| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Why? | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Why? |
| Posted By: JT Posted On: May 12, 2010 Views: 836 | Why? Keith, Why do you keep up this dialog with people on these various topics? What are you looking for? Someone with proof? Surely, if someone has proof they will not demonstrate if for you. They would be the teacher. Do you enjoy these one sided dialogs? |
| Posted By: OWia Posted On: May 25, 2010 Views: 827 | RE: Why? Interesting, so your argument is not that someone has or does have TK but that the TK person should be called a teacher. Certainly, teacher, I would love to see and learn how you can do it. Please demonst-, I mean, uh, teach me how it's done. One-sided? Um, I believe you have posted here so it is not one-sided. Also, I believe Keith has mentioned that it is the other side that doesn't allow other ideas and those silly little things called facts into the discussion. What the professers (pun intended) aren't willing to accept is that they could be wrong. Keith on the other hand, I'd assume, and I would love to be proven wrong. Did you even read his page? It would be incredible! Unfortunately it just remains impossible until proven otherwise. So... teach. |
| Posted By: JT Posted On: May 25, 2010 Views: 825 | RE: Why? Keith has a blind spot to facts which he does not like or agree with. There are many, peer reviewed scientific papers documenting TK. The easiest to find are the Geller papers, specifically the ones Puthoff and Targ did at their SRI lab. [http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/g5.htm] TK has been well documented, but remains shrouded and clouded my misperceptions of the terminology and causal links. I'm not here to teach, or explain. This is hardly the platform to go into all the psychological aspects of what makes us believe what we do. Throughout our life we are taught by many people and many experiences. The mere connotation of what "seems" implies reasoning and reasoning comes from our historical programming. The truth about anything is largely influenced by what we believe, yet the truth is the truth and never changes unlike the beliefs from one person to another. To understand the truth one must set aside his belief systems and programming and understand it the way it actually is. The more complex something is the more difficult to see the truth, hence "You can't see the forest for the trees". If you don't know my truth, you would not understand my answer about TK. |
| Posted By: OWia Posted On: May 25, 2010 Views: 823 | RE: Why? ----Puthoff and Targ made the following remark at the end of the narration: "What we've demonstrated here are experiments that we performed in the laboratory and should not be interpreted as proof of psychic functioning."---- November of 2007, Uri Geller interview with Magische Welt (Magic World) - "I’ll no longer say that I have supernatural powers. I am an entertainer. I want to do a good show." Uri Geller on the tonight show FAIL - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKmhv9uoiQ So, now to try to see the individual trees in this veritable forest on obfuscation, I ask you this, JT, why do you bother to use a keyboard? |
| Posted By: JT Posted On: May 25, 2010 Views: 821 | RE: Why? What appears.... is what we "see". Our eyes deceive us in many ways and rarely reveal the 'truth'. Everything that is seen is relative to the viewer's perception point and that in itself is one of the worst forms of deception. How many times have you moved to get a better 'view' ? The truth of what we are looking at hasn't changed as a result of our new viewpoint only our perception of it. One can stand still and view from many vantage points to reveal the truth of what is seen. The fact you ask to be shown speaks to your perspective, The Doobie Brothers sung it better in a song... "What a fool can see, he believes. A wise man has the power to reason away", Much of the truth of what one sees is not what the eye can visualize but rather what it cannot. The truth is revealed not in what you can see but in what you cannot see. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words but many thousands more can be said or written about what you don't see in the same picture. How many times have you heard the expression "what's wrong with this picture?" ? In the late '60s and early '70s and again during the last decade, the CIA conducted tests in 'Remote Viewing', along with Puthoff and Targ [which is why they looked at Geller] Putting it simply, it is the ability to view objects, areas, etc. from one's current location without actually going there physically. The success of the project was overwhelming but NOT scientifically documentable. It required extensive training and individuals with rare abilities not related to the paranormal or extrasensory. It seems the best candidates were those who were least influenced by their environment and behavioral molding. The fact that our mind interprets what our eyes see and influences from our 'programming' determine what our minds interpret seemed to be the key to what made the best Remote Viewing candidates. In Biblical scriptures, it is written that "let he who has understanding know that "the Darkness conceals the truth and the truth is revealed in the light". It is quickly followed with the explanation that it is with our minds that we "see" things in the light and it is with our minds that we conceal in the dark. Our mind can "shed light on the subject" but it can also block it out in the darkness. Even a blind man can see the truth yet can also be deceived. It is his mind that actually provides the sight. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 26, 2010 Views: 818 | RE: Why? Blah blah blah. The Internet is stuffed full of words about TK, none of which prove a thing. In order to prove TK ALL that is required is for someone who claims to have TK to stop talking about it for a minute and instead give an actual demonstration. A single one minute demonstration beats ten trillion words. So as I say to all those that claim to have TK, put up or shut up. I wonder why they don't? It doesn't take a superhuman genius to figure out the answer to that one. |
| Posted By: imreadydoctor Posted On: Jun 15, 2010 Views: 798 | RE: Why? In biblical scriptures it is also written, "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." My point? The Bible is bat**** crazy, and should never be used as proof of anything, except for how bat**** crazy it is. |