| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> The "Tree". | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: The "Tree". |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 15, 2005 Views: 1480 | The "Tree". Does the tree fall, or is it falling? Does a watched pot boil, if one does not fill it with anything? What goes up, must come down. What grows up, must have a 'system of a down'. The 'falling' is one that is forever. With no observer, there is always the 'falling'. When the "Tree" falls, it begins to fall and it must end in the fall. Like the chicken before the egg, one must argue that the chicken must exist first. Does the chicken feed? So, like the metaphor is worded here, (due to popular demand - I am back again), the tree is 'telekinesis'. The use of telekinesis is the 'fall'. To fall, like gravity permits, is to 'go'. In falling there is an eternal direction for which gravity provides a seed, that growing and dying permits in the human observer. The human, as a participatory factor is like the "wind that blows the dying tree down". Between 'going' and 'being' is a factor in humanity that which in gravitational pull is left to psychological degree, a questioning of telekinesis and the existence of it. The question, "what is the sound of a tree falling" is applied in hypothesis. The answer of the trees' fall, is a reverserd answer of the question. A tree falls, it must begin and it must end. No one questions the seed growing, nor the decay of the wind blown - dying tree. One questions the noise it makes when it falls, not that it is falling. It is between the observer and the participator. Outside of both, here are factors that niether can acknowledge. In between there is the undying reflection. What lives outside either, in thier facing outwards from each other? What dies in between in thier reflection? |
| Posted By: Eheheheheh... Posted On: Jun 15, 2005 Views: 1476 | RE: The "Tree". Dude, get a life. I bet it took you over an hour to write that crap. Damn, you're a super-stiff! |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 16, 2005 Views: 1471 | RE: The "Tree". Yeah, it took me an hour or so. So I will take a minute to get a life. (1 second.......) there I got one. When you hear a tree falling when no one else is around to hear it, get back to me. I would love to know what the "noise" sounds like because "it" exists. When you have evidence of the tree existing, seperate that from the noise. Tell me that telekinesis exists with no evidence. Then tell me how it is used with no evidence. Tell me why no one does it here on the board yet. Don't take an hour, and yes, don't be a stiffy, use metaphors because everyone else is afraid of the facts. Question fantasy. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 16, 2005 Views: 1468 | RE: The "Tree". Static does not 'replace' telekinesis. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 16, 2005 Views: 1467 | RE: The "Tree". Question abuse, question authority. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 16, 2005 Views: 1462 | RE: The "Tree". To, Eheheheheh, can you type your name backwards and then tell me what it sounds like on the keyboard? Or can you type your name backwards and start with the letter "H" and tell me what it feels like to "see" it happen? Can you do both at the same time? |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 16, 2005 Views: 1461 | RE: The "Tree". Go ahead, take one mili-second. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 17, 2005 Views: 1454 | RE: The "Tree". ......O.k?.. The metaphor. You can't see it, you can't hear it, there is no evidence, but it exists. What is it? Supernatural? Paranormal? Not static, not a fantasy, not 600 volts from an electric eel..... When you take a pulse ball, ( you can get one at 'Spencers gifts') for instance and put your hands on it for a certain amount of time, it gets hot. Too hot to hold. Ive done it myself. But, like I said before, in terms of telekinesis internally, it isn't just the heat that is a factor. When I use my hands the "natural" way it takes about an hour, maybe 45 minutes to get to 'extreme currency'. What I found out is with the pulse ball, it takes a few minutes to get there. This I see as the "technical" way. This is after the charging up first though, not to say it even takes a minute with hands on the ball. It is like a 'boost'. This is what I want to know though, Keith has telekinesis originally, it still does not mean he can't do all of the same things in the videos anyway. What is the title of this site though? Telekinesis: Fact or Fantasy? Is it Telekinesis: Fact or Static? If Keith has telekinesis he will side with fact, if not - with static. Which ever way, his telekinesis- having it or not- is still not proven to exist yet. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 17, 2005 Views: 1452 | RE: The "Tree". I forgot to put 'if' in there, sorry. If Keith has telekinesis originally. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 17, 2005 Views: 1450 | RE: The "Tree". I didn't want to bring up the pulse ball, all this time, until I could figure out if anyone would care first off. It looks as though it may still be possible. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 17, 2005 Views: 1448 | RE: The "Tree". Hi Peter, Just two points. 1) I really do not have any TK powers (How could I when it doesn't exist?) 2) Please do not keep referring to static as if that was the only explanation for objects moving my non TK means as there are obviously many ways. Regards, Keith |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 18, 2005 Views: 1441 | RE: The "Tree". There is the statement made, that TK was not used to make any of these objects move and that it is either warm air or static. For which is not explained for either as of yet. In how many obvious ways in what 1 form of the static mentioned counts, besides 'warm air'? #1 "I don't really have any TK powers, ( How could I if it doesn't exist). - Remember the 8th rule? "I have no reason for believing in TK." It is known as the 8th belief. You believe you have no reason for believing in TK. Is this true? How could you have TK powers if YOURS doesn't exist? You can't have TK powers if IT doesn't exist. Can you prove something does not exist, no. Please don't refer to static as the only explanation? Well why say it doesn't exist, you say it is warm air or static, which one, and how many obvious ways is one UNCHOSEN/UNSPECIFIED form of static explanitory from you? What form of "warm air"? One? Staic. One? #2 Did you by chance turn around and rub your hands together with someone who is telekinetic, gain some form of static electricity, then move the objects without touching them? You never really can say you did not do that, your the only one on video. Am I supposed to take your word for it? How "fuzzy" is your dog Sox? |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 18, 2005 Views: 1440 | RE: The "Tree". (how could I when it doesn't exist)(how could I if it doesn't exist). Is it a question of If or When? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 18, 2005 Views: 1438 | RE: The "Tree". Peter, I'm sorry but I just can't understand what it is you are trying to say. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 18, 2005 Views: 1437 | RE: The "Tree". May I propose this question: can you define "non TK"? What is "my non TK". That is really actually saying it WAS your TK that did not exist. As of yet due to the word "when". ---------- My direction is towards the word "if" and you. There is when and it. There is if and you. WAS is not necessarily a past tense word, in this case since it is hypothetically questioned. You could not possibly refer to yourself as part of a NON TK position if it was there, and say it (TK) does not exist. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next Page -> |