Return Home
It is currently Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:35 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:49 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:29 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Michigan
Quote:
But still a pretty strong nudge from the LCS!
Ted and Linda,
Do you think it was for sure a nudge?? Because that is truly the only scenario that makes sense to me. I think the LCS would have no problem making it happen for 3 people simultaneously, but without that intervention I don't know...
Quote:
The idea is that the future of PMR is carried on out into the future in terms of probability and the LCS exists out there in order to calculate that future. So in probability, that bridge has been built and in probability those three men stand on that bridge. It's as if the future did exist, but not in its final form. If someone then accesses that data base to see if those men really stand on the bridge, TBC should render the experience of seeing those men on that bridge, based upon the current probability even if it has not happened as yet. The probability exists and that is what gets rendered. The probabilities of PMR are re-projected forward into the future every time the PMR delta t is incremented and the NOW moment moved forward in time. So the probabilities get modified slightly with each recalculation. The probabilities become less certain as you go out into the future. As the future time of the 3 men on the bridge moves closer to the NOW moment, things get higher and higher in probability until you get the version that becomes real, that is actualized when it passes through the NOW moment.
I don't have any problem at all with the above; I think I've understood all of what you say here. Understanding that the bridge with the men standing on it exists in future probability and can be accessed makes sense of course. But if the LCS DIDN'T have a part in this, would it then mean that all 3 men accessed the future DB all at the same time?? It wouldn't be shocking to me if it happened to one man as I would assume that he changed datastreams and accessed that future probability/DB, but because it SEEMED to be actualized within PMR (and I know it was still only in probability) for 3 people at once, I don't see any possibility here beyond the LCS setting this up for all 3 men at the same time. Am I still way off and not comprehending? Do I think I understand, but really don't (I try to be on guard against that)?

I'm sorry if my lack of comprehension is testing your patience. I appreciate you both.
Ann

_________________
"What is the meaning of Paradise? To know yourself to be yourself yet one with The Whole. That is Paradise."- Edgar Cayce


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:39 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Ann,

I must first explain that I never saw whatever was the original statement regarding these 3 men on a bridge. I have been explaining on the same basis as the discussions as 'if a tree fell in the woods, etc.'

That said, if at some time into the future there is a substantial probability that three men should stand together on a bridge that is not yet built, if someone looks into the probable future data base and sees that bridge at that time, they will see those three men. That's what the probable future data base does, it provides information as to what is the most likely event to happen at some specific future time and place. Of course, the LCS does this as this data base is a part of the LCS. Displaying this result would not therefore be a nudge on the part of the LCS but rather the data base doing its thing. Permitting someone to see the probable future data base produce this particular event might very well be a nudge, depending upon the circumstances.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:32 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:29 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Michigan
Quote:
I must first explain that I never saw whatever was the original statement regarding these 3 men on a bridge. I have been explaining on the same basis as the discussions as 'if a tree fell in the woods, etc.
Ok Ted, I think that actually explains it. It was not a "tree in the woods" or a "beers in the fridge" scenario, which I do think I grasp. Here is the original statement from a few posts up if you're interested:
Quote:
My dad tells a story of when he was a young man driving around with 2 friends just outside of their home town. They stopped their car on a bridge, got out and looked around because there had not been a bridge there previously! They knew the bridge wasn't there that morning, yet they were standing on it! They continued across the bridge, but were pretty freaked out by this new bridge, and when they turned the car around to go back across, the bridge was no longer there. It was built a few years later.
I just cannot see how this would happen to 3 people at once except in the case of the LCS making it happen.

Thank you,
Ann

_________________
"What is the meaning of Paradise? To know yourself to be yourself yet one with The Whole. That is Paradise."- Edgar Cayce


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:31 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Now I see. Obviously the LCS pulling a sneaky, but how did it affect them? Did any of them develop metaphysical interests? Easier to pull a bridge out of the probable future data base than to just make one up on the fly. Of course, it could have been Rod Serling creating a new episode of Twilight Zone.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:57 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6266
Location: Ocala, FL
There is no reason that three people couldn't access the same data stream at one time. I've had a couple of paranormal experiences with another person. We both experienced the same data stream at the same time.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:42 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:29 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Michigan
My dad did develop an interest in the paranormal, but I have no idea about the other 2.
Quote:
Of course, it could have been Rod Serling creating a new episode of Twilight Zone.
He's actually said that very thing, that it was like something you would see on Twilight Zone. It happened almost 60 years ago, when he was 18 or 19 and he's 77 now. I've probably heard him tell the story 200+ times. He doesn't doubt any paranormal story he hears and totally believes that even the most bizarre things can and do happen.
Quote:
There is no reason that three people couldn't access the same data stream at one time. I've had a couple of paranormal experiences with another person. We both experienced the same data stream at the same time.
Linda, I would love to have an experience like that with another person. Not only would it confirm and validate the experience, but I would think that a shared experience like that-so out of the ordinary-would create a great bond between 2 people, like you share this special memory.

