This is How the Ancients Moved, Cut and Engraved Great Blocks with Such Precision. No Aliens, sorry.

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

I don't need to be a musician to HEAR music.

This is in effect what you are telling me.

I need to understand qigong before I can see something levitate.

It doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Human levitation has not be disproven.

You don't seem to have an understanding of what that abstract said, so I am not going to bother continuing to combat your diatribe. I will comment on the above quote, however.

It is not the responsibly of science to disprove an unsubstantiated claim. It is the responsibility of the claim maker to create a model by which a repeatable experiment can show the desired result. In other words..

Your claim of human levitation has to be proven.

Human levitation is disproven by an evidence of absence as to its existence.

Please create another thread to continue discussing this, as I would love to correct your miscomprehension's about science.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

You have proven a valid point with the ancients and modern stone aged man using music and sound as we use cell phones and the internet. Some people on this thread have proven how lost we have become to the art and power of sound that the very mention of it causes great pain to their conformed intellect.

edit on 23-3-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by ThoughtForms

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Human levitation has not be disproven.

You don't seem to have an understanding of what that abstract said, so I am not going to bother continuing to combat your diatribe. I will comment on the above quote, however.

It is not the responsibly of science to disprove an unsubstantiated claim. It is the responsibility of the claim maker to create a model by which a repeatable experiment can show the desired result. In other words..

Your claim of human levitation has to be proven.

Human levitation is disproven by an evidence of absence as to its existence.

Please create another thread to continue discussing this, as I would love to correct your miscomprehension's about science.

science.... can science explain the 100 monkey effect? what about the amazonian tribes who were able to find the 2 necessary plants out of the thousand of species in the jungle that could be mixed together to make the most powerful hallucinogenic substance on the planet...

they said they perform a song & dance ritual on a full moon and they follow the sound of the plants song to find them, the plants sing to them. Explain that with science.

My point is, science isn't everything and you thinking it is limits your potential.

-TF

P.S) also... science can't explain how 2 people in different towns can have the same dream in which they talk about something and then both remember the conversation the next day to talk about it in real life...

edit on 23-3-2012 by ThoughtForms because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
[It] works whether you believe in it or not.

[It] can only be done under special circumstances with people respecting the method involved.

Changing your story?

Just replace the [It] back to what I wrote and maybe you won't be misquoting me.

That's called a "strawman argument" -- again instead of dealing with the information I've presented you have to set up your own fantasy that you can then live within.

That reminds me of when Slavoj Zizek sent me a postcard in 1996 stating that what I wrote about him was "fascinating" and that he would get back to me. He never got back to me but then his next book was completely focused on my specific critiques of him. haha. Only he never referenced me and he only presented half of the information I had used to critique him. So that also was setting up a "strawman argument."

Qigong masters are real and are out there practicing qigong powers right now which include levitation and qigong powers have been proven by Western science.

Yeah it is mind blowing stuff -- like I said before -- can your mind handle it? Apparently not. haha.

If you need help dealing with this information about qigong working and enabling levitation just call qigong master Chunyi Lin and ask him if he levitated up nine feet while in full lotus.

springforestqigong.com... to get a phone healing.

Originally posted by Xterrain
Incorrect Assumption. Great analysis and thread build, but incorrect assimilation of technology and implementation.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Xterrain
Incorrect Assumption. Great analysis and thread build, but incorrect assimilation of technology and implementation.

Before the argument of technology and implementation I can't get past the why of it. I've been on this planet 57 years. I have seen lots of rocks and boulders. Not once have I ever thought, 'Wouldn't it be nice to move and carve those boulders to build a structure of some kind.' I've thought of digging holes in the ground, building a tree house, sand castles... So, what made the people back then look at tons of rock and say, 'YEAH, let's build something with that!' ?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Why is it so far fetched to imagine man building the ancient sites around the world? Does it not seem more probable that humans who most agree were and are intelligent enough to pile rocks with style and alignment?

Originally posted by Furbs
but rest assured, when the answer IS discovered, Science will be the method used for discovering the reason.

Originally posted by Voldster
Why must we look at our ancestors as thick headed idiots?

Originally posted by ThoughtForms

Originally posted by Furbs
but rest assured, when the answer IS discovered, Science will be the method used for discovering the reason.

whatever helps you sleep at night...

-TF

Dr Michael Sudduth of San Francisco State University also pointed out to me a wonderful irony in one of the rules. Challenge rule #3 states: "We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work." As Sudduth puts it: “Curiously, Randi's challenge itself is saddled with assumptions of this very kind. The challenge makes little sense unless we assume that psi is the sort of thing that, if genuine, can be produced on demand, or at least is likely to manifest itself in some perspicuous manner under the conditions specified by the challenge.”

In contrast, magician James Randi has engaged in much “research,” and this has been given frequent coverage in the pages of SI (e.g., Randi, 1983a, 1983b). In 1983, sociologist Harry Collins warned against giving nonscientists control over scientific procedures. He spoke specifically of conjurors, noting that the magic community is “a group whose values include secretiveness and financial self-interest above the quest for truth” (Collins, 1983, p. 931). Collins’s words were to prove prescient, as illustrated by Randi’s involvement in the “high dilution” affair. In 1988, Jacques Benveniste and colleagues published a paper in Nature that gave support to some ideas of homeopathy (Davenas et al., 1988). After the publication of the Davenas et al. report, a small group was named to examine the procedures of the experiments, and Randi was appointed as one of the three members. The subsequent accounts depict Randi as capitalizing on the opportunity for showmanship and disrupting the business of the laboratory (Benveniste, 1988). Randi made public innuendoes of fraud and incompetence. Later he gave presentations about his involvement. During one of them, he mimicked the Gallic mannerisms of Benveniste and made highly derogatory comments about “French science”; many in the audience were offended (Inglis, 1988b). SI eventually published an article critical of Randi (Shneour, 1989), though it was relegated to the back pages. Shneour wrote specifically of “careless” criticisms, “squander[ing]” “credibility” (p. 95), and even noted that there was a “preconceived bias that Benveniste’s data was fraudulently generated” (p. 94). Both Collins (1988) and Shneour (1989) warned that such practices could be destructive to the conduct of science. Randi (1990a) had little to say in reply.25