"The Brandon Corey Story"

So Glad

"The Brandon Corey Story"

Well, well. I've said it before, I'll say it again. People are wierd. Anyways, this movie is apparently based on a true story. Brandon Corey was researching and shooting a film he was going to publish worldwide about the Illuminati and Reptile shape-shifters and stuff when he was abducted by government authority. He was held for two years (nobody knew where he was, very little media coverage), tortured and questioned and when they finally let him go, they chopped off two of his fingers...

In this film he apparently has footage of someone shape-shifting! Lots of tantilizing stuff advertised here but for $30, no thanks. I was thinking, the site says "Buy this DVD before they stop us.", why not just give it for free? But I suppose films cost money? Sounds a bit fishy. I'll wait for alternative veiwing sources thank you very much...

Nick_oliveri

From the site....

Man probably (definatly more like) chopped his two fingers off in a desperate effort to give credibility to his story.

Or he was captured and placed in a looney bin and bludgeoned himself on his escape.

Edit lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oC2B6J3ajY

So Glad

100% on the cheese-o-meter alright.

But the thing is more and more people are believing this and saying they had such experiences and such. I don't know what to think about this stuff. Although laughing would be the first reaction to an obsurdity. If people have reason to belive, let them.

shayser

This could spell trouble for Icke. Might be a hitpiece.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2899123154102706793&q=%22brandon+corey%22

So Glad

Oh, so they did post it for free.

This pleases me.

secret_squirrel

Where is the money shot? I cant be bothered to watch the whole thing?

So Glad

That is digusting.

Anyway, why would it spell trouble for Icke? If anything it should help him.

So Glad

Oh my god......this is amazing...

I can't think of any way to make this false. I used to laugh at Icke but now I'm thinking.

Crazy shizzle, yo.

shayser

http://conspiracycentral.info/index.php?showtopic=2931&st=60

So Glad

Well yeah it is incredibly cheesy and scripted but I thought it was because they are Americans. They tend to be that way in front of a camera.

Turns out to be a load of lying bull****.

This is bad for Icke, I think he should come forward and dismiss his part in it...

Gordon

What is Icke's part in it?

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Turns out to be a load of lying bull****.

What a surprise.

This is bad for Icke,

Because unlike the others involved, Icke is....what? Credible?

So Glad

Well, not the reptilian parts, but his stuff on social and spiritual freedom is amazing.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Well, not the reptilian parts, but his stuff on social and spiritual freedom is amazing.

But this is dealing with the "reptilian parts" side of his beliefs - something you obviously don't have a problem ignoring already when it comes to his other work.

So why does he need to distance himself from this stuff? His reptilian overlord beliefs are what are impacted by it, and you neither believe nor judge him for his own belief in this regard anyway.

So its a case of "Man with ideas I like gets involved in hoax regarding his other beliefs that I think are nutty to begin with". You already accept that these beliefs of his are nutty. Why does this change anything?

So Glad

What I meant to have said to make things clearer is that I stand nowhere with regards to Icke's reptilian agenda theory. I will only change my belief when better evidence comes through like a (real) reptilian shape-shift.

This is bad news for Icke because it gives even MORE bad evidence and publicity to his case, as well as cheesy filmaking to his name. The reason I find this bad is that (like now) people will walk away from Icke because of the repilian thing when he has so much more to offer than repilian governments.

Shame.

secret_squirrel

So Glad wrote:

This is bad news for Icke because it gives even MORE bad evidence and publicity to his case, as well as cheesy filmaking to his name. The reason I find this bad is that (like now) people will walk away from Icke because of the repilian thing when he has so much more to offer than repilian governments.

Shame.

Why's it a shame? If Icke wants his stuff to be taken seriously then he should drop the Reptilian shíte. If he's going to speak like a loon he is going to get treated like one.

So Glad

Well people generaly stand by their work be it false or true. But again, that is only one part of Icke.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Well people generaly stand by their be it false or true. But again, that is only one part of Icke.

So what you're claiming Icke is onto a good un if you ignore his repitlian overlord/I am the sun of christ crap?

So Glad do you have a pathological need to get pwn'd every few weeks?

So Glad

Where is the pwning? And logically, arn't we all the sons of christ?

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

And logically, arn't we all the sons of christ?

No.

So Glad

In your opinion.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Where is the pwning? And logically, arn't we all the sons of christ?

The pwning will be forthcoming.

And no not logically we are all the sons of christ, thats a belief, a statement of faith, can you "prove" we are all the children of god.

In any case Icke literally has claimed to be the son of god, on Wogan in the early 90s

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

In your opinion.

Its not an opinion. There is no logical argument which will conclude that we're all son's of Christ.

Unfortunately, its impossible to prove such a negative.

As with so many things, you have made the positive assertion so the burden of proof rests with you.

I'm pretty confident that neither you nor anyone else here can offer the (unflawed) logic you assert exists.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote:

In any case Icke literally has claimed to be the son of god, on Wogan in the early 90s

Its not so open-and-shut.

Its open to dispute whether he said "a son of God" or "the son of god", and frankly you'll generally find that people will hear and interpret according to whatever their already-formed opinions of the guy are.

People will tell you that it shows he's a nut, and other will tell you that he was simply making a "we're all god's children" comment and was taken out of context.

Personally, I'm at a loss to understand how the latter interpretation (the "he's not a nutter" version) gels with the rest of the content of the interview, where (if memory serves) he informed us all that Britain was about to be destroyed by earthquakes and floods and how he knew this. On the other hand, the "I know this because I've got a direct link to Dad up in heaven" does seem more consistent, but is by no means definitive as an interpretation.

Either which way, it doesn't much matter. If we agreed to not let this one issue about Icke colur our judgement in any way, its not like he'd suddenly be exonerated in everyone's eyes. There's the continued existence of Britain and a lack of floods and earthquakes in the region to consider from that interview alone (if not more).

And if we're all God's children.....does that include the Lizard Overlords?

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

Its not so open-and-shut.

Its open to dispute whether he said "a son of God" or "the son of god", and frankly you'll generally find that people will hear and interpret according to whatever their already-formed opinions of the guy are.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2912878405399014351&q=DAVID+ICKE%3A+The+Lizards+and+the+Jews

Jon Ronson's documentary on Icke(includes I think the Wogan clip) were he says "I am the Son of God", which he then later retracts to claim "we are all the children of god"

Now normally I'd allow a clarification, but seeing as we're on the conspiracy forum, and as we know the first thing a person says is what they actually definitively mean. This is a forum where no one is allowed to misspeak, or clarify what they actually mean, or explain they are being misquoted.

Personally, I'm at a loss to understand how the latter interpretation (the "he's not a nutter" version) gels with the rest of the content of the interview, where (if memory serves) he informed us all that Britain was about to be destroyed by earthquakes and floods and how he knew this. On the other hand, the "I know this because I've got a direct link to Dad up in heaven" does seem more consistent, but is by no means definitive as an interpretation.

You're correct about his claims of dire events, that didn't materialise.

So Glad

Earthquakes and stuff, It hasn't happened yet. Don't jump to conclusions yet.

Why wouldn't the idea that we are all children of god not be a valid one? Even conventional science agrees that the universe was created in a sudden burst. What triggered that? People think science and spirituality are poles apart. Thats not true. Spiritualists claims the same things as science, it's just that science gives them technical terms formed with a rational mind (IE strive to come up with a logical conclusion to discount anything that is unexplainable), whilst the intuitive mind can do the same, just with more feeling.

For example, David Icke, Edgar Cayce, Bill Hicks and many other people all claim through inner and outer learning and intuition that we are all one and the only god is love, we are the imaginations of our selves and this world is an illusion formed by our thoughts (what a mouthfull). Anyone would agree (Or hope to agree) with this, psychiatrists especially.

But more interesting is that spiritual sects throughout history all claim that we have auras, chakras and points in our bodies and brains that draw in energy from the universe for our own usage. Science also claims this, although they use technical terms, they agree that energies throughout the universe coincide and intertwine with one another through series of vibrations (String Theory) and matter.

Ok, lets consider this is all romantic ramblings. The alternative is that we are a cosmic accident with no valid porpose but to live, work, accumulate and die, only to remain dead. I would rather entertain a positive alternative as to stimulate a positive brain and spread happiness. And even if it is false, and just a placebo, doesn't it work anyway?

We'll thats just my 2 cent.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Earthquakes and stuff, It hasn't happened yet. Don't jump to conclusions yet.

For starts Icke made the prediction that Britian would be devasted by a great earthquake? Er how? The UK isn't on any active fault lines. Claiming this could occur flies in the face of geology.

Why wouldn't the idea that we are all children of god not be a valid one?

Because you've stated that as a fact. Can you prove that God exists, and we are his/her children?

Even conventional science agrees that the universe was created in a sudden burst. What triggered that? People think science and spirituality are poles apart. Thats not true. Spiritualists claims the same things as science, it's just that science gives them technical terms formed with a rational mind (IE strive to come up with a logical conclusion to discount anything that is unexplainable), whilst the intuitive mind can do the same, just with more feeling.

I'm sorry this is balderdash, what on earth are you on about? You have feelings and these are as good as facts?

For example, David Icke, Edgar Cayce, Bill Hicks and many other people all claim through inner and outer learning and intuition that we are all one and the only god is love, we are the imaginations of our selves and this world is an illusion formed by our thoughts (what a mouthfull). Anyone would agree (Or hope to agree) with this, psychiatrists especially.

But more interesting is that spiritual sects throughout history all claim that we have auras, chakras and points in our bodies and brains that draw in energy from the universe for our own usage. Science also claims this, although they use technical terms, they agree that energies throughout the universe coincide and intertwine with one another through series of vibrations (String Theory) and matter.

However Science is willing to discount it's theories when they are disproven. Look at the current state of debate about string theory.

Nevertheless, string theory proved encouragingly effective - at a theoretical level - to explain both the very small and the incredibly large, and so it began to dominate the study of fundamental physics at universities through the world. According to protagonists, it would soon be possible to describe the cosmos in a few simple equations that could fit on a T-shirt.

But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produced a single practical observation to support the theory. One problem, they said, was that the energy needed to break open matter and study the strings inside it is so colossal that it would require machines big enough to cover the planet.

On top of these problems, recent calculations have produced a surprising prediction from string theory: that there may be an almost infinite number of different universes, some of which would be like our own, and others that would be very different.

And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1890340,00.html

Claiming that you've come to the same conclusion as Science, because of something you "intuitively" "feel" is as valid as a rigiourous examination of the facts