.com/317_attackdefense.html
Did you laminate your Universal Pentacle, as Welz advises on page 54? 'Cause I think that’s cheating, personally. Especially if you’re using store-bought, prelaminated Elemental Polygons, too. In my day, if you dropped your Universal Pentacle into the barbecue sauce, too bad. Venus was going to have to optimize its own aura until you could get to the cleaners. Still, if HKW sells even ten $2000.00 orgone generators and corresponding sets of filter cards, I’m sure he will feel his efforts have not been wasted.
This reminds me of a 66-page version of the 3" advertisements you can find in the backs of some less-successful magazines. When I touched my computer screen, the PDF actually smeared.
Let’s do it this way: go in the other direction first, and let’s try to prove that the guy is legitimate. Assume magic is possible, and that magic is what HKW says it is. What evidence is there in that article that any of the techniques and gadgets HKW is trying to sell you actually work? Cars are real. But a mechanic can know all about cars and still sell his brother-in-law a lemon, or some worthless fuel additive. HKW wants our money. What criteria must be met before we send him a check?
Also
From the back cover of IEEE internet computing, volume 1, number 2, march-april 1997
http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/717/lucent29uv.jpg
(front cover)
http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/6870/netcomputing38ut.jpg
(I stole that magazine from a mental hospital while I was still in a semi-magic-believing state)
I now think that from a materialists POV, the effects of magic always have a simple materialistic explanation like chance or hallucinations.
I’m not saying I believe in everything in that ebook… but here are people who do… and some are building devices for themselves…
http://www.xtrememind.com/phpbb/index.php
Could you explain exactly why it makes you tense or sweaty; I mean it’s an assemblage of steaming bullshit and this factor alone makes me grind my teeth, but I’m not sure if that’s the same kind of thing you’re describing.
JohnClay, the habit of treating your thread as a soliloquy with links is impolite, like inviting someone to lunch and then pretending you can’t see or hear them. Get away from your “sources” for a while, they’re not helping anyhow, and interact with others. I would have been perfectly willing to spend some time discussing Magic of the Future with you, and just for fun I even proposed a way to do it that wouldn’t involve the whole dreary “but there is no such thing” problem. But if this thread is a solo, all I can do is apologize for interrupting and leave you to it.
Well how about saying whether you are here looking for a debate, or merely witnessing? Because at this point it just looks like you’re witnessing.
That’s allowed of course, but it would be polite to let us know if that is your sole intent.
Yes, and some people beleive that tinfoil beanies stop Major Legaue Baseball from reading their minds… and some are building devices for themselves…
So what is your point? That crackpots who believe build psuedoscientific junk should be taken as evidence? That they shouldn’t be taken as evidence? What?
Sorry I shouldn’t have started this thread. I am an on the fence Christian and after reading the ebook it appears to be Satanic.
The ebook also talks about animal sacrifices in order to gain the life force…
This is an interesting link about cultures that had animal and human sacrifice
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/demons_aliens_clothes.htm
When I get involved in discussions I tend to go on for ages. When I wrote this I guess I was thinking I was like tossing you a piece of meat and you’d fight over it. (I’ve got a lot to learn about humility - and also connecting with my fellow man)
Well there were lots stories from people on that messageboard about their experiences with the equipment. It doesn’t prove anything I guess. Well since I’m pretty Christian you shouldn’t be worried about that stuff anyway.
You’re right there at least.
I think we can safely say that nobody here is worried about this stuff.
Irritated, sure. Bemused, definitely. Amused, probably. Worried, not a chance.
To answer the question in the thread title: yes.
As do so many of us, right?
Let me parse John’s debate in this sense:
“Is there any reason to believe the claims made in this book and on the forums connected to it? If not, why not? Is so, why?”
Would that do it for you, John?
(That forum is from a slick website that isn’t connected to the ebook… it sells NLP persuasion, hypnosis and “psionic/chi power” products. Though they include Karl Welz’s products but so do many other websites.)
Well they have a test on the website (and in the ebook) you’d have to try it to see if you can feel it…
http://www.hscti.com/#test
But if it does work for you or anyone else, I think it is bad for you karma…
Yeah… well I guess I could have asked if anyone believed in it and put it in the BBQ pit… the ebook makes assertions about the nature of reality.
Though the concept of a underlying symbolic reality fit in with the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) quite well
http://www.ctmu.org/
John, perhaps we should start by asking whether you actually understand what the term ‘scientific’ (and by extension, unscientific) means. Do you?
In discussions over CTMU they’ve also talked about karma
(google search for ctmu karma)
CTMU is discussed by people in a group with IQ’s that are at least 164.
http://www.megafoundation.org/Ultranet/index.html
That of course doesn’t prove that the material world has a symbolic basis (where related symbols could be entangled or whatever in order to tweak reality). But it’s about the best I can do since I think that from a materialist’s point of view, any kind of non-physical phenomena always seems like chance or hallucination…
Perhaps, then, before we move on to ‘scientific’, we could enquire whether you understand the term ‘dialogue’?
BTW I found a discussion board for CTMU…
http://www.megafoundation.net/~ctmu/login
Well I wasn’t sure how to respond to the witty remarks that seemed a bit negative (though I guess I deserved it)
Sorry, if they were a bit tongue-in-cheek, anyway, the linked material is anything but scientific, for several reasons, including:
-It does not appear to be at all interested in empirical observations, instead relying on highly subjective ‘feely’ tests.
-It does not appear to be at all interested in modifying its own hypotheses on the basis of observation; it’s merely about trying to prove itself by any and every method.