| #1 | |
|
|
heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
Hi,
I thought this might be of interest (if not: a challenge) for some of the visitors of these newsgroups. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html James Randi has a $1000000-reward for anyone who is able to prove any paranormal/supernatural claims. I am just wondering which *brilliant* excuses are used by those who claim supernatural events, for NOT taking this challenge. best regards, martin |
| #2 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"Martin" <nobody@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:bknou7$lbc$1@reader08.wxs.nl... > Hi, > > I thought this might be of interest (if not: a challenge) for some of the > visitors of these newsgroups. > http://www.randi.org/research/index.html > > James Randi has a $1000000-reward for anyone who is able to prove any > paranormal/supernatural claims. > > I am just wondering which *brilliant* excuses are used by those who claim > supernatural events, for NOT taking this challenge. > > best regards, > martin > > Argh! you are Garrison Hilliard and ICM £5! -- Peachy email is valid, just remove "nospam" PS please don't crosspost to so many groups! |
| #3 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
a) you wouldn't get to keep much
and b) you'd catch the attention of the military-industrial complex, and that might not be a good thing. Martin wrote: > Hi, > > I thought this might be of interest (if not: a challenge) for some of the > visitors of these newsgroups. > http://www.randi.org/research/index.html > > James Randi has a $1000000-reward for anyone who is able to prove any > paranormal/supernatural claims. > > I am just wondering which *brilliant* excuses are used by those who claim > supernatural events, for NOT taking this challenge. > > best regards, > martin |
| #4 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
> > Prove it. > My dad is stronger than your dad! |
| #5 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"Martin" <nobody@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:<bkpk8v$1an$1@reader08.wxs.nl>...
> I wonder if any **scientific** paranormal experiments with bandwidths (so > not necessary 100% score) have ever proven succesful. > Does someone have any reference for me? > > martin I've always found the work done at Princeton's Engineering Anomalies lab pretty intriguing: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html The results of Ganzfeld experiments, like those discussed here, are also worth considering: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ganzfeld.html It's also worth bearing in mind that some skeptics - certainly not all of them - will remain unconvinced by even the most extraordinary proofs. These are people who would probably have found something wrong with Galileo's telescope rather than accept that the earth orbits the sun. ~The Endeavourer~ http://www.literate-lemur.com |
| #6 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
Wally Anglesea™ wrote:
> If she was a tad smarter, she wouldn't be so > stupid as to claim Nasa is punching holes in the ozone layer with the > Space Shutle, and that Aliens built the pyramids with anti-gravity > machines. So, then it's really the aliens punching holes in in the ozone layer with something OTHER than anti gravity machines? It's so clear once you can see the bigger picture! <g> -- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / / / /\ \/ /\ ohmworkLEOPARD@spots.ca \/ /\ \/ / /_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ ..let the cat out to reply.. |
| #7 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"Martin" <nobody@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:<bknou7$lbc$1@reader08.wxs.nl>...
