by free2beme 44 Replies latest jw friends
I have experienced supernatural events in my office at work. I saw what I saw, I heard what I heard, what happened, happened. When I tell people what happened, they seem to believe what I say, but whether they do or not, doesn't make any difference.
Warlock
You know what Abaddon not once have I posted a link that was not right. You always read into a link the negative put never reading the main points of a link, so why the HELL should I ever list a link for you. It could 99% of the time.... but 1% of the time..., Then you qout what it say about the 1%... as if the whole article is flawed like to this staement you posted today below.
When we examine the basis of Utts's strong claim for the existence of psi, we find that it relies on a handful of experiments that have been shown to have serious weaknesses after undergoing careful scrutiny, and another handful of experiments that have yet to undergo scrutiny or be successfully replicated. What seems clear is that the scientific community is not going to abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles on the basis of a handful of experiments whose findings have yet to be shown to be replicable and lawful.
Utts does assert that the findings from parapsychological experiments can be replicated with well-controlled experiments given adequate resources. But this is a hope or promise. Before we abandon relativity and quantum mechanics in their current formulations, we will require more than a promissory note. We will want, as is the case in other areas of science, solid evidence that these findings can, indeed, be produced under specified conditions.
What you did above is you did not see what the article was saying that is the entire article? You have been doing this for years on the board. I am a long time poster under a new name because I had a computer crash. You and I have been playing this game along time. You always read an article and then quote only a small section that for the sake of balance the writer adds, like a disclaimer before a movie. The writer wants a balanced view not a dogmatic view like your views. I like you as a poster because I think you are a very good person that thinks but, thinks only from his heart and wants to so badly to win. You come across almost desperate sounding in your posts you are going to prove your point no matter what. You don't win your arguments people just move on. Leaving you believing you won.
You're a b*st*rd, Gyles, and a complete and utter one at that!!!
.
.
.
You named the play that must never be named!!!
Skyking
I found an article, I suppose referencing the quote you are talking about. Here's your assertation:
This is not true, Bush slipped up in 2002 in a speech he made to the world, when he mentioned what the US remote viewers had to say about Iraq. This slip of the tongue made world News regarding the secret remote viewing projects that are in operation.
Here's the article I found: http://www.psitech.net/newsletter/021502/the_matrix_p_8.html
And here's the relevant George Bush quote:
In the State of the Union Speech on Tuesday night, January 29, 2002, George W. Bush stated:
"Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead... We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world."
Now, tell me, how do you interpret that as George Bush saying... "what the US remote viewers had to say about Iraq"??
Do you just come here and make things up? Not only is the quote about Afghanistan and not Iraq, I see absolutely no way any of that could be interpreted as a "slip of the tongue regarding remote viewing projects in operation."
Or am I being one of those hyper-skeptical jerks for analyzing the statements you make?
What you did above is you did not see what the article was saying that is the entire article?
What Abaddon did was quote a disclaimer which essentially invalidates the entire article. It's like a disclaimer at the end of all movies which says that the events depicted aren't real. But then what you're doing is saying "But you didn't watch the whole movie! It looks real!" Well, the disclaimer at the end invalidates everything, because it states that it's not real. You don't need to read the entire article, because one simple statement, which Abaddon quoted, says that the entire report cannot be trusted!
Jstlin:
hyper-skeptical jerks
I'm going to distance myself from your comment, given that it uses similar terminology to comments that I've used in adjacent threads.
I have no issue with healthy scepticism. I also don't think of thesceptical or hyper-sceptical as being jerks. I used the term "knee-jerk" in connection to the hyper-sceptical reaction to such things, but that's something quite quite different.
Wow there is one about Afghanistan also thanks. Didn't know about the one about Afghanistan.
Thanks for proving the Governments are using Remote Viewers.
Skyking
I believed you when you told about your wifes dreams. Now however, you need to either back up your statement about bush siting remote viewers on iraq and afghanistan, or ask for time to find the info, or retract. So far, nothing has been provided which quotes bush talking about remote viewers and iraq/afghanistan.
S
I've had some amazing experiences that a skeptic will not believe. I wouldn't necessarily believe them unless I experienced them! Many of them were seen or experienced by more than one person, so I had my "proof".
I would never be able to convince anyone who had a closed mind to such things. Even if they "experienced" whatever "it" was, a person with a closed mind would either ignore it, or pooh-pooh it as "mass hysteria".
jstalin in no way discredit does the disclaimer at the end of the article prove one thing only proves what some are saying by from thier biased veiw point. That some people did not like what her many tests were showing.
What he did is throw out an accusations that had no proof to support the claim, this is a tactic that I learned at school in Debate class. If you don't like what you hear discredit the information or the person, it is a diversion tactic Remember most scientist do not like it when the proof they claim, can not be found is found and repeated as the article showed over and over again. But if I was a scientist that did like like the proof I can just say the test were flawed. Where is the proof for the writers accusation?