Ann

_________________
"What is the meaning of Paradise? To know yourself to be yourself yet one with The Whole. That is Paradise."- Edgar Cayce


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:57 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:37 am
Posts: 202
Quote:
There is no reason that three people couldn't access the same data stream at one time. I've had a couple of paranormal experiences with another person. We both experienced the same data stream at the same time.
Linda, it's extremely unlikely that anyone other than Tom has had paranormal experiences. How can you prove it?

_________________
=


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:26 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 6266
Location: Ocala, FL
PROOF:

Ted:
If PEAR labs, with their historical association with Princeton University, can't get anything published in a mainstream science journal with a dozen highly credentialed PhDs using expensive laboratory measurement and recording equipment, what exactly is expected of Tom (who, as an applied physicist, is not associated with any university)? If a publication is not in a mainstream physics journal, then no credibility in the physics community is generated. There have been hundreds of excellent scientific experiments that have already been published (many of them at leading universities) that have demonstrated the existence of psi (e.g., Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ’s work at Stanford U – I suggest you have a conversation with Dean Radin about this, he is probably aware of most of this work since it is a topic he often writes about) and none of it has ever been taken seriously by mainstream science. Why do you think Tom doing an experiment would make any difference at all to how seriously he is taken? The most likely result of such experiments, no matter how carefully they are done or how dramatic the results are, would be to generate widely reported dismissive ridicule from mainstream science and material reductionists in general. That is simply how science and public opinion works in our culture (and the way it has historically worked).

Another experiment that scientifically shows psi to be a real phenomenon will make absolutely no difference. The problem is not a lack of evidence, (there is lots of good quality hard scientific evidence) but rather that evidence that runs counter to present scientific belief is automatically discounted no matter who does it, where it is done, or how rigorously the scientific method and protocols were. It is easily dismissed as “sloppy science” not because anyone examines how it was done, but simply because it “must be sloppy science” because its results are impossible according to current scientific belief – no need to bother looking into it. In fact, the mere act of seriously looking into it could easily jeopardize a serious scientist’s career.

The scientists at PEAR labs had an open invitation to other scientists to come in and inspect the quality of their science – all to no avail. Those who did quietly look couldn’t find any errors but in public they concluded that although they could find no problems, there must be some unknown error since the results were clearly impossible. Those who never looked into PEAR’s scientific quality hypothesized that because the PEAR results were so small, they didn’t count (couldn’t be significant) – a blatantly illogical and completely unscientific comment. Measured results are meaningful if they are much larger than the possible measurement errors. The results of careful and conservative error assessment at PEAR was over a billion to one that the psi effects they measured were real… that is about a million time more rigor (higher statistical significance) than good science generally demands.

Since Pear labs was humiliated (taken LESS seriously, not more seriously) because of the derisive comments that were publicly directed at PEAR labs research by the mainstream physics community in denial, what do you think would happen to Tom Campbell’s scientific reputation when his proposed research validating psi was published? What you envision as a great leap forward for the credibility of Tom’s work, would more likely be a big step backward after those in denial and those who simply don’t understand were done vilifying and ridiculing Tom for claiming the impossible.

Major paradigm shifts generally take place from the ground up, not from the top down. The top is always heavily invested in the status quo. Eventually mainstream scientists will see the bigger picture that Tom presents. Shouting matches and name calling won’t make that day come any sooner. The scientists will come along when they are ready….and not before.

