Psychokinesis Videos

[Aquila King]

11 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

No worries,I really only want to hear from you about this evidence you keep saying you have, You know the one teh unimaginative, ignorant and stupid materialists are using.

Quote from me where I said any of those things. You're the one using those words, not me.

12 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Materialist is only a slur in the way yu use it, see my sentence above.

I did see and respond to your sentence above, and once again I never said such things, you did. I have no problem with materialists apart from my disagreement with them. I have no emotional malcontent towards them. I would appreciate it if you didn't slander my reputation and putting words in my mouth that I clearly never said.

16 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

 A spiritualist is not in the realm of the paranormal, they are two different things.  When one says he believes in the spiritual nature of the universe they are not  also saying that they believe in ghosts, telekinesis, ESP etc.  One can believe in God without believing  in the things papageorge believes are real.  Your combining of the two is both bizarre and suspicious, especially when combined with your utter disdain for "materialists".   Why would you do this?

Google's definition of Spiritualism:

spir·it·u·al·ism

ˈspiriCH(o͞o)əˌlizəm/  

noun

noun: spiritualism

1. 1.

   a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, especially through mediums.
2. 2.

   Philosophy

   the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

Wikipedia Article: Spiritualism

"Spiritualism is a metaphysical belief that the world is made up of at least two fundamental substances, matter and spirit. This very broad metaphysical distinction is further developed into many and various forms by the inclusion of details about what spiritual entities exist such as a soul, the afterlife, spirits of the dead, deities and mediums; as well as details about the nature of the relationship between spirit and matter. It may also refer to the philosophy, doctrine, or religion pertaining to a spiritual aspect of existence."

Spiritualism has multiple definitions (as does Materialism), but the one I'm referring to is simply the philosophy described above. ^ And yes, it is tied to the Paranormal, belief in ghosts, telekinesis, ESP, etc. Disassociating it from this is both bizarre and suspicious. Why are you doing this?

And as for my supposed 'disdain for materialists', once again I said no such thing, nor have in any way ever even hinted at that.  Where are you getting this? Are you honestly so childish as to assume every mere disagreement one has with you is some kind of personal attack? I've only ever expressed disagreement. Nothing more.

Please, calm down. There's no need to put so much emotion into this, lord knows I'm not.

[back to earth]

On ‎30‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 2:13 AM, Merc14 said:

Statistically proven?  When, what where and who please?  Wait, let me guess, the flawed and never replicated Ganzfeld experiment right?     

 

He means all the examples he gives here ... before he gives them

as after he gives them we examine them and expose their fakeness ... many many times ..  Then he goes off, pops us in another thread as if it never happened and tries to start all over again .

[Aquila King]

25 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yes and thanks for that but he seems to be combing that stuff with the paranormal stuff that papageorge preaches, is that common because my thought is Aquila  is justifying his paranormal beliefs by including them with his spirituality.  Spirituality is not paranormal in my book but maybe I am misreading him yet why thump papageorge on the back for his lunacy unless you believe it yourself?

I'm not backing papageorge's beliefs. I don't care what he believes quite frankly. I agree with him on some things and disagree on others, but that's completely irrelevant. Respond to what I claim and don't lump me in with anyone else.

49 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I told you about using materialism. How it's often used by those of the more spiritual kind to ridicule those who do not share their beliefs. What I see that I believe is going on. Is the difference between materialism and more of a mental perspective. In our minds there is a "world" of infinite possibilities and fantastical things. The root of spirituality is this mental sphere. Of the imagination. People think that dreams predict the future, that they see their actual loved one's who've passed. When people are in altered states of consciousness they perceive the world differently. This does not mean that what they see and/or sense is real. 

And honestly Xeno, I don't doubt you one bit.  I'm sure that there are PLENTY in the spiritual community that use materialism as a term to ridicule others. Just please understand that that is not at all what I'm trying to do here. I'm not really a part of other spiritual circles, my spirituality is highly individualized. I'm an independent thinker. I'm an isolated case. Sometimes too isolated...  But anyway, I digress...

Main thing is, don't lump me into certain 'groups' or social circles cause I'm not in 'em. I can assure you. And don't assume I'm automatically in the know about current cultural trends, because often I'm not. I have no social life. Literally, apart from online forums like this. (bit of a loser actually, I know) But please (and I'm speaking to everyone here, not just Xeno) don't categorize me because I'm pretty damn sure I won't fit your paradigm.

23 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Actually I was writing my comment up and then you posted before I got finished. Spirituality does tend to lead people into believing more paranormal things, but I do agree they do not by default go hand in hand. The way I see it is that people believe what they want to believe because it satisfies some missing aspect of their lives. 

Oh I agree.  Spirituality or Spiritualism doesn't necessarily assume that one accepts the paranormal, ESP, etc. They do simply tend to go hand in hand. That's all I meant.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Aquila King

[Merc14]

21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Quote from me where I said any of those things. You're the one using those words, not me.

