It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Anyone Prove Any of the Topics in this forum actually Exist?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I know Princeton has also been big on Remote Viewing research for I think at least 10 years now (maybe more, but I know at least 10 years ago I had heard on a factual radio new program that Princeton had a whole section set up around Remote Viewing research.




posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The better question remains "has this program found....anything!?"

Im guessing nothing but "possible evidence"



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Proving paranormal abilities is difficult except in the case of abilities you can actually see, like moving objects or stopping a persons heart and so on. Remote viewing i think could be proved, if you have an expert. It is tricky because the person must not have a clue of what he is reviewing, if he does then his imagination gets in the way.

I have been doing remote viewing for a while and i can get a good fix on something even if i know what i'm looking for, like a child or whatever, most reviewers can't. This is very difficult and takes a long time but once your in the "zone" everything fits nicely.

Sometimes you can miss things that are important, once i was praticing and i got everything in the image except the surfer who was smack bam in the middle of the image. I think it was because i only spent about 15 minutes on it. Maybe if it was a hot chick that is all i would have seen.

I have other strengths but there is no way to prove them without potentially getting into trouble. Our mind is very powerful and with the right training most people could do some pretty amazing things. Some are just born with parts of their brain turned on that others have shut off.

I think we should try a remote viewing experiment to see if anyone is really good with remote viewing here. I would be willing to try when i'm off from summer school but only on certain conditions.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Ah, but one must remember that there is a difference between the real thing and simple chance, and this is what science weeds out.

If everyone gets it right some of the time, you cant really assume they are using some exotic medium.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   


The human brain is the only thing in this world that doesnt make logical sense. Everything else fits, it all works, and outside of your skull, the puzzle is complete.


Our brain is our only way to quantify the world. If it is flawed, then so too are all of our facts and findings. Because only through the use of the human brain has any knowledge ever been gained. If we are to subject all phenomenon to the scutiny of the five senses, and those five senses are analyzed through the brain, doesn't that invalidate everything by using this logic.

How can the puzzle be complete outside of your brain, when the puzzle is created by your brain?


As for the existence of true paranormal phenomenon. Stop being so lazy. There are an abundance of threads here that are fairly factual, but you actually have to read to find them. Although 60 pages of threads is a lot.

Also it depends on what you wish to classify as paranormal. Is thinking about someone and then them calling, paranormal? Or does it take someone moving things with only your mind? What about deja vu, or dreaming of the future in exact detail? What does it take to prove an OOBE? Where is the line you cross to consider something paranormal?

I guess I am asking, what do you believe?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Raideur-

i strongly suggest you follow up on ODD's advice and rent the movie "what the bleep do we know".

if you only believe in what you can touch, i can prove you've never touched anything.

if you only believe in what you can see,

i can easily prove that all stimulis you experience (touch, taste, smell, sight, hear, etc) first goes through your subconscious before your consciousness integrates it as an experience/memory.

keep in mind everything you've ever experienced first goes through your subconscious. then gets sent to your conscious experience.

conscious speed of thought = 2,000 bits of information per second.

subconscious speed of thought = 400,000,000,000 bits of information per second.

if life is a puzzle and you can only look at 2,000 peices of the puzzle at a time .....

and life's puzzle actually contains 400,000,000,000 peices, good luck seeing the finished puzzle, maybe get out of the box and look at the cover.

if you had a personal plane capable of flying at 400 million miles per hour,
and you are only willing to travel at 2 miles per hour in it, good luck getting off the ground.

these things people experience are usually ridiculed by those who just don't know themselves, but how can you get someone to look inward?

what more can we say that hasn't been recorded in the last 7,000 plus years of recorded history?

i'll offer you this bit of advice:

you could not have contimplated the question without your subconscious presenting it to your conscious mind for the simple reason ....

your subconscious already has the answer for you and a probably a few gifts as well.

happy hunting dear hunted.

no fear.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I've said before... The best way to prove paranormal phenomena to yourself is to learn to have out-of-body experiences. Learn that. Everybody can do it.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The vast majority of these threads are 100% devoid of facts. I dont bother searching them because I know just what facts I will get too. All the:
"This study concludes that it isnt proven, but doesnt rule it out" claiming they know nothing.