The need for more “proof” is an imaginary issue. Dean Radin in his interview with Tom said "Proof is about alcohol, I have evidence". Anyone having a credibility problem with MBT or Tom Campbell because there is not any good published research to back it up is simply out of touch with reality --- caught in a cultural belief trap. Like the scientists, they will come along when they are ready (after prevailing cultural opinion assures them that it is OK).
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8954&p=80652#p80652

Tom:
All experience is subjective, thus "Proof" must be in the eye (awareness generated by experience) of the beholder. Because consciousness is personal, experience is personal, and thus “Proof “ is personal. There is no, can be no, direct physical proof of nonphysical (consciousness) phenomena — although there can be indirect (e.g., statistical) proof). The subsystem cannot logically describe the system. The tiny little piece called a minor subset cannot prove or disprove the content of the entire set. Denying that the complete set exists (or that it has content that is greater than what exists within the tiny little subset) because the content of the complete set cannot be derived from the limited content of the subset is illogical — and obviously so. The common belief that Psi (nonphysical) phenomena do not exist because they cannot be scientifically (physically) proven —is irrational nonsense even though it represents a common belief of the majority. I have no personal experience of psi, thus Psi (nonphysical) phenomena may or may not exist since conventional hard science (physical verification) is theoretically unable to directly prove or disprove its existence — that is NOT an illogical statement even though it is a bit naive and not exactly true.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2468&p=3005&hilit=proof#p3005

Tom:
PMR is an objective reality:
If there is NO such thing as an intent based placebo effect. If no one has ever actually experienced precognition (dream or otherwise) and all fortune tellers are always wrong when predicting the un-guessable. If the Stanford University physics dept validation of remote viewing (Puthof and Targ) and published in the IEEE journal NEVER happened. If all the experiments that have been done by top tier university scientists demonstrating reverse causality and mental intent biasing random data have NEVER happened. If telepathy, empathy at a distance, mothers who know the moment their children get hurt away from home, and people being able to both hurt and heal others with their mind's (intent), have NEVER happened. if only mentally ill, the uneducated gullible, and the not too bright have paranormal experiences instead of much of the entire population (well educated actually has a positive correlation for such experiences). If the Readiness Potential had NEVER been demonstrated and measured at a dozen research institutions. If no one had ever had the consistent ability to predict (better than chance would allow) which card will be shown next in psi experiments. If particles were actually particles instead of probability distributions . etc.. If all the "if statements" listed above were known facts, then one would know that reality COULD BE (was likely to be) objective, rather than virtual (logic would require one to allow for the possibility of any of the above thing happening sometime in the future.

But if any one of the above things that all clearly violate objective causality ever actually existed or happened EVEN to one individual ONCE in the history of mankind, then logic would tell you that this reality absolutely could not possibly be objective. It takes only one violation of an absolute rule to shatter it absolutely. Of course, fact is: Such violations of the assumption of an objective reality have always happened and been experienced, recorded, witnessed and studied in every culture in every time throughout all human history. Violations of objective reality have been proven with careful valid studies over and over again by literally hundreds of scientists using immaculate protocols over the last century. We don't need (logical process does not require) more "proof". Establishing "proof" has long since become an irrelevant non-issue except to the uninformed and those described below.

So you see, it is really not difficult to tell if this reality is objective or not --however, it is exceedingly difficult for those who possess the following two characteristics: 1) They must be in complete denial of the facts (care to dispute the placebo effect or the Princeton PEAR labs experiments, or the Stanford research or the Duke research or the Temple U research to name a very few) and 2) are fanatical "true believers" in objective physical causality as the only possible cause of anything. (i.e., A "true believer" holds to their belief against all reason and rationality). Furthermore they know for sure that none of the above listed things are real or ever happened - all have been imagined in the minds of the gullible and deceitful and can be rationalized away by any true believer in a heartbeat because they are simply, by definition, impossible -- and that is all you need to know.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5305&p=27435&hilit=proof#p27435

Tom:
One can never change a true believer's mind with a rational argument or with scientific evidence because belief is not rational. The people who say "why don't you just prove what you say is true with a demonstration and everyone then would know it is true and accept it -- you would change science over night if the proof were irrefutable" are very naive and don't understand how our culture or our science works. Speaking about naïve, this line of reasoning is always good for a laugh: “If PEAR labs has done all that, why haven’t they collected the “Randy prize” for scientifically proving that the paranormal exists?” The randy Prize is not a genuine offer; it is what is commonly called a publicity stunt or a propaganda campaign -- a sham to discredit the infidels and attract and trap more believers. With PEAR labs, we have not just an individual on the fringe but a Princeton University team of scientists with tons of irrefutable evidence and they can't get it published in the standard journals. Critics blow off uninformed hot air, and are taken seriously. Point made. Rational scientific evidence does not trump cultural and scientific belief no matter how irrefutable the evidence is.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6611&p=51484&hilit=proof#p51484