Oh, I never said I quoted you son, did I use quotation marks?  No I clearly stated that you were inferring that.  Stop trying to redirect and post your scientific evidence (your links were not that) or simply admit you don't have any.  Also, since you haven't tried to refute my accusation that you link the paranormal and spiritualism will you please explain how one is the same as the other?   How if a person believes in God they must believe in ESP?

Edited October 1, 2017 by Merc14

[XenoFish]

I've been in online communities where anything outside of the group belief is raged against. I mean they will basically bully a member out because they dare bring a rational thought to the table. So calling someone a materialist is kind of an insult depending on it's use. I have no issue with someone having a belief, be it spiritual or paranormal. Having a belief is fine. But once someone claims their belief as fact it will be debated. I've seen ghost, I've seen ufo's. I've had weird almost prophetic dreams. But I will not claim any of that as fact. I will say it's an experience. A subjective experience based on something that had happened. With no evidence to claim it as truth I can not say it is "real". When it comes to psychic claims you must have proof. Because you are telling people you've got some "super power" or some other such nonsense. Have I seen psychokinesis, yes. Have I done it? Yes. Do I believe in it? No. Why might you ask? Because I have no quality evidence outside of personal experience and the massive amount of inconsistency leaves me to doubt. I doubt my personal experiences. I'm not making videos claiming I've got some special ability. I mean hell I've had "telepathic" experiences where I say what someone's was thinking quite literally, but again consistency. I hold experiences like that as being random chance.

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

Oh, I never said quoted you son, did I use quotation marks?  No I clearly stated that you were inferring that.  Stop trying to redirect and post your scientific evidence (your links were not that) or simply admit you don't have any.  Also, since you haven't tried to refute my accusation that you link the paranormal and spiritualism will you please explain how one is the same as the other?   How if a person believes in God they must believe in ESP?

What? Where are you getting any of this?  You're making absolutely no sense. You're throwing out blanket accusatory remarks that have no basis in fact.

Please explain to me, in exactly what way was I inferring any of what you claim? I thought you didn't believe in mind-reading, so why are you trying to read mine? How do you know what I inferred or intended? I've flat said over and over already that I intended no such thing, and that if so then I'm sorry, it honest to god was not my intention. How much more clear do I need to be?

I'm not redirecting, you're just insulting. I had just finished explaining to someone else (before you rudely interrupted) about how skeptics ask for evidence, and when I give it to them, they reject it, and insist that despite the evidence I've presented, that I have none. I went on to explain how I wish that they would simply admit that they disagree with our interpretation of the evidence, rather than continue to insist that we have none when we clearly do, you simply disagree with us. And that's perfectly fine! There's nothing wrong with that at all! Just be honest and say you disagree. I've never said that you have no evidence for your claim, merely that I disagree with your interpretation of it. How is any of that insulting? I'd think it should be considered completely fair.

Of course despite all of this that I had literally just finished explaining, you quoted me and responded with a whole bunch of wild accusations, all while talking down to me in the most pious condescending manner. And now you accuse me of simply redirecting the conversation? You're the one that came up out of the blue and started accusing me of things I clearly didn't say or do.

I'm seriously starting to think that you simply want to argue, whereas I on the other hand would like to have a polite friendly discussion. But apparently this isn't gonna happen with you.

[Aquila King]

30 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Also, since you haven't tried to refute my accusation that you link the paranormal and spiritualism will you please explain how one is the same as the other?   How if a person believes in God they must believe in ESP?

Oh and btw in response to this, ^ I never said that 'if a person believes in God they must believe in ESP'. That's yet another thing that you're accusing me of that I didn't do. I'd say "quote me where I said that", but it'll probably just be another 'inference' of mine supposedly.

And as for the link between the paranormal and spiritualism, I explain that thoroughly enough in my previous posts.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Aquila King

[papageorge1]

26 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

 

Good choice of picture. I liked it.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Good choice of picture. I liked it.

That's the same face I make when I read any of your post.

[Aquila King]

If I make that face any more like I have recently, it might get stuck like that.

[Merc14]

29 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

What? Where are you getting any of this?  You're making absolutely no sense. You're throwing out blanket accusatory remarks that have no basis in fact.

LMAO.  I can write to make it insulting, or with a single word change, complimentary.  You are playing a game and losing so knock it off an simply answer clearly or leave the debate.

29 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Please explain to me, in exactly what way was I inferring any of what you claim? I thought you didn't believe in mind-reading, so why are you trying to read mine? How do you know what I inferred or intended? I've flat said over and over already that I intended no such thing, and that if so then I'm sorry, it honest to god was not my intention. How much more clear do I need to be?

Already done several times .  Believe it or not you are not unusual here, we see a lot of charlatans play this game.

Quote

I'm not redirecting, you're just insulting.

Oh sop whining, you know the game you are playing and I am simply asking for one experiment that show beyond any doubt that the paranormal is real.  Stop playing victim and either show it or admit you are wrong.

