How did he contradict himself? He stated that people had no reason to lie..not that people did not lie. Then he went on to describe ways they did lie...no contradiction there?

People have no reason to LIE. But, they do LIE? So, I suppose you think this is unintentional?

Oh moro maybe you need to read my post above.

Believing everything you read on the internet is the DEFINITION of gullible.

You said, and I quote, "I believe that people have no need to lie over the internet" - you didn't say anything about WHO is lying or about what, just that people don't lie over the internet - skeptics, believers, anybody.

Therefore, you ARE gullible, since you have said yourself that you have no reason to doubt anyone. You are reading and believing lies every time you get on the web.

Were you trying to imply that only skeptics lie? That is a bunch of BS. I know that and you know that, but you'll never admit it.



Assuming that any evidence shown will be shot down by skeptics as "faked" and therefore no evidence ever has to be shown is the lamest, most horsesh** argument/excuse/copout I've ever heard. Try again.

You seem to believe absolutely everything you read on here Spork. Why is that?

He already said why - because people don't lie over the internet.

Give up Spork, your argument-fu is weaksauce.

But, thats down right FALSE. Anyone with even a little common sense knows people lie over the internet.
(In FACT it's a given).

What disturbes me even more is some of the people on here will believe in any fantastical claim that
is presented on here. But, will throw facts right out the window.

Perhaps he only believes everything on certain sites, but that would be foolish, would it not? No website contains 100% pure, unadulterated truth, right?

To believe 100% of the material on any given site would be...extremely gullible.

Example - If someone were to say they could physically walk through a solid steel wall.

I can walk on water, actually.

You may not believe in everything , every single statement given by a person, but it does not hurt to have your eyes open. You do not have to be quite rude , even if people are lying.

Lying IS rude, so in effect the liars start the rudeness.

That may be so, but would it be absolutely necessary to react the same way to an act you perceive to be rude?

I suppose that I'm a bit harsh at times! So, I apologise.

I am open to the aspect of certain unexplainable things. But, when people start claiming they can control fire, ice,
random objects, with just their mind? I have to draw the line.

Not at all.

We're deviating off the topic here, however. The real question is why won't at least ONE person post evidence of their wild claims?

I can do typecrapkinesis.

And I can prove it too.

My typecrapkinesis is better, yet I don't have to prove it because you wouldn't believe me anyway.

Or would you? I'll believe whatever you say.

As I stated earlier, our common sense sorts what is obviously ludicrous. Elemental manipulation is not currently relevant , however, in the future it is an open possibility. But as for now, I severely doubt that, which could cause people to engage in aggressive negotiation.

I don't like it when some skeptics feel that are psychics are delusional. What if someone investigates a haunted house. The owners claim they saw a young girl who wears a blue dress. They hire a few psychics and 2 out of 2 say that they see a young girl in a blue dress, I mean, using common sense, wouldn't that be a form of anecdotal evidence? Two psychics have even said my mom has a white aura.

I most definitely agree with you there, and I will not refute it.

I have no problem with ghost sightings - well, at least most of them. I don't automatically discount every one. I believe in ghosts, and I don't discount the possibility of certain psi powers, either.

However, when somebody comes in and claims they can create fire with their hands, flat-out REFUSE to do ANYTHING to prove it, and still people unquestioningly believe them - THAT bugs me.

Yes, I agree with your point on the sometimes harshness of some skeptics. Well, to those two psychics , they know what they saw. They know it exists. "Seeing is believing.", I respectively disagree to a degree on there due to some constants that influence perception, however. Evidence itself, is something that is physical, or once physical, that can prove anything to be factual. It holds somewhat a form of relation to evidence, as they themselves saw evidence. But...it is technically not evidence until at least some proof, or someone we know to hold a high and respective societal position personally admits they saw it..but even then, it would not be...it's complicated, but bottom line. No.

I understand moonie, I have nothing to say but I do agree with you. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but this goes for people who believe john edward, sylvia browne, etc. Who blindly believe despite what everyone says. That does bug me to. Even if someone proved she was a fraud, people will believe her. Maybe it's ignourants or stupidity. Or it's the mere desperate attempt to believe in something. Or it's some sort of phobia, who knows. But there's a few websites I go to, were they claim to channel spiritual beings, and turns out to be a hoax. I guess denying ignourance doesn't really mean anything anymore. Well, thanks guys for replying to me in a friendly manner. Take care moonie and drayno.

