|
Post by Me on Feb 9, 2007 21:06:47 GMT
Im always the last too know these things lol ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Shhhh Kendra dont tell him about the 3 some with LR shazzy darling...you said you wouldnt tell damn
|
|
|
Post by Me on Feb 9, 2007 21:40:31 GMT
After what I have just seen you doing shazzy on my hubbys screen you could handle an army....lmao lmao ;D
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Feb 10, 2007 7:57:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Me on Feb 10, 2007 22:31:40 GMT
Oh come on LR you know it was bloody funny... ;D Tell me you didnt laugh when you saw that? ;D
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Feb 11, 2007 10:39:56 GMT
Oh come on LR you know it was bloody funny... ;D Tell me you didnt laugh when you saw that? ;D Yes but i only saw it after i posted on here. Had to admire her energy.
|
|
Ess
Sperm
Posts: 90
|
Post by Ess on Feb 16, 2007 7:16:56 GMT
They dont go on because they are simply performers, nothing less.
There seems to be an anti science viewpoint on this forum generally, which stems from the (mistaken) premise that science somehow "seeks to disprove" the paranormal. In my experience, it is quite the opposite. Science and the paranormal are not mutually exclusive. There has been a great deal of scientific research carried out, into the paranormal. It seems that those who believe in it see science as a threat to their beliefs, when in fact there is none. It is a fundamental part of scientific education that you remain open minded and approach the subject from an objective viewpoint. The only realistic threat is that science offers a physical explanation for the phenomena, rather than a paranormal one, and that is my point : that those who believe in paranormal events seem unwilling, and even seem threatened by, the possibility that paranormal events may be real, but a product of human biochemistry.
If you think scientists are unwilling to accept bizarre explanations : read quantum mechanics - it makes lepricauns seem positively credible
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 16, 2007 9:33:01 GMT
Great post and spot on
|
|
|
Post by mesmo on Feb 16, 2007 12:35:41 GMT
They dont go on because they are simply performers, nothing less. There seems to be an anti science viewpoint on this forum generally, which stems from the (mistaken) premise that science somehow "seeks to disprove" the paranormal. In my experience, it is quite the opposite. Science and the paranormal are not mutually exclusive. There has been a great deal of scientific research carried out, into the paranormal. It seems that those who believe in it see science as a threat to their beliefs, when in fact there is none. It is a fundamental part of scientific education that you remain open minded and approach the subject from an objective viewpoint. The only realistic threat is that science offers a physical explanation for the phenomena, rather than a paranormal one, and that is my point : that those who believe in paranormal events seem unwilling, and even seem threatened by, the possibility that paranormal events may be real, but a product of human biochemistry. If you think scientists are unwilling to accept bizarre explanations : read quantum mechanics - it makes lepricauns seem positively credible Agree very much with this post. What you say is the basis behind my recent ''exchanges'' with Kendra and Lowrider on another thread. I have seen no evidence that the departed can contact us but there may be a scientific explanation for what mediums experience.
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Feb 16, 2007 13:26:18 GMT
I am not against science at all. The argument i have is the human factor. Yes science and scientist should be as Ess described,i just have my doubts that all science is that way. Throw in seeking for funding,reputations,personal prejudices and science is not the be all and end, nor is it as pure as some seem to present it. It amuses me that many sceptics cite science as the thing to look at for reasons of explanation of paranormal events yet i have seen on this board the quote on a scientist," well he is a believer ,what do you expect" Because of course the science he was presenting was not what the sceptic wanted to hear. I have found for every scientist and theory there are an equal amount with another theory. So science is a tool,but not the final word
|
|
|
Post by ladyjane1 on Feb 17, 2007 16:05:06 GMT
There is no amount of tests that can be done to prove it either way. As whats prove for one isnt prove for another so the tests wont prove a thing. There is always going to be believers and non believers. No one is able to prove the world of spirit is there or people can commuicate with the spirits just like they cant prove it isnt there. There will always be debates over mediums being real or fake.
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Feb 18, 2007 14:06:14 GMT
There is no amount of tests that can be done to prove it either way. As whats prove for one isnt prove for another so the tests wont prove a thing. There is always going to be believers and non believers. No one is able to prove the world of spirit is there or people can commuicate with the spirits just like they cant prove it isnt there. There will always be debates over mediums being real or fake. True
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 18, 2007 17:58:25 GMT
There is also no way that any medium can prove what they are doing is real to a client, therefore at the very basic level 100% of mediums are misleading their victims, regardless of if it is real or not
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Feb 18, 2007 19:02:23 GMT
There is also no way that any medium can prove what they are doing is real to a client, therefore at the very basic level 100% of mediums are misleading their victims, regardless of if it is real or not I would prefer to say that there is almost always another way to achieve what a mediums does,with enough effort and resources,that is not to say this is how it is achieved by the medium .
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 18, 2007 22:11:16 GMT
But the fact that in 100% of cases EVERYTHING a medium does can be replicated by a NON-Medium, that means that there is no way that any medium can catagorically state they are real, therefore all mediums are misleading their clients regardless of the mediums own beliefs
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Feb 18, 2007 22:25:10 GMT
But the fact that in 100% of cases EVERYTHING a medium does can be replicated by a NON-Medium, that means that there is no way that any medium can catagorically state they are real, therefore all mediums are misleading their clients regardless of the mediums own beliefs Jon have you ever sat down with a person you have never met in your life, knew absolutely nothing about them and no way you could have anything about them or would you be prepared to do this, and if you came up with details, times dates etc that only they could have known, how do you think you could explain that ? I am not taking the p**s asking this, it was something you said at the beginning of your last post that made me wonder about this.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 18, 2007 23:31:05 GMT
Jon have you ever sat down with a person you have never met in your life, knew absolutely nothing about them and no way you could have anything about them or would you be prepared to do this, and if you came up with details, times dates etc that only they could have known, how do you think you could explain that ? Yes, and I have done just that, it is called cold reading. I once gave a reading to Karl Windridge (Trance Medium) I told him all about his Grandfather, told him things I had no way of knowing. But it was purely cold reading.
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Feb 18, 2007 23:41:18 GMT
fair enough, thanx for the response
|
|
|
Post by Me on Feb 19, 2007 0:27:45 GMT
Jon have you ever sat down with a person you have never met in your life, knew absolutely nothing about them and no way you could have anything about them or would you be prepared to do this, and if you came up with details, times dates etc that only they could have known, how do you think you could explain that ? Yes, and I have done just that, it is called cold reading. I once gave a reading to Karl Windridge (Trance Medium) I told him all about his Grandfather, told him things I had no way of knowing. But it was purely cold reading. I will email Karl and ask him what you told him...also you can then tell us here how got the info purely from cold reading..that ok?
|
|
|
Post by Me on Feb 19, 2007 0:28:53 GMT
Or...................... better yet,why dont you tell us how you got what you did for me,regarding my uncle? Wasnt just general stuff Jon, and you have admitted time and time again that you did not use cold reading or any other type of cheating...
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Feb 19, 2007 11:05:28 GMT
I will email Karl and ask him what you told him...also you can then tell us here how got the info purely from cold reading..that ok? It was after he had given me a reading and had gotten nother right as expected. I said I would demonstrate how a fake psychic would give a reading, and proceeded to cold read him. I was surprised at my accuracy, I was completely honest with him with regards to what I was doing, and I explained myself every step of the way. We were sat in the main resturant area of the Manor House, not far from that coffee bar thingy. I described his Grandfather, how he had done a lot of travelling, been in the navy and so on, i cant really remember the details, but i was spot on with everything. I should have recorded it as i surprised even myself with how good i was.
|
|