Why I dont believe in HDRs

[StarLord]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

True, now, if it could do something real like Uncle Fester lighting up a light bulb when he sticks it in his mouth, you would really have something to talk about during Show & Tell.

 

[J-Truthseeker]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

Greetings there,

While reading through these topic strings on this forum, it amazes me to know end just how much the majority of these skeptical posts are not written with any real objective intentions. As much as I can understand using a bit of healthy skepticism in certain cases which I've often used myself in regards to certain UFO claims, I've also investigated over the years the kind of skepticism that holds no validity of any sort. In a way I'm also very much skeptical of what people constitute as skepticism. Usually you just have people who sit at home in front of their computers who post, not skepticism, but rather criticism because they need something more to feel good for their own self importance.

A perfect example of this usually happens in cases involving places of UFO sightings and people with UFO contacts. More often then not and I still see this time and time and time again, skeptics will always fail to check out the actual places and proof where UFOs are reported to be seen, nor do they attempt to actually see and film for themselves the act of those very people who can actually call down UFOs and board the craft. Their response of course is, "UFOs can't possibly exist and those people who make such wild claims aren't worth looking into, nor even investigating!".

Notice how skeptics usually is a COP OUT based only on assumption when confronted by real situations??? No kidding!!!

I also know of situations where skeptics will also commit their own frauds, such as drawing those strings in on those real UFO photos and the denial of evidence when presented or given the actual proof to examine. In real cases where this has actually happened and then when later not presented with the real evidence, that in turn will become their base for argument. So exactly what constitutes proof??? The answer is nothing does, because even under strict scientific analysis of scientifically controlled environments, science by todays standards defines evidence as being proven only when it's disproven. This of course defeats the real purpose of any true findings and furthermore promotes the egos of those who strive for the highest credibility. Therefore it is true that among the majority of the Earth human beings, self importance is viewed as far more important then life itself! People have this uncanny belief that if they can go to their grave with a well known name in history, then they've achieved this life long goal and if they can get their with an institutionalized certified ego, then they are all the more happier. Now let's look at this a bit further. throughout people's lives people are taught what to believe and what not to believe, what to accept as truth and what not to accept as truth, they are taught what to think, YET THEY ARE NOT TAUGHT HOW TO THINK. Then perhaps it should come as no surprise that the greatest prophets, and scientific thinking minds in human history all had one thing in common and that is they all could independently think for themselves. They knew how to think.

As strange as it all sounds, people who are diagnosed with mental and emotional disorders, do in fact make up the majority of those who are artistic, creative and open minded. Unfortunately, only less then one percent of those people who are open minded, creative and artistic, are considered to be level headed and in rare cases truly psychic with a kind of developed six sense. Fortunately those numbers are increasing as certain events in the world are also increasing. What this suggests is that in many cases it's not until a person develops a psychiatric disorder of some kind, then do they consider the possibilities of there being more to their own thinking existence than what they've being taught in school all these years, and that's unfortunate because by that time these thinking disorders usually lead the person astray to some real serious emotional, mental and even physical health problems. Perhaps then it comes as no surprised that un-institutionalized individuals express a much higher lever of creativity in their lives by far then say those certified with PhDs. Even will known physicist Steven Hawking probably would not have achieved his level of intelligence without having a neurological disability such as MS.