Tom: I believe that what I said (or at least intended to say) was that we (early explorers at Monroe labs) did hundreds of evidential tests, one of which was reading numbers from a blackboard in another room. Experiments involving the reading of numbers that were written on the board or describing pictures being looked at by the person in the control room were done successfully many times but also were two of the most problematical of the tests we performed. We would be startlingly correct sometimes (one chance in several million of succeeding with a random guess) and oddly off other times (report seeing a number that was the target number divided by two or with each digit shifted by a constant), and flat out wrong other times. Practice didn't seem to improve the situation very much. There seemed to be something inhibiting the process -- something intentional -- sometimes even with a twist of humor or irony. It was from these experiences and later corroborating research that I began to formulate the psi uncertainty principle to make sense out of the data collected. That certain types of data are problematical had a certain consistency to it that eventually led to a general understanding of why that was so.

There are also several pages in MBT that discuss why psi research is often problematical. There are research results with strong scientific protocols that evidence psi. Duke did Psi research for decades with some clear results. I mention several books in MBT that will provide both scientific data and further references. To prove that it is possible for a bird to fly, one only needs to scientifically demonstrate one bird flying one time. The rest is only about prying egos away from their belief traps. The hard scientific evidence of psi is almost as common as birds flying; however, prying egos away from their beloved belief traps must occur one individual at a time. A high quality scientific report on psi has little effect beyond those who did the research.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2728&p=3503&hilit=p ... iple#p3503


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:31 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:37 am
Posts: 202
Quote:
PROOF:

Ted:
If PEAR labs, with their historical association with Princeton University, can't get anything published in a mainstream science journal with a dozen highly credentialed PhDs using expensive laboratory measurement and recording equipment, what exactly is expected of Tom (who, as an applied physicist, is not associated with any university)? If a publication is not in a mainstream physics journal, then no credibility in the physics community is generated. There have been hundreds of excellent scientific experiments that have already been published (many of them at leading universities) that have demonstrated the existence of psi (e.g., Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ’s work at Stanford U – I suggest you have a conversation with Dean Radin about this, he is probably aware of most of this work since it is a topic he often writes about) and none of it has ever been taken seriously by mainstream science. Why do you think Tom doing an experiment would make any difference at all to how seriously he is taken? The most likely result of such experiments, no matter how carefully they are done or how dramatic the results are, would be to generate widely reported dismissive ridicule from mainstream science and material reductionists in general. That is simply how science and public opinion works in our culture (and the way it has historically worked).

Another experiment that scientifically shows psi to be a real phenomenon will make absolutely no difference. The problem is not a lack of evidence, (there is lots of good quality hard scientific evidence) but rather that evidence that runs counter to present scientific belief is automatically discounted no matter who does it, where it is done, or how rigorously the scientific method and protocols were. It is easily dismissed as “sloppy science” not because anyone examines how it was done, but simply because it “must be sloppy science” because its results are impossible according to current scientific belief – no need to bother looking into it. In fact, the mere act of seriously looking into it could easily jeopardize a serious scientist’s career.

The scientists at PEAR labs had an open invitation to other scientists to come in and inspect the quality of their science – all to no avail. Those who did quietly look couldn’t find any errors but in public they concluded that although they could find no problems, there must be some unknown error since the results were clearly impossible. Those who never looked into PEAR’s scientific quality hypothesized that because the PEAR results were so small, they didn’t count (couldn’t be significant) – a blatantly illogical and completely unscientific comment. Measured results are meaningful if they are much larger than the possible measurement errors. The results of careful and conservative error assessment at PEAR was over a billion to one that the psi effects they measured were real… that is about a million time more rigor (higher statistical significance) than good science generally demands.

Since Pear labs was humiliated (taken LESS seriously, not more seriously) because of the derisive comments that were publicly directed at PEAR labs research by the mainstream physics community in denial, what do you think would happen to Tom Campbell’s scientific reputation when his proposed research validating psi was published? What you envision as a great leap forward for the credibility of Tom’s work, would more likely be a big step backward after those in denial and those who simply don’t understand were done vilifying and ridiculing Tom for claiming the impossible.

