31 Aug 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhat possible motivation might John Mack have for making such a claim besides selling his book and /or selling the film rights to his book? His claim must be legit.
I dont know about your part of the world, but here in Australia and in the U.S. there has been a growing trend of people coming out and saying they've either seen U.F.O.'s or been abducted or some other kind of close encounter.
John E. Mack M.D. of Harvard has a book called Abduction ,for example, and on the back cover it reads: "After investigating m ...[text shortened]... ..It would be much easier to write the whole thing off as mental illness, wouldn't you say?
31 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelSeems to me that there are more than enough to go around regardless of what delusional group they may belong. While it's possible that some groups deemed "delusional" are not delusional at all, it's unlikely that all of them are not delusional and there always seem to be plenty if you look hard enough for them.
And where does he get all thes crackpots from?
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelI have never met a Zambian who was abducted by aliens. To me, that is a very strong indication that either aliens are racists, or the phenomenon has more to do with a psychological phenomenon than actual aliens.
I dont know about your part of the world, but here in Australia and in the U.S. there has been a growing trend of people coming out and saying they've either seen U.F.O.'s or been abducted or some other kind of close encounter.
The details Dr Mack provides will persuade every reader with an open mind that these accounts are not hallucinations, not dreams, but real experiences.
A clearly false statement. I am sure that a fairly large percentage of his readers remain unconvinced. Of course you can play the old "but they didn't have an open mind".
It would be much easier to write the whole thing off as mental illness, wouldn't you say?
No, I don't characterize all psychological phenomena as 'mental illness'. I am sure you can find more people who have talked to God than who have talked to aliens. Do you think they are mentally ill?
If you want to discuss the evidence behind whether or not aliens exist, I am sure you will find many interested people including myself. However in all such past discussions you have shown no interest in actually determining the truth but rather a preference for believing just about anything that supports the idea that aliens might exist - however ridiculous it might be, and a tendency to get very sensitive if anyone points out the flaws.
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis book is supposed to be evidence of some sort by a reputable author.
I have never met a Zambian who was abducted by aliens. To me, that is a very strong indication that either aliens are racists, or the phenomenon has more to do with a psychological phenomenon than actual aliens.
[b]The details Dr Mack provides will persuade every reader with an open mind that these accounts are not hallucinations, not dreams, but real ...[text shortened]... iculous it might be, and a tendency to get very sensitive if anyone points out the flaws.
Yes I do think many people have mental illness, myself included. This mental illness entails being separate from God .
How about the definition of "schizophrenia". All psycologists I've talked to have trouble definig the term "shizophrenia". They prefer to list the symptoms instead,ie.hearing voices,anxiety,etc.
One definition I've come across is "divided self syndrome". I like this defintion. Using this term we can see that everywhere people are divided from each other. They are divided from their families, neighbours and especially from yheir spiritual scource.
So basically what I am getting at is that most people that consider themselves sane are actually "schizophrenic".
Note that my definition of self here is that our true 'self' is one that is not separate from God and not some ego-centered definition.
I have offered up some evidence before that has been strongly refuted by others. Lord Shark, for one.
That is why I'm putting up E.T 101. Much of the material is hard to find evidence for, rather, its resonance with the reader seems to be more important.
There will always be flaws in a fledgling 'science' such as ufology. Much like quantum theory, we have just started to make inroads into this very complicated matter.
The other evidence I have would be similarly difficult to prove, because of its nature, ie. some things that have happened in the distant past.
Feel free to ask for any such evidence. I will keep it short if you do.
And no, I will not use the arguement that you are close-minded. I will assume you are trying to gleen the good from a very difficult subject to commentate upon.
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelWell that depends on what you mean by 'reputable'. I must point out that there are reputable Authors who are Christian and reputable Authors who are Muslim. I am fairly sure that they cant all be right. I am not declaring him wrong, merely pointing out that being reputable is not enough. Do you have any of the actual facts he presents available for discussion? Pick one that you think is good solid evidence.
This book is supposed to be evidence of some sort by a reputable author.
Yes I do think many people have mental illness, myself included. This mental illness entails being separate from God.
I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying you do believe in God?
How about the definition of "schizophrenia". All psycologists I've talked to have trouble definig the term "shizophrenia". They prefer to list the symptoms instead,ie.hearing voices,anxiety,etc.
Many psychological phenomena including what are termed 'illnesses' or 'disorders' are not really a specific problem but rather a range of conditions with similarities that makes it useful to classify them under one name. Also if the root causes are not known, it makes sense to use the symptoms for classification.
One definition I've come across is "divided self syndrome". I like this defintion. Using this term we can see that everywhere people are divided from each other. They are divided from their families, neighbours and especially from yheir spiritual scource.
So basically what I am getting at is that most people that consider themselves sane are actually "schizophrenic".
Note that my definition of self here is that our true 'self' is one that is not separate from God and not some ego-centered definition.
You are clearly trying to borrow the term "schizophrenia", use its definition in a different way and then carry some of its other attributes with it. That is bad practice. If you change the definition or apply it in a non-standard way then you cannot then claim that those who fit your definition are not sane simply because under the original definition they were not.
I have offered up some evidence before that has been strongly refuted by others. Lord Shark, for one.
And did you accept the refutations?
That is why I'm putting up E.T 101. Much of the material is hard to find evidence for, rather, its resonance with the reader seems to be more important.
More important to who and why? The one post I read and responded to seemed to me to be obviously nonsense.
There will always be flaws in a fledgling 'science' such as ufology.
Good to see you are wise enough to put quotes around your 'science'. Why use the word at all when you know perfectly well that it isn't science?
Much like quantum theory, we have just started to make inroads into this very complicated matter.
Why compare it to quantum theory? What is the connection? And who exactly has started to 'make inroads'?
The other evidence I have would be similarly difficult to prove, because of its nature, ie. some things that have happened in the distant past.
It is not about whether evidence is easy or difficult to 'prove'. It is about whether the evidence is good or bad. In many cases evidence cannot be proved one way or another but rather one must look at the weight of the evidence for and against something and make a judgement.
For something like aliens we should start with a fairly skeptical stance and only be convinced if the evidence for it is fairly significant. I personally have not seen any significant evidence thus far. Have you? If you have, why not present it.
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelSo would you agree that the book about aliens that you mentioned has a false statement on its back cover?
And no, I will not use the arguement that you are close-minded. I will assume you are trying to gleen the good from a very difficult subject to commentate upon.
Would you also agree that that does not bode well for its contents?
31 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk.point by point.
Well that depends on what you mean by 'reputable'. I must point out that there are reputable Authors who are Christian and reputable Authors who are Muslim. I am fairly sure that they cant all be right. I am not declaring him wrong, merely pointing out that being reputable is not enough. Do you have any of the actual facts he presents available for discus cant evidence thus far. Have you? If you have, why not present it.
1.I believe in God, but not a christian one. My definition would be that God is the all, the everything. It is a passive, femenine-type principal that is pre-manifestaion and hence beyond actual definition or attributes.
I will leave this one alone unless you have any furthur angles you wish to discuss.
2.It is my contention that we all suffer mental illness. Psycologists included. In this light one can only proceed if one acknowledges their own mental illness,ie their basic separation from their spiritual scource.
3.I am not trying to use the term 'schizophrenia' in a different way, rather , I am adding more meaning to the term. You may consider this term a bad practice, and in a way you are right.
The main difference here would be that I view the term from a more holistic, spiritual way, and not just a subset of symptoms.
4.It was a clear example of someone waiting for evidence and then shooting it down based on some revieaws of a particurlar book. Many examples in that book ,("Nothing in this book is true, it is just the way things are"😉, are 'practice -based examples. Ie. they cannot be proven until they are practiced.
One notable example was 'circular breathing'. Basically what that means is that we take prana through a 'hole' in the tops of our heads. When I tried this practice, I found that I could feel 'something ' coming in through the top of my head. At first it made me a dizzy ,but then it became a regular sensation. This practice is particurlarly good for bringing one to the present. It is similar in ths sense to 'concious breathing', which means to be concious of every breath you take.
5.How do you know its nonsense? have you communicated to the red-indian fifth-dimensional representatives?
6.If ufology is not a science , then what is it?
7.I compare it to quantum theory because it is still in its infantile stages and there is still much to be discovered.
8.Why must we start with a skeptical stance? That is hardly being open-minded. I always start with looking out at the stars at night. It is hard for me to think there is not life somewhere else in such a large universe.
There is ample evidence in the higher dimensions but, as Lord Shark pointed out, that is not very satisfying to a third-dimensional-type scientist.
If you look at a planet, say Mars, where there appears to be no life we are asked to look into the higher dimensions for 'proof' of higher intelligence , extra-terrestrial life.
31 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not follow. How in this sense are you trying to gleen the good?
So would you agree that the book about aliens that you mentioned has a false statement on its back cover?
Would you also agree that that does not bode well for its contents?
I would also like to add at this stage that their is a major difference between 3-d, physical, nuts n bolts 'aliens' and fifth-dimensional ,extra-terrestrial ,'energy-beings'.
I do try to study all types, however I am constantly reminded that there is no deception possible in the fifth-dimension as there is in the lower dimensions...
31 Aug 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelIt seems like a contradiction to me to say God is everything and simultaneously that you are separated from God. But I suppose I don't quite understand your definition or meaning of 'separation'.
I will leave this one alone unless you have any furthur angles you wish to discuss.
2.It is my contention that we all suffer mental illness. Psycologists included. In this light one can only proceed if one acknowledges their own mental illness,ie their basic separation from their spiritual scource.
Thats fine, though your use of 'mental illness' is clearly not referring to the usual medical term.
3.I am not trying to use the term 'schizophrenia' in a different way, rather , I am adding more meaning to the term.
OK, whichever way you put it, you are using 'schizophrenia' to mean something new and you cannot carry over its old meanings.
4.It was a clear example of someone waiting for evidence and then shooting it down based on some revieaws of a particurlar book.
All you presented was the reviews - apparently with the intent of backing up the book. All I did was point out that a book that contains obvious falsehoods on its cover is starting out on the wrong foot if it wants to be convincing.
Many examples in that book ,("Nothing in this book is true, it is just the way things are"😉, are 'practice -based examples. Ie. they cannot be proven until they are practiced.
I don't understand that at all. Are you saying that we need to get ourselves abducted by aliens before we can know they exist? Or do we pray to them? That is sounding dangerously like the popular Christian mantra of 'delude yourself first and you will believe'.
5.How do you know its nonsense? have you communicated to the red-indian fifth-dimensional representatives?
I don't need to. The statements were not about fifth-dimensional Red Indians but about real live 3d Red Indians who died in a war and making ridiculous claims about their motives is slanderous.
6.If ufology is not a science , then what is it?
A religion perhaps? A cult? A myth? You tell me, you seem to know more about it than me. But it certainly is not science.
7.I compare it to quantum theory because it is still in its infantile stages and there is still much to be discovered.
Quantum theory is a lot older than you think and there is as much to be discovered in Biology and Chemistry yet you didn't think of those. I suspect your real reason was the almost myth status and weirdness factor that quantum theory as attained over time.
8.Why must we start with a skeptical stance? That is hardly being open-minded.
Being skeptical is not being closed minded. It is just the default stance we should give to just about anything. If something is genuine it should be able to convince a skeptic.
I always start with looking out at the stars at night. It is hard for me to think there is not life somewhere else in such a large universe.
But if you were investigating its existence you should start with a skeptical attitude and look at the evidence.
There is ample evidence in the higher dimensions but, as Lord Shark pointed out, that is not very satisfying to a third-dimensional-type scientist.
Sadly though you probably don't have the first clue about what a dimension actually is. Its just a word you use to mean 'something I don't understand and neither do you so we can both pretend the impossible is possible.'
01 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadSeparation . Seems pretty str8 forward to me. While we are in our mortal state we are separated from God. Beyond separation is beyond all duality, the most notable one being life and death.
It seems like a contradiction to me to say God is everything and simultaneously that you are separated from God. But I suppose I don't quite understand your definition or meaning of 'separation'.
[b]2.It is my contention that we all suffer mental illness. Psycologists included. In this light one can only proceed if one acknowledges their own mental ill tand and neither do you so we can both pretend the impossible is possible.'
2. Yes I'm taking liberties to add to, or redefine, (as you put it), 'mental illness' . Do you consider yourself sane?
3.I'm also trying to include its old meanings. No bull. I'm really trying, because I think I'm onto something. Ever heard of a prycologist named Kraeplin. He was definately a pioneer in the field of mental illness. Especially schizophrenia.
4.I have invited Lord Shark to look into that book. Aparently all he got was some reviews,and on that evidence alone had declared it 'bunkum'. Can you see why it is so hard for me to present evidence?
When I say 'practice-based' I'm referring to the practices contained within. One of them was to visualize a merkaba around your body to move into higher dimensions.
