Morpheus

A workmate told me this one today; "I've got a magic watch that tells me that you've got no knickers on". "Well actually I have so......:rolleyes:" "Oh, sorry, it's five minutes fast!"

I agree with what you just very eloquently said but surely, if science deals in probabilities, not absolutes, hence the theory of relativity etc. how can it or anyone representing it, state that witnesses to ghosts, in this case, are "Woo Woo" or loopy etc. because that's more akin to a clinical diagnosis of mental illness or mass delusion. It seems like a very absolute judgement to me about a fact, as you have chosen to see it. Do mathematics disprove disincarnate entities? Mathematics is afterall, the incredibly limited symbolic language of pattern recognition and nothing does that quite like the brain which also has the advantage of senses, ESP among them. Heard of RV, OOBE's? All mumbo jumbo, ok. I suppose Derren Brown disproved it all. Interstingly though, it is apparently more common for people with abnormalities in their brains to experience such paranormal phenomena but that's not to put a negative conotation on abnormal. It simply means above or below average, which constantly begs the question, what is normal? I'd say that on the balance of probabilities, (still a subjective opinion), ghosts and related phenomena, do exist, even if they are only a matter of perception, since everything is. Your brain right now is re-creating in it's own imagination, it's best attempt at the world around it via the available senses and no two people are alike in that regard. That's the whole point, btw! You're just receiving reflections from visible light and sound etc. bouncing off everything and interpreting it all as solid when we know that atoms are anything but solid, as I said before, I think. Where's the evidence for ghosts? That's the problem isn't it? Who decides what is and isn't 'admissible evidence' as if anyone had any right to pronounce judgement in the first place. It's still a process of subjective value judgements born out of the need for effeciency in order to pidgeon hole a subject and move on to the next. Scientists hate uncertainty. I wonder why? My brother is a nervous wreck! To the experiencer, 'The paranormal' is real enough. Loads out there and a few good accounts in this thread but dismissing it all is merely convenient, not scientific. Also, just because science might not have the tools yet to observe them, though some would say they have, that isn't a logical argument for their non-existence. It's what David Icke calls tent pitching. How far down the road will you travel before you get tired and pitch your tent, (or close your mind). He's still walking and so are many others because he's not satisfied with what science has to offer, or more accurately, the way in which it has been used/misused. It conflicts with his experience and ideals. I'm not knocking logic but it has it's limitations in proving or disproving things like this. Computers use logic circuits but they can't parallel process to the degree that the brain does. The brain uses logic too, I'm sure but people who only use basic logical arguments like computers aren't thinking, they're calculating, i.e. using specific rules applied in specific ways to determine a specific outcome, usually the desired one depending upon who pays for the research! The mechanisms are well known in cancer for example but still "We need more money to develop a DRUG that will cure it". Twenty more years and it will be the same, no doubt. You have it right now in some of your three trillion cells. The body deals with it on it's own every day. How? This is known but it's not profitable to find a cure or help prevent it. Causes vary, of course. I would argue for instance, that logically ghosts should exist because I can see the mechanism by which this can occur. Infact if they didn't appear to atleast some people, I'd be more surprised, given the way in which conciousness works. They may only be memories 'imprinted' in the magnetic field of the Earth in specific locations but they're still ghosts to the experiencer. If matter isn't solid and visible light is but a tiny fraction of the (known) energy spectrum which is theoretically infinite, (some animals, insects etc. can see infrared, ultraviolet, Sharks can 'see' electrical fields etc.), then maybe some people can also sense or see higher or lower frequencies than the norm? Logic starts with a set of rules or assumptions, (A+B=X for example as determined to be valid already by whatever means, as you said), and proceeds to apply them in the assumption that the outcome will be correct. According to those rules it will be, of course. However, if those rules are decided by individuals with a desire to deny a particular outcome for whatever reason, there is a bias. The rules dictate the outcome, since they are variable. Pure logic begins with first cause. The very beginning of space/time itself. If relativity (or similar) is the rule, there is no one correct view. You could say that the entire Universe is a big blob of sh*te if you wanted to and no-one could prove you wrong! Again, calling someone loopy etc. sounds pretty biased and unscientific, not to mention disrespectful. It wouldn't matter what I or anyone else said, if that's your position, you'll stick to it. This is how we create our reality, by projecting, since everything 'out there' is a projection 'in here', in the mind's eye. Mind energy is another 'matter'. I think Bill Hicks said it best; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q95kX_EP2Nk&feature=related

