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.

 

What The Bleep Do We Know DEBUNKED....

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I caught it on youtube a while back and I was unimpressed. I didn't catch that this lady was supposed to be channeling Ramtha (or whoever). That's pretty funny. I thought they had some neat concepts to make you think, but I called BS on most of it.

I STILL haven't looked into that whole Law of Attraction thing. I assume it's going to be more of the same and I have better ways of wasting my time.




posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by an0maly33
I caught it on youtube a while back and I was unimpressed. I didn't catch that this lady was supposed to be channeling Ramtha (or whoever). That's pretty funny.


check out the credentials they give her on the official site:

www.whatthebleep.com...



Ramtha. (www.ramtha.com) One of the great enigmas that scientists have studied in the last decade is Ramtha, a mystic, philosopher, master teacher and hierophant. His partnership with American woman JZ Knight, his channel, still baffles scholars.


Just so you can read that correctly - "Ramtha" is a male entity that inhabits the body of the lady you see, "JZ Knight." That's right... and the makers of this film call her a "scientist."

Well consider me baffled as well.



Using a sophisticated polygraph, noted parapsychologists Ian Wickramasekera and Stanley Krippner of Saybrook Graduate School repeatedly observed that while JZ Knight is channeling Ramtha, the readings of her brain-wave activity shift to delta, and that the lower cerebellum operates her body which talks, walks, eats, drinks and dances while Ramtha teaches – about the mystery of mind over matter.


damn, If I had my own Ramtha, I could chew gum and walk at the same time too...



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Gone
 


Dude, you're title is completely debunked. Why? Well, first off you need to study psychology to understand why this statement is TRUE. To them, as was displayed in Pocohantus (Disney), they appeared to be strange clouds on whatever they viewed the ships as. They DID NOT SEE SHIPS. Also, the men that got off of them were so strangely dressed and 'white' that they didn't know if they were really men at first. Some even thought of them as gods.

You see, it's not that they didn't actually SEE them, it's that they had nothing to correlate with what they were seeing. So, they didn't see them as ships.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
Dude, you're title is completely debunked. Why? Well, first off you need to study psychology to understand why this statement is TRUE. To them, as was displayed in Pocohantus (Disney), they appeared to be strange clouds on whatever they viewed the ships as. They DID NOT SEE SHIPS.


I have studied psychology for the past decade, and have yet to see any proof that your conclusion is legitimate. If anything, it's an interesting theory - but one without any data to back it up. For example, you were forced to resort to a Disney movie as proof. Not so convincing - and not much more convincing than some New Age ladies that channel alien beings for "proof."



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by an0maly33
 


[shameless plug]

Not if you read the law of attraction thread on ATS. Which is one of the best explanations of it you can find anywhere on the net. And it's also free!


[/shameless plug]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I didn't care for that lady when I watched the movie. I didn't even know about the alien stuff, but me and my friend both thought she sucked.

But as for this topic. I believe it was referring more to collective/shared consciousness than specifically seeing a boat or not. Thus why the baby see's the object you give them, because it's in the shared consciousness.

I personally took it as talking about the 100's monkeys syndrome.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed

 

Actually this seems to be an idea that is gaining traction in some acedemic circles. IE that one must beleive to see. Its ridiculous psudeoscience of course, as concepts are usually based on bservation rather than vice versa, but it is fashionable.


This is true............but it leaves me with a strange look on my face.
I DO NOT understand the basis of this new fangled belief.....
I really think is HAS to be wrong.....how else do people go on to describe things they can't explain and find even harder to describe? They do this in able to communicate something amazing they had not previously encountered. Hence 'new discoveries'.........
The boats and ships would OBVIOUSLY have been a 'new discovery' for the Native peoples.....

ALSO many MANY of the native peoples were building bowel boats and dugout canoes so it is NOT so completely an unfamiliar idea OR sight to them.....


BUT.............for the OP to say the entire theory of 'what the bleep' is NOW fully debunked, based on this ONE fallible idea is just as bad if NOT worse than to try and promote the Natives to be so blind......
The theory is really SOLID on so many other levels it is silly to lay claim to it being FULLY debunked just because this one idea touted by a few scientists and a FACT, is a strange and questionable idea....

What The Bleep is based on on open ended ideas.....string theory.....and quantum mechanics and ALL of those idealisms are subject to change of thought and different directional flow of an idea....so it would ENCOMPASS the inevitability of a few things/IDEAS being in effect subject to change.


