| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> The results..... | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: The results..... |
| Posted By: Woodpecker Posted On: Jun 22, 2006 Views: 661 | RE: The results..... "An intelligent response would be appreciated. Show me you hold a meaningful argument." Does Nightshade have to agree with you for his/her argument to be considered both intelligent and well-argued? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 23, 2006 Views: 652 | RE: The results..... No, Nightshade does NOT have to agree with me. Just has to give an intellegent reply to my post. I am still waiting for it after 2 days...... I can wait. |
| Posted By: Nightshade Posted On: Jun 24, 2006 Views: 644 | RE: The results..... sorry for the wait, i've been working double shifts. in the post talking about N K, i believe i said that frogs have a "natural pacemaker" that keeps their hearts beating-even after death. that's what makes her stopping the heart amazing...if i didn't say that i'm sorry, but i said it now. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 24, 2006 Views: 641 | RE: The results..... Nightshade, Lets try and be sensible here. After you remove a heart from a frog (or any other creature) it will after a period stop beating. I think we can all agree on this very obvious fact? So when it does eventually stop how can any tker claim it is their TK that stopped it? As I said, it would stop anyway if it were my dog looking at it. In order to prove TK, then something needs to be done that wouldn't normally happen. Please tell me that you can see that and understand why that 'result' means nothing whatsoever. If on the other hand you can't understand that, then please don't bother to reply at all because it would so obviously be a waste of everyone's time. |
| Posted By: Nightshade Posted On: Jun 24, 2006 Views: 639 | RE: The results..... i can understand what you're saying, but the heart wasn't removed. there is a membrane around the frog's heart that keeps it beating for quite some time (unless removed, which it wasn't). it was a laboratory test with witnesses as well. i can understand if you don't believe this, i didn't believe it either, but i have seen videos of a frogs (dead) heart beating after death, and will see it in anatomy class in college this year. BTW, i really do appreciate you not insulting. this makes the conversation more worthwhile. |
| Posted By: Nightshade Posted On: Jun 24, 2006 Views: 638 | RE: The results..... i forgot, she also sped up and slowed down the heart rate of the dead frogs heart BEFORE stopping it. and with eyewitnesses in a laboratory setting, that's pretty amazing. think of it what you will. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 24, 2006 Views: 634 | RE: The results..... I am not disputing that it happened. The point I am trying to make is that it is impossible in this case to claim that TK had any effect. What should have happened is that an identical frog's heart should have been studied in another room to see what happened to it naturally, without any attempt at TK. The two results could then have been compared. Even if that had been done how can anyone claim that it was TK? How do they know what would have happened to the 'TK' heart anyway? If on the other hand she said before she started that she would speed it up, then slow it down, then speed it up then stop it, it would carry more conviction that it was her doing it when it happened. In order to prove TK something needs to be done that couldn't happen on its own. A dying heart is unpredictable, who knows how and when it would speed up, slow down or stop? That is why that example is totally meaningless. It is worth noting that people like myself immediatly recognise examples like that as being worthless, for the reasons stated. TKers on the other hand are happy to herald it as proof of TK. TK supporters, in the vast majority of cases, do not care or understand how demonstrations, or tests, should be conducted. They see the word 'lab' or 'witnesses' and are immediatly convinced. That's why they believe in TK. When challenged with the fact that TK has never been demonstrated they come up with all sorts of reasons as to why not, all of which are a bit lame to say the least. It doesn't exist. Period. |
| Posted By: Nightshade Posted On: Jun 25, 2006 Views: 631 | RE: The results..... sorry for the long reply, just want to get this post over with so i can get some sleep. "I am not disputing that it happened. The point I am trying to make is that it is impossible in this case to claim that TK had any effect. What should have happened is that an identical frog's heart should have been studied in another room to see what happened to it naturally, without any attempt at TK. The two results could then have been compared." i see your point, but no two hearts are identical, so that would be kind of hard. "Even if that had been done how can anyone claim that it was TK? How do they know what would have happened to the 'TK' heart anyway? If on the other hand she said before she started that she would speed it up, then slow it down, then speed it up then stop it, it would carry more conviction that it was her doing it when it happened." i believe while she was performing, she said she was going to speed up and slow down the heart...i'm not sure, i'll have to re-check. "In order to prove TK something needs to be done that couldn't happen on its own. A dying heart is unpredictable, who knows how and when it would speed up, slow down or stop? That is why that example is totally meaningless." i disagree. like i said, a frog's heart has a natural pacemaker. this makes the heart beat at a consistant rate (unless of course it is startled or holding it's breath ect...but since the frog is dead, it no longer has cognition or fear.) speeding it up, slowing it down, and stopping it is evidence of something. she said what she was going to do before she did it, which leans the experiment more to the "TK" side. "It is worth noting that people like myself immediatly recognise examples like that as being worthless, for the reasons stated. TKers on the other hand are happy to herald it as proof of TK. TK supporters, in the vast majority of cases, do not care or understand how demonstrations, or tests, should be conducted. They see the word 'lab' or 'witnesses' and are immediatly convinced. That's why they believe in TK." i disagree. i was skeptical of this experiment at first. once i searched N K more and saw all of the tests she was put through (and "passed") i started to accept this test as proof of some sort of TK or paranormal phenomena. not all TKer's take everything as fact, just the fluffbunnies (i'll explain if you don't know that term). i think you are generalizing all TK supporters with fluffbunnies. there are many TK supporters that were skeptic at first, but after research and tests that they put themselves under with friends and even family, they started to believe in TK. i myself am one of them. "When challenged with the fact that TK has never been demonstrated they come up with all sorts of reasons as to why not, all of which are a bit lame to say the least." It doesn't exist. Period. i haven't came up with reasons why not. i have presented sorts of data and archived research that concerned TK. whether or not you believe it is up to you, but the results are out there. i define TK as the movement of matter in which modern physics can't explain, or the laws don't apply. whether we are actually using our will to move objects, some sort of electromagnetic field generated by the body, or some spiritual/paranormal force is yet to be proven. by electromagnetic force, i don't mean our body charging electrons to repel/pull objects, i mean some sort of field that is conciously (sp?) emitted from our body at will. "It doesn't exist. Period." opinion, not fact. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 ] |