Quote

I had just finished explaining to someone else (before you rudely interrupted) about how skeptics ask for evidence, and when I give it to them, they reject it, and insist that despite the evidence I've presented, that I have none.

Rudely interrupted, like yelling across the room?  You can ignore me and avoid any further interruptions but I will post you are a fraud at every claim you are going to make.  Or just provide your proof that you keep whining that we ignore.  Your single best proof that your beliefs are real/  About the tenth time I have asked an crickets from our newest martyr. 

29 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I went on to explain how I wish that they would simply admit that they disagree with our interpretation of the evidence, rather than continue to insist that we have none when we clearly do, you simply disagree with us. And that's perfectly fine! There's nothing wrong with that at all! Just be honest and say you disagree. I've never said that you have no evidence for your claim, merely that I disagree with your interpretation of it. How is any of that insulting? I'd think it should be considered completely fair.

Interpretation of evidence, is not an opinion,it is either repeatable or it is not.  The above bolded is as ridiculous as papageorge's who believes anything shown him.  The fact that you want to believe something that is shown to be wrong in the same experiment run by another organization speaks volumes about your supposed neutrality on the subject.

29 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Of course despite all of this that I had literally just finished explaining, you quoted me and responded with a whole bunch of wild accusations, all while talking down to me in the most pious condescending manner. And now you accuse me of simply redirecting the conversation? You're the one that came up out of the blue and started accusing me of things I clearly didn't say or do.

I'm seriously starting to think that you simply want to argue, whereas I on the other hand would like to have a polite friendly discussion. But apparently this isn't gonna happen with you.

Well I want you to tell me what I asked, put your cards on the table.

21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Oh and btw in response to this, ^ I never said that 'if a person believes in God they must believe in ESP'. That's yet another thing that you're accusing me of that I didn't do. I'd say "quote me where I said that", but it'll probably just be another 'inference' of mine supposedly.

And as for the link between the paranormal and spiritualism, I explain that thoroughly enough in my previous posts.

Ok, so paranormal and spirituality are completely different things and one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  If I now have it correct then please just says yes or no, your wounded diatribes are exceedingly boring so I don't read them.

[Aquila King]

7 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

LMAO.  I can write to make it insulting, or with a single word change, complimentary.  You are playing a game and losing so knock it off an simply answer clearly or leave the debate.

What Game!?  Seriously man, WTF!?!?

What are you talking about!?

What debate is there to even have? I know, I know, "Show me the evidence. Show me the evidence." I friggin' did. But rather than actually quote it or even try and refute any of it, you seem to be content in just simply hurling insults and passively dismissing it. You tell me to answer clearly or leave the 'debate'. I am answering clearly, you just apparently aren't listening.

I'm not even trying to 'debate' with you in the first place.  And we aren't really 'debating' the main subject at all. I'm having to spend all my time correcting all of the nonsensical slander being thrown my way out of nowhere.

1) I told you that I wouldn't waste my time responding to someone who can't speak to me in a civilized manner. And 2) You aren't positing any arguments or refutations at all. You're just simply insisting that I have no evidence when I do (I posted a ton of links previously, I assume you don't want me to just re-post it again), you tell me to show you the evidence when I have (you merely dismiss it rather than refute it), you've yet to refute any of the info provided on the evidence that I have presented (you merely off-handedly dismiss it), all while throwing out smug condescension and insults and resulting to childish name-calling, and the real kicker is you've yet to give me ANY argument of your own (in defense of Materialism).

And you wanna accuse me of losing a debate? WHAT DEBATE!?  Seriously, this is the biggest cluster**** of utter nonsense I've ever seen in my life.

I'm not playing any 'games' either. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this crap. Once again, you accuse me of doing something I didn't do. Either I know nothing of my own intentions or you're suddenly psychic, cause you seem to have some sort of natural ability to supposedly tell me exactly what I'm actually thinking and intending.

36 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Already done several times .  Believe it or not you are not unusual here, we see a lot of charlatans play this game.

Charlatan!?  Seriously, again, WTF???

Where is that coming from all of a sudden? That is a rather serious and slanderous accusation. Do you only know how to throw insults rather than actually come up with some rational arguments? You are seriously acting like a child. Name calling? Really?

According to Merrium-Webster:

Charlatan

                 :⁴quack 2

• charlatans harming their patients with dubious procedures

2 :one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability :fraud, faker

• a charlatan willing to do and say virtually anything to remain in the spotlight
• —Alan Brinkley

I believe in the existence of the spiritual, and am merely expressing my beliefs on a public forum. Why does this suddenly make me a charlatan? Is everyone who simply disagrees with you suddenly a charlatan?

48 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Oh sop whining, you know the game you are playing and I am simply asking for one experiment that show beyond any doubt that the paranormal is real.  Stop playing victim and either show it or admit you are wrong.

No dude, I seriously don't know what the F you're talking about. I'm not playing any 'game'. It's not 'whining', when I keep having to correct all these false accusations that you keep throwing at me out of nowhere.