There is nothing wrong in believing anything, it is your choice, your life. I believe each person creates their own definition of reasonable criteria. So, as everyones views change, so do their expectations towards truth. But , I guess acceptance is the best path. Anytime Mal, and thank you.

I suppose it all comes down to what one wants to believe, (Even if it goes against solid facts).

To each their own.

Between 1997 and 2003, I restored a large home that was constructed in 1596. It had been empty for more than 100 years and was in terrible condition. Once restored, I noticed that people in the village were not as friendly as they had been before. I also noticed that when people walked down the street and arrived at my house, they would cross the street until they passed the house and then cross again to continue going to wherever they were going.

It did not take me long to learn that the people of the village considered my house to be haunted. I started to do some research and discovered that the home had been built by the Marquis de Aguayo, a Spanish nobleman. His wife arrived from Spain when the house was completed and soon thereafter became pregnant. One night, as the records indicate, the Marquis was drunk and angry with his wife, Catalina, and took their small baby and threw it against a wall, killing it instantly.

Helping me with some old house plans was the Instituto Nacional de Antropolgia y Historia (INAH), Mexico's agency to preserve old, historic homes. The architects from that agency told me that once there had been a door where there was now a solid wall and we ordered workers to start looking for the outline of the old door. It did not take long to find the door casing and they started to hammer away at the old adobe bricks. Shortly after, they discovered inside of the wall a small canvas bag and everyone thought it was treasure. It turned out to be the mummified body of a small baby. Obviously the Marquis had the baby placed inside the wall which was not uncommon in those days.

I have experienced very little that I would call "unusual" in the house. Others, however, claim to have seen Catalina in a flowing white dress and I have had guests leave with screams and tears. I will not try to accredit or deny the validity of their experience but I will say that I live within the realm that some would call "supernatural."

Heart, spork, I'm sorry...

I was kinda dead set on shooting you guys and the other psi-believers down, until I experienced what you guys have been posting about for months...

I was um... doing some private business... when my hand started to cramp so I put it under some cold water, just for the hell of it I began focusing on the area between my hands... the water bent. I don't know how to explain it better then the water bend around the shape of a perfecf sphere (stream split in two and joined up a few inches down). It scared the sh** out of me, but I did some more experimenting (not with psi wheels, since I dont trust them, but I set up water puzzles and paper and such) and I foudn I could repeat the proccess if I tried hard enough.

I understand why you guys find it so hard to provided what all the skeptics want, I have a life, and no real access to high end videro cameras and such. Ill try and make some audio files of my psi sessions but don't have a set date on when they will come around.

Again, my bad.

Do you mean when a small stream of flowing water from a faucet would bend towards your hand? I believe there's a scientific explanation for that, and I've done it myself - something to do with static electricity or something.

Unless you mean something different.

Oh, you know I do baby...

It was Psi, stop tryIN to blind yourself frum teh TRUTH!

I can't tell if you're kidding or not. Is that what was happening? Are you messing with my brain?

I'm just going to assume you're kidding.

Thats right you narrow minded mortal.

Disregard those things that you don't understand!

Until you can provide such a strong argument that can shut me up, I will not.

Why should so many people lie over the internet, besides, you said I believe in everything, I don't believe everything people say. For instance, I do not believe in science. Because that is a form of control for mankind. Surported by the powerful people of the society, those beliefs are allowed to grow. And by beliefs of people, they are being tested without anyone shouting foul. But are they actually real? Time will tell. Just like everything else.

I feel these "Psions"? (I assume thats what you call yourselves now). are making/believing these incredible claims
on purpose for the attention.

Until one of YOU can PROVE ME wrong, I will stick with this presumption.

You may stick to it. But I will also stick to mine. I do not call myself a psion. I call myself a believer.

What does that even mean, Spork? What exactly is it you don't believe in?

I suspect your answer might be relevant to the thread title.

