Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Rise of a 'master' woo myth of our history


Hanslune

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Who determines what is disproven rubbish and what is not on controversial subjects where serious people differ? The answer is we each have our own opinion (personal belief system) which holds sway for  our jurisdiction of one person. It is the same for you and me and everyone else here. We are each presenting our own personal belief system. Differing beliefs cause healthy debate.

I didn't address it as it is just wordplay. I did not create the term. If we call it 'psychic input into understanding history' would that be better?

I believe these things have been discussed many times and inevitably end in a difference of opinion.  I can see the end in the beginning of such discussions from past experiences. In this thread, I was here to discuss the 'master woo theory' and copycatting claims of the skeptics but I have not seen much to support their claim beyond them just repeating it as a given.

1) The determination of the validity of a given "hypothesis" is not based upon a nebulous "who". Such determinations are based upon untold volumes of credible and supportable research and documentation. Thus, said determinations are not based upon "my" personal belief system, but the cumulative efforts of many thousands of qualified individuals over rather extended periods of time. Such hard data is quite in contrast to the both highly subjective and highly questionable "information" that you would appear to be relying upon. The current Geller debacle would be a worthwhile example.

2) Must strongly disagree on this position. It is not a matter of wordplay, but clear and well understood definition. The conjoining of the words "psychic" and "archaeology" is not only, as previously detailed, a patent oxymoron, it involves more serious implications:

  • By conjoining the two words under discussion the proponents of such application are attempting to utilize a valid and credible field of study in order to "legitimize" a highly questionable and often fraudulent suite of practices.
  • In doing so, the practitioners of this application effectively defame a field of study that has contributed significant (and supportable) insights into the human past. 
  • Such devious and deceptive tactics are not uncommon in fringe "literature". As such, they have the potential to misinform those who may not necessarily be well experienced/trained in the relevant topics. Or do you support the deliberate promulgation of falsehoods?

As to the copycat aspect, you may wish to read some of the bibliographies (should such even be present) of current fringe "literature". It is not uncommon for such pulp to cite other fringe authors. A downward spiral at best.

.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, back to earth said:

Then, meet me in the ghost section .

I still claim its obvious  SOOOOOO   obvious where the development of all this modern woo came from    ......  as posted earlier.

And Papa's   quafuffles here  don't impact on that at all.     

I have to say Papa, that anyone that  considers an old piano haunted, because it occasionally plays one or two old notes  ... and DOES NOT consider other issues ( like a mouse inside or that it is against a wall with a stair case on the other side and a heap of other things the 'paranormally compulsive' refuse to consider )  is in no way able to hold off, divert or cancel out this theory of the origins of  a master woo myth, being in Victorian society where science was still heavily influenced by Christian myths and beliefs  (and in some cases still is today ! )

Let's go back on and re-ignite that debate. I'll be gone for few hours but I'll be back with a vengeance. 

One thing you'll find there is that old parapapa rarely has said the things his foes say that he has said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I think he (   @Wes4747   )   may have been referring to this thread.

And my posts like this that never got addressed:

URI GELLER’S INFLUENCE ON THE METAL ALLOY NITINOL

by Eldon Byrd, Physical Scientist
Naval Surface Weapons Center,
White Oak Laboratory, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Eldon Byrd has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and a M.S. in Medical Engineering. He has written on a variety of subjects; a paper on the telemetry of brain waves was published in the “Proceedings” of the International Telemetering Conference in 1972. He is also the author of the book How Things Work and a member of the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers and of Mensa.
This paper recounts two meetings between Eldon Byrd and Uri Geller; the first took place in late October of 1973 at the Isis Center of the Naval Surface Weapons Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, and the second occurred a year later, at the home of a friend of Geller’s in Connecticut. Byrd’s paper recounts some unique and cogent experiments with Geller and his influence on the unusual alloy nitinol. To cause permanent change in the shape of nitinol wire, which Geller repeatedly did, normally requires that one heat the wire to a temperature of about 900 degrees F and reshape it under considerable tension. However, as Byrd reports, Geller was able to introduce permanent deformations in several pieces of nitinol wire by gently rubbing them between two fingers.