Major paradigm shifts generally take place from the ground up, not from the top down. The top is always heavily invested in the status quo. Eventually mainstream scientists will see the bigger picture that Tom presents. Shouting matches and name calling won’t make that day come any sooner. The scientists will come along when they are ready….and not before.

The need for more “proof” is an imaginary issue. Dean Radin in his interview with Tom said "Proof is about alcohol, I have evidence". Anyone having a credibility problem with MBT or Tom Campbell because there is not any good published research to back it up is simply out of touch with reality --- caught in a cultural belief trap. Like the scientists, they will come along when they are ready (after prevailing cultural opinion assures them that it is OK).
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8954&p=80652#p80652

Tom:
All experience is subjective, thus "Proof" must be in the eye (awareness generated by experience) of the beholder. Because consciousness is personal, experience is personal, and thus “Proof “ is personal. There is no, can be no, direct physical proof of nonphysical (consciousness) phenomena — although there can be indirect (e.g., statistical) proof). The subsystem cannot logically describe the system. The tiny little piece called a minor subset cannot prove or disprove the content of the entire set. Denying that the complete set exists (or that it has content that is greater than what exists within the tiny little subset) because the content of the complete set cannot be derived from the limited content of the subset is illogical — and obviously so. The common belief that Psi (nonphysical) phenomena do not exist because they cannot be scientifically (physically) proven —is irrational nonsense even though it represents a common belief of the majority. I have no personal experience of psi, thus Psi (nonphysical) phenomena may or may not exist since conventional hard science (physical verification) is theoretically unable to directly prove or disprove its existence — that is NOT an illogical statement even though it is a bit naive and not exactly true.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2468&p=3005&hilit=proof#p3005

Tom:
PMR is an objective reality:
If there is NO such thing as an intent based placebo effect. If no one has ever actually experienced precognition (dream or otherwise) and all fortune tellers are always wrong when predicting the un-guessable. If the Stanford University physics dept validation of remote viewing (Puthof and Targ) and published in the IEEE journal NEVER happened. If all the experiments that have been done by top tier university scientists demonstrating reverse causality and mental intent biasing random data have NEVER happened. If telepathy, empathy at a distance, mothers who know the moment their children get hurt away from home, and people being able to both hurt and heal others with their mind's (intent), have NEVER happened. if only mentally ill, the uneducated gullible, and the not too bright have paranormal experiences instead of much of the entire population (well educated actually has a positive correlation for such experiences). If the Readiness Potential had NEVER been demonstrated and measured at a dozen research institutions. If no one had ever had the consistent ability to predict (better than chance would allow) which card will be shown next in psi experiments. If particles were actually particles instead of probability distributions . etc.. If all the "if statements" listed above were known facts, then one would know that reality COULD BE (was likely to be) objective, rather than virtual (logic would require one to allow for the possibility of any of the above thing happening sometime in the future.

But if any one of the above things that all clearly violate objective causality ever actually existed or happened EVEN to one individual ONCE in the history of mankind, then logic would tell you that this reality absolutely could not possibly be objective. It takes only one violation of an absolute rule to shatter it absolutely. Of course, fact is: Such violations of the assumption of an objective reality have always happened and been experienced, recorded, witnessed and studied in every culture in every time throughout all human history. Violations of objective reality have been proven with careful valid studies over and over again by literally hundreds of scientists using immaculate protocols over the last century. We don't need (logical process does not require) more "proof". Establishing "proof" has long since become an irrelevant non-issue except to the uninformed and those described below.

So you see, it is really not difficult to tell if this reality is objective or not --however, it is exceedingly difficult for those who possess the following two characteristics: 1) They must be in complete denial of the facts (care to dispute the placebo effect or the Princeton PEAR labs experiments, or the Stanford research or the Duke research or the Temple U research to name a very few) and 2) are fanatical "true believers" in objective physical causality as the only possible cause of anything. (i.e., A "true believer" holds to their belief against all reason and rationality). Furthermore they know for sure that none of the above listed things are real or ever happened - all have been imagined in the minds of the gullible and deceitful and can be rationalized away by any true believer in a heartbeat because they are simply, by definition, impossible -- and that is all you need to know.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5305&p=27435&hilit=proof#p27435

