+ Submit News Link

Bobnus's Wall

Comments: 8      Total Stars: 1


Please log in or become a member to add a post.


No websites added.

Recent Public Comments

Posted:9/20/2008 3:18:31 PM
How serious is everyone of doing this? Because if there is some committment, I have some ideas.

Posted:9/20/2008 3:13:20 PM
I may have. I started arguing with what might have been one when some friends of mine were playing with an ouigia board. It claimed to be in heaven at the moment, so I asked it how it was moving the lens. Never did get an answer to that.

Posted:8/26/2008 6:24:51 PM
Interesting. Nice analogy. But my bits inform me that this world and the self may have more relevance than given credit for. ;)

Posted:8/26/2008 4:28:31 PM
I agree with Shaman in that there should be no collective in the sense that there are "official standards" etc. I like the idea of individuals or groups dabbling so to speak. It destroys all the asthetic of one's own paranormal investigatory team if it were bogged down with institutionalized rules. If such things are institutionalized, the institution becomes the dictator, it kills the ideas it doesn't like and you have another proverbial authoritarian regime controlling the movement of information. This is one of the reasons that I cannot stand the current education system. It discourages freethinking and debate on topics that particular ruling ideologies don't back. I do however also agree with Jeff. To a very large degree. This feild of investigation is considered a "pseudoscience" at best because of the percieved lack of rigour. In my opinion however, it has more of a lack of solid substantiated and well thought out advocacy. The obvious point as always should be to discover the truth. But to be taken seriously, one needs to establish a certain degree of credibility that seems profoundly absent in most of these groups I have come across. The evidence presented at most of the sites dealing with the paranormal seems shady at best, to a normal observer, and would be horrendus to a scientist. I am not trying to invalidate people, but yes a genuine collective is needed, but also clever and effecive rebuttles and responses that are easily accessible. Once we are organized enough, and effective enough, just make some noise. The more responses that are given by skeptics, the more credibility you gain. If you handle them well, people may rally behind you. Then once there is a truly united front on some of these basic propositions, you may very well win the day.

Posted:8/26/2008 3:58:27 PM
Hmm that would suck I like my individuality.

Posted:8/26/2008 3:57:26 PM
Personal variations are interesting... I have always suspected that the mind or the supernatural could speak to us through our minds using symbols. Which is why they may be personalized toward us... our minds feed them to our consious symbolically as perhaps that is the only way they can be expressed. Anyway those are my thoughts. Probably nuts but whatever.

Posted:8/26/2008 3:51:19 PM
Couldn't say. I would be more inclined to believe that they did have supernatural powers associated with the mayan calender than I would that they were superefficient quartz Crystal computers.

Posted:8/26/2008 3:48:21 PM
"He even goes so far as to compare the 12 apostles of Jesus to the zodiac, the time of the birth of Jesus to an astrological alignment (e.g. contrived), etc. etc... Amazing stuff, written in the 1920s." The astrological alignment is completely legit, there was different alignments all occurring in succession that pointed to a Great Jewish King being born. I saw a technical journal from the Royal Astronomical Society concerning that and the trek of the wise men that are said to have visited Jesus. Unfortunately the comparing the apostles with the zodiac isn't very legit. Folks like Archarya S, and the authors of the Zeitgiest are known for shoddy scholarship. Their nonsense about the existence of Jesus being "contrived" is a load of BS, No serious historian gives it any credence.