> Hi, > > I thought this might be of interest (if not: a challenge) for some of the > visitors of these newsgroups. > http://www.randi.org/research/index.html > > James Randi has a $1000000-reward for anyone who is able to prove any > paranormal/supernatural claims. > > I am just wondering which *brilliant* excuses are used by those who claim > supernatural events, for NOT taking this challenge. > > best regards, > martin check this out, particularly the bits about finger reading. http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw/20...0001024f2.html |
| #8 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:06:05 +0200, "Martin" <nobody@nowhere.org>
wrote: >I wonder if any **scientific** paranormal experiments with bandwidths (so >not necessary 100% score) have ever proven succesful. >Does someone have any reference for me? You may wish to read The Field by Lynne McTaggart. She interviewed quite a few scientists that have done studies in those areas for her book. You can find the publishing hype online at http://www.thefieldonline.com. The book is written for the lay person, but has references, footnotes, bibliographies, etc for the various studies referenced. Garry |
| #9 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"Wally AngleseaT" <wanglese@spbigpondammersareparasites.net.au> wrote in
message > If she was a tad smarter, she wouldn't be so > stupid as to claim Nasa is punching holes in the ozone layer with the > Space Shutle, and that Aliens built the pyramids with anti-gravity > machines. So you are equating close-mindedness with intelligence? FYI, Freon is illegal in the US because NASA needs all it can get it's hands on to cool rocket engines. Yes, it IS bad for the ozone layer, but only when it is ABOVE it, like when lifted there with rockets, not when it is used here on Earth since it is too heavy to rise to the ozone layer to do any damage. And, do you have a better explanation as to how the Egyptians moved multi ton blocks of stone over 1000 miles? The log theory? What a joke. Better think that one through. Just because we haven't figured out the laws of gravity to be able to control it's forces doesn't mean it's not possible. It's governed by laws just as electricity and magnetism are that can be controlled when once understood. You will learn much more if you keep an open mind. A mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open. -- Jim Scannell jscannell@wi.rr.com http://home.wi.rr.com/jscannell/ Gratitude hence Happiness, Faith hence Hope, Selfishness is anti-Love, Devotion is the Key |
| #10 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:02:43 -0500, "Jim Scannell"
<jscannell.nosp*m@wi.rr.com> wrote: >"Wally AngleseaT" <wanglese@spbigpondammersareparasites.net.au> wrote in >message >> If she was a tad smarter, she wouldn't be so >> stupid as to claim Nasa is punching holes in the ozone layer with the >> Space Shutle, and that Aliens built the pyramids with anti-gravity >> machines. > >So you are equating close-mindedness with intelligence? FYI, Freon is >illegal in the US because NASA needs all it can get it's hands on to cool >rocket engines. Yes, it IS bad for the ozone layer, but only when it is >ABOVE it, like when lifted there with rockets, not when it is used here on >Earth since it is too heavy to rise to the ozone layer to do any damage. >And, do you have a better explanation as to how the Egyptians moved multi >ton blocks of stone over 1000 miles? The log theory? What a joke. Better >think that one through. Just because we haven't figured out the laws of >gravity to be able to control it's forces doesn't mean it's not possible. >It's governed by laws just as electricity and magnetism are that can be >controlled when once understood. You will learn much more if you keep an >open mind. A mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open. You opened your mind, and your brain fell out, obviously. -- Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm How to Cook an Alien: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down." |
| #11 | |
|
|
Re: Do NASA's engines destroy the Ozone Layer
"Wally AngleseaT" <wanglese@spbigpondammersareparasites.net.au> wrote in message news:jku7nvcrpjg8iit4hcuoimrju5c20t90ln@4ax.com... > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:49:27 GMT, "Jim Scannell" > <jscannell.nosp*m@wi.rr.com> wrote: > > >"Lorrill Buyens" <buyensl@interlacken.com> wrote in message > >news:hn45nv834a50enr3b0cikim8f8b6d0vvkk@4ax.com.. . > >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:02:43 -0500, little green men from sci.skeptic > >abducted > >> "Jim Scannell" <jscannell.nosp*m@wi.rr.com>, who protested: > >> >FYI, Freon is > >> >illegal in the US because NASA needs all it can get it's hands on to cool > >> >rocket engines. Yes, it IS bad for the ozone layer, but only when it is > >> >ABOVE it, like when lifted there with rockets, not when it is used here > >on > >> >Earth since it is too heavy to rise to the ozone layer to do any damage. > >> > >> And you have proof of this, I assume? > > > >What? That freon is used to cool rocket engines or that freon is harmless to > >the atmosphere when below it or that 1+1=2? > > > That your whacked out claim that Nasa's rocket engines are destroying > the Ozone Layer. Note Follow up to sci.space.shuttle. You might learn > something. Just to comment, freon is not used to cool rocket engines. Don't know where the original poster got that idea. Rocket engines are typically cooled by the fuel or oxidizer brought used to propel the craft. There's little enough mass margin as is, they can't waste any on what would be an ineffective coolant. |