But forget that. How about the 'spherical breathing' I mentioned b4? This will take you about 10-20 seconds to verify. Just breath in prana through a hole in the top of your head . So on the in-breaths 'feel' the prana coming in through a hole in your head. (Obviously it is not a 3-d hole). It worked for me. like I said u should be able to verify that one pretty quickly.
5.Again it is claimed that the 5-d war was won whereas the 3-d battle was lost. Whether this be true or not, I dont think you are getting this point.
Ufology has been studied scientifically by a lot of different people. I suppose you could say all their findings were false or fabricated , but then again I could say that about a lot of other scientific claims without having experienced them first hand.
7.Quantum was postulated by Cricke(?) and another guy in th fifties, was it not? I would say that makes it pretty young.
I asscociate quantum theory with E.T. study because there are many similar factors involved. one of the main ones being that our own thinking (or conciousness) influences the results we get.
8. fair enough. Yes, lets start with a skeptical stance.
I was a skeptic and had no interest in the subject whatsoever until the phenomena came and 'invaded' my life. This entailed many varied and bizzare expeirences and not just a one off encounter.
concerning other dimensions, I would say I've had a fair bit of experience with dealing with the fourth dimension.
it is my 4-d intent that drags my 3-d body around. While I'm still bound to the 3-d world , my being actually exists in other dimensions simultaeneously . Although for the most part I am probably not aware of it. My attenion and drives focus on things like music, dreaming,higher vibrational beings, abstract art, etc,etc. All of which are in, or have links to the fourth dimension.
(i dont know if I've asked you b4 but) ,where do you suppose dreams take place? Do you think they are still taking place in our 3-d world?
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelBut how can you be separated from God, when God by definition includes you? I am not trying to contradict you, just trying to understand what you are saying.
Separation . Seems pretty str8 forward to me. While we are in our mortal state we are separated from God. Beyond separation is beyond all duality, the most notable one being life and death.
2. Yes I'm taking liberties to add to, or redefine, (as you put it), 'mental illness' . Do you consider yourself sane?
Yes I consider myself sane, and I am sane under the normal definition. As I pointed out, if you redefine 'mental illness' you cannot carry with it any implications ie you cannot declare anyone insane just because they are 'mentally ill' under your new definition. You must equally redefine 'sane' and 'insane'. By your definition we are probably all insane, but who cares?
3.I'm also trying to include its old meanings. No bull. I'm really trying, because I think I'm onto something. Ever heard of a prycologist named Kraeplin. He was definately a pioneer in the field of mental illness. Especially schizophrenia.
No I haven't heard of that psychologist nor do I know a lot about schizophrenia. I do have a schizophrenic brother in law.
4.I have invited Lord Shark to look into that book. Aparently all he got was some reviews,and on that evidence alone had declared it 'bunkum'. Can you see why it is so hard for me to present evidence?
I think you are looking for ways out of presenting evidence. You spend more time telling us how hard it is to present evidence and how hard it is to prove any of that evidence than the time you take actually presenting evidence. When you do finally present some evidence and it gets debunked you come up with some sort of 'get out' clause like "it doesn't really matter it if is total bunkum so long as it 'resonates' with the reader."
When I say 'practice-based' I'm referring to the practices contained within. One of them was to visualize a merkaba around your body to move into higher dimensions. But forget that. How about the 'spherical breathing' I mentioned b4? This will take you about 10-20 seconds to verify. Just breath in prana through a hole in the top of your head . So on the in-breaths 'feel' the prana coming in through a hole in your head. (Obviously it is not a 3-d hole). It worked for me. like I said u should be able to verify that one pretty quickly.
Verify what? That I can delude myself into believing something? If you, or anyone else has managed to achieve something using these 'practiced based' methods then you should be able to describe them and explain the results to others without them actually participating in the experience. There must be something that distinguishes actual inter-dimensional whatever it is from plain old schizophrenic delusions.
5.Again it is claimed that the 5-d war was won whereas the 3-d battle was lost. Whether this be true or not, I dont think you are getting this point.
I am getting the point. The point is the writer is belittling the 3d Red Indians real motives, making ridiculous unconfirmable claims all while trying to play on the guilt and ego of the listener. It doesn't work with me because I am not American and have no guilt about the Red Indians and no ego to be stroked by claiming America will be a spiritual super power. Remember too that the so call winning of the war hasn't even happened yet.