Anything that cannot be explained by conventional, I.E. Proven science, would be paranormal, including telekinesis, the soul, precognition, OOBE, the works.

Anything that defies logical answers.

As for our senses, yes, we are bound by them, and for all I know, Im a brain in a jar, but even if I was, I am studying the environment presented before me, as is everyone else. I accept we will never know the real truth, if there even is one, but the pressing question does not deal with perception, but rather deception on the part of the mind. I consider that slow, rational part of your brain to be the only gauge of our world. It is the only thing that can put the pieces together in a coherent manner and make sense of the situation.
That part of my brain is the only part I trust, and no other.


Perhaps you should discribe what you mean by "out of body experiences" since I've never had one, and I doubt I could, if they even exist and it isnt your subconcious playing a trick on your real thoughts.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
You can do it. It exists, and it's not your mind playing tricks on you.

I've explained already in an above post how you can prove it exists.

An excellent website with methods on how to do it is www.saltcube.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Unfortunetly, I highly doubt this will work on me. I've never daydreamed in my life. I also am a very heavy sleeper. From what this website implys, you have to keep yourself in a semi-sleep state into you experience this "OOBE"...

However, this does sound plausible for it to occur to someone. Very well organized as wel.

Sort of sounds like its in the league with hypnosis, which is also well documented and relies on the same ideas.

I hate when these subconcious technicalities ruin my stoic point....



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur


As for our senses, yes, we are bound by them, and for all I know, Im a brain in a jar, but even if I was, I am studying the environment presented before me, as is everyone else. I accept we will never know the real truth, if there even is one, but the pressing question does not deal with perception, but rather deception on the part of the mind. I consider that slow, rational part of your brain to be the only gauge of our world. It is the only thing that can put the pieces together in a coherent manner and make sense of the situation.
That part of my brain is the only part I trust, and no other.


Perhaps you should discribe what you mean by "out of body experiences" since I've never had one, and I doubt I could, if they even exist and it isnt your subconcious playing a trick on your real thoughts.


again consciously: 2,000 bits of information.
subconsciously: 400,000,000,000 bits of information.

2,000
400,000,000,000

the 400,000,000,000 process all information before the 2,000 get what they ask for.
how can you rely on the facts of 2 bits of information and deny yourself 400,000,000 other bits of information? perhaps your brain is in a jar.

perhaps only trusting the 2,000 bits of information and refusing to accept the 400,000,000,000 ......

you are trying to put a puzzle together, but you are only willing to look at 2 pieces of the puzzle at a time, instead of the 400,000,000 that make up the puzzle.

sort of like using 2 senses and not 400,000,000 senses.

sort of like looking at a dollar and only seeing 0.000000005 of a cent

so you are expecting us to be like you and trust 5 /1 billionths of 1% of my brain over all of it put together?

5/1,000,000,000 of 1 percent of my brain is all i need to know the truth?

.000000005% of your brain is all that is trust worthy for you, even though the other 99.999999995 gets all the information first?

this is your truth?:

i believe 0.000000005% of my seconday thoughts are more valid than the
99.999999995% of my primary thoughts.

perhaps your logic eludes some of us for a reason.

personally i think you may be wrong.

and perhaps those individuals that are only choosing to trust the 0.000000005% of thier secondary thoughts over thier 99.999999995% of thier primary thoughts that carry out the "experiments" and "research you speak of may be a little off in the first place because they are only using 0.000000005 % of thier brains consciously.

all inbound information goes here first:
99.999999995
or
400,000,000,000
or
400,000,000
then gets accepted by the state of mind of this super intelligence you rely on:
0.000000005
or
2,000
0r
2

RECAP:
your 0.000000005 vs. your 99.999999995
your 2,000 vs. your 400,000,000,000
your 2 vs. your 400,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
your 2,002.000000005 vs your 400,400,000,099.999999995
rounded off
your 2,002 vs. your 400,400,000,100

2002
400,400,000,100

400,400,000,100
minus 2,002
----------------------

this leaves you a - 400399998098

you have a brain capacity of negative 400,399,998,098 bits of information currently being integrated into your consciousness.

you are not experiencing 400,399,998,098 bits of information per second.

"..... but the pressing question does not deal with perception, but rather deception on the part of the mind. I consider that slow, rational part of your brain to be the only gauge of our world. It is the only thing that can put the pieces together in a coherent manner and make sense of the situation.
That part of my brain is the only part I trust, and no other."

deception on the part of your consciousness, not the majority. to bad your brain cells aren't a democracy. seems more like a dictatorship to me.

"It is the only thing that can put the pieces together in a coherent manner and make sense of the situation."

you may be very correct there, so how come your conscioussness isn't willing to look at all the pieces? and how can it put it all together in a coherent manner and make any sense of the situation?

sort of like having a mechanic build a car when the mechanic is only willing to see/touch/taste/hear/smell a spark plug and a radio knob, and nothing else.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
i thank you for making me think, and i personally truly believe you are asking the right questions. I've no intentions of trying to change you or your beliefs. Just begging you to ask your subconscious for a little edge to pursue what it is you are obviously looking for.

[edit on 18/6/05 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Wait a second......I smell Fuzzy Math.

Only 2,000 bits per second conciously? This is what you said.

Thats only 250 bytes per second.
Lets assume I can conciously process the image on my screen, disregarding everything else Im thinking about while I conciously type.

Lets assume your vision enjoys a Nice 60hz or 60 frames per second, which is a low estimate. Now I'm only processing 4 byte images every frame. Thats nothing.

Or every second I take in only 250 bytes. The average 800x600 pixel photo is at least 100k, at the very least, with terrible resolution. If I only had 250 byte a second concious vision, it would take me 400 seconds, or well over 6 minutes to process that tiny square of image.

Fuzzy Math directly back to you. Whoever gave you those numbers on concious thought lied through his teeth, unless your assuming that my concious self actually uses such a terribly small amount for all our concious thinking. I really think you have bad numbers or you are not giving your high level logic processing enough credit.

The brain is made of neurons, like I said, and there is no reason to assume any part of your thinking trancends into something besides the cells in your head, unless its wishful thinking.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Raideur

Your original question was if anyone could prove that the things discussed in these threads of these forum existed.

well .......

the minds of these individuals seem to be pretty rock solid in thier findings:

here is a link to what they are saying:

www.whatthebleep.com...

it includes the background information on some of the smartest people on the planet that are trying to say the same thing i've already been saying.
i'm sure they are much more proficient at getting their points across than i am.

sorry for not being able to better express their teachings. take it or leave it, but just know somewhere within it the truth must still be there, or the truth is it wouldn't exist.


PHYSICISTS

William Tiller, Ph.D.
Amit Goswami, Ph.D.
John Hagelin, Ph.D.
Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D.
Dr. David Albert

NEUROLOGISTS, ANESTHESIOLOGISTS & PHYSICIANS

Dr. Masaru Emoto
Stuart Hameroff M.D.
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover
Andrew B. Newberg, M.D.
Dr. Daniel Monti
Dr. Joseph Dispenza

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Dr. Candace Pert

SPIRITUAL TEACHERS, MYSTICS AND SCHOLARS

Ramtha
Miceal Ledwith, Ph.D.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHYSICISTS




William Tiller, Ph.D. (www.tiller.org) graduated with a B.A.Sc. in 1952 with a degree in Engineering Physics from the University of Toronto. He also has an M.A.Sc. and a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. He worked for nine years in the Westinghouse Research Laboratory with theoretical and experimental investigation into the detailed physics of the freezing process of a wide range of materials; i. e., water, metals, semiconductors, oxides and polymers. He also investigated the relationships between the crystallization process and the detailed structure and properties of the solid. He exploited this knowledge of crystallization to generate new processes for ingot casting, material purification, single crystal growth, chemical crystallizers, etc.

Dr. Tiller has been a professor at Stanford University in the Department of materials science and Engineering. He has been a consultant to government and industry in the fields of metallurgy and solid-state physics and formerly Associate Editor of 2 scientific journals. He has published more than 250 scientific papers, three technical books and has five patents issued. His fields of specialization are crystal growth, surfaces and interfaces, physical metallurgy, semiconductor processing, thin film formation, computer simulation and psychoenergetics (70 additional publications in this area). He is also the founding director of the Academy of Parapsychology and Medicine and The Institute of Noetic Sciences.

His Publications include An Introduction to Computer Simulation: The Science of Crystallization: Microscopic Interfacial Phenomena, The Science of Crystallization: Macroscopic Phenomena and Defect Generation, Science and Human Transformation, Conscious Acts of Creation and Some Science Adventures with Real Magic (available April/May 2005).






Mod Edit: to reduce the copy/pasted text.


[edit on 18-6-2005 by kinglizard]

[edit on 18/6/05 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
This was about magic, not sensory input....

I've heard both good things about that movie, and bad things, and Im not sure if I am going to accept what they have to say. I've heard its very hard facts and also its twisted facts to please a viewpoint.

I'll read it, but I wont accept its validity.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
This was about magic, not sensory input....

I've heard both good things about that movie, and bad things, and Im not sure if I am going to accept what they have to say. I've heard its very hard facts and also its twisted facts to please a viewpoint.

I'll read it, but I wont accept its validity.


then why bother seeing the movie or reading over the website if you've already consciously decided to not learn anything from it?

why would one be willing to waste their time, and then boldly state that they are wasting their time to not accept the teachings of the most advanced minds over the past several thousand years?

if you can prove 8 individuals with Ph.D s wrong
and
if you can prove 12 doctors wrong
and
if you can prove 11 people with masters degrees wrong
and
you can discredit an accumilated 172 years of collective experience teaching at the highest learning institutions worldwide wrong

well then, i'm going to have to see your credentials before we continue this any further.

i may not be worthy of discussing these things who claims to have a higher capacity for understanding than 31 people with IQs higher than 190 who all agree on some very important issues.

what facts do they present to please what viewpoint?

their facts are based on scientific factual data produced by the best of the best in multiple professions.

in other words you will not accept the validity of:
1) multiple scientific fields
2) multiple people with Ph.Ds
3) multiple doctors
4) multiple people with masters degrees

i'm sorry, there is no one on this planet who can prove to you anything in any of these threads in this forum exist.

but, then again you were already decided when you posted this thread.

"the problems we face cannot be fixed if we are in the same state of mind as we were when we created the problems."
- some putz named al, with some stupid letters hanging around his name, obviously of no great importance, anyways.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
If the makers of the film twist the facts of those people to their point of view, Its not really the same thing anymore, now is it?

I highly doubt all those people that were mentioned actually agree with this message.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
OK I would just like to add my 2 cents worth here.

When i was in school doing my science lesseon some 16 years ago
I remeber my SCIENCE Teacher telling me about the 3 states of matter

Solid Liquid and Gas - now if you had said to him erm sir in another 5-10 years we will have 6-7 states of matter he would have probably of thought just like the Author of this thread. - Prove it - Although i couldn't at the time look where we are today -
My personal theroy is just about everything you can perceive/inagine will eventually happen with time(not sure if thats space time or just time ).

Regards



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
can anyone prove to me one science fact that wasn't first considered science fiction?

we can now witness in numerous labs across America a cluster of molecules large enough to be seen by the naked eye being in 2 places at the same time.

think about it.

not teleportation.

it is the same object (count them 1 object) in (count them) 2 places at the same time, for an extended period of time.

stop to think about it.

the same object, in 2 places at the same time. proven. documented. witnessed.

but, if it can not be explained, does it make it less true?

if we can't explain how the same object can be in two places at the same time, does that mean what our eyes are witnessing is not true?

or is the explanation necessary to make what we experience valid?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Your example begs to be explained, since that obviously defies a couple of physical laws.

I understand we do not know everything, and will never know everything, but like I've said before, I must object to the idea that people witness, harness, and understand a topic that defies all science since the beginning of time. That isn't simply beyond our scientific scope, thats something people supposibly have see, but cant reproduce it to be studied, unlike everything else in the universe........




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join