| #12 | |
|
|
Re: Do NASA's engines destroy the Ozone Layer
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:51:02 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr@greenms.com> wrote: > >"Wally AngleseaT" <wanglese@spbigpondammersareparasites.net.au> wrote in >message news:jku7nvcrpjg8iit4hcuoimrju5c20t90ln@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:49:27 GMT, "Jim Scannell" >> <jscannell.nosp*m@wi.rr.com> wrote: >> >> >"Lorrill Buyens" <buyensl@interlacken.com> wrote in message >> >news:hn45nv834a50enr3b0cikim8f8b6d0vvkk@4ax.com.. . >> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:02:43 -0500, little green men from sci.skeptic >> >abducted >> >> "Jim Scannell" <jscannell.nosp*m@wi.rr.com>, who protested: >> >> >FYI, Freon is >> >> >illegal in the US because NASA needs all it can get it's hands on to >cool >> >> >rocket engines. Yes, it IS bad for the ozone layer, but only when it >is >> >> >ABOVE it, like when lifted there with rockets, not when it is used >here >> >on >> >> >Earth since it is too heavy to rise to the ozone layer to do any >damage. >> >> >> >> And you have proof of this, I assume? >> > >> >What? That freon is used to cool rocket engines or that freon is harmless >to >> >the atmosphere when below it or that 1+1=2? >> >> >> That your whacked out claim that Nasa's rocket engines are destroying >> the Ozone Layer. Note Follow up to sci.space.shuttle. You might learn >> something. > > >Just to comment, freon is not used to cool rocket engines. Don't know where >the original poster got that idea. Probably from Nexus magazine. > >Rocket engines are typically cooled by the fuel or oxidizer brought used to >propel the craft. There's little enough mass margin as is, they can't waste >any on what would be an ineffective coolant. > > Thanks for the quick update. -- Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm How to Cook an Alien: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down." |
| #13 | |
|
|
To Gea Jones and all self-claimed psychics!
Let me clearly restate this:
Why aren't you taking the British Skeptic's challenge for $12,000 pounds? http://www.aske.clara.net/psychic_challenge.htm And what about that $1,000,000 JREF Challenge, Gea? |
| #14 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
Your Name Here=Harvey wrote: > > In article <bkpk8v$1an$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, nobody@nowhere.org says... > > > > > >If that is so, than Randi has to mention his standards in advance. Because in "regular" science one would not aim on a 100% score in order to prove a phenomenon, but rather make use of levels of confidence. (or bandwidths or something like that) > > > >Furthermore: Randi doesn't only mention tests on the field of telepathy or reading or something, but also on much broader field: telekinesis, levitation, etc...According to Randi a lot of claims are being made, but none is ever tested as succesful. > > > >I wonder if any **scientific** paranormal experiments with bandwidths (so not necessary 100% score) have ever proven succesful. Does someone have any reference for me? > > > >martin Yes the United States Taught several people under the Delta Program. They found certain chemicals can assist certain functions of the human brain, ie... Super Witchcraft, can be chemically produced. |
| #15 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message
news:Xapic.3535$cY5.269827@news02.tsnz.net... > In article <bkpk8v$1an$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, nobody@nowhere.org says... > Randi has a negative projection with his tests. Psychics in particular, don't > need that atmosphere, and most likely can't perform at their best in such a > bad atmosphere. That's because anyone who seriously claims to be "psychic" is either insane or a scam artist. |
| #16 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
I don't expect those of you who believe that "psychic ability" is a
scam or a reflection of insanity to accept this, so I post this for those who are more open to spiritual Truth. (That is no criticism of skeptics. You play an important role, and there is nothing wrong with that role.) It is perfectly correct (in the way of the universe) that it has not yet been possible for psychic ability to be "scientifically" proved with certainty that satisfies skeptics. To understand that statement, one has to understand something about the intent of the Creator for the 3-D universe, and our reason for being here. If such proof were not controversial, that would have undermined our intent and purpose for bothering to incarnate into this lifetime. Spiritual truth is not intended to be easy to acquire. It is the veil between this dimension and other dimensions that allow the illusion of the reality of this universe to serve its intended purpose. Folks with deep understanding of the Spirit know this. These are generally the same folks who have the most profound psychic ability. These same folks are also generally not interested in media-driven