Ufology has been studied scientifically by a lot of different people. I suppose you could say all their findings were false or fabricated , but then again I could say that about a lot of other scientific claims without having experienced them first hand.
If it has been studied scientifically then where are the findings? Can you cite one article on the subject in a peer reviewed science publication? That is what science is all about. You cant simply announce you have studied something scientifically, write a best seller and get rich and think you have done some science. You must publish your method and findings and other scientists must be able to reproduce your results and agree with your conclusions.
one of the main ones being that our own thinking (or conciousness) influences the results we get.
Not true at all - for quantum mechanics. If it is true for aliens, I am starting to think they can only be a figment of your imagination. Are you saying that aliens only exist if you think about them?
concerning other dimensions, I would say I've had a fair bit of experience with dealing with the fourth dimension.
it is my 4-d intent that drags my 3-d body around. While I'm still bound to the 3-d world , my being actually exists in other dimensions simultaeneously .
As I thought, you haven't the faintest idea of what a dimension is. One might think you are redefining the term (as you were doing with 'schizophrenia', but then you talk of 3d as if you are referring to the commonly held meaning of the term.
(i dont know if I've asked you b4 but) ,where do you suppose dreams take place? Do you think they are still taking place in our 3-d world?
Well that depends on what you mean by 'taking place'. There is a difference between information and physical objects. In general information is stored in physical objects, but has an almost independent life of its own. But the term 'dimension' simply doesn't apply.
01 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI really appreciate your answers. They are making me think...
But how can you be separated from God, when God by definition includes you? I am not trying to contradict you, just trying to understand what you are saying.
[b]2. Yes I'm taking liberties to add to, or redefine, (as you put it), 'mental illness' . Do you consider yourself sane?
Yes I consider myself sane, and I am sane under the normal definition wn. But the term 'dimension' simply doesn't apply.[/b]
As regards to the 'separation from God' I am finding it difficult to put in words. Perhaps the 'allignment' of our will is not alligned with Gods. And in that way separate..
2.Yes we are all insane to some degree by my defintion. And after that nobody needs to care. Just carry on in your search for truth, whatever particurlar interest you are predisposed to.
3.There are a lot of different types of shizophrenics. From mild hallucinationators to chronic catatonics. Psycology is also a fledgling science, at least in my part of the world. (That is speaking from first hand experience of psycologists and psychiatrists in Australia).
4.Yes it should resonate with the reader, but I agree, it should be able to be backed up by facts.
.Just try to breath prana through the top of your head. Wen I tried it I immediately felt a sensation that was siimilar to descriptions reffered to in that particurlar publication. Just try it! If you cant feel it within 10-20 seconds you can say its false. Simple.
5.I too am not very familiar with this particurlar subject. Lke I said that paragraph should be taken in the context of the book as a whole. I dont suppose you would try another? I dont expect you to, and you have already indulged me more than I expected on this subject of that book (E.T. 101) I find it a compelling read as a whole, and still very relevant to my life, 15 or so years after its publication.
I'm sorry but atthis point I cannot point out any peer-reviewed publications. I do have some Scientific studies on the subject, but until I find more, I shall not disclose this information unless you particurlaly desire it. I concede the point.
Doesn't one part of quantum theorysay that the observed is influenced by the observer? I'm sure I've come acroos that point a number of times when reading about quantum theory.
Sorry, the higher dimensions, in my humble view, are not contained within a 3-d framework.
So in a sense you are right. I cant define it in a conventional, 3-d way.
Finally , i guess it depends on what side of the fence you are viewing things from. I reckon that the lower dimensions eminate from the higher ones.(simply put) . I know conventional thinking says that dream conciousness eminates from the third dimensional, physical reality.
Inthis context I would say you have to start with a premise. Ie. that we are higher dimensional beings goin through an evolutionary experience in the lower dimensions. Without this initial premise,(which I have not adequatley expressed), it is impossible to continue...
Does that help at all? I admit my words are not adequate and I have found similar ideas much more eloquently put. The point being here is that I have tried to put them into my own words . Origionality being an integral part of the 'cosmic' experience. Cheers
🙂
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelBut I thought that 'God' was everything. How can everything be said to have a will, and how can our will be 'aligned' differently from 'everythings' will?
As regards to the 'separation from God' I am finding it difficult to put in words. Perhaps the 'allignment' of our will is not alligned with Gods. And in that way separate..