Getting back to Steven Gibbs and his so called HDRs. First of all, Steven Gibbs was not the person who actually invented, nor designed from scratch the HDRs. He specifically mentions two people before him, these being Jim Gerrard and Bruce Perault, both of whom called it the Sonic Resonator. Steven Gibbs only started building his units from their design and started calling it the HDR. So in getting the facts straight, not once have I seen as of yet in going through this forum, any enquiries from any skeptic as to investigating these other 2 individuals, and to even find out if they actually exist. Perhaps I have not come across this information on this forum yet, or perhaps it's still as it's always being with such skeptics in their thinking; "Something does not exist, because I ASSUME it does not exist". Steven Gibbs may or may not be the real thing, but considering that a lack of institutionalized education proves nothing when considering the names of other such pseudo scientists who actually have discovered something as high school drop outs. Names like; John Hutchison, Tim Ventura and Patrick Flanagan, who appear often today on discovery channel TV regarding "fringe science" with actual footage and physical proof regarding things like the "Hutchison Effect". UNFORTUNATELY now, any possible real footage, photos and physical evidence of say any UFO landing, UFO contact with aliens, Time Travellers from the future, working time machines, time travel experiences, etc, will never constitute the extraordinary smoking gun proof to any such extraordinary claims, because in the face of already assuming skeptics, these things could never possibly exist anyway and therefore must aways be the best result of trickery, hypnosis and computer CGI special effects. At that, there is no such thing as absolute proof, therefore presenting or asking for even the best of possible proof is nothing more then a person's waste of time! There are even skeptics who will tell you that the world is actually flat with no convincing otherwise; for to see it as round out there is nothing more then a hypnotic placebo trance effect when floating in zero gravity space!

Here is my observation so far regarding HDRs. Regardless of people opinions, I have not actually used an HDR, therefore I can not give you a first hand account as of yet, however, that's not to say that they don't work. When looking at how to build them and from people's reports, I can say that HDRs are actually radionic machines used with electro magnets or with one electro magnet, depending on how you want to build them. A radionic machine is simply a tool that helps an individual "focus" a desired intent into reality without an exhausting concentrating effort, in much the same way as say using a tool for dowsing, but like a dowsing rod, it needs to be tuned in to a "zero point" field of consciousness for maximum results. Believe it or not, the same is true for the human mind. A person who can completely clear their mind and then focus on a desired intent for any extended period of time, does not need a dowsing rod, nor a radionics machine, nor even an HDR! As it so happens, people can actually achieve; mental, astral and even physical time travel, teleportation, apportation, invisibility, psychic force healing, and even levitation, by using concentrated meditation. This however is a lifetime of practise according to the achievements of the Dzogchen Tibetan monks, but if your looking for quicker results, a group collective intent of many individuals focused on a single point or person can produce good results, simply because people believe it works, such as the successful collective healings, etc, found in churches, temples, etc, which BTW is why many of the more ancient churches, temples and places of worship are found already existing on natural grid points. Meditation on places of power, which generate a lot of orgone can easily be directed with the mind for better results depending on how well one can focus, or how well one can be hypnotized to focus. Orgone is simply a natural generated psychic force energy consciousness where electro magnets can simply be used to compress or tune it into a zero point field. Then with the right intentions, anything is possible. I can see that an HDR is simply yet another tool one can use to achieve all these results, but without the physical body experiencing its complete exhaustion. A woman in Hawaii by the name of Gwen Totterdale is said to have achieved healing, physical and astral teleportation, and time travel, by experimenting with the collective energies of a large group of people around her. In time, others in her group where able to do this also, but not around those people with blocked minds.

Simply put; time travel can not exist if it's not possible in a person's accepted reality.

James Truthseeker.

 

[StarLord]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

Why bother with a hdr Radionic placebo when we are born with the natural ability to BOE and Astral Travel?

Why subject the body to harmful Electromagnetic waves which destroy cells and Brain Cells?

Ever wonder why none of these Placebos have been tested in a reputable laboratory by Experts?

Lets say that I choose to lift weights, does that mean it's a smart choice to go buy a radionic unit that will make it easier for me?? There is a very good and logical reason why we need to do this naturally and not with some snake oil kit that 'makes it easier' for us. Muscles need Excersize to become strenghtened, that's the way the body works. OBE and Astral Travel is exactly the same way. Relying upon some placebo to shorten the course, if it works at all, which I seriously doubt, is the wrong way to go.

As far as time travel goes, you better hope that no one ever truly returns from exactly where they left. That would spell doom for mankind faster than Hitler coming back and playing his games all over again. There are far too many power hungry people on this planet. Would you trust them with time travel??