hype, and the circus-sideshow atmosphere that would accompany any real challenge to Randy's offer. What these folks acquire, in terms of spiritual understanding and connection to the one-ness, far surpasses the sideshow attraction of a million-dollar offer. Plus, these people are often allowed significant abundance in their own right, for Spirit is pleased to provide abundance, if we ask for it, as we move into Truth. (That sentence itself might generate a lot of controversy.) The density of the "veil" between dimensions was carefully set, by Spirit, in order to give motivated seekers enough hints and guidance to allow the satisfaction of a sincere search for truth. Sometimes those hints have come in the form of very ordinary people possessive of quite interesting and capable psychic talents. Sometimes those hints have come in the form of people who can remember verifiable past life experiences. And those hints come in many other forms. But they remains hints, and always there have been skeptics, and that is perfectly correct and appropriate. As one prior poster noted, now things are changing. The veil is less dense, and continuing to lessen in density. Awareness of truth is spreading, and it is slowly changing the world by enhancing the creation of light, and raising the frequency of spiritual energy. However, there will be skeptics yet for a significant period of time. Best regards in the search for Truth, John 591tanospam@earthlink.net (remove the letters "nospam" to reply directly) "Quantum Foam Guy" <quantumfoamguy@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<108mdtjqa3lgnaa@corp.supernews.com>... > "Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message > news:Xapic.3535$cY5.269827@news02.tsnz.net... > > In article <bkpk8v$1an$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, nobody@nowhere.org says... > > > Randi has a negative projection with his tests. Psychics in particular, > don't > > need that atmosphere, and most likely can't perform at their best in such > a > > bad atmosphere. > > That's because anyone who seriously claims to be "psychic" is either insane > or a scam artist. |
| #17 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
John wrote:
> I don't expect those of you who believe that "psychic ability" is a > scam or a reflection of insanity to accept this, so I post this for > those who are more open to spiritual Truth. (That is no criticism of > skeptics. You play an important role, and there is nothing wrong with > that role.) > > It is perfectly correct (in the way of the universe) that it has not > yet been possible for psychic ability to be "scientifically" proved > with certainty that satisfies skeptics. To understand that statement, > one has to understand something about the intent of the Creator for > the 3-D universe, and our reason for being here. That's just it, stupid., Nobody does. |
| #18 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:05:54 -0700, Edmond Wollmann <azimech@aol.com>
wrote: >John wrote: > >> I don't expect those of you who believe that "psychic ability" is a >> scam or a reflection of insanity to accept this, so I post this for >> those who are more open to spiritual Truth. (That is no criticism of >> skeptics. You play an important role, and there is nothing wrong with >> that role.) >> >> It is perfectly correct (in the way of the universe) that it has not >> yet been possible for psychic ability to be "scientifically" proved >> with certainty that satisfies skeptics. To understand that statement, >> one has to understand something about the intent of the Creator for >> the 3-D universe, and our reason for being here. > > >That's just it, stupid., Nobody does. 1) How do you know nobody does? 2) Prove it. Affectionately, Mr. Skeptic |
| #19 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
Garry Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:05:54 -0700, Edmond Wollmann <azimech@aol.com> > wrote: > > >>John wrote: >> >> >>>I don't expect those of you who believe that "psychic ability" is a >>>scam or a reflection of insanity to accept this, so I post this for >>>those who are more open to spiritual Truth. (That is no criticism of >>>skeptics. You play an important role, and there is nothing wrong with >>>that role.) >>> >>>It is perfectly correct (in the way of the universe) that it has not >>>yet been possible for psychic ability to be "scientifically" proved >>>with certainty that satisfies skeptics. To understand that statement, >>>one has to understand something about the intent of the Creator for >>>the 3-D universe, and our reason for being here. >> >> >>That's just it, stupid., Nobody does. > > > 1) How do you know nobody does? Because nobody can prove it. > > 2) Prove it. I just did. > |
| #20 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:05:54 -0700, Edmond Wollmann <azimech@aol.com>
> > wrote: > > > > > >>John wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I don't expect those of you who believe that "psychic ability" is a > >>>scam or a reflection of insanity to accept this, so I post this for > >>>those who are more open to spiritual Truth. > >> > >>That's just it, stupid., Nobody does. > > Not true. I believe it. So do many other people that I know personally, many of whom are quite intelligent. John |
| #21 | |
|
|
Re: Randi Shmandy!
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message news:Xapic.3535$cY5.269827@news02.tsnz.net... > In article <bkpk8v$1an$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, nobody@nowhere.org says... > > > > > >If that is so, than Randi has to mention his standards in advance. > >Because in "regular" science one would not aim on a 100% score in order to > >prove a phenomenon, but rather make use of levels of confidence. (or > >bandwidths or something like that) > > The best 'scientific' study I know of is that of Prof. Robert Jahn of Princeton University. Using both a mechanical and electronic random pattern generators (Mechanical = pin board with 9000 steel balls, the object is to shift the Normal Distribution to the right or left with the operator just sitting as a control; Electronic is a semiconductor generating 'coin tosses' the object is to raise the number of heads (or tails) above the number expected by chance over a given period.) This is meant to demonstrate a PK effect operating on a small (but significant scale). He has thousands of data points now, possibly hundreds of thousands, and an effect is shown which is not explicable by chance alone. The design of the experiment excludes tampering and operator error, it has also been reproduced by an independent team. If you want to check this out Prof Jahn has an 'Anomalies' Web site. I'll try to find the link but if you put his name and 'anomalies' into Google I'm sure you'll find it. I think a Channel 4 Documentary team did something on him a long time ago, but I don't remember anything more about that except I think it was called 'Heretic' or similar. If anyone knows a better example of a competent scientific study, please post it. I'd like to see it. O'Ryan Wells. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/04 |
| #22 | |
|
|
Re: Randi Shmandy!
Understand the studies done by Russia and the United States into PSI,
led to the governmental conclusion that the church was right. The last thing any Government wants is a united fully trained and functional psychic front moving against it. You can fight weapons, not the Hyper-Borealis. O'Ryan Wells wrote: > > "Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message > news:Xapic.3535$cY5.269827@news02.tsnz.net... > > In article <bkpk8v$1an$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, nobody@nowhere.org says... > > > > > > > > >If that is so, than Randi has to mention his standards in advance. > > >Because in "regular" science one would not aim on a 100% score in order > to > > >prove a phenomenon, but rather make use of levels of confidence. (or > > >bandwidths or something like that) > > > > > The best 'scientific' study I know of is that of Prof. Robert Jahn of > Princeton University. Using both a mechanical and electronic random pattern > generators (Mechanical = pin board with 9000 steel balls, the object is to > shift the Normal Distribution to the right or left with the operator just > sitting as a control; Electronic is a semiconductor generating 'coin tosses' > the object is to raise the number of heads (or tails) above the number > expected by chance over a given period.) > This is meant to demonstrate a PK effect operating on a small (but > significant scale). > > He has thousands of data points now, possibly hundreds of thousands, and an > effect is shown which is not explicable by chance alone. The design of the > experiment excludes tampering and operator error, it has also been > reproduced by an independent team. > > If you want to check this out Prof Jahn has an 'Anomalies' Web site. I'll > try to find the link but if you put his name and 'anomalies' into Google I'm > sure you'll find it. > > I think a Channel 4 Documentary team did something on him a long time ago, > but I don't remember anything more about that except I think it was called > 'Heretic' or similar. > > If anyone knows a better example of a competent scientific study, please > post it. I'd like to see it. > > O'Ryan Wells. > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/04 |
| #23 | |
|
|
Re: Randi Shmandy!
