]]>
]]>
Now I note you have a number of subthemes on your forum, and can I suggest another one that is more controversial yet more repeatable than the paranormal, with physical evidence? And its available to everyone.Thus immensley exciting. And potentially very popular.
I am mainly a Gnosis teacher. Its OK if you're not sure what that is.
I have a fully automated website which induces a permanent state of Gnosis in site visitors. It comes with physical evidence in just 20 minutes at the site. Then about a week later come messaging dreams, messaging internal music, physical signals and much more in the ensuing weeks and months.
So much evidence is provided, a diary must be kept.
This is already proven in some 4 countries. Hard physical evidence reported from 4 countries
1 and 2 yr veterans are contactable via email. Links supplied at the site.
This is a wonderful research project that begs to be evaluated by open minded skeptics.
Have I come to the right place, Winston ?
You would be able to ask others into the site and have them report back. Evidence will accumulate as it already has. Themes will be noticed. Analysis will be required. Is this the right place for that ?
I normally attract people's attention with this footprint message sprinkled in youtube.
To the calmly curious- For physical evidence of a second intelligence within yourself-Vivid Dreams onset, plus repeatable handtingles- search YouTube on LAY GNOSIS 1 BEGIN HERE site -Regardless of beliefs-Even atheist testimonials, including doctors from 4 countries. 10-12 mins gets you started. A growing list of triggered 12 month gnostic veterans contactable. And its FREE
[color=#FF0000]
The website is now the best place to go to first.
All you need to succeed here is to be childlike meaning be as a child learning something with no previous exprience, taking events and evidence as they come.
This could be a great boost to your site.
Steve Trueblue
Statistics: Posted by Steve_Trueblue — 02 Jun 2009, 16:20
]]>
http://debunkingskeptics.com/explanations.php
Explanations that don't fit all the data
Pseudo-Skeptics are fond of giving explanations that do not fit all the data, and moreover refuse to provide one that does unless they can come up with a reductionist one. They will never accept a paranormal one that includes metaphysical dimensions because they believe it's impossible. Contrary to what they say, they are about beliefs, not facts.
For example, their NDE hypothesis of the hallucinations of a dying brain, do not account for the cases where the experiencer is able to view details outside the room that they couldn't have known about which were later verified to be accurate. Or those where they were able to describe objects and conversations in the operating room that they couldn't have seen or heard. And of course, they do not account for NDE's that occur during flat brainlines and heartlines, as in the case of Pam Reynolds. And NDE Researcher and Parapsychologist Charles Tart for example was able to get a girl during OBE to read a five digit number just below the ceiling, which has confounded skeptics to this day. Nevertheless, skeptics insist on their explanation even if it doesn't fit all the data or evidence. That's why they are fundamentalists, not objective investigators or seekers of truth.
And in regards to ghosts, their hallucination hypothesis doesn't explain the cases of multiple people who have seen the same ghost and described the same thing. Or the fact that credible down-to-earth people who were sober with no history of hallucination at all, could experience a ghost, among other things.
Also, their neurological explanation for sleep paralysis and alien abductions do not account for the fact that others in the room have seen or felt an "entity" while awake when the abductee or sleep paralysis sufferer was undergoing the experience.
In addition, their explanation for past life memories (imagination, forgotten memories, suggestions by a hypnotist, etc.) do not account for the remarkably specific memories that were verified to be accurate upon investigation, as in the example of this boy.
Simply put, if the data that doesn't fit into their hypothesis, they ignore it. And that is the mark of a belief-oriented closed minded fundamentalist, not objective open truth seeker.
Statistics: Posted by Scepcop — 02 Jun 2009, 08:54
]]>