It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by SaturnFX
The akashic records, are just a mystical interpretation of Carl Jungs collective unconcious. Serendipity, meaning in chance are all very real. Just as real as apathy. I could say a lot on this and i don't know why, but i remember a dream perhaps; but it occured when i was really young.It may be a memory, regardless i was standing with a none discriptive entity starring at the world making a choice to come back. It was as if i needed to prove something or learn something but i had the choice. I also was shown everything that would happen to me but i knew i was going to forget it all if i choose to experince it anyway. so i guess it's obviouse which choice i made lol
I sent you a message I hope I did it right. I'm sorta new on this site and haven't figured out how it works entirely. Anyways, I also remember choosing this life. I need to compare notes with you because it sounds like you remember what I remember.
Got your message and replied to you.... I'm sure you received my message now! The akashic records your talking about are real the same thing Edgar Casey talked about. I was there and saw it. It's amazing! It's like a giant library of everything written in all languages. But no matter what language it's written in you can still understand everything in it.
Ah, well, that explains it then, and it also explains why dreams are under the category of "personal proof." So much for them. Not that hey don't mean something personally to the dreamers, but....we can all see, based on responses like this, why they really don't hold up to much scrutiny.
But, please explain how Corsair Boy (vid previous)
1. Knew a Corsair by sight at age 2.
2. Knew the difference between a bomb and a drop tank.
3. Knew the (very obscure) name of a baby flattop he says flew off of.
4. Knew the exact name of another pilot on board at the same time.
5. Spotted where "he" was shot down, corroborated by #4 above.
6. Named "The Japanese" as those who shot him down.
7. Knew his former name.
Knew about fifty (50) other salient points about the WW II pilot and his experiences.
Now let's not cop out and claim "He saw it on TV" or "His Mommy told him." unless you have some specific evidence, and hopefully you won't resort to "morphogenic fields." And after this particular account we've got several dozen more from all over the world that are equally enigmatic.
reply to post by schuyler
I'll leave the explaining up to you. I'll let you conjecture that one person lives countless lives throughout history. I'll let you imagine that memories travel from a corpse to a sperm. And you're worried I would bring up morphogenic fields?
What about Cryptomnesia? What about confabulation? Oh right, it's too simple; its a cop out. I better postulate some transmigration of souls or something.
Wait a sec here. Who said anything about living "countless lives"? You did. Who said anything about memories traveling from a "corpse to a sperm?" You did. No one who has studied reincarnation even briefly would EVER claim that memories "traveled from a corpse to a sperm." That may show your understanding of what you think reincarnation is, but it has nothing to do with reincarnation as it is typically understood.
These are Straw Men you made up in order to attribute them elsewhere and then ridicule them. They also COMPLETELY AVOID THE ISSUE because, of course, you are incapable of answering them. You can't answer how a two-year old who can barely talk can name an obscure aircraft carrier as the one he was stationed on, and have that be corroborated.
Why are you ignoring issues like that? Do you have an answer? Of course not. How do "confabulation" and "cryptomnesia" apply here? They don't. And you're right; they ARE simple. And they don't apply.
Materialists will NEVER believe in anything but materialism. Never. That's their whole world and anything outside of it, by their own definition, does NOT exist. When confronted with questions such as mine above, they ignore them as if they don't exist. To actually attempt an answer would twist them into pretzels and make them look silly, and they KNOW this, which is why they ignore them. They're whistling past the graveyard.
Further, we already know people like you don't believe reincarnation is real. It's not exactly a new concept and your attitude is not something we've never heard before. In fact, it's prevalent. But the question before us is this: What if reincarnation is true? An "it isn't" answer is not responsive to the question. The question is NOT: "Is reincarnation true?" at which point an "it isn't" answer is valid. That's not the question we asked. So why are you answering a question that was not asked?
We are asking the question: "What if reincarnation IS true?" And we've brought forth many different answers that bear on the question, including a number of cases with questions that you cannot seem to answer.
I don't really care if you can answer them. I know you cannot. But your continued interruption of this conversation is off topic and really irrelevant to what we are discussing.
Actually, they do apply.
reply to post by sled735
There are only three of them so far.
Schuyler had linked them earlier, but here's an older thread about one of them that I found.
Now, how can a two-year old come up with the exact name of an obscure (and I mean REALLY obscure, deep in some history books and that's about it) aircraft carrier where his prior self was stationed, including the exact name of one of his compatriots, and have both those issues corroborated by outside parties? How can he do that?
Uh, excuse me.
Have you read Chris Carter's books that explain the theories? It's really hard to argue one's way out of them, no matter how many big words or obscure terms you want to use.
The populace here is not as inept as you imagine.
Have you, or have you not read Carter's books?