Soooooo............I am arguing with your thread title as it is presumptuous and self promoting in a way that is CLEARLY not proven by said facts.


You DID NOT debunk.."What The Bleep'..your just claiming to have done so.......

But your platform is VERY shaky.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
What do you see when you look at the painting?



But how many dolphins did you see? Young Children who see this picture can not identify with the image you saw, and so do not see it. They do see 9 dolphins, however. Look again.

It's certainly plausible that the natives could not see the ships, or just did not see the ships because there was no reason to be gazing out over the water looking for something at the time. Is there any reason they SHOULD HAVE seen the ships? Our brains are certainly mutable and we can be made to not see things that are directly in front of us. The fact is that our brains concentrate on what is important and predisposed at the time, if you watch the Monkey/Basketball Video posted here you have an idea of that. Our brains also concentrate on that which we dominately recognize and filter out the rest, as shown by the picture in this post. We have evolved that way to survive.

I think we all need to remember that our minds are not infallible and we say, "What the HECK is THAT?" all the time in addition to NOT SEEING THINGS all the time.



Our Stone Age brains may simply be unable to cope with the pace of modern life, says Roger Highfield

Look around, and you could be forgiven for believing that you can see a vivid and detailed picture of your surroundings. Indeed, you may even think that your eyes never deceive you. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for your brain.

Looking without seeing: Dr Simon Singh and Prof Richard Wiseman from Theatre of Science

Scientists have gathered some remarkable evidence which shows that it is possible to see something without observing it, in research that sheds new light on traffic accidents that occur when a driver "looked but failed to see", and other examples of mayhem and mishap in everyday life.

The astonishing lack of attention we pay to our surroundings has been highlighted by research conducted by Dr Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois and Dr Daniel Levin of Vanderbilt University. At the end of this article, Dr Simons invites readers to explore the limitations of their own brains.

In one experiment, people who were walking across a college campus were asked by a stranger for directions. During the resulting chat, two men carrying a wooden door passed between the stranger and the subjects. After the door went by, the subjects were asked if they had noticed anything change.

Half of those tested failed to notice that, as the door passed by, the stranger had been substituted with a man who was of different height, of different build and who sounded different. He was also wearing different clothes.
advertisement

Despite the fact that the subjects had talked to the stranger for 10-15 seconds before the swap, half of them did not detect that, after the passing of the door, they had ended up speaking to a different person. This phenomenon, called change blindness, highlights how we see much less than we think we do.


Douglas Adams summed it up pretty well:



An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.... The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.


Hehe. UFO threads get debunked here all the time because nobody can see them. All they can see is something they are familiar with. Would be moon towers become common objects like shadows or artifacts, and just the other way around. The thing is, we don't know for sure but we still come to conclusions based on incomplete evidence.

Maybe there were a few natives that saw the ships AS ships. Perhaps the others just saw them as dark spots on the horizon. It's Impossible to tell, but it's certainly possible to occur. It's a fact. Why should the natives trust what they see when even we don't trust our own eyes?

Oh, and the arrogance of saying, "The Indians were NOT DUMB." What you are really saying is Humans are NOT DUMB.

Keep believing we're perfect...



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The black & white thinking displayed in this thread is inappropriate in my opinion.

Just because something has a few poor elements (such as ramtha or what the OP mentions) doesnt mean the whole thing is bad or "debunked".

And just because something has a few good elements, doesnt mean the whole thing is fantastic.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Gone
 


Hahahaha. I was actually thinking about this the other day. For some reason I started thinking about What The Bleep and I was thinking of that part and was just like "What the F. That still doesn't make sense!" Which was my initial reaction when I first saw it.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The black & white thinking displayed in this thread is inappropriate in my opinion.

Just because something has a few poor elements (such as ramtha or what the OP mentions) doesnt mean the whole thing is bad or "debunked".

And just because something has a few good elements, doesnt mean the whole thing is fantastic.



While this is true, the rest of the movie is also crap, based off of an incorrect and childish interpretation of quantum mechanics. So really, the bad elements mentioned in the OP just turn it from a regular baseless and worthless piece of new age literature into all that plus a PR push for ramatha.

Essentially, without that, it'd just be wrong. With it, it's both wrong and propaganda.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Just because something has a few poor elements (such as ramtha or what the OP mentions) doesnt mean the whole thing is bad or "debunked".

And just because something has a few good elements, doesnt mean the whole thing is fantastic.