I gave you multiple experiments, pages of them in fact, and you've yet to respond to a damn thing. You keep simply dismissing it as 'not real evidence' without giving me any rational arguments in defense of this claim. I keep explaining to you how the evidence requires individual interpretation (as most evidence does), therefore showing you evidence that 'shows beyond any doubt that the paranormal is real' is friggin' impossible. Not because there isn't any evidence, but because you could merely interpret it to be something else entirely. The term 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a relative term. What may be considered to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to some, is not at all the case for others. Why do you think we have criminal trials? What, do you think that we could just skip the trial altogether and go straight to the sentencing because the 'evidence proves this or that beyond a reasonable doubt'? No, the evidence needs to be presented, debated, weighed against other evidence, and interpreted by people who then after careful deliberation deliver a verdict. And yet despite all of this, hundreds of thousands of people are falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit. This is because all evidence requires interpretation. Yes, some questions (or 'trials' if you will) are obvious, but many others are not. The question of Spiritualism vs. Materialism is not so axiomatic. It also requires interpretation. Therefore proving to you beyond any doubt is a rather damn hard thing to do, given that this is one of those subjects that you can merely interpret another way. This isn't a game, it's called a rational argument. Please learn to give one of these in the future.

As for me supposedly 'playing the victim', I will reiterate. Wtf?

Am I seriously 'playing the victim' by asking you politely to be civil and present your case rather than hurl insults and dismiss or ignore my previous posts? This is absolute absurdity. Asking for a little common decency and respect is not 'playing the victim', it's called being a civilized human being. I suggest you learn to act like one.

 

Now since you keep asking me to provide you evidence, I will re-post what you so casually ignored. I am providing you with the evidence you keep asking for. This can be found on post#17 on the first page of this thread.
 

Quote

 

https://www.sheldrake.org/research

http://www.aspr.com/jaspr.htm

https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-have-ndes-while-brain-dead.html

https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html

http://dbem.ws/online_pubs.html

https://caps.ucsf.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bem2011.pdf

These ^ are just a few.

As for why this is rejected:

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

 

 

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Rudely interrupted, like yelling across the room?  You can ignore me and avoid any further interruptions but I will post you are a fraud at every claim you are going to make.  Or just provide your proof that you keep whining that we ignore.  Your single best proof that your beliefs are real/  About the tenth time I have asked an crickets from our newest martyr. 

About the tenth time I've told you, and since you can't seem to find it I give it to you up here. ^

You're right, I could ignore you, and for the first time on here I'm seriously considering putting someone on my ignore list. However if you do seriously do as you claim and start posting everywhere on here more of these slanderous unfounded remarks, I will have no choice but to report you for harassment. The only reason I've kept responding to you at all is because you keep throwing out unfounded slanderous nonsense about my character, and by damn I have a right to defend it. I in no way wanted this to be personal, but if you keep this behavior up it will be. Quit making it such.

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Interpretation of evidence, is not an opinion,it is either repeatable or it is not.  The above bolded is as ridiculous as papageorge's who believes anything shown him.  The fact that you want to believe something that is shown to be wrong in the same experiment run by another organization speaks volumes about your supposed neutrality on the subject.

No, interpretation of evidence is what scientists do all the time. This is why there are multiple different interpretations regarding the extinction of dinosaurs, or why there are multiple interpretations of whether evolution happens very gradually or in short bursts. There are tons of Scientific Disputes, many of which scientists argue about to this day.

Not to mention the justice system example I gave above. Interpretation is an integral part of Epistemology.

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Well I want you to tell me what I asked, put your cards on the table.

I did. Multiple times. Over and over again. And I did it again in this post. You simply keep ignoring it and resorting to making this some sort of personal dispute, which is totally uncalled for.

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Ok, so paranormal and spirituality are completely different things and one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  If I now have it correct then please just says yes or no, your wounded diatribes are exceedingly boring so I don't read them.

This is a prime example of what I'm saying, I think you just want to argue. I have absolutely no interest in arguing with someone who doesn't seem to know how to present any rational arguments, and certainly doesn't know how to treat people with respect. You just seem to just want to instigate. and stir up trouble, and I'll have no part in it.

I have given you everything you need to craft an intelligent response. I have given you evidence, along with rational arguments to back it up.

You can either respond with a real rational argument (and at this point I'd expect some sort of an apology), and then I'll respond to your arguments with my own and we can start over in a civilized fashion. Or, you can continue to slander and insult rather than reason and be civil, and I'll have no choice but to ignore you and move on. The choice is yours.

However I will make this much abundantly clear: If you seriously intend to stalk me and harass me with wild unfounded slanderous nonsense as you've suggested, I WILL report you for your harassment. I won't put up with this nonsense anymore.

Consider this my final warning. And if you come back with more of the same, my final response.

[Saru]

Let's keep it civil please folks.

There are far too many derogatory personal remarks being thrown around these days.