2.Yes we are all insane to some degree by my defintion. And after that nobody needs to care. Just carry on in your search for truth, whatever particurlar interest you are predisposed to.
So how is it relevant or important? Are you saying 'we could all be better', or are you simply saying 'we are all insane so it is OK to act as insane as I like and nobody is better than me'? Or are you saying something else?
4.Yes it should resonate with the reader, but I agree, it should be able to be backed up by facts.
Why should it 'resonate with the reader'? Surely that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it holds any truth value. 2+2=4 is true regardless of whether or not it 'resonates with the reader' and 2+2=5 is false. Aliens either exist or they don't, the information you presented in E.T. 101 either came from aliens or it didn't, whether or not it 'resonates with the reader' will not change those primary facts.
Just try to breath prana through the top of your head. Wen I tried it I immediately felt a sensation that was siimilar to descriptions reffered to in that particurlar publication. Just try it! If you cant feel it within 10-20 seconds you can say its false. Simple.
I have no interest in trying it. If it is a genuine phenomenon then there must be some way to determine what is causing it other than everyone trying it. The biggest issue I have with actually trying it, is you are yet to tell me what it is supposed to achieve and even if I did 'feel' something, how would I interpret it and why? You seem to have interpreted based on what you read in a book, not based on any facts surrounding the actual experience. So does the experience actually confirm the interpretation?
I'm sorry but atthis point I cannot point out any peer-reviewed publications. I do have some Scientific studies on the subject, but until I find more, I shall not disclose this information unless you particurlaly desire it. I concede the point.
My point is that if nobody is submitting their findings for peer review then they are not confident that what they are claiming is valid. Hence it is not science. Science is when you study something in a way that can be verified and duplicated by others. If should not require self delusion or breathing exercises.
Doesn't one part of quantum theorysay that the observed is influenced by the observer? I'm sure I've come acroos that point a number of times when reading about quantum theory.
Its much more complicated than that, and the basic idea is also related to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But to say the observed is influenced by the observer is a very different statement from "our own thinking (or conciousness) influences the results we get."
Sorry, the higher dimensions, in my humble view, are not contained within a 3-d framework.
So in a sense you are right. I cant define it in a conventional, 3-d way.
But you are using the word 'dimension' in a totally incorrect way and only for the purposes of trying to maintain some credibility whilst actually talking about something you will not and apparently cannot describe in the first place. Essentially you are attempting to claim knowledge of the undescribable which is a contradiction in itself.
Finally , i guess it depends on what side of the fence you are viewing things from. I reckon that the lower dimensions eminate from the higher ones.(simply put).
Since I clearly have no idea what you mean by 'dimension' or 'higher dimension' I really cant comment.
I know conventional thinking says that dream conciousness eminates from the third dimensional, physical reality.
I don't know what you mean by 'conventional thinking'.
Most scientists that have studied dreaming and others who know a little bit about the brain such as myself, have little doubt that dreaming is an aspect of consciousness and part of the way the brain works. There is noting particularly mystical or mysterious about it.
Does that help at all? I admit my words are not adequate and I have found similar ideas much more eloquently put. The point being here is that I have tried to put them into my own words . Origionality being an integral part of the 'cosmic' experience. Cheers
🙂
I am afraid I do not really understand the concepts you are trying to get across. I fully admit that I have a negative bias to most of them. One concern I have is that if you are unable to express them eloquently, then do you truly understand them yourself?
Another concern is that you seem to accept quite readily just about anything so long as it 'resonates with the reader'. When someone points out that there are illogicalities, errors or outright lies in the content, you don't seem to be too bothered by that.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
02 Sep 09
karoly aczel
You said:
"4.I have invited Lord Shark to look into that book. Aparently all he got was some reviews,and on that evidence alone had declared it 'bunkum'. Can you see why it is so hard for me to present evidence? "
As I explained at the time, I asked for evidence and you did not supply any. Instead you supplied a book title. I looked at the title of the book and some reviews of it. Although you want to imply that this was not enough evidence to come to a provisional judgement of 'bunkum', I respectfully respond that you are mistaken in this implication.
Further, I have looked at your 'E.T. 101' thread and have seen no good evidence therein that supports the notion that we are dealing with non fiction.
In summary, you have in my view been beguiled by science fiction masquerading as prophesy and truth.