Published for the first time with the permission of the author.
ON THE EVENING of October 29, 1973, I had two pieces of nitinol wire, each with a different diameter, and a nitinol block in the laboratory at the Isis Center. At that time, nitinol was generally not available to the public. It was produced in very small quantities at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory (currently the Naval Surface Weapons Center), where it had been developed by William Buehler, a lab metallurgist. The alloy has been extensively studied and its characteristics are well known, the main one being that nitinol wire has a physical memory for the shape in which it is formed at the time of manufacture. For example, the alloy has been used for satellite antennas. When a satellite is injected into orbit, the nitinol antenna expands from a tightly coiled position within the satellite and blossoms like a flower.

The block of nitinol I had in the laboratory was approximately an inch by three- eighths of an inch square, and was composed of 60% nickel by weight and 40% titanium. The smaller of the two wires I had was 0.5 mm in diameter, and the other was approximately three times as large, or about 1.5 mm in diameter. The wires were composed of 55% nickel by weight and 45% titanium.

I was interested in determining whether Geller could influence nitinol. The block had been previously tested in the laboratory and found to have a Rockwell “C” Scale hardness of 49 to 60 on several test spots on its surface. The nitinol wires had been checked to ensure that they would, when placed in boiling water or heated with a match, assume a straight configuration.

The block of nitinol was very hard and nonmagnetic. Specifically, I wanted to know whether Geller could change either the block’s hardness, which is a function of the structure of the material (the lattice arrangement of the atoms) or whether he could influence the material of the block to make it magnetic. In regard to the two wires, I wanted to know whether Geller could cause them to lose or alter their memory of their straight configuration.
The first thing I had Geller do was handle the block. I told him that I wanted to see if he could alter the block’s hardness. Also, I asked him if he would try to alter the magnetic properties of the material. He said he would try to do both.

He handled the block for some time. Finally, he said he thought he would not be able to do anything to it because he somehow did not have a “feel” for the material. In a last attempt to influence the block, he asked for a piece of metal of any kind, and a brass plate was given to him. He placed the block on the plate and held his hand over it. Several times he pressed down on the block, but gave up, saying that he did not think he would be able to affect the material.
I put the nitinol block in my pocket and took out the wire with the larger diameter. Geller handled it for a while. He held the palm of his hand over it, placed the wire on the brass plate, picked it up again and held it firmly between his hands, but nothing seemed to happen. I then took out the smaller diameter wire, cut it into three pieces, each approximately five inches in length, and told him that if he could not influence this, he probably could not influence nitinol at all.

Geller asked me to hold the wire. I held it tautly between the thumbs and index fingers of both hands, keeping it very straight. Geller put his thumb and index finger over the wire and started to rub back and forth. After about twenty seconds of rubbing the wire, Geller said he felt a lump forming in the wire. When he removed his fingers, the wire had a definite “kink” in it, which looked like this:

I asked that some boiling water be brought in. This particular wire was formed, at the time of manufacture, in a straight configuration, and immersion in boiling water should have caused it to spring back vigorously to that shape. But when I placed it in the water, the wire, instead of snapping back with some force into a straight shape, began to form approximately a right angle. This was an exciting finding. I lit a match and held it over the kink, but still the wire did not straighten out. Uri then left the lab and had no further contact with this nitinol wire.

Later, I had the wire (with the kink in it) x-rayed along its entire length, The analysis showed no discernible difference between the density of the wire at the kinked section and at other locations.
I also had an x-ray crystallographic analysis made of the wire. (Such a study shows the relative crystal sizes of the material in the form of a diffraction pattern.) The crystallographic analysis of the shaft of the wire that Geller had deformed showed nothing unusual in terms of crystalline size and uniformity. However, the crystal sizes in the kinked section appeared to have changed, but not significantly. The direction of change was one of enlargement, rather than one of shrinkage or of increase in density.

Several metallurgists at the Naval Surface Weapons Center who had examined and tested the wire were intent on removing the kink. They put the wire under tension in a vacuum chamber and heated it by passing an electric current through it until the wire glowed. When they removed the wire from the chamber and laid it on a cooling plate, it was, indeed, straight. But as the wire cooled down to room temperature, the kink spontaneously returned. They had no explanation for this occurrence.