Oh no. I did not eleborate. Well my bad. Actually, I mean that science has its own share of mistakes. And yet even after all that, it does not lose any crediblity. Which leads me to think that the more influentual people, namely government, is supporting it. But then, psychics and the unexplained is totally different. Every pass and fail becomes a great debate between the two sides. I am, wondering, if we had studied psychics at the beginning of our education, would there be all believers, if most people had said that science is nonsense, would it have the same credibility it enjoys now, leads to a great debate in my mind. Thus I say that I do not entirely believe in science.

Well I hope its related to the post and more importantly, relevant to what you are looking for.

I'm very glad you think that its possible that what I wrote may be relevant to the topic. And I hope that this post does not fall short of your expectation.

No, thanks, you answered clearly. 'I do not entirely believe in science' is not quite the same though as 'I don't believe in science', so in that sense you didn't quite follow up with what I expected.

Nevetheless, I think it's sensible to take new and unprecedented findings in science with a pinch of salt. However,


seems pretty far-out. Science has, of course, made its own fair share of errors; the difference between science and other areas is that science is self-policing, and trasnparent. This means that the majority of errors made in scientific endeavours are detected and corrected by other scientists working within the scientific method. This works through the 'quality control' mechanisms of peer review, methodological transparency and replication.

Peer review enables expert checking of every published scientific paper. Methodological transparency enables complete scrutiny of all aspects of a study, to the point where a finding can be verified by others working independently from, and often in rivalry with, the original researchers. Replication is that process of independent checking.

I'm not sure why you introduced the government conspiracy theory, but it just seems like a non-seq to me. In any case, how on Earth could any government control all the scientists in the world to produce the findings they want? Why, indeed, would they? Wrong science isn't something that can be accepted anyway, it's something that's broken - it doesn't work. Put money into developing something based on bad science, and it won't do what it says on the tin. I don't see how that's in anyone's interests, gubment alien conspiracies or no.


That is precisely because psychics and most areas of the unexplained do not operate under the scientific method. They do not have the same checking, transparency and replicability mechanisms - and, indeed, consciously and billigerently eschew them in many cases - and so, as on this board, most such claims come down to personal claims which are, as you say, endlessly debatable.


I'm sorry, I think your question misses the point somehow. Truth isn't a matter of consensus and early education; in science, such indoctrination is not required, since the results are checkable.

Oh well I think you explained clearly, I have a better understanding of science now, and of course your thoughts and I am very grateful for the time you took to explain to me.

Well, for my part I was genuinely interested in why you thought what you did, and why it was so different to what I thought, but clearly you're one of those people who doesn't frequent discussion boards for discussion. Not to worry.

Find that post for me wabbit. I tried all this nonsense for years when I was a teenager with no effect. Thats enough proof for me.

Sorry, if they are lying it is the perfect reason to be rude. Our eyes are open as skeptics. The believers eyes are shut to the truth.

Why? Since there is no proof they are real, I think that is a great description. Common sense would be not trust supposed psychics to diagnose your home.

So you say that it is right to be rude just because someone else is? Well, that is a bit childish. So you would call my beliefs folly and ignorant, and consider your own superior? That kind of arrogance makes me laugh.

Sure. If you are believing in Xman powers. Than yes I would.

Haha. Of course you are 14, so you would be a believer. I think the rest of us that have been here for years have gotten very tired of all the silly claims that are nothing more then nonsense from the psi kiddies.

Well , it seems your immaturity ceases to surprise me.

Also, age does hold some relation to belief, however, that is not the exact issue here. Basing my beliefs solely on my age is pretty pitiful, for you age of course. I am really enjoying the irony of this situation. Sure, you would become bitter as you would have people of my age constantly posting claims of supernatural , but would it be mature to stereotype my age group by calling us all, "PSI kiddies?" My god man, you are thirty-six years old, grow up. My dog is more mature than you.

Funny, Eric, you are hilarious. And if you reply, I am sure you will reply in a smug manner such as, "I know.", or "Thank you." You tell me to take my own advice, when ironically enough, you are the one who is being immature. Also, it is not spot on, it will never be. You are so sure of yourself, you just deem everyone else's opinion that does not relate to yours stupid.

As you grow up, logical thinking will become a normal part of your life. Or at least I hope it will.

I have a logical mindset, thank you. Also, please elaborate on how I am immature?

You haven't been using it. Sorry. I never said you were immature. Please show me where I did.
BUT you are 14, and at 14 a person acts a certain way. For instance, believing in things without proof. "Faith."