[Merc14]

10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

No, interpretation of evidence is what scientists do all the time. This is why there are multiple different interpretations regarding the extinction of dinosaurs, or why there are multiple interpretations of whether evolution happens very gradually or in short bursts. There are tons of Scientific Disputes, many of which scientists argue about to this day.

That the dinosaurs disappeared is not arguable.  How they disappeared is what the argument is about.  That the paranormal is real is the present argument that I want you to respond to.  I say it is not as every experiment has failed to prove its existence.  Do you agree with this or not

 

[seeder]

James Randi exposes James Hydrick and busts Telekinesis   DO WATCH

 

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by seeder

[seeder]

James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff

 

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by seeder

[ChrLzs]

On 9/30/2017 at 2:15 PM, Aquila King said:

 I love how people here keep screaming for evidence, then when I post it it's completely ignored...

I hadn't seen this thread before, but I have to ask - why did you post so many links, Aquila?  Heard of the Gish Gallop?

Anyway, I'll be *delighted* to fully address any of those links, but let's raise the stakes.

YOU choose the absolute best one.

Don't be shy, and whatever you do, don't be afraid that what you think is the best, will be shown to be unscientific and unproven, unevidenced drivel.  If it's properly researched and documented, I'll happily accept it.

So, you pick THE ONE, and let's go through it point by point.  If you are confident in your research, the possibility of making me look an idiot should surely be attractive!  I know Papa would love it, but we'll never get him to commit to anything...

 

ADDED - I see Timonthy beat me to it, but.. I've gotta be honest, going through Sheldrake's ludicrous unscientific bulldung will be like shooting fish in a barrel..  So, Aquila, one more chance - do you want to choose another link as your fave? Just so you know, I'm VERY familiar with Sheldrake's 'work', and it most certainly does not support telekinesis.  I even own Sheldrake's book about dogs...  and am about half way through a review which I wlll, eventually, post here. 

It's unmitigated, unscientific rubbish, and I find it hard to believe that Sheldrake did not consider a whole pile of things that very simply explain the dogs' behavior.  The man has the proverbial closed mind, and shows no critical/lateral thinking skills.  (Ask me what I really think...)

Edited November 28, 2017 by ChrLzs
oops, gazumped..

[ChrLzs]

Aquila, I see you are posting elsewhere...  Have you lost interest in this thread?  I asked above, are you still sure that you want Rupert Sheldrake as your best choice for properly evidenced telekinesis, or similar?

If so... well, I'm giving you one last chance to change your mind, perhaps after reading this:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Yes, it's a skeptical viewpoint, but I'm afraid you will have to agree, once you actually look at Sheldrake's claims and 'evidence'.

May I ask, have you ever had anything to do with working in the sciences? (I have)
Have you ever been involved with designing studies / scientific experiments?  (I have)
Have you ever had to review the final reports and documentation of good quality science? (I have)
Have you ever watched Penn & Teller at work? (I have)
Are you good at lateral thinking, and do you understand all the ways, for example, that dog's senses and neural networks/behavior work? (I think I am, and I have done a bit of research on puppy dogs...)
Are you willing to walk through Sheldrake's claims with me in a stepwise fashion, with a view to properly scrutinising them to see if they truly hold water?

(forgive my little joke there - my science experience is mainly in marine biology...but I have a special interest in exposing *bad* science..)

 

Anyways, back to you.  If you don't answer within a few days, I'll start working through the Sheldrake link...

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

On 11/30/2017 at 4:15 PM, ChrLzs said:

Aquila, I see you are posting elsewhere...  Have you lost interest in this thread?  I asked above, are you still sure that you want Rupert Sheldrake as your best choice for properly evidenced telekinesis, or similar?

.....

Just a small bump to this thread, while we wait patiently (I've heard a rumour that Aquila may just re-discover this thread and commit...).

Anyways, I've decided now is the time to commence my dissertation upon Rupert Sheldrake, and look at some of his claims.

Mr Sheldrake is the "Morphic Resonance" guy... 'morphic resonance' is a rather odd (and rather inapt/inept?) way of saying that all living beings are mysteriously connected, and knowledge can be passed on in ways beyond current human comprehension...

My argument with this claim is that there are many, many, many ways in which knowledge can be gained/transferred by means that we do currently understand.  So, if you don't address all those ways (which I will be listing later on in this process), then why do we need to invent something 'magical'?  To take the opposite view, if we do accept that there is something beyond our current comprehension, how could we apply some sort of investigation into it?

 

The answer to the second question is really simple - science has this thing called The Scientific Method.  Some will scorn it, but those are the same folks using computers developed by that method, and who enjoy longer lives and better health developed by that method.  Who drive in cars and fly in aircraft that are much, much safer than they have been, because of that method.  Who walk over bridges that don't collapse, use smartphones to be in touch with anyone 24 hrs a day, etc, etc...

So, I will be starting a new thread shortly, and in it I'll be examining a Sheldrake 'classic' - his book "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home".