 

[J-Truthseeker]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

Hey Yes good point!, Now you're thinking!

Perhaps the questions you should also be asking everyone are...

Why take steroids for improved athletic endurance when you can just do proper exercise?
Why smoke cigarettes if you know these things cause lung cancer?
Why smoke marijuana for a pain killer if you can just meditate the pain away?
Why drive a car that pollutes the air when you can just ride a bike or a horse?
Why hunt, cut or fish a species to extinction?
Why use magnetic therapy for healing when you can just heal with an improved diet?
Why have so many religions in the world regarding A GOD when you know it's going to lead to acts of terror, death and destruction?
Why strive for wealth and riches if you know this world ain't going to last much longer?
Why start world war 3 when you know it's suicide?
Why are people power hungry, full of hate and dysfunctional from the very beginning?
Why is not education working to improve these increasing problems?
Why is the human race over-populating?

And finally this one....

Why so much objection from so many people when ever I have an express desire to find a way to leave this god forsaken planet called Earth on a UFO, never to return and never even wanting to look back, when I know for a fact that it's total destruction is now almost assured?

Since I most certainly agree with you that there most certainly are far too many power hungry people on this planet, like it or not some of them may already have from long ago, time travel and much more, for many years going already!

But, rest assured, if any of these power hungry individuals travel through time, they either will not have an Earth to return back to, or they will meet their inevitable death on the other side by another more higher advanced intelligence. But also take into consideration that it's also true that not everyone on this planet is a raven power hungry lunatic. But you need not worry about some power hungry time travelling lunatic destroying this world from the future, because already world war 3 is just around the corner and on the horizon in about the next 1 to 5 years. So for you or anyone else reading this post, may I either suggest you begin your preparations now or at least do something reasonable that will stop any possibility of a WW3 global destruction, because if it happens and should you survive this, then because of the resulting effects of Atomic, Biological and chemical weapons used which will kill all plant and animal life on the planet, then this will make any left surviving human beings into the cannibalistic LIVING DEAD from all the after effects.

Watch what happens if or when George W Bush and his government attacks Iran.
Peace in hope everyone,

James Truthseeker

 

[StarLord]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

No problem. We have plenty of popcorn and soda for the main feature. If & When the 'world ends', it's no big deal. the play stops. Then they start the play all over again.

 

[Harte]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

While reading through these topic strings on this forum, it amazes me to know end just how much the majority of these skeptical posts are not written with any real objective intentions...

...More often then not and I still see this time and time and time again, skeptics will always fail to check out the actual places and proof where UFOs are reported to be seen, nor do they attempt to actually see and film for themselves the act of those very people who can actually call down UFOs and board the craft...

...Notice how skeptics usually is a COP OUT based only on assumption when confronted by real situations??? No kidding!!!

So exactly what constitutes proof??? The answer is nothing does, because even under strict scientific analysis of scientifically controlled environments, science by todays standards defines evidence as being proven only when it's disproven.
[/b]

JT,

Your lament about the non-acceptance of proof in the scientific community is a straw man. The only field where proof has meaning is mathematics. The rest of science operates on the idea that we cannot know a thing in it's entirety. Therefore are "theories" put forward in an attempt to explain what we are seeing in experiments.

Theories must be testable by experiment or they are not theories. By testable, I mean a theory must make certain exact predictions about the nature of reality and at least some of these predictions must be things that can be checked by setting up experiments in specific ways. A non-testable theory is only a flight of fancy in science.

Results of experimentation either support the theory or not. In either case the results of experimentation can be called "evidence". If the evidence shows a theory to be wrong, it can be said that that theory has been "disproven". If the evidence produced is as predicted by the theory, it is never said that the theory has been "proven," rather it is said that the theory is supported by the evidence. This evidence, whether in support of the theory or not, must be repeatable by any other interested parties.