Really, no evidence? Please tell me where it says that? Not asking you to prove a negative but it must have been proven or explained somewhere? Here's a random link, regarding our obvious genetic heritage, though it doesn't refer to the brain. I could post others that do, of course;-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1635647/posts I'm not ambivalent to Science, just Pseudoscience. You don't have to know everything about a thing to make it useful, say to design brakes or kettles, even computers. They are all still evolving are they not? If 'Science' doesn't know absolutely everything there is to know, 'it' cannot claim to know what cannot be possible, therefore it can never (to all intents and purposes) claim intellectual authority. That would be the height of arrogance. The more 'basic' laws are understood already and accepted (though I wouldn't claim to know more than school level physics and chemistry). The subject inhand is the possibility of 'paranormal' phenomena being more than just 'imagination'. I absolutely accept that a person can hallucinate or imagine almost anything but to dismiss all accounts (particularly involving multiple witnesses) as such is sheer bloodymindedness. You're literally calling millions of regular people crazy for believing their own eyes and gut instincts. If just one ghost is 'real' or a single UFO account is of Alien origin, for example, or even of Earth/military origin, the implications are staggering. It changes everything. I think my point can be summed up by restating that we create our own reality, much more than we realise. The mind is able to see what it wants to see, yes? I'm sure you'd agree. This is the deeper subject that I referred to. The question is, who is right? All I see is opinions, not absolutes. Can you give me an example of something that all scientists agree on and could you claim to even know what all of them really think, as you seem to speak on their collective behalf as if they are all in total agreement about the impossibility of the paranormal, for example? You've obviously got very good connections and remarkable mediation skills, as they've been arguing for centuries. Logic is deductive reasoning as you well know. There's no room for error or opinion. It's pure, unadulterated honesty. Using it to decide if a person 'makes sense' is tough if you begin with a conclusion; that certain unaccepted areas are 'loopy' or whatever. Doesn't sound like a scientific approach to me. Science should be about establishing truth without bias. That's real critical thinking. Considering an argument until all known information is factored in, whether or not you agree with it already and still keeping in mind that you don't know everything and could be wrong. Setting aside the ego and being truly objective, prepared to accept whatever proves to be true, if such a thing even exists beyond observed behaviour being accepted as fact etc. I'd love to meet one day and you can remind me of my brother, as you rack up points against me at connect 4! Definitely smart, I'll give you that. Very late now, so please forgive my not responding to all of your points. Let me know if you want me to? I doubt that anyone else will however!

Who needs it? Comes naturally to me Mate! It's those voices, see......

Yep, what a missed opportunity! I don't think that she'd have taken it very well though

"'cos nobody wants to see Marshall no more - they want Shady, Yey!"

I bald my favourite parts regularly myself! There's nothing quite like a shawn scrotum! Mwhahahahaha! Minime! Stop humping the lazer!

Cool huh? Might be the one who fell down your stairs! Does the video make you fall, I mean feel better?

Not trying to be an attention whore here but a woman once gave me a Reflexology foot massage after a couple of dates but she did it for a living and charged me £10 as a "Gift to me as it was normally £20". We'd already established that it probably wasn't going to be more than friends but she asked for a glass of water and on the way into the kitchen, deliberately brushed her hand across the table where my clothes were randomly plonked after a wash, knocking a sock onto the floor and slowly bending down, revealing her thong above her jeans. I was behind her and saw how contrived it was and couldn't believe that she'd be so insulting as to assume that I would think that she'd done it by accident. How could I respond to it? I just pretended not to notice and she looked at me in disappointment and said that she was ready to go home. She later admitted on the phone that she was waiting for me to make a move but FFS, she charged me! Have fun with that one!

I'm on my way!

My favourite is, "You don't sweat much for a fat bird do you?!!" I haven't tried it yet though.

Cheers! I'll be on my bestest behaviour.

Tut, Tut, Tut! I never turned around actually. I knew who it was but I was too annoyed by the pain to have been able to respond positively anyway, so I thought "Why bother?" A female friend once told me that women sometimes do this to avoid looking like 'sluts' infront of their friends.

Damnit, I could have got his autograph! Speaking of sending people money, where's my membership pack? I filled in the address weeks ago.

I was once poked really hard in the lower back, in a TJI Friday while standing at a video quiz machine. I think it was a girl's thumb anyway!

Explain?

Obviously another one who's invested zero effort to understand me. Stuart Goldsmith was right. Anyway, leave my fantastic sex life out of it.

He did try to claim intellectual authority though and presumably was paid for his 'advice'. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=160 I wonder what The Health & Safety Executive would have to say about his Rocket? Anyway, getting off topic. Ghosts are possible. So there!

