Seeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:
You don't understand the effect at all. You are laying motionless in a bush, douwn wind, in full camafloug and the deer or wild pig has absolutely no idea you are there. Their color blind, with not so great eye sight remember, and the wind is in your favor. The animal is eating with it's head down. You are staring at it intently hopeing it comes down the game trail. It looks up. And in your direction. Remembering the wisdom of native Americans, you avert your eyes. You wait. The animal puts it's head down. Out of pure experience of myself and thousands of years of now hunters, if you keep staring at the animal you will probably spook it. It will look up every time you focus on it. But if you don't it will not know you are there unless you make noise or the wind moves against you. I can't tell you how many times I have been within a matter of feet of an animal and keeping your eye averted and your thoughts non aggressive is s must. It's also how I feed squirrels by hand. ( just anecdotes though) did you whatch that documentary link? There are repeatable experiments regarding this.
We're not going to get anywhere with this argument; you think that a prey running away from a predator proves they are somehow psychicly linked. I think its because prey have evolved to avoid predators through a conscious and subconscious mixture of sight, sound and smell. I will leave this up to anyone reading to make their own minds up.
Seeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:
Science is about overcomeing eronius assumptions. Scientist only use assumptions to usually proove them wrong. Just like your assumption that deer have better eyesight, that you tried to pass off as fact, to support your view. Nighttime dosnt count ( we dont hunt at night---quite illegal) I understand most science just fine.
Yep, I said they had better eyesight, and got that wrong. Owning animals myself, I should know better. But I content that it is obvious that you don't understand the scientific method. Anyone who did and applied it correctly, would not give this MF nonsense more than a minute of their time.
Seeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:
I don't trust documentaries, books, or even peer reviewed papers. All have flaws, and only the strongest of theories withstand the test of time. Most things that we hold as truth evenchually get prooven wrong, so I rather wait to jump on board for the latest theory just because this generations science gurus say it's so.
See? You don't understand science. It is not about "jumping on board the latest theories", and you can't just "wait". What for? For science to know everything?? Science is flawed by definition, but that does not, and can not allow unevidenced waffle life MF to gain any sort of credence. It is a pseudo science. You can't just change the rules of science, which have worked so well and for so long, because they don't agree with what you want to be true.
Seeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:
By the way emma. My father and I did share a long distance communication of sorts. That I am now finding that I also share with my sons.
Anecdotal evidence is not worth the paper it is written on.
Seeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:
"it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community."
This is another danderous unscientific assumption here. The "scientific community" is not supposed to entertain this kind of dogma.
This is just plain wrong. The scientific community (the quotation marks go some way to betraying your general mistrust of it) has to have the seemingly impenetrable high standards you call dogma.. Why? So crackpot ideas don't flood in and become accepted. If that were to happen, our scientific and technological industries would crumble overnight.
Seeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:
"it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community."
This is another danderous unscientific assumption here. The "scientific community" is not supposed to entertain this kind of dogma.
Many increadibly discoveries do come out of left field.... Everything from black holes to eleven dimentions in string theory. New ideas that become successful usually have to fight against the grain for many years until experimentation can catch up with them. You should read the history of how some of our modern theories came to pass. Books by green, suskind, hawking of course often have detailed personal accounts of their struggles..., Rest assured the Next greatest of discoveries made will not be things that we already know
No, many incredible discoveries do not come out of the left field. Black holes and string theory both originated in solid, scientific circles, based on solid, understood, scientific models, and were proposed by the sort of people who write and review the papers you refuse to read. Einstein was not an outcast, no one scoffed at his proposals, despite what the fringe want you to believe. Even the most wacky sounding theory we work by today will have originated in a scientific lab or study, by a scientist, using the scientific method. Nothing of has ever come out of the wooly-headed world of the pseudo scientist who posts videos on youtube.
Oh, and as for OOBE experiments, read up on Henrik Ehrsson, Michael Persinger and Olaf Blanke.
Edited by Emma_Acid, 22 February 2012 - 10:58 PM.
"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder
0