I agree.. however the movie presents itself that way, and they chose to use certain people, and certain concepts to focus on. In my opinion, these additions only hurt the movie. Other parts are simply amazing, that's for sure. I'm not sure how many people would argue that Ramtha and the "boat" thing added anything to the movie at all.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
You're taking the Indian story as literal. I was confused to about that until I realized it really meant they just didn't see them as ships. They didn't know what they were. If they thought they were big sea creatures, they were. And that ties in with the whole point of the movie. The observer effect.

And of course Ramtha made the appearance. The movie was funded and produced by her school. It's an idea that most every "channeler" teaches at some point or another.

There's two things woven into one with this movie: A very intriguing theory on the mechanics of reality that may or may not have practical use, and Ramtha.

Both can be appreciated and listened to without the other. It takes a very very very very open mind to listen to some person claim she's possessed by another entity..so just ignore that crap. She does teach it though.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I don't believe you wouldn't "see it"
but I believe that you wouldn't know what the hell you were seeing.
What the mind might do is try to fit in what it does know. And who knows what that was.
But maybe they did. The natives did have canoes. So understand a really big canoe would be conceivable.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Reddupo
 


the thing that bother me the most about the boat story, is that they never discuss any sources or anything for it. It's as if it were just a theory they came up with by themselves. I can't find any other references to it either, that aren't directly linked to this movie, or the 2 ladies (err, 1 lady and 1 male entity) (ramtha and other lady).



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I never got the the concept that they didn't see the ships either. While I could accept the idea of not seeing ships, the movie presents this account as they didn't see [i/]anything.

However, the data presented on the RNG experiments is completely factual. As are the water crystals.

For heaps of evidence, scientifically evaluated evidence, as well as experiments and meta-analysis of psy-phenomena, I suggest the following reading:

Entangled Minds by Dean Radin.

Several of the arguments presented in What the Bleep? are presented in this book, but in a way that is much more acceptable to people like me. I'm actually a tad embarrassed by What the Bleep?, as I get the feeling a lot of people who watch it are going to think anyone who claims that there's a lot left that science can't explain is a complete nut job.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
However, the data presented on the RNG experiments is completely factual. As are the water crystals.


completely factual, eh? He's been debunked as well.

www.articledashboard.com...



It turns out, just like many conclusions made by those believing in spiritual stuffs, the method of the experiment is not robust.

In particular, the photographers knew before hand which water has good words in it and which water does not.

Hence, it is possible that Masaru got his result even though there is no causal effect whatsoever between the words and crystal structure.

How? Well, there are plenty of crystals in the water. That’s pretty obvious. A photographer that knows before hand and expect “good” crystal will pick the beautiful crystal from the positive water.

The photographer that knows before hand that the words are negative, like “I hate you” then he’ll simply photograph the bad crystal.

Now, that seems like a much more plausible explanation. James Randi, a skeptic, offers Masaru $1 million dollars if he can perform his experiments with double blind tests that would solve the original problem.

So far, Masaru still promotes his idea ignoring Randi’s pleas.


here's another take on it:
skeptico.blogs.com...



What the film makers didn’t say is that Emoto knows the word used, and looks for a crystal that matches that word (biased data selection). To demonstrate a real effect, Emoto would need to be blind to the word used. James Randi has said that if Emoto could perform this experiment double-blinded, it would qualify for the million dollar prize. (He has never applied.) Such a protocol would show there is no correlation between the words taped to a bottle and the crystals formed within. These experiments have not been performed to a scientific protocol and have never been independently replicated.


I believe his water crystals were even mentioned on a popular show by Penn & Teller.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by scientist]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I wasn't too fond of the movie but I loved the book.

Sure the Ramtha parts were questionable... but was that really the bulk of the book?

I thought there was so many great thoughts and abstract ideas expressed in that book that people should be contemplating over... nothing completely original if you're well read on Eastern thought, but still great nonetheless!

[edit on 123030p://4u40 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Never read the book. Is there anything about life after death in it?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by theRiverGoddess
 


My platform for saying this movie is a load of hogwash isn't shakey. If anything, I would call the platform for the movie shakey. Nothing in the book or the movie is backed up by any sort of sense whatsoever. I can capitalize every other word in my response and follow my sentences with rolleye smileys and a sense of arrogance but that doesn't make me any more right than you. I'm just going off of real science and quantum theory. You should read the link Astysyntax provided. It was very informative to say the least.

And as for the ships not being seen, the movie clearly displays that the Native Americans could not see the ships at all until "a shaman got wind of something different and alerted them to the ships." or some crap.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join