In that book, Sheldrake claims to have proof that dogs use some sort of telepathic ability to sense the imminent arrival of their owners.  I'll be arguing that the behaviors have nothing to do with telepathy, and are adequately explained by other methods that dogs might use to either detect, or reasonably accurately predict, their owner's returns.  Some of the methods I will raise seem to be completely ignored, or dismissed without adequate reason, by Sheldrake.  I'll also be pointing out where (and why) Sheldrake should have used better methodology.

Once I start that thread, I'll link to it here.

 

Note that even if Aquila K wants to change his mind about Sheldrake being the poster boy for this stuff, I'll continue with that review as I have time, and I'll also look in detail at Aquila's next choice.  If anyone wishes to assist or dispute the process or my conclusions, do feel free to chime in, but, as they say.. please don't enter a battle of wits only half-armed... 

 

[ChrLzs]

It hath begun....

That's just a bit of an introduction - haven't really started the review yet, but I shall do so asap...............

[tmcom]

On 9/30/2017 at 2:15 PM, Aquila King said:

 I love how people here keep screaming for evidence, then when I post it it's completely ignored...

Yep, and the better the evidence the weirder the replys.

Present hard evidence here on something no one wants to know about, and you could write a book on bullying 101, etc.

On 9/29/2017 at 3:25 PM, meirphase said:

Hi!

 

I'm Meirphase, Im new to the community and would like to introduce myself. 

I consider myself a experimental practitioner of energy manipulation. I've been interested in this field more than half of my life(im 34 XD) and over the last 3 years I have taken a real interest in Psychokinesis.

Ive started a youtube channel with some of my experiments, its pretty basic at the moment but I want to grow it into something.  I would like to start doing tutorials and breakdowns, at the moment Im trying to get some traction with interesting experiments Ive been video recording.

Before I started my adventure with energy manipulation I was a pretty hard Atheist.

I had near death experience happen to me that opened my eyes to a whole new life of wonder and intrigue. Since making my own connection with the divine/universe its given me an unbreakable faith coupled with love and true connectivity.

Some of my experiments might not have a use to further mankind in a spiritual loving way, but has helped me evolve as a healer and given me a gateway to a new type of thinking.

If I can help give the same feeling of what I experience to others through teaching or inspiration I'd be over joyed. 

 

 if anyone has a interest in this area or would like to share ideas I'd love to hear from you.

Here's a link to my channel. I have 4 videos up at the moment mainly specializing in Aerokinesis, Hydrokinesis & Psychokinesis... Im not a huge fan of the labeling names, I like to just think of it as "connecting"

 

 

 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQaUsmtglyGi53oP2SMRMQQ?view_as=subscriber

 

here's a snippet of a new effect Ive been working on. To maybe peak some interest.. I made this video mainly to show people who are sceptical of this ability. I have multiple objects that have almost no weight and propel one single target to do multiple rotations

without affecting other targets. This is a hybrid ability that has me excited,  its charged and can operate for a short length of time on its own and can be given intention.

Full screen for best view =)

Thanks guys for your time.

Gee moving particles of spices about on some water, sounds very similar to what l can do with moving plastic chandeliers about surrounded by others.

Thanks for posting, kinda backs up what l have been saying here, on deaf ears mostly.

On 9/30/2017 at 2:55 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Be grateful. Mercy is a rare commodity, here.

And the other one.

On 9/30/2017 at 2:58 PM, papageorge1 said:

The impossible? And he may be the only one? He is indeed an interesting aberration of humanity then, even if the last believer of anything paranormal. His DNA should at least be captured for future science. Perhaps after capturing his DNA, forced sterilization of him and his progeny can improve the gene pool and there should be no future occurrences of this type of aberration. It is a good thing we have identified possibly the last one, Wes.

 

Gee, l don't think that it is that complicated, you just need to be open to it and try.

On 9/30/2017 at 3:15 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Nothing presented as factual should require a belief system in order to be accepted.

No, but you will be surprised how often fear, and emotions get in the way here.

On 9/30/2017 at 3:31 PM, papageorge1 said:

I am not claiming magical, just logical analysis. Some people ridicule what they can't understand and that is an intellectual defense mechanism and a just surface avoid  is one conclusion from my logical analysis. They display a false bravado that is obvious to some.

False bravado, so that is what they call,....never mind.

On 9/30/2017 at 3:34 PM, Aquila King said:

Don't get too excited, most of it's a bunch of real boring scientific papers and such.  You know, the kind of thing skeptics constantly criticize us for not having.  Which we actually do. But of course those aren't valid for x amount of reasons. Whatever...

No, no evidence no matter how obvious it is, is enough for the skeptic.

Psychiatrists, call it another name.