According to the necessarily stringent ideas held by the scientific community, no "proof where UFOs are reported to be seen" has ever been presented. You should pardon scientists for not accepting anecdotal evidence as actual evidence, and certainly for not accepting it as "proof".


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

As strange as it all sounds, people who are diagnosed with mental and emotional disorders, do in fact make up the majority of those who are artistic, creative and open minded.

Unfortunately, only less then one percent of those people who are open minded, creative and artistic, are considered to be level headed and in rare cases truly psychic with a kind of developed six sense.

Fortunately those numbers are increasing as certain events in the world are also increasing.

Perhaps then it comes as no surprised that un-institutionalized individuals express a much higher lever of creativity in their lives by far then say those certified with PhDs. [/b]

Can you offer any evidence at all for the above four theoretical statements?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

Even will known physicist Steven Hawking probably would not have achieved his level of intelligence without having a neurological disability such as MS.
[/b]

This statement is preposterous. How do you explain Einstein, Newton, Pythagoras, Weinberg, Feynman, Hoyle, DaVinci, Plato, Euler, Reimann, Bohr, Dirac, L'Hospital, Heisenberg, Curie, Maxwell, Michelangelo, Archimedes, Xeno, Euclid, Hubble, Chandrasekhar, Fermi, Fermat, Descartes, Kant, Mozart, Copernicus, Rembrandt, Galileo, Dante, Neitzsche, Fuller, Keynes, Leibniz, Russell, Hypatia, Confucius, Ramanujan, Goethe, Pascal, Shakespeare and all the others I don't care to name?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

When looking at how to build them and from people's reports, I can say that HDRs are actually radionic machines used with electro magnets or with one electro magnet, depending on how you want to build them. A radionic machine is simply a tool that helps an individual \"focus\" a desired intent into reality without an exhausting concentrating effort, in much the same way as say using a tool for dowsing, but like a dowsing rod, it needs to be tuned in to a \"zero point\" field of consciousness for maximum results...
[/b]

Please define "radionic".
Please submit evidence that "radionics" exists.
Please submit data explaining how a "radionic machine" works.
Please define "zero point field".
Please submit evidence that "zero point fields" exist.
Please submit data explaining how a "zero point field" works.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

...which BTW is why many of the more ancient churches, temples and places of worship are found already existing on natural grid points. Meditation on places of power, which generate a lot of orgone can easily be directed with the mind for better results depending on how well one can focus, or how well one can be hypnotized to focus. Orgone is simply a natural generated psychic force energy consciousness where electro magnets can simply be used to compress or tune it into a zero point field.
[/b]

Please define "natural grid points".
Please submit evidence that "natural grid points" exist.

Please define "psychic force energy".
Please submit evidence that "orgone" exists.
Please submit data explaining how "orgone" is generated.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

A woman in Hawaii by the name of Gwen Totterdale is said to have achieved healing, physical and astral teleportation, and time travel, by experimenting with the collective energies of a large group of people around her. In time, others in her group where able to do this also, but not around those people with blocked minds.
[/b]

Why are skeptical minds always more powerful than psychic ones? How is it that one skeptic can block an entire roomful of psychics from performing even one psychic feat?

Harte

 

[J-Truthseeker]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

Eh Hearte,

Yes I would agree to a certain point that the only field where proof has meaning is mathematics. This is because we live in a universe based upon logic and reason, however the problem with testing theories to find any predictable results is that you are always going to find different variations from different people in what ever scientific experimentation any person could possibly put forth to predict or explain any theories. Even if the differences are not at first readily noticeable, they are still there. This is because even in a mathematical universe there can never be an "exact" unit of measurement when every unit of measurement contains an infinite amount of possibilities or probabilities. The same goes for any person who puts forth the measurements. Skeptics always fail to take into consideration the varying differences of opinion and personality of the observers who will aways produce a sightly different result or opinion. As you said your self "The rest of science operates on the idea that we cannot know a thing in it's entirety". Yet skeptics always act as though they know everything with their stringent ideas, which means that to be skeptical will aways defeat their/your own purpose, their/your own argument and even their/your own means of being skeptical. Of course scientists can't accept anecdotal evidence as actual evidence as proof, because there can never be any such thing as actual evidence, because there can never be a complete observation in its entirety. All it is, is just a show to make people look good and nothing more, because in reality this kind of thinking is not all that much different then a cat that always chases its tail, yet can never get it.