Throughout the experiment with Geller, I had held the wire so tight that it was impossible for him to have pinched it between his thumb and forefinger. Besides, the day following the experiment I took another piece of nitinol wire and tried to bend it into as tight a kink as Geller had formed: I used the point of a screwdriver. But it was clearly impossible for me to duplicate Geller’s kink without using Bunsen burners and pliers.

Later, I tried still other experiments with nitinol wires, using chemicals, all in the hope of duplicating the Geller deformation. Mercuric chloride was used to see if a nitinol wire could be temporarily “softened” so that a kink might be formed without extreme heat and sizable force. But nitinol proved to be impervious to mercuric chloride as well as to other chemicals I tried.

October 1974
Anomalous effects can occur in the best of scientific experiments. is this what had happened during the test with Geller? I had pondered that question for almost a year before I had the chance to work again with Geller. The occasion took place in October 1974, not in the Isis Center, but at the home of writer John Fuller in Connecticut. Present that day were John Fuller, Ronald Hawke (a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California), my wife, and two friends of Geller and John Fuller, Solvej Clark and Melanie Toyofuku. However, only Geller, Ronald Hawke, and I took part in the events of that afternoon.

Because of the possibility that an anomaly had occurred during the first meeting with Geller, this time I took extra precautions. I had brought with me some nitinol wire that had been physically characterized prior to my departure from the laboratory. The wire contained no known anomalies and was configured to return to a straight shape after being heated. Prior to leaving for Connecticut, I had cut the wire into four pieces, each approximately four inches in length. The diameter of the wire was about 0.5 mm. One piece was used as a control and was not taken to Connecticut. Audio tape recordings were made during all observations.

I held one of the other pieces by both ends as I had previously done and Geller stroked it as before. A kink formed. I took a second piece of wire, held it by one end, and Geller stroked it unilaterally. It, too, developed a kink. The third piece of wire was given to Geller to do with as he pleased. He rolled it between his thumb and forefinger and it kinked sharply. (See Plate 4.)

All three pieces of wire were brought back to the laboratory. X-ray crystallographic analyses of the kinks revealed no discernible structural deformations in the molecular lattice of the wires. A scanning electron microscope photograph of one kinked section failed to reveal any clues as to the mechanism of the bending phenomenon. A shadowgraph of one of the kinked wires (see Plate 5) showed that the radius of curvature of the bend was less than one mm.
Geller had clearly influenced the alloy nitinol in a most unusual way: it was as if the kinks he produced had actually been manufactured into the wires, even though it had been conclusively determined before any experimentation that the permanent configuration of the wires was that of straight lines. No explanation has been given by nitinol experts, who have been consulted as to how kinks could have been formed without using high temperatures and mechanical stress. Mechanically produced kinks in nitinol leave obvious marks on the surface of the wire. Geller-formed kinks do not.

In November of 1973 two other pieces of nitinol wire had been given to Geller; he bent them, but not under controlled conditions. However, in light of the work just presented, some interesting observations can be made about those two pieces of wire. One wire (see Plate 6) developed multiple two – dimensional bends and a three-dimensional twist at its end. The other (see Plate 7) developed a three-dimensional bend also, but it took the shape of an ellipse. The only known technique to bring about this result is to twist the wire into an ellipse, constrain it so that it cannot move, and then heat it to 500 degrees C (or 932 degrees F). What is even more remarkable about this particular piece of wire is that it was permanently deformed in two planes; that is, it appears as an ellipse when viewed from above, and as one cycle of a sinusoidal wave when viewed from its side.

All of the bends that Geller had produced thus far in nitinol wires have been permanent deformations – the wires can be crumpled or twisted into any shape by hand, but on being heated to a temperature of about 210 degrees F. all the wires return to the shape Geller had imposed upon them.