I assume you can verify your statements with evidence.
"Puriel" <sethian@houseobel.org> wrote in message news:408D9202.16FBC286@houseobel.org... > Understand the studies done by Russia and the United States into PSI, > led to the governmental conclusion that the church was right. Which church would that be? Let me guess, yours. > The last thing any Government wants is a united fully trained and > functional psychic front moving against it. > You can fight weapons, not the Hyper-Borealis. Again, some actual evidence please. In the study I cited my statements can be checked as I indicated where the information came from. Please do the same. O'Ryan Wells. > O'Ryan Wells wrote: > > > > "Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message > > news:Xapic.3535$cY5.269827@news02.tsnz.net... > > > In article <bkpk8v$1an$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, nobody@nowhere.org says... > > > > > > > > > > > >If that is so, than Randi has to mention his standards in advance. > > > >Because in "regular" science one would not aim on a 100% score in order > > to > > > >prove a phenomenon, but rather make use of levels of confidence. (or > > > >bandwidths or something like that) > > > > > > > > The best 'scientific' study I know of is that of Prof. Robert Jahn of > > Princeton University. Using both a mechanical and electronic random pattern > > generators (Mechanical = pin board with 9000 steel balls, the object is to > > shift the Normal Distribution to the right or left with the operator just > > sitting as a control; Electronic is a semiconductor generating 'coin tosses' > > the object is to raise the number of heads (or tails) above the number > > expected by chance over a given period.) > > This is meant to demonstrate a PK effect operating on a small (but > > significant scale). > > > > He has thousands of data points now, possibly hundreds of thousands, and an > > effect is shown which is not explicable by chance alone. The design of the > > experiment excludes tampering and operator error, it has also been > > reproduced by an independent team. > > > > If you want to check this out Prof Jahn has an 'Anomalies' Web site. I'll > > try to find the link but if you put his name and 'anomalies' into Google I'm > > sure you'll find it. > > > > I think a Channel 4 Documentary team did something on him a long time ago, > > but I don't remember anything more about that except I think it was called > > 'Heretic' or similar. > > > > If anyone knows a better example of a competent scientific study, please > > post it. I'd like to see it. > > > > O'Ryan Wells. > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.665 / Virus Database: 428 - Release Date: 21/04/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.669 / Virus Database: 431 - Release Date: 26/04/04 |
| #24 | |
|
|
Re: Randi Shmandy!
O'Ryan Wells wrote: > > I assume you can verify your statements with evidence. > > "Puriel" <sethian@houseobel.org> wrote in message > news:408D9202.16FBC286@houseobel.org... > > Understand the studies done by Russia and the United States into PSI, led to the governmental conclusion that the church was right. > > Which church would that be? Let me guess, yours. Was a while back, its called the "Roman Catholic Church", started about 750 AD, led to the Inquisitions and the Witch Hunts. > > > The last thing any Government wants is a united fully trained and functional psychic front moving against it. You can fight weapons, not the Hyper-Borealis. > > Again, some actual evidence please. In the study I cited my statements can be checked as I indicated where the information came from. Please do the same. > > O'Ryan Wells. 1 what are you doing in here then besides trying to annoy everyone? 2 Like Randy, how do you prove to someone like you in a "Commercial Sense" that the Mind is capable of far more things than school taught you?? 3 Actual proof of a governmental Secret Project dedicated at PSI warfare, yah right. Try to show the government is using geo-warfare. But, they are studying it. |
| #25 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
In article <6cd67af7.0404250917.305ada3f@posting.google.com >,
591tanospam@earthlink.net says... > > >I don't expect those of you who believe that "psychic ability" is a >scam or a reflection of insanity to accept this, so I post this for >those who are more open to spiritual Truth. (That is no criticism of >skeptics. You play an important role, and there is nothing wrong with >that role.) > >It is perfectly correct (in the way of the universe) that it has not >yet been possible for psychic ability to be "scientifically" proved >with certainty that satisfies skeptics. To understand that statement, >one has to understand something about the intent of the Creator for >the 3-D universe, and our reason for being here. If such proof were >not controversial, that would have undermined our intent and purpose >for bothering to incarnate into this lifetime. > >Spiritual truth is not intended to be easy to acquire. It is the veil >between this dimension and other dimensions that allow the illusion of >the reality of this universe to serve its intended purpose. Folks >with deep understanding of the Spirit know this. These are generally >the same folks who have the most profound psychic ability. These >same folks are also generally not interested in media-driven hype, and >the circus-sideshow atmosphere that would accompany any real challenge >to Randy's offer. What these folks acquire, in terms of spiritual >understanding and connection to the one-ness, far surpasses the >sideshow attraction of a million-dollar offer. Plus, these people are >often allowed significant abundance in their own right, for Spirit is >pleased to provide abundance, if we ask for it, as we move into Truth. >(That sentence itself might generate a lot of controversy.) > >The density of the "veil" between dimensions was carefully set, by >Spirit, in order to give motivated seekers enough hints and guidance >to allow the satisfaction of a sincere search for truth. Sometimes >those hints have come in the form of very ordinary people possessive >of quite interesting and capable psychic talents. Sometimes those >hints have come in the form of people who can remember verifiable past >life experiences. And those hints come in many other forms. But they >remains hints, and always there have been skeptics, and that is >perfectly correct and appropriate. > >As one prior poster noted, now things are changing. The veil is less >dense, and continuing to lessen in density. Awareness of truth is >spreading, and it is slowly changing the world by enhancing the >creation of light, and raising the frequency of spiritual energy. >However, there will be skeptics yet for a significant period of time. > >Best regards in the search for Truth, >John > >591tanospam@earthlink.net >(remove the letters "nospam" to reply directly) > > >"Quantum Foam Guy" <quantumfoamguy@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<108mdtjqa3lgnaa@corp.supernews.com>... >> "Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message >> news:Xapic.3535$cY5.269827@news02.tsnz.net... >> > In article <bkpk8v$1an$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, nobody@nowhere.org says... >> >> > Randi has a negative projection with his tests. Psychics in particular, >> don't >> > need that atmosphere, and most likely can't perform at their best in such >> a >> > bad atmosphere. >> >> That's because anyone who seriously claims to be "psychic" is either insane >> or a scam artist. No one likes to be told that what they have been learning all along, is wrong, or is misguided. That so-called established views - are merely a 'forcing shed' by which people are suppose to make up their own minds, and absorb and believe in what they believe. That everyone has to make up their own mind - that this is part of life - that everything ought to be questioned and examined. Everything. And that with commonsense, and plain reasoning and logic - the truth can be seen. Religion should not be blindly accepted - it must be proven too, in it's own way. This world is driven by materialism and ego - hardly pillars to support truth with. Truth is aligned with sincerity, integrity and honesty - ego gets dropped out altogether, and materialism not even considered. Until people realise what reality is, and is about - people will be lost in their egos or their foolish goals. Harvey |
| #26 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"Ron Hubbard" <notat@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2j7gc8Fu6iicU1@uni-berlin.de... > The "proof" you seek you'll never find because nothing will ever > convince a skeptic, even if a telepath read your mind or an esper > set fire to you. You don't want to believe. And that's fine by me. > I WANT TO BELIVE, but as of yet, I haven't seen anything convincing. I want to see someone levitate a book, read my mind or predict tomorrows news. If there are people that truly have this gift, it would change the world immensly. These so called psychics give vague answers. I want direct, detailed descriptions of what they are predicting, names, places, times, so there is no doubt that they really have the gift. Someone out there MUST have the gift. Why won't you share it with the rest of the world? |
