Even worse than that, someone who believes they can just see it via some extra sensory hibbery gibbery... all these crackpot ideas always seem to stem back to people who confuse their imagination with reality, reminds me of that Father Ted episode with the diagram of the bunnies in Dougal's brain.
Conspiracy theorist needs to goto Specsavers.
- Thread starter Teki187
- Start date
Even worse than that, someone who believes they can just see it via some extra sensory hibbery gibbery... all these crackpot ideas always seem to stem back to people who confuse their imagination with reality, reminds me of that Father Ted episode with the diagram of the bunnies in Dougal's brain.
Astral Projection isn't something you'll learn over night. It can take many years.
Remote viewing is not about using existing objects, it's about being able to "project" yourself anywhere you wish. It's supposedly associated with the whole phenomenon where some people have reported seeing from a viewpoint above their bodies during a traumatic operation in theatre, for example, attached by a thin ethereal cord to their physical being.
There is no scientific evidence to support this however, and I never got anywhere trying to do it in my almost hippy-ish "experimental" phase of life
The only reason I tried this is because I once had a bit of a weird experience when I was a kid and was in hospital for an operation. I managed to somehow remember fragments of conversation between the surgeon and other staff while I was unconscious - but that's probably to do with the fact that even while you are anaesthetised, your brain isn't completely shut down.
Last edited:
Never actually said i believe it....
Why is it that all of the so called evidence for every single conspiracy theory out there is either blurry photos or eye witness accounts from the mentally unstable?
We have telescopes powerful enough to perfectly image nebulae millions of light years away and yet we get a crappy photo from something as close as the moon? :/
We have telescopes powerful enough to perfectly image nebulae millions of light years away and yet we get a crappy photo from something as close as the moon? :/
There is no scientific evidence to support this however, and I never got anywhere trying to do it in my almost hippy-ish "experimental" phase of life
Everyone has psychic powers to some degree.
That degree however, is always 0.
That just means you have repressed homosexual urges
Damnit not again!
Remote viewing is not about using existing objects, it's about being able to "project" yourself anywhere you wish. It's supposedly associated with the whole phenomenon where some people have reported seeing from a viewpoint above their bodies during a traumatic operation in theatre, for example, attached by a thin ethereal cord to their physical being.
There is no scientific evidence to support this however, and I never got anywhere trying to do it in my almost hippy-ish "experimental" phase of life
Omg, you kidding.
Thats brings me back to my other point then. Gm lines of K will definetly let you see the dark side of the moon.
I didnt know thats whats remote viewing was. Hahahahaha
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 18,423
Leave me out of it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
To be fair, we don't have any telescope powerful enough to resolve centimetre-scale objects on the moon's surface.
Omg, you kidding.
Thats brings me back to my other point then. Gm lines of K will definetly let you see the dark side of the moon.
Yeah before that I thought remote viewing was perving at the girl across the alley with binoculars from my bedroom
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
OMG so thats where i left it!
Silly me
Silly me
Not being arguementative but cant hubble see like a millimetre difference from like 2000miles away, im sure that could have a good go
I think this might be relevant.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance.
They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness.
They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions.
For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions.
Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy.
And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Source.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18006217
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance.
They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness.
They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions.
For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions.
Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy.
And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Source.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18006217
OK I know we've got a few 911 conspiraloons but this??? - Are you on a wind up or do people like you actually post here? - That is absolutely hilarious - you seriously believe this stuff?