Now for presenting my so called "evidence" for my four theoretical statements along with other definitions, etc, which you demand I define? Well that all depends on what or how you personally define "evidence", plus at this point that would be way to easy. I'm sure I can give you all the psychological statistics and data from the books where I got it from, but like all other things you're now asking me to define and provide evidence and proof for things that will have a different diffintion of proof to your already assumed way of thinking, I'm therefore not going to give you these, because for once I'm sure you can find and read all the required books that I've had to go through to find myself. Anotherwards as a skeptic, let's see you go out there and find these things and definitions for yourself, do your own objective observations, research and field work, and only then maybe we'll talk and have something good to talk about. Even if you agree or disagree, at least you'll then hopefully have a good understanding of these terms and presented proof.

This statement is preposterous. How do you explain Einstein, Newton, Pythagoras, Weinberg, Feynman, Hoyle, DaVinci, Plato, Euler, Reimann, Bohr, Dirac, L'Hospital, Heisenberg, Curie, Maxwell, Michelangelo, Archimedes, Xeno, Euclid, Hubble, Chandrasekhar, Fermi, Fermat, Descartes, Kant, Mozart, Copernicus, Rembrandt, Galileo, Dante, Neitzsche, Fuller, Keynes, Leibniz, Russell, Hypatia, Confucius, Ramanujan, Goethe, Pascal, Shakespeare and all the others I don't care to name?

Ever read "history and Systems of Psychology" by James F. Brennan???

He mentions the same majority of names which you've just listed here and gives all the "known" pro's and con's of each person, and how they have played a big part in the development of what we know and define as "modern society" and "modern thinking". In a number of cases he and even others have mentioned how it takes a "fringe in ones thinking", and even how in their "fringe emotional or mental state of mind" which it took for them to get to where they were away from the mainstream way of thinking that existed even back in their time. For starters, if you look at just the first two names on your list; Einstein was said to be dyslexic and Newton was said to have eventually suffered from a nervous breakdown, etc, etc..

James Truthseeker

 

[gl100]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

Lets go back up to our Skywatch Traffic copter covering the scene of an accident at Science Ave. and Ontology Blvd. Aside from minor headaches, authorities report no major injuries.

 

[StarLord]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

Actually, it was due to the constant lack of socks that enabled Einstein to formulate the theories that he did. Being unfettered can do wonderous things for the intelect and quantum perception.

 

[Harte]

Re: Why I dont believe in HDRs

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

...however the problem with testing theories to find any predictable results is that you are always going to find different variations from different people in what ever scientific experimentation any person could possibly put forth to predict or explain any theories. Even if the differences are not at first readily noticeable, they are still there. This is because even in a mathematical universe there can never be an \"exact\" unit of measurement when every unit of measurement contains an infinite amount of possibilities or probabilities. The same goes for any person who puts forth the measurements.[/b]

This is blatantly false and any first year chemistry or physics student knows it. Newtonian rectilinear motion, for a trivial example, can be and is regularly measured in physics labs at high schools and colleges all over the world on a daily basis. The results of these measurements must be precise or their grades suffer. An "A" student doing a spring experiment in China will find that F=mK as well as an "A" student in New Jersey.

General relativity is tested every time there is a total solar eclipse. No variation from prediction has ever been found since the first time it was tested.