Is he though? Even if he was a Billionaire from it, does that necessarily have any negative bearing whatsoever on the contents of his books, which he himself has always said is "Just information. Take the bits that you like and ignore the ones that you don't. Whatever feels right to you"? People aren't buying them to read about being slaves to some unseen masters; they're buying them inspite of it and would rather he didn't go there, if you ask me. He happens to go where the research takes him, whatever the consequences. I'm sure that he'd rather spend his time and energies doing other things. He could afterall, have kept his mouth shut like so many others in his previous profession as a journalist and would probably still be presenting sports programmes. We could argue the toss forever but your logical assumptions don't take into account all of the available information because you clearly haven't got the bigger picture in mind. In the context of his previous stuff, the reptile thing is entirely plausible. Again, he's quoting others most of the time but taken as a whole, it's the only explanation that makes any sense of the obssessive use of occult symbolism in every area of authority. Look at the way that companies have been merging in the last 20 years. Changing their logos and names. Why on earth would the Alfa Romeo badge for example, have a George cross and a snake eating a human? Note that the snake is wearing a crown, sort of. Symbolically, this means that the Royal bloodline is Serpentine or reptilian and they have us by the nads, so to speak! Any other explanation? The guy even has his arms out like Jesus. Apparently it's been changed recently. I'll have a look. BT is another example. Bloke with trumpet with red snake in it. Perhaps they just forgot to draw his right foot by accident and gave him a pincer for his right hand to make the signwriter's/decal applier's job easier? Now the BT logo is a globe, divided into coloured regions. Just two of thousands of examples throughout history. A video example but not the best quality...could obviously find much better examples. http://current.com/entertainment/comedy/88850610_fascist-symbolism-employed-by-the-american-government-just-watch-the-video.htm

I think it's because his research into the nature of reality itself has put them in context, within a much more fluid and bigger picture, even for him. You're right, he said that these reptiles were themselves apparently an illusion after a while but that's part of his own evolution of consciousness. Ultimately everything is an illusion, this is the point to think about. Take everything back to first cause, if you can. Take any given issue and ask "Why?" Keep doing this ad infinitum and everything breaks down, even the laws of physics. This is all thought. Where did it come from? God only knows but He/She/It created us to find out what it was through relativity. The whole basis of matter is electrical charge or positive/negative balance or atomic structure. Then chemistry, the anatomy of molecules and then what we see as the macroscopic result. But what is charge? What is positive and negative? The concept of duality! The Is/Not is. Potential energy! You have to be able to visualise it. Some can, most can't. I'm no good at maths beyond the basics, like most people. I'm good at visiospacial matters however. That's why I'm a cabinet maker/joiner/turner/mechanic etc. I'm by no means the best but one of the best, in my job atleast. We all have different biases and David Icke's bias seems to be toward asking awkward questions! On the other hand, it could indeed all be b@ll@cks! I prefer the more considered approach, however.

Might want to edit that post, Sir, right near the end. BTW, do you still have any high powered deer left, that was so funny! Who watches the watchers............?

Very eloquently put! Have you (or perhaps your parents) ever heard of protection? Sorry, couldn't resist it......seriously though, I think if he started to actually make a difference then yes, they'd try harder. Happens to all of the effective rebels eventually. I think they'd fail by the way. It's to do with creating your own reality.......very deep subject but simple in principle. Requires a way open mind. They're arrogant and too detached from our reality and just let people like him get on with it I think, for now. They think they have it sewn up with the media blackout. Obama apparently has an internet kill switch now. We'll see. I don't think they see Mr. Icke as a threat, yet. As for this thread being about him, I was merely responding to Tannhauser's comments. I feel I have a right to do so in a free country. If not, then it's not a free country. Simple. Of course, I always knew that this was the case from an early age but I won't go into that.

Cool, it's just that I recently saw a 2JZGE NA-T with F-Con V on ebay with HKS GT Pro turbo and custom downpipe etc. Looked absolutely clean with looms and stock Ecu etc. Was £3500 but had just spent too much on the car as it was. It sold but was up for sale again for a bit less I think. Could have had cams and valve mods, rotating assembly, the lot.

To clarify, his first book that I haven't read was called 'It Doesn't Have To Be Like This' and was written when he was spokesman for the Green Party. The Truth Vibrations was his second book and the one that 'clicked' with me and those that knew what was going on, back in 1991, his 'turquoise period', Wogan etc. To this day, probably his best book for explaining the basic nuts and bolts mechanism of it all. Then he got into the politics and specifics as the research lead him. You only had to ask why the media attacked him so relentlessly for so many years to figure out that it was a character assassination from which he never fully recovered. He screwed up because he was going through a spiritual awakening that was so intense that it blew his mind. His face even changed to the point where he didn't recognise himself in a photo because of the shifting energies coming through him.