Tom:
One can never change a true believer's mind with a rational argument or with scientific evidence because belief is not rational. The people who say "why don't you just prove what you say is true with a demonstration and everyone then would know it is true and accept it -- you would change science over night if the proof were irrefutable" are very naive and don't understand how our culture or our science works. Speaking about naïve, this line of reasoning is always good for a laugh: “If PEAR labs has done all that, why haven’t they collected the “Randy prize” for scientifically proving that the paranormal exists?” The randy Prize is not a genuine offer; it is what is commonly called a publicity stunt or a propaganda campaign -- a sham to discredit the infidels and attract and trap more believers. With PEAR labs, we have not just an individual on the fringe but a Princeton University team of scientists with tons of irrefutable evidence and they can't get it published in the standard journals. Critics blow off uninformed hot air, and are taken seriously. Point made. Rational scientific evidence does not trump cultural and scientific belief no matter how irrefutable the evidence is.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6611&p=51484&hilit=proof#p51484

Tom: I believe that what I said (or at least intended to say) was that we (early explorers at Monroe labs) did hundreds of evidential tests, one of which was reading numbers from a blackboard in another room. Experiments involving the reading of numbers that were written on the board or describing pictures being looked at by the person in the control room were done successfully many times but also were two of the most problematical of the tests we performed. We would be startlingly correct sometimes (one chance in several million of succeeding with a random guess) and oddly off other times (report seeing a number that was the target number divided by two or with each digit shifted by a constant), and flat out wrong other times. Practice didn't seem to improve the situation very much. There seemed to be something inhibiting the process -- something intentional -- sometimes even with a twist of humor or irony. It was from these experiences and later corroborating research that I began to formulate the psi uncertainty principle to make sense out of the data collected. That certain types of data are problematical had a certain consistency to it that eventually led to a general understanding of why that was so.

There are also several pages in MBT that discuss why psi research is often problematical. There are research results with strong scientific protocols that evidence psi. Duke did Psi research for decades with some clear results. I mention several books in MBT that will provide both scientific data and further references. To prove that it is possible for a bird to fly, one only needs to scientifically demonstrate one bird flying one time. The rest is only about prying egos away from their belief traps. The hard scientific evidence of psi is almost as common as birds flying; however, prying egos away from their beloved belief traps must occur one individual at a time. A high quality scientific report on psi has little effect beyond those who did the research.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2728&p=3503&hilit=p ... iple#p3503
Sorry, I don't have time to read any of that.

Your friend,
-Shaw

_________________
=


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:26 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:37 am
Posts: 202
OK, I read it, and am satisfied with said proof.

Thanks for taking the time to post all that.

-Shaw

_________________
=


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:02 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:29 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Michigan
Quote:
Linda, it's extremely unlikely that anyone other than Tom has had paranormal experiences. How can you prove it?
Shaw, I am really very surprised that you would think that. There are tons of books, tv shows, websites, etc. documenting everyday paranormal activity and the experiences of thousands of people world wide. The paranormal didn't begin with Tom Campbell.

Ann

_________________
"What is the meaning of Paradise? To know yourself to be yourself yet one with The Whole. That is Paradise."- Edgar Cayce


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:09 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 211
Location: Missouri
Mbtshaw said: "Linda, it's extremely unlikely that anyone other than Tom has had paranormal experiences."

Shaw -- Are you familiar with Bob Monroe? This is just a friendly reminder that it was Bob Monroe who taught Tom how to go out of body, how to remote view, and how to heal.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:20 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Actually you must use a very narrow definition of paranormal experiences to say anything like that as upwards of 70 percent of humans have experienced ADC, After Death Contacts. Other sources state something like 40%. That is probably the most common type of event of this type around. But of course, there are those who deny that it is anything more than hallucination. I have experienced this multiple times myself, including receiving information long forgotten or unavailable otherwise. Nothing that I can 'prove' however.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:08 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 pm
Posts: 1543
Location: Lincoln, NE
I'd like to hear how mbtshaw defines <paranormal> ?

Some examples from my own life, include a UFO sighting(close encounter of the second kind by Wiki's definitions), shared with two friends, and a startling experience of a precognitive dream. In the latter example that means a dream, remembered upon waking, that then actually occurs at a later time.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:28 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:20 am
Posts: 269
Location: Near Boston
I think Shaw was just being sarcastic / trolling. But awesome post from Linda with all the quotes , super great reading those in one compiled form. Tom talks a bit about experiments in the upcoming fireside chat video.

Adam

_________________
Are you sure it was Adam really typing this? If it helps you out, does that even matter?


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited