The Museum of Hoaxes
Lobsang Rampa
Posted By:

Jun 12, 2004
 Your review on TL Rampa is rather outdated and is borne out of an incredible constipated realisation of truth. I have studied his works for the last 25 years and boy are you WRONG! But then you have no knowledge of transmigration and the higher dimensions that pervades all universes. Learn to see within yourself first before you write such drivel. The ultimate HOAX is you, as you believe in your limited 2D reality. If you practised 1 iota of TLR's techniques - you would see the truth for yourself instead of begging (for Hoaxes). But then idiots like yourself are what makes the web fun, I suppose. So dream on.
Category: Celebrities; Replies: 216

Comments
Page 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4
wicked
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 | 10:52 PM
That's right, we must always think outside the box...

There are still lots of things Science cant explain. Actually "Science" for me means "human intelligence"... Do humans know everything already? NO!

High Tech? We always heard of this word nowadays, funny an airplane that can fly more than the speed of sound is High tech for us but we cant even replicate the safest way of flying like how the birds fly? (no wonder, many people died in an aircrash accident and we cant do anything about it at the present time but to rely on our LUCK! We are still idiots)...

Ignorance is Boring, Live Curious! hehehehe
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 | 01:25 AM
Kris said:

"First off, spirituality has been around for thousands of years, so tell me what is so 'new age' about it."

I'm perfectly well aware of the enduring nature of spirituality. That particular website seemed to be of the New Age variety.

I have attended a New Age get-together or two and the adherents seem to be partial to "vibrations," "auras" and that kind of nonsense.

"I don't know what site or tv show you need to see it on to believe it."

I don't need to see it on ANY TV show. If it was legitimate, it would be reported everywhere. As I said, it would be an astounding development, comparable to splitting the atom. It would give rise to medical breakthroughs and other things we can't even predict. There would be billions of dollars to be made from it.

So why aren't we reading, seeing and hearing about this everywhere rather than on a few New Age websites? Where's the front page story in the New York Times?

"Your problem is, you won't believe anything that can't be grown in a petri dish."

And YOUR problem seems to be that you believe anything that confirms your view of the universe, even if there are no actual FACTS to back it up.

I'll be perfectly happy--ecstatic actually--to believe in it if and when the "discoverers" demonstrate it to the public.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 | 01:33 AM
Wicked said:

"There are still lots of things Science cant explain. Actually "Science" for me means "human intelligence"... Do humans know everything already? NO!"

Kind of a straw man argument there, Wicked. Who is claiming that humans know everything?

"High Tech? We always heard of this word nowadays, funny an airplane that can fly more than the speed of sound is High tech for us but we cant even replicate the safest way of flying like how the birds fly? (no wonder, many people died in an aircrash accident and we cant do anything about it at the present time but to rely on our LUCK! We are still idiots)..."

Huh? Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say there. As for humans not being able to fly like a bird, that has a lot to do with weight/power ratios. As you may have noticed, birds are considerably lighter than humans and most of their energy goes into getting off the ground and flying. Also, humans don't have wings.

As a matter of face, a few weeks ago I saw something on the Web about people having built an ornothopter, a device that allows people to fly like a bird. Because of the physics I mentioned above, it isn't a terribly practical device but it does work for very short flights.

By the way, there is considerably more than "luck" involved in aviation being the safest form of travel. You want to thank an Air Traffic Controller for starters.

"Ignorance is Boring, Live Curious!"

I would amend that to say "Ignorance is boring. Live Curious...but not gullible."
Kris
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 | 01:14 PM
That's your only argument whenever someone makes a point

' Its all nonsense'

But you know that you have even less scientific evidence disproving lobsangs claims than we do for proving it.

I've shown you links, may showed you all sorts of websites to look at.

So how about you show us some information and articles stating how it's impossible besides your own personal opinion.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 | 01:47 PM
Kris said:

"So how about you show us some information and articles stating how it's impossible besides your own personal opinion."

See, that's the thing, Kris. It's not my "opinion," it's what's been determined by science over the past few centuries.

You want me to prove a negative. How exactly would one go about that? If I showed you scientific literature that says that what Rampa claimed to be able to do was impossible, you'd answer "Science doesn't know everything. Rampa's abilities were beyond what science understands."

The fact that you've found some websites that agree with you is irrelevant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'll give you an example. If I said I could fly under my own power like a bird, would you take my word for it? Would you believe me if I merely showed you some website that agreed with my claim? Would you not want to see me do it before you believed me? If not, why not?

What Rampa claimed to be able to do defies the known laws of physics. The fact that he conned other people into believing him is no reason to think that he was anything other than a knowing fraud.
Kris
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 | 02:03 PM
Well the way I see it, I have some literature to support my opinion, however questionable it is. (by your standards)

On the other hand you haven't shown me anything to support your claim of it being impossible.


All you're going on is what you know, and since you haven't really read lobsangs books, or have any proof to show his claims to be impossible, I'm going to say you don't know much on the topic at all...and therefore shouldn't have such a strong opinion on a topic you know nothing about.

You contradict yourself when you say and agree that humans don't kno everything and then use these laws of physics, (thought of, by humans) to be your main argument.
Kris
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 | 02:21 PM
And if lobsang really defies the laws of physics, wouldn't there be an article somewhere, or a scientist proving it wrong.

Lobsang is a well known figure, wouldnt someone do the research and explain how his claims defy these laws and record it somewhere accessible for all to see.

Cause that in itself is a pretty big claim cranky, you seem so sure that it defies the laws of physics but you haven't shown me any books, or videos or websites that prove that very point.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 | 02:26 AM
Kris said:

"And if lobsang really defies the laws of physics, wouldn't there be an article somewhere, or a scientist proving it wrong."

Actually there are many such things, Kris. Try looking at any physics textbook in your local library. Let me know when you find one that says that a cat can dictate a book telepathically. Thanks.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 | 02:38 AM
I'm going to try using your form of "logic" here, Kris.

I don't usually tell people this but I actually CAN fly just like a bird, under my own power. No wires, no outside energy source. It's pretty amazing really.

I'm sure you believe my claim since you reject the notion of something being against the laws of physics (since they're just an invention of human beings, according to you).

Obviously my claim of being able to fly must be true since there is no book or website that specifically says I can't. Certainly YOU can't prove that I CANNOT fly like a bird, can you?

Using the "logic" you've established in our discussion of Rampa's claims, the burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove without a shadow of doubt that my fantastic claim isn't true, then it MUST be true.

If Rampa claimed to be able to teleport and his cat could allegedly dictate a book telepathically and you require no proof whatsoever to back up his claims, you have no choice but to accept MY claim unquestioningly.

I mean, you aren't bound by Western notions of what is possible and impossible, are you? After all, science doesn't know everything, right? You DO think outside the box, don't you?
Kris
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 | 01:03 PM
You make a valid point but here is the BIG difference between your point and mine.

1) You're the only person out there claiming he can fly.

I have millions of others that will agree with me.

2) A simple google search will show you all the necessary information to show you why you cannot fly.
- you dont have a hollow skeleton
- you're too big for your wingspan
- you have no wingspan

You have yet to show me any information to prove my claims to be false.

3) You're the only person that claims to be able to fly, and you only came up with this notion yesterday.

My notion has been around for thousands of years, studied and practiced by millions of people, whereas your the lone wolf on your claim.



If you can find me some 'new age websites' and a few more people that agree with you. Show me a book that was written on how to fly, and I may take you a little more seriously.

My point has a little more credibility than your claim. There is plenty of information out there that will show you how to attain a certain level of spirituality so you too can see for yourself that this stuff is possible, whereas I was unable to find anything that will show me how to fly.
flyingvivaldi
Member
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 | 04:07 AM
Kris, I'm not quite understanding your arguments.

1) Why does Cranky being the only one claiming he can fly mean that he can't?

2) You are falling back on the accepted known laws of physics in this point which is what I thought you were trying to argue against.

3) Repeats your first point, and again - why does the point at which Cranky 'discovered' he could fly affect whether he actually can or not?

In the rest of your post, the criteria for whether a claim (or notion) is true or not seems to be based on how many websites and books support the claim. There is no actual necessity for a correlation between the two as I see it.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 | 01:56 PM
Thanks, flyingvivaldi, you beat me to the very points I wanted to make.

Kris, this very websites has many articles about hoaxes which were reporter on in many media outlets. Take a look at the story currently on top of the front page. I sent the link to it to Alex, the guy who runs this site. The story was reported on by many sources on the web and in print. An untruth does not magically becomes true via repetition. You might also take a look at snopes.com for further evidence of this fact.


By the way, it isn't correct to say that I just made up my claim to be able to fly. I have made that assertion many times in the past on this website. Using your logic, since I have said it multiple times and no one has yet proven that I CANNOT fly, I must be able to.

You reject physics when it comes to Rampa's claims but you fall back on them when it comes to mine. Why the disparity?

The bottom line here is that you believe what "Rampa" wrote not because there is any evidence or any facts to back it up but because you CHOOSE to believe it.
Kris
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 | 03:42 PM
You guys are missing my point. I believe rampa because ive tried it and learned for myself.

I don't believe you because you haven't shown ne how to fly.


And I'm not falling back on physics just Making the point that there is evidence out there stating why you cannot fly, you have not shown me anything that says how and which laws of physics rampa defies.

It's funny that you guys can't read and study and learn for yourself, instead you need some guy with a phd in a lab coat to tell you it's true and then you'll believe it.



Stay off this forum for a year, go practice what rampa has to say with an open mind and you'll get your proof.

Sounds easy enough right? Why are you so scared to try it?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 | 05:53 PM
Kris said:

"You guys are missing my point. I believe rampa because ive tried it and learned for myself."

What exactly have you tried? Could you please be more specific?

Have you had a cat dictate a book to you telepathically? Just so you know, that would violate everything we know about biology.
Kris
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 | 07:44 PM
You know what cranky.... If I tell you, we're just gonna end up at the beginning of this argument where, you're going to tell me how impossible that is and that I'm just talking smack.

You want to know, go figure it out. If not, then don't take it upon yourself to learn something, wait for the man in the labcoat to tell you what to believe.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 | 01:50 AM
You know, Kris, it's funny. When I make a fantastic claim, you say:

"I don't believe you because you haven't shown ne how to fly.

"And I'm not falling back on physics just Making the point that there is evidence out there stating why you cannot fly"

But when "Rampa" or you makes fantastic claims and you're asked for proof, you say:

"You want to know, go figure it out. If not, then don't take it upon yourself to learn something, wait for the man in the labcoat to tell you what to believe."

To paraphrase you, Kris, there is evidence out there why "Rampa" couldn't get a book dictated to him telepathically by a cat. LOTS of it.

So, which is it, are you going by the known laws of physics or are you ignoring them in favor of stuff you just choose to believe in?
flyingvivaldi
Member
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 | 02:35 AM
Hi Kris,
"It's funny that you guys can't read and study and learn for yourself, instead you need some guy with a phd in a lab coat to tell you it's true and then you'll believe it."

Why do you think I don't read and study and learn for myself? I read constantly on the subject including books from Fritjof Capra, Jane Roberts (the great Seth books), Nick Herbert and Amit Goswami (both Ph.D. in physics) and the late Michael Talbot - and many, many others over the years. Incidentally I've read around 8 of Rampa's books.

"Stay off this forum for a year, go practice what rampa has to say with an open mind and you'll get your proof."

Staying off the forum is not an option - this thread is far too much fun! I have practiced some of the things Rampa had to say and actually had some apparent success. I generally do not rubbish the content of Rampa's books - indeed I think that he was well educated in his knowledge of Tibetan culture. But for me the single most important thing is to make up your own mind based on clear logical thinking and yes, an open mind. Talbot highlights some amazing experiments in physics whose results are very difficult to answer. Scientists vary in their interpretations, and are subject to a fear of the unknown just like the rest of us - I believe many of them are reluctant to let go of more classically-oriented physics more for psychological reasons than anything else. They also quite understandably don't want to put themselves in a position of being rubbished by their peers for putting forward radical hypotheses. David Bohm was one of the few who was brave enough not to care.

In summary, I'll turn the table on you here Kris and suggest that perhaps it's you who should do a bit more reading and studying - and then more than one author!
Kris
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 | 06:07 PM
Lol cranky... It's almost as if you don't speak English or something.

You want to know how to astral travel? You can learn, you just have to educate yourself and try it yourself


Where can I learn how to fly, so that I too can try it????


And as for Vivaldi....I've actually read numerous books and numerous articles, as well as studied all major world religions.
The reason I keep talking about rampa is because that's the man in question right now.

I was born a catholic, I have gone to church almost every week in my younger days, I've gone to catechism classes every Saturday before my communion and my confirmation.

The reason I am no longer a practicing catholic is because it didn't answer many questions I had. It just told me to believe and that was it...and I think that's where cranky's coming from . He thinks I'm just telling him something and forcing him to believe it, not my intention at all...you said you have practiced some of rampas teachings and had some success...so all I ask of cranky is to do the same.

If you look in my previous posts no where did I tell him to believe me because I said so... I keep saying, go learn about the topic, practice and you shall see for yourself. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody, it just bugs me when people who have not done any of their own research call bullshit on something they clearly know nothing about.


It's just like people who think all Muslims are terrorists and it's what their religion preaches. Well those who know about Islam know that their religion is not about that at all, but actually a few bad seeds that give the rest of the practicing Muslims a bad name.

Cranky you read somewhere a small bit of information that seems unlikely in your eyes and started saying everything is bullshit and nonsense.

If you actually knew something about it, and told me " hey Kris, I've done my research, and gave it an honest try. I've meditated and tried to astral travel (for example)for the past year but I had no success at all, and none of it worked. So what your saying is all bullshit, I don't believe you" ......then I would understand where your coming from, but instead your so certain that it's impossible when you (as rude as it sounds) know nothing nor have ever tried to understand where we're coming from.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 | 01:18 AM
You know, Kris, it's funny how when I ask you for proof of any of "Rampa"'s (or your) claims, you tell me I have to find it for myself but when *I* make a claim you want me to supply the proof to YOU.

"Cranky you read somewhere a small bit of information that seems unlikely in your eyes and started saying everything is bullshit and nonsense. "

No, I do NOT say that "everything is bullshit and nonsense." What I DO say is that a guy who claimed to have traveled to Tibet and changed his story to having traveled there via astral projection when people who knew came forth and said that he never left England was full of shit.

Just so I'm clear, do you actually believe that you can astrally project yourself to a given location? I have a way we can test that (although I'm quite sure you'll find a way to weasel out of it).
flyingvivaldi
Member
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 | 01:50 AM
> Just so I'm clear, do you actually believe that you can astrally project yourself to a given location? I have a way we can test that

Astral travel (or its equivalent) can easily be "proved" and has been proved frequently already. Unfortunately the people it has been proved to - i.e. the people who substantiate it - are written off as having an over-active imagination, being wishful thinkers, or just plain liars. Controlled tests have been carried out with some success and are well documented, but as I said in my previous post, it's not enough to present controlled scientific results. Cranky I disagree that presentation of such results automatically results in world headlines and a turnaround of popular beliefs. People are rooted to a belief set and it takes an awful lot to convince them otherwise. Quantum physics has been around for over a century and its implications still haven't entered the common psyche.

Astral travel is something I am convinced I have personally achieved several times - but I would love to be able to tell people I was able to prove it. For a period some years ago I shuffled a pack of cards, took one out at random and without looking at it put it face up on top of a wardrobe in a locked room. My aim was to find out what the card was during astral travel. Unfortunately my conscious astral travelling was so rare that I never achieved it. But when I read of people who have 'proved' astral travel using similar methods, my tendency is to give them credence.
Kris
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 | 03:04 PM
See again your misunderstanding me so maybe I can't try once more....

The proof you are looking for is in the teachings of people like rampa.. So you go to your local chapters or indigo and buy one of these books. Then you practice what it says and then you have your proof.

Now all I want from you is a link or a book or an article that teaches me how to fly. I'm willing to put forth the effort in learning how to fly. So where can I get some guidance?


And from page one of this thread you have been saying " it's proven lobsang was a fraud"..." it's been PROVEN hes a fake" So you're making a pretty big statement, all I ask of you is to show me your source of proof so that I can do my own research.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 | 06:23 PM
"Astral travel (or its equivalent) can easily be "proved" and has been proved frequently already. Unfortunately the people it has been proved to - i.e. the people who substantiate it - are written off as having an over-active imagination, being wishful thinkers, or just plain liars. Controlled tests have been carried out with some success and are well documented, but as I said in my previous post, it's not enough to present controlled scientific results."

I have a simple way for you to prove that you can travel astrally. Trust me, if you can pass this test, I will not only concede the existence of astral projection, I will do everything in my power to publicize your ability to do it. So are you game or is this going to one of those "I really CAN do it, I just can't prove it" things?
flyingvivaldi
Member
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 | 12:49 AM
Yes, you are close with that statement, only I would change it slightly to " I believe I really can do it, I just haven't been able to prove it yet". It's not my life's mission to prove anything to other people anyway, my personal quest is to explore the fascinating convergence we are seeing between science, philosophy and religion (at least eastern religion). Every scientist will concede that the world presented by our 5 senses is a total misrepresentation and bears no obvious resemblance to the reality which is activating those senses. I would never want to trust my senses to tell me what "reality" is as they have given me the wrong information since the moment I was born. Each of us creates our entire world-view inside our heads actually raising the (frightening) thought that each of us could be a solipsist (but only one of us - whether that is you, Kris or me is open to debate!) Phenomena such as non-locality has already been proven by quantum physics, and yet it's implications hardly set the world alight. I don't remember reading any headline news along the lines of "Instantaneous Communication Possible Over Any Distance!" Elton John having kids is far more interesting. Frankly, reality is not what it seems. Science cannot yet explain reality and readily admits that not only are our methods of analysis unsatisfactory, but the analysis itself changes reality at the point of analysis. We comfort ourselves with the thought that our scientists are clever wonderful people who can give us some exciting news to think about every now and then (light can't escape a black hole - how fascinating) but the truth is that scientists are at a total loss to explain what reality IS. Is it any wonder that many great scientists, thinker and philosophers are embracing the logic of eastern religions? Cranky, astral travel may seem like nonsense to you, but in the greater scheme of things it's a mere drop in the ocean of the unknown at the moment.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 | 01:40 AM
This is how it always goes with people who claim extraordinary abilities. When you say, "OK, show me!" suddenly the excuses start to pile up.

"I can do it, just not when anyone is looking."

"I can do it, just not in the presence of skeptics."

"I can do it, but I'm not going to show off for the likes of you."


And on and on and on. Why is it too much to simply ask to be shown this amazing ability which defies the known laws of physics? I truly do have a very simple test for it. Funny, if I thought I could do something as amazing as astrally project myself, I wouldn't hesitate to show anyone who wanted to see me do it. After all, it would be the single greatest breakthrough in human advancement in history. Why wouldn't I want to be the person who brought that to my fellow man?

Prove to me you can astrally project and I'll give you Human Flying lessons. Promise.
flyingvivaldi
Member
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 | 02:37 AM
You talking to me or Kris? If you are talking to me, I expressed none of the statements:

"I can do it, just not when anyone is looking."
"I can do it, just not in the presence of skeptics."
"I can do it, but I'm not going to show off for the likes of you."

And if you think I did, then please read my posts a little more carefully.

I repeat my statement that when shown overwhelming evidence, people (like yourself) will simply reject it if it doesn't fit their belief system.

The case of Pam Reynolds is a good example where the arguments of the sceptics frankly pale compared to the evidence for a genuine out of body experience. And it still didn't change the world. The root of the problem is that we are too ensconced in our own comfortable little realities. Looming environmental disasters, famines in African countries or child labour in the far east don't really bother us. When we eat our roast chicken we don't really care how the chicken suffered for our convenience. Famous singer proves out-of-body experiences are real? I'll read it later... turn page. Global financial crisis threatens our savings. NOW WE'RE TALKING HEADLINES!
May
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 | 03:01 AM
Strange that people demand proof before believing anything, but what is proof? We each have our own ideas but crass statements like
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 | 01:19 AM
Kris said:

"The proof you are looking for is in the teachings of people like rampa.. So you go to your local chapters or indigo and buy one of these books. Then you practice what it says and then you have your proof."

Why do I have to study anything for you to prove that YOU can perform astral travel? Either you can or you can't. All I'm asking for is a demonstration of the ability you claim you have. What is unreasonable about that?

May said:

"The proof you are looking for is in the teachings of people like rampa.. So you go to your local chapters or indigo and buy one of these books. Then you practice what it says and then you have your proof."

But what I want is proof that Kris, flyingvivaldi, you or anyone else can do these things. All you have to do to make a believer out of me is simply show me you really can do these things. If you truly can perform astral travel, the simple test I have in mind will prove it conclusively.

May said:

"Statement by the Great 13th: People need what they imagine is proof, but
May
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 | 02:41 AM
CMG,

You are going about all this in completely the wrong way!!! It CANNOT be demonstrated just for your gratification. Anything to do with Metaphysics MUST be personally experience to know!

Let
flyingvivaldi
Member
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 | 02:51 AM
> If I could do the things you people claim to be able to do, I would demonstrate them to the world because it would represent a HUGE step forward in our knowledge of the world around us

Any chance of you keeping up with the conversation here Cranky? I repeat my repeated statement that when shown overwhelming evidence, people (like yourself) will simply reject it if it doesn't fit their belief system.

Pam Reynolds is one example I mentioned already (BBC doc on YouTube looks worth watching although I haven't done so yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k). Psychologist Charles Tart Ph.D. has a good paper at http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=31 which documents his controlled experiment with an OBE-er who correctly identified a 5-digit number place out of normal view. The work of Karlis Osis, similar to Tart's, is mentioned here http://cref.tripod.com/article_oberesearch.htm along with several other controlled experiments involving OBEs. There has been plenty of research with positive results. Has is changed the world? Nah. But for receptive people, it has already "represented a HUGE step forward in our knowledge of the world around us". And like Quantum Physics, we can see the end results, but we (in the west at least) are just not sure how to explain them yet.

May and Kris - interesting as the Rampa books are, I suggest you would benefit and broaden your horizons if you were to read some other material on the paranormal apart from the work of one man.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 | 01:50 PM
May said:

"You are going about all this in completely the wrong way!!! It CANNOT be demonstrated just for your gratification. Anything to do with Metaphysics MUST be personally experience to know!"

*sigh* But YOU people are the ones who claim to be able to do the impossible. All I'm asking for is to actually SEE what you say you can do. Trust me, if you can show me that you really CAN do any of the things you lay claim to, I WILL become a student of it. So would millions of others, by the way.

flyingvivaldi said:

"Any chance of you keeping up with the conversation here Cranky? I repeat my repeated statement that when shown overwhelming evidence, people (like yourself) will simply reject it if it doesn't fit their belief system."

Nonsense. The simple demonstration I have in mind is similar to the playing card experiment you described. If you could pass it, I'd have NO choice but to believe in your abilities.

The pattern never varies. Someone makes extraordinary claims; when they are challenged, they try to put the burden on the other party to prove a negative. When a test that would prove or disprove their claims is proposed, the excuses start.

Please do not give me this, "You wouldn't believe it even if we demonstrated it" stuff. If you could demonstrate an ability to do the simple thing I'll propose, I absolutely WOULD believe in your powers. So, you guys game or are you going to come up with more excuses?
flyingvivaldi
Member
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 | 03:44 PM
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 | 07:16 PM
"Why do you think I have any particular abilities Cranky? I said only that I believe I have had out of body experiences. They occurred competely unpredictably probably 2 or 3 times in my entire life, so why should I suddenly be able to conjure up one for your "experiment"?"

My comments were generic, not specifically about you.

"Any chance of you keeping up with the conversation here Cranky? I repeat my repeated statement that when shown overwhelming evidence, people (like yourself) will simply reject it if it doesn't fit their belief system."

Remember when I said:

"I can do it, just not when anyone is looking."
"I can do it, just not in the presence of skeptics."
"I can do it, but I'm not going to show off for the likes of you."

Seems to me you're employing a combination of the second and third ones.

You have to understand that I've issued similar challenges many times to people who claim to have extraordinary abilities. Several years ago on Yahoo, some people said they could conjure up "spells" that could kill a person. I challenged them to go ahead and kill me. All I needed to know was when they were going to do it so it could be verified. That's when the excuses started flying (and no, none of them were based on the immorality of killing a stranger).

To suggest that I need to study "Rampa" or anybody else's claims before you can show me that you can perform astral travel is utter nonsense. If you could pass my simple test, you would have proven the existence of the magical power you claim to have absolutely. It's the same old story, though:

"I can do it, just not when anyone is looking."
"I can do it, just not in the presence of skeptics."
"I can do it, but I'm not going to show off for the likes of you."

If you say you can perform astral travel but you can't or won't demonstrate your amazing ability and still expect me to believe you, then you really have NO logical basis to refuse to believe that I can fly under my own power even though I will not demonstrate it for you. After all, why should I suddenly fly in front of you for your "experiment"?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 | 02:16 AM
By the way, flyingvivaldi, I'm a little confused. You claim to be have personally experienced astral travel, but then you say:

"Why do you think I have any particular abilities Cranky?"

If a person could truly perform astral travel, that most certainly would qualify as a "particular ability."
flyingvivaldi
Member
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 | 04:53 AM
Fair enough.. if you're going to split hairs and it stops you getting confused then we'll call it an ability.

"I can do it, just not in the presence of skeptics."
"I can do it, but I'm not going to show off for the likes of you."
Seems to me you're employing a combination of the second and third ones.

Please explain why you think that. I've never even thought about sceptics and I certainly don't consider I have anything to show off. I'm very interested how you come to this conclusion.

I take it then that you are just going to ignore the overwhelming evidence in favour of the existence of out-of-body experiences. That's precisely what I meant when I said that people will simply reject evidence that doesn't fit their belief system - your method of rejecting it appears to be to just completely ignore it (and continue to ask that I astral travel to your room or wherever it is you want me to go?!?!). You can't explain how a clinically dead person can recall a verifiable conversation when she is revived later, so choose instead to just ignore it. But by making that (typically materialist) decision you are as guilty as any of the people in this thread of ignoring facts.

Science is far too conservative and safe, and gives rise to this materialism where matter and material interactions are all there is. It strikes me it is from this angle that you are approaching this discussion and probably your entire life. But materialism struggles to explain the implications of new physics and frankly doesn't really cut it. David Bohm, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of his generation, once said "Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one". Do you want to ask for the proof or shall I?
wicked
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 | 06:18 PM
hahaha, why so serious guys? relax everyone ^_^

Cranky said:

"Huh? Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say there. As for humans not being able to fly like a bird, that has a lot to do with weight/power ratios. As you may have noticed, birds are considerably lighter than humans and most of their energy goes into getting off the ground and flying. Also, humans don't have wings.

As a matter of face, a few weeks ago I saw something on the Web about people having built an ornothopter, a device that allows people to fly like a bird. Because of the physics I mentioned above, it isn't a terribly practical device but it does work for very short flights."

I just made an example regarding "SCIENCE", because from what I've read, it's like that you only believe on what science can explain. You're always asking for any evidence, but in reality there's still a lot of things that we cant ("Science") explain ^_^

I just made an example about aircraft because "we" rely so much from it but in reality, its a piece of flying coffin. I made that example to point out that our "science" is not that advance to rely on for any answers that we cant explain.

FYI, I'm not a reader of Rampa's book, but I know someone who read almost all of his book, and when he told me a story about some of Rampa's book, I'm just amazed. An aircraft or what we're calling "UFO" that can fly using the planets magnetic field? hmmm why cant we do that, is that possible? I know Maglev exist and Science also knows about the Earth's magnetic field... ^_^

\m/
wicked
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 | 06:58 PM
Cranky said:

"I don't need to see it on ANY TV show. If it was legitimate, it would be reported everywhere. As I said, it would be an astounding development, comparable to splitting the atom. It would give rise to medical breakthroughs and other things we can't even predict. There would be billions of dollars to be made from it.

So why aren't we reading, seeing and hearing about this everywhere rather than on a few New Age websites? Where's the front page story in the New York Times?"

Not all discoveries will be broadcast immediately... I dont know if you're the only person who believes that it will go to the newspaper as soon as new technology is discovered.. Will the US tell the world now that they already have a working force field if ever? hehehe

Cranky said:

"Have you had a cat dictate a book to you telepathically? Just so you know, that would violate everything we know about biology."

hmmm, how do you think "other" animals communicate by just saying "meowwww, meowwww" or "awwwww, awwww"? violate everything about biology? that's our point, dont rely too much on science...
Page 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.