| #27 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"Dan Stiler" <ds@ds.net> wrote in message
news:9qwzc.1597$fd.1498@twister.socal.rr.com... > > "Ron Hubbard" <notat@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:2j7gc8Fu6iicU1@uni-berlin.de... > > The "proof" you seek you'll never find because nothing will ever > > convince a skeptic, even if a telepath read your mind or an esper > > set fire to you. You don't want to believe. And that's fine by me. > > > I WANT TO BELIVE, but as of yet, I haven't seen anything convincing. > > I want to see someone levitate a book, read my mind or predict tomorrows > news. If there are people that truly have this gift, it would change the > world immensly. > > These so called psychics give vague answers. I want direct, detailed > descriptions of what they are predicting, names, places, times, so there is > no doubt that they really have the gift. > > Someone out there MUST have the gift. Why won't you share it with the rest > of the world? Like others have been saying, you will not believe it when you see it, you'll see it when you believe it. -- Jim Scannell jscannell@wi.rr.com http://home.wi.rr.com/jscannell/ |
| #28 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"Just Like You" <divine@in.you> wrote in message news:uxxzc.10132$WX1.4596@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com... > "Dan Stiler" <ds@ds.net> wrote in message > news:9qwzc.1597$fd.1498@twister.socal.rr.com... > > > > "Ron Hubbard" <notat@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2j7gc8Fu6iicU1@uni-berlin.de... > > > The "proof" you seek you'll never find because nothing will ever > > > convince a skeptic, even if a telepath read your mind or an esper > > > set fire to you. You don't want to believe. And that's fine by me. > > > > > I WANT TO BELIVE, but as of yet, I haven't seen anything convincing. > > > > I want to see someone levitate a book, read my mind or predict tomorrows > > news. If there are people that truly have this gift, it would change the > > world immensly. > > > > These so called psychics give vague answers. I want direct, detailed > > descriptions of what they are predicting, names, places, times, so there > is > > no doubt that they really have the gift. > > > > Someone out there MUST have the gift. Why won't you share it with the rest > > of the world? > > Like others have been saying, you will not believe it when you see it, > you'll see it when you believe it. > The examples given would be enough to convince me. I would believe if I saw it. |
| #29 | |
|
|
Re: heard about Randi's $1,000,000 ?
"sleepless" <sleepless@stillawake.net> wrote in message news:RmFzc.45867$wO4.3588@twister.socal.rr.com... > > "Just Like You" <divine@in.you> wrote in message > news:uxxzc.10132$WX1.4596@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com... > > "Dan Stiler" <ds@ds.net> wrote in message > > news:9qwzc.1597$fd.1498@twister.socal.rr.com... > > > > > > "Ron Hubbard" <notat@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:2j7gc8Fu6iicU1@uni-berlin.de... > > > > The "proof" you seek you'll never find because nothing will ever > > > > convince a skeptic, even if a telepath read your mind or an esper > > > > set fire to you. You don't want to believe. And that's fine by me. > > > > > > > I WANT TO BELIVE, but as of yet, I haven't seen anything convincing. > > > > > > I want to see someone levitate a book, read my mind or predict tomorrows > > > news. If there are people that truly have this gift, it would change the > > > world immensly. > > > > > > These so called psychics give vague answers. I want direct, detailed > > > descriptions of what they are predicting, names, places, times, so there > > is > > > no doubt that they really have the gift. > > > > > > Someone out there MUST have the gift. Why won't you share it with the > rest > > > of the world? > > > > Like others have been saying, you will not believe it when you see it, > > you'll see it when you believe it. > > > The examples given would be enough to convince me. I would believe if I saw > it. Is there anyone alive on the planet that can levitate a small object at will? Can someone stare at a book and make it rise a few inches above a desk, and do it repeatedly? |
| #30 | |
|
|