How did Geller achieve such results? At the present I have no scientific explanation for what happened during both testing periods. I can say that the possibility of fraud on Geller’s part can be virtually ruled out. Because of the unusual properties of nitinol, the scientific controls essential for any investigation are, for the most part, built into the testing material. Geller would have had to “palm” a source of high heat or substitute his own personally manufactured or previously altered pieces of nitinol if deception is to be the explanation for the events that took place – two highly unlikely possibilities.

I would like to add, for the record, that I have been in the same room and right next to people who were being hypnotized, and I do not believe I am hypnotizable. I also used to be an amateur magician and have studied techniques of magic and sleight of hand. Throughout the tests with Geller, I tried not to let him affect me psychologically.
Neither I nor other experts can offer any scientific explanation of how these deformations may have occurred under the conditions imposed.

The paper appears here with the official approval of the Naval Surface Weapons Center. It was reviewed by Metallic Materials Branch Chief David Goldstein; Head of the Department of Research and Technology Dr. William C. Wineland; Nitinol expert Dr. Frederick Wang; and Security Department Head Ronald Valimaki. The review board checked the paper for (a) technical accuracy, (b) quality and editorial competence, (c) compliance with security regulations, and (d) professional ethics, and recommended its release for publication. The paper represents the first time parapsychological research conducted at a government facility has been released for publication by the Department of Defense.

 

Interesting paper but as I said before you must be able to reproduce these results with another team of researchers under controlled conditions.   You offer one man who ran an experiment unobserved by anyone else and ask us to believe a man who couldn't bend an ordinary spoon on Johnny Carson's show.   I know nothing of Eldon Byrd and he may be a FTB just like you for all I know hoping to legitimatize Geller.  

That Mr. Byrd appears to be qualified is not being questioned and that he can verify the results isn't either but he has stumbled onto an extraordinary phenomenon so I have a few questions   One, if Geller can do something not possible in a lab, why has he not done it again?   I am sure any number of labs would jump at the chance to explore this phenomenon.  Two, Mr. Byrd has, as I said, stumbled onto something extraordinary so why hasn't he declared this miracle to the world?  He'd be famous and probably rich if he yet he published this onelittle paper and disappears, why?  Aren't you the least bit curious about that?       

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Interesting paper but as I said before you must be able to reproduce these results with another team of researchers under controlled conditions.   You offer one man who ran an experiment unobserved by anyone else and ask us to believe a man who couldn't bend an ordinary spoon on Johnny Carson's show.   I know nothing of Eldon Byrd and he may be a FTB just like you for all I know hoping to legitimatize Geller.  

That Mr. Byrd appears to be qualified is not being questioned and that he can verify the results isn't either but he has stumbled onto an extraordinary phenomenon so I have a few questions   One, if Geller can do something not possible in a lab, why has he not done it again?   I am sure any number of labs would jump at the chance to explore this phenomenon.  Two, Mr. Byrd has, as I said, stumbled onto something extraordinary so why hasn't he declared this miracle to the world?  He'd be famous and probably rich if he yet he published this onelittle paper and disappears, why?  Aren't you the least bit curious about that?       

Greetings Merc. Just a note here. It would not appear that the quotes come from an actual peer-reviewed paper. Perhaps Papageorge1 can provide a (credible) citation?

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

  Aren't you the least bit curious about that?       

I would be curious if I didn't already have a good idea. He's bent metal more times than I can count AND the bending method unknown to science has been verified by I'm not sure how many mettalugists on multiple continents. See some of the other metallurgists I quoted in this thread as a sampling,

Why is this not more famous you ask? It is because Uri was the target of a great disinformation campaign by the skeptic community. Their mantra went out that it is all fake and just try mentioning his name on this forum if you want to hear laughter and hissing. This is aided by the fact that many scientists and regular people have a rather obvious dislike of the paranormal so the mantra was like getting them to swallow candy. Scientists never hear about this in their university and professional studies.

URI was often poor on his own PR which didn't help him.

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, back to earth said:

Then, meet me in the ghost section .

I still claim its obvious  SOOOOOO   obvious where the development of all this modern woo came from    ......  as posted earlier.

And Papa's   quafuffles here  don't impact on that at all.     