On 9/30/2017 at 11:37 PM, Aquila King said:

I realize it's a lot to work with and I apologize for the sheer bulk of it all. My primary aim in posting all of this was to simply show that there is a rather significant amount of evidence in the exact form that skeptics ask for: scientific studies, experiments, and research papers. Now whether they are convincing or not is up to each individual's interpretation. But the consistent claim that "There is no evidence" on the part of skeptics is simply false. By all means they can find personal fault in the results of said evidence, they don't have to be convinced of it, and all the evidence is open to their own Materialist interpretation. But claiming that there is no evidence is simply false. There is, they just personally find the evidence faulty. I don't deny that Materialists have evidence, I merely disagree with their interpretations of it. I simply wish that they could have the common decency to do the same.

Only if there wasn't a consistent effort on the part of dogmatic Materialists to try and shut down and suppress opposing viewpoints.

Click the 'Skeptical About Skeptics' link in my signature to know what I'm talking about.

Thanks for trying.

On 10/1/2017 at 9:30 AM, Aquila King said:

There's absolutely no justifiable reason for arrogant condescension and petty personal insults. Until you can speak to me in a civilized manner I feel no need to respond to you.

 Is the term 'Materialist' now considered a hateful slur? No seriously, if so I'm in the dark about it and I in absolutely no way intended it as such. I merely meant it as a genuine description to mean: "a philosophical position one takes that asserts that all that exists is the material universe, and that nothing of a spiritual nature exists." At least that's what I considered it anyway. I was once an Atheist and a Materialist myself not too long ago, and I had no problem calling myself one. I believe I remember Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet referring to themselves as Materialists as well, and in both cases they were merely using it as a definitional term.

In any case, I genuinely didn't mean it as a slur, and if you took it that way then I'm sorry.

 

 

 

On 10/1/2017 at 10:55 AM, back to earth said:

 

He means all the examples he gives here ... before he gives them

as after he gives them we examine them and expose their fakeness ... many many times ..  Then he goes off, pops us in another thread as if it never happened and tries to start all over again .

Yep, his work is never done..

On 10/1/2017 at 11:32 AM, Aquila King said:

What? Where are you getting any of this?  You're making absolutely no sense. You're throwing out blanket accusatory remarks that have no basis in fact.

Please explain to me, in exactly what way was I inferring any of what you claim? I thought you didn't believe in mind-reading, so why are you trying to read mine? How do you know what I inferred or intended? I've flat said over and over already that I intended no such thing, and that if so then I'm sorry, it honest to god was not my intention. How much more clear do I need to be?

I'm not redirecting, you're just insulting. I had just finished explaining to someone else (before you rudely interrupted) about how skeptics ask for evidence, and when I give it to them, they reject it, and insist that despite the evidence I've presented, that I have none. I went on to explain how I wish that they would simply admit that they disagree with our interpretation of the evidence, rather than continue to insist that we have none when we clearly do, you simply disagree with us. And that's perfectly fine! There's nothing wrong with that at all! Just be honest and say you disagree. I've never said that you have no evidence for your claim, merely that I disagree with your interpretation of it. How is any of that insulting? I'd think it should be considered completely fair.

Of course despite all of this that I had literally just finished explaining, you quoted me and responded with a whole bunch of wild accusations, all while talking down to me in the most pious condescending manner. And now you accuse me of simply redirecting the conversation? You're the one that came up out of the blue and started accusing me of things I clearly didn't say or do.

I'm seriously starting to think that you simply want to argue, whereas I on the other hand would like to have a polite friendly discussion. But apparently this isn't gonna happen with you.

 

On 10/1/2017 at 2:22 PM, Aquila King said:

What Game!?  Seriously man, WTF!?!?

What are you talking about!?

 

What debate is there to even have? I know, I know, "Show me the evidence. Show me the evidence." I friggin' did. But rather than actually quote it or even try and refute any of it, you seem to be content in just simply hurling insults and passively dismissing it. You tell me to answer clearly or leave the 'debate'. I am answering clearly, you just apparently aren't listening.

I'm not even trying to 'debate' with you in the first place.  And we aren't really 'debating' the main subject at all. I'm having to spend all my time correcting all of the nonsensical slander being thrown my way out of nowhere.

1) I told you that I wouldn't waste my time responding to someone who can't speak to me in a civilized manner. And 2) You aren't positing any arguments or refutations at all. You're just simply insisting that I have no evidence when I do (I posted a ton of links previously, I assume you don't want me to just re-post it again), you tell me to show you the evidence when I have (you merely dismiss it rather than refute it), you've yet to refute any of the info provided on the evidence that I have presented (you merely off-handedly dismiss it), all while throwing out smug condescension and insults and resulting to childish name-calling, and the real kicker is you've yet to give me ANY argument of your own (in defense of Materialism).

And you wanna accuse me of losing a debate? WHAT DEBATE!?  Seriously, this is the biggest cluster**** of utter nonsense I've ever seen in my life.

I'm not playing any 'games' either. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this crap. Once again, you accuse me of doing something I didn't do. Either I know nothing of my own intentions or you're suddenly psychic, cause you seem to have some sort of natural ability to supposedly tell me exactly what I'm actually thinking and intending.