And there is an "exact" unit of measurement for every physical measurement that exists. As an example, a meter is defined in wavelengths of a particular type of light emission. Do you imply that the wavelengths of various "colors" are not constant?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

Of course scientists can't accept anecdotal evidence as actual evidence as proof, because there can never be any such thing as actual evidence, because there can never be a complete observation in its entirety. All it is, is just a show to make people look good and nothing more, because in reality this kind of thinking is not all that much different then a cat that always chases its tail, yet can never get it. [/b]

The machine you are typing your post on you owe to this "chase" you denigrate. Were it not for Quantum Mechanics, you would still be using vacuum tubes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

Now for presenting my so called \"evidence\" for my four theoretical statements along with other definitions, etc, which you demand I define? Well that all depends on what or how you personally define \"evidence\", plus at this point that would be way to easy. I'm sure I can give you all the psychological statistics and data from the books where I got it from, but like all other things you're now asking me to define and provide evidence and proof for things that will have a different diffintion of proof to your already assumed way of thinking, I'm therefore not going to give you these, because for once I'm sure you can find and read all the required books that I've had to go through to find myself. [/b]

Hmm. "I know all this to be true but I'm to busy to try to convice you, find it out for yoursef." You sound like the skeptics you invented and shot down in your previous post. This is about what I expected. Unnamed volumes of books, a lifetime of study leads you into some belief system. Well, not me.

The four theoretical statements you made all use statistics and trend analysis. I ask you again, where can I find this information?

You would invoke psychology to explain "zero point fields," "radionics," "natural grid points," "psychic force energy" and "orgone"? Please, enlighten me.

I seem to remember back in the sixties there was a buzz at Duke about some statistical evidence for the existence of ESP. If you look at the test results, there was a slightly higher than random score of some of the test subjects. But the results could never be repeated, by the original theorist or any others around the world, whether or not the same test subjects (people) were used. As far as actual evidence for the existence of psychic abilities, that's about it.

I am aware that the defense dept. has attempted to use so-called "psychics" for remote viewing of the enemy (Russia). I will agree that it's possible that they had enough success to clamp a lid on serious study of the phenomenon for security's sake. But if you think about it, all the "enemy" would have to do is get one skeptical "mole" into the area of the remote viewer and he/she would be completely and utterly unable to perform due to the proximity of the non-believer.

There has never, ever been any objective evidence presented for the existence of UFO's or extraterrestrials on Earth. There do exist some unexplained photos and film/videotape however.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

...as a skeptic, let's see you go out there and find these things and definitions for yourself, do your own objective observations, research and field work, and only then maybe we'll talk and have something good to talk about. Even if you agree or disagree, at least you'll then hopefully have a good understanding of these terms and presented proof.[/b]

Why do you assume I have not? It seems a closed-minded, subjective way of looking at me in my opinion.

I have looked and am continuing to look. Why else would I have asked you for evidence? Post a url, at least. I know of at least 20 sites that talk about these things you are claiming. None offer any evidence. I have looked, I am looking, I am finding nothing.

For your information, I am willing to postulate that there are strange unexplained things in the world. I must stress, however, that these things are unexplained by anyone, that means doctors of any variety, be they PhD or witchdoctor.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"J-Truthseeker\")</div>

Ever read \"history and Systems of Psychology\" by James F. Brennan???

He mentions the same majority of names which you've just listed here and gives all the \"known\" pro's and con's of each person, and how they have played a big part in the development of what we know and define as \"modern society\" and \"modern thinking\". In a number of cases he and even others have mentioned how it takes a \"fringe in ones thinking\", and even how in their \"fringe emotional or mental state of mind\" which it took for them to get to where they were away from the mainstream way of thinking that existed even back in their time. For starters, if you look at just the first two names on your list; Einstein was said to be dyslexic and Newton was said to have eventually suffered from a nervous breakdown, etc, etc... [/b]

I have not read the above work. But I would ask you to consider the difference between ALS and dislexia. Also, will you not admit the possibility that it is the genius mind or the "fringe" thinking that causes the problem, and not vice-versa? Can it not be that a great thinker like Newton perhaps thinks too much? A "nervous breakdown" can mean many things, and let's face it, the retarded are rarely depressed.

Harte