I have to say Papa, that anyone that  considers an old piano haunted, because it occasionally plays one or two old notes  ... and DOES NOT consider other issues ( like a mouse inside or that it is against a wall with a stair case on the other side and a heap of other things the 'paranormally compulsive' refuse to consider )  is in no way able to hold off, divert or cancel out this theory of the origins of  a master woo myth, being in Victorian society where science was still heavily influenced by Christian myths and beliefs  (and in some cases still is today ! )

Man, that thread was a mess. :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Swede said:

Greetings Merc. Just a note here. It would not appear that the quotes come from an actual peer-reviewed paper. Perhaps Papageorge1 can provide a (credible) citation?

.

Good call Swede.  I only looked for references and saw it discussed on a few reputable sites but no links to original paper, or NSWC endorsement.   @papageorge1  my questions  still hold regardless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Interesting paper but as I said before you must be able to reproduce these results with another team of researchers under controlled conditions.   You offer one man who ran an experiment unobserved by anyone else and ask us to believe a man who couldn't bend an ordinary spoon on Johnny Carson's show.   I know nothing of Eldon Byrd and he may be a FTB just like you for all I know hoping to legitimatize Geller.  

That Mr. Byrd appears to be qualified is not being questioned and that he can verify the results isn't either but he has stumbled onto an extraordinary phenomenon so I have a few questions   One, if Geller can do something not possible in a lab, why has he not done it again?   I am sure any number of labs would jump at the chance to explore this phenomenon.  Two, Mr. Byrd has, as I said, stumbled onto something extraordinary so why hasn't he declared this miracle to the world?  He'd be famous and probably rich if he yet he published this onelittle paper and disappears, why?  Aren't you the least bit curious about that?       

A link was provided by Carnoferox. Here it is again. start reading at the last paragraph on page 132. I already reported that Byrd himself learned that his initial understanding of the metal was incorrect and that it was possible to alter the shape of the metal as Gardner did in the article linked below.

https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/diaconis_ESP.pdf

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I would be curious if I didn't already have a good idea. He's bent metal more times than I can count AND the bending method unknown to science has been verified by I'm not sure how many mettalugists on multiple continents. See some of the other metallurgists I quoted in this thread as a sampling,

Why is this not more famous you ask? It is because Uri was the target of a great disinformation campaign by the skeptic community. Their mantra went out that it is all fake and just try mentioning his name on this forum if you want to hear laughter and hissing. This is aided by the fact that many scientists and regular people have a rather obvious dislike of the paranormal so the mantra was like getting them to swallow candy. Scientists never hear about this in their university and professional studies.

False. Uri is a fraud and his claims on his website are fraudulent. He scammed people and reports their comments before they realized that he had cheated. They discover the cheat and Uri does not mentioned that. How convenient.

I have shown that two of the comments you posted from a site you have not named were fakes. I will continue to expose the rest of the fake material you posted from the unnamed source.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the nitinol story and the Sarfatti stories copied frm an unnamed site have been demolished.

The last thing left to do is deal with the Cox quote. I'm guessing that is going to be as easy as these other two tales probably copied from the Geller site.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In looking up the source of that quote by Cox I discovered that Papageorge1 has posted the exact same text repeatedly in threads here at U-M. In the following thread you can find the exact same text with the exact same formatting. It is in post #105.

In the other thread is post #124 which is another exact duplicate of a post in this thread post #241. No link is given to either of these long (probably copyright infringement) posts. These are the copied nitinol posts that are material before Byrd learned that it was possible to kink the metal. That this kinking did not prevent the metal from returning to its condition set n the annealing process. That placing the metal in hot water would allow the metal to return to its shape set in the annealing process.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

 

I had a thought Mr. Moderator. Could old parapapa have a debate with ONE person and ONE subject on here and get into a more focused and thorough discussion. Everyone can view but only the two can post. 

If it's allowed, anyone think they can take on old papa on ONE subject?

I get what you're trying to do and why, but that wouldn't work in the public setting. This is a discussion forum and discussions must be open to everyone. Xeno is right about PMs: that's how you'd have to do something like that, even if others wouldn't be able to see it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the previous page rasgore issued a statement directing posters to get back on track. So, this is the second warning.