I believe in the existence of the spiritual, and am merely expressing my beliefs on a public forum. Why does this suddenly make me a charlatan? Is everyone who simply disagrees with you suddenly a charlatan?

No dude, I seriously don't know what the F you're talking about. I'm not playing any 'game'. It's not 'whining', when I keep having to correct all these false accusations that you keep throwing at me out of nowhere.

I

 

I have given you everything you need to craft an intelligent response. I have given you evidence, along with rational arguments to back it up.

You can either respond with a real rational argument (and at this point I'd expect some sort of an apology), and then I'll respond to your arguments with my own and we can start over in a civilized fashion. Or, you can continue to slander and insult rather than reason and be civil, and I'll have no choice but to ignore you and move on. The choice is yours.

However I will make this much abundantly clear: If you seriously intend to stalk me and harass me with wild unfounded slanderous nonsense as you've suggested, I WILL report you for your harassment. I won't put up with this nonsense anymore.

Consider this my final warning. And if you come back with more of the same, my final response.

Unfortunately Aquila, there is a group here that use a myriad of nasty techniques to quickly p*** off anyone who brings up evidence, that gives them the willies.

 

So, elitist behavior, (acting like they own this forum) finding one mistake and banging away with that until the poster cracks, acting like they are your best friend, in the hopes you will lower your guard, and even saying that they will report you and try to get you banned, (had one gutless wonder try that on a new member a while ago) are common.

Pretty ironic that a New age forum has this, but as you have said new age attracts, frightened people, that try their hardest to prove that we are fake.

 

Best to ignore them, since it is impossible to convince an,....someone like that that there is something to this, and some, (including me) don't give a s***t about fame, or going to Vegas, or proving it to anyone, (eventhough if someone lived closeby l could) or making a buck.

We are just discussing something that interests us.

Edited December 7, 2017 by tmcom

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Yep, and the better the evidence the weirder the replys.

Present hard evidence here on something no one wants to know about, and you could write a book on bullying 101, etc.

Gee moving particles of spices about on some water, sounds very similar to what l can do with moving plastic chandeliers about surrounded by others.

Thanks for posting, kinda backs up what l have been saying here, on deaf ears mostly.

And the other one.

Gee, l don't think that it is that complicated, you just need to be open to it and try.

No, but you will be surprised how often fear, and emotions get in the way here.

False bravado, so that is what they call,....never mind.

No, no evidence no matter how obvious it is, is enough for the skeptic.

Psychiatrists, call it another name.

Thanks for trying.

 

Yep, his work is never done..

 

Unfortunately Aquila, there is a group here that use a myriad of nasty techniques to quickly p*** off anyone who brings up evidence, that gives them the willies.

 

So, elitist behavior, (acting like they own this forum) finding one mistake and banging away with that until the poster cracks, acting like they are your best friend, in the hopes you will lower your guard, and even saying that they will report you and try to get you banned, (had one gutless wonder try that on a new member a while ago) are common.

Pretty ironic that a New age forum has this, but as you have said new age attracts, frightened people, that try their hardest to prove that we are fake.

 

Best to ignore them, since it is impossible to convince an,....someone like that that there is something to this, and some, (including me) don't give a s***t about fame, or going to Vegas, or proving it to anyone, (eventhough if someone lived closeby l could) or making a buck.

We are just discussing something that interests us.

Oh, there's no one frightened here, they're too busy laughing. If anyone is terrified, it's believers confronted with the unwelcome and frightening  reality that their cherished beliefs are every bit the utter nonsense their detractors claim them to be.

[tmcom]

46 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh, there's no one frightened here, they're too busy laughing. If anyone is terrified, it's believers confronted with the unwelcome and frightening  reality that their cherished beliefs are every bit the utter nonsense their detractors claim them to be.

Well, one side presents information that is supposed to be relevant to this forum and the other side, goes on a pompus, bully fest, trying to disprove it.

Sometimes they do and laugh about it, and sometimes, it is an uphill battle.

 

And when someone makes sence and presents good evidence they are met with so much, psychoses, it becomes abundantly clear that no amount of evidence is enough.

 

When mass media says it is true, then it is, eventhough conspiracy's abound, (20 are listed on this forum, that were true, but hidden).

 

The best defense is too discuss this rationally and ignore them, after all if we are fakes or making this up, or delusional, then it should become obvious in our conversations.

But of course the opposite occurs when we are discussing this at length, and giving them the willies that we are not nuts!

 

Probably explains the elitist BS, attack early and avoid the niggling feeling that nuts goes both ways.

[XenoFish]

What evidence is there for telekinesis that isn't chock full of buzzwords. 

[ChrLzs]

Wow, such long posts, all of which say nothing and show nothing, despite the big claims.  How's about you (tmcom and aquila) stop whining and report the dam posts that upset you.  Stop whining like babies and trying to shut down opposing views with lame threats....

Toughen up, princesses - if you can't/won't show your 'mystery' even exists, then stop wasting our time and go get a room.