Enough talk about Geller. He is not the subject of this thread and does not really fit into the subject matter. Anyone can feel free to start a new discussion on Geller, in a more appropriate section of UM.

One more wanring and this thread might have to be closed. Do not ignore a Moderator's directives.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the basic of all fringe activity is to use old out dated material such as the unnamed items about a fraud whose name I will not mention to avoid the wrath of the great and mighty kmt_sesh.

One of the first fringe things I read was pyramid power. I was surprised that the book relied on an 1800s article suggesting that biological systems could transmute elements. It went on to use all sorts of old articles to build a faux science basis for pyramid power.

It is typical of fringies to use old articles. New material in conflict with the fringie position is avoided. Did the metal change a the molecular level in an unknown and unexpected way? Probably and that was due to the person making the statement not understanding the properties of the metal. When the metal was better understood the researcher corrected their statement which is what real scientists do. Does the fringie also come up to speed with the new information? No.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread there are many contentious issues in science. That is what makes it vibrant and exciting. The issues of analysis are worked out and progress is made. 

A master woo history must decide to restrict issues to form this woo. Woo does not exist using all of the information available. Woo is based on avoiding knowledge, on avoiding being correct, and it seems on some level  of deceit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is exactly on topic but.....the whole of occultism. A lot of old and outdated ideas get repackaged over and over again. Plus supposed "ancient secrets" etc are just discovered. But its all the same stuff. If you can write a book promising effortless gain, I'm sure it'll have some new age flakiness to it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

A link was provided by Carnoferox. Here it is again. start reading at the last paragraph on page 132. I already reported that Byrd himself learned that his initial understanding of the metal was incorrect and that it was possible to alter the shape of the metal as Gardner did in the article linked below.

https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/diaconis_ESP.pdf

 Thanks but I never thought the results real yet didn't want to get into the same old argument with papasmurf.     I wanted to see how he would answer some very obvious questions and then have a go at him.  Obviously he would play the same old game but maybe Wes4747 would start questioning his beliefs and papasmurf's rationality and learn to draw better conclusions.  Probably pointless anyways.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

 Anyone can feel free to start a new discussion on Geller, in a more appropriate section of UM.

 

NOOOO.! 

Please can i make a request?

Can we not encourage any more Geller threads ? :o:o

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

NOOOO.! 

Please can i make a request?

Can we not encourage any more Geller threads ? :o:o

Oh, I know what you mean. But luckily for those of us who are disinterested, Geller is not relevant to ancient history and doesn't belong in this section of UM. We have a number of different paranormal sections where it would be a proper fit...and those of us who are disinterested need not apply.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

 

I had a thought Mr. Moderator. Could old parapapa have a debate with ONE person and ONE subject on here and get into a more focused and thorough discussion. Everyone can view but only the two can post. 

If it's allowed, anyone think they can take on old papa on ONE subject?

It's called PM, and I think I could take you on every single subject. Scratch that. I know I could.

It would be a complete waste of my time, though. 

Image result for shooting fish in a barrel

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Not sure if this is exactly on topic but.....the whole of occultism. A lot of old and outdated ideas get repackaged over and over again. Plus supposed "ancient secrets" etc are just discovered. But its all the same stuff. If you can write a book promising effortless gain, I'm sure it'll have some new age flakiness to it.

"Ancient secrets" is a highly popular theme among the fringe, and a ready-made excuse to "explain" mysteries they don't really wish to study. It's kind of like creationism in that way. How many times at UM do we see fringies bring up "mystery schools" and related malarky in their hopes to understand history? Or make-believe societies like the Illuminati? It gets extended into New Age silliness like Cayce's fraudulent "visions" of a super-advanced Atlantean civilization, in which Cayce turned a great ancient writer's entertaining story into all sorts of unrealistic twaddle. This is how the moldy seed of fringiness sprouts and grows.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

It's called PM, and I think I could take you on every single subject. Scratch that. I know I could.

It would be a complete waste of my time, though. 

 

Rose is the only  person I'm terrified of on here. No way I'm going there. Oh, when you're not too busy Rose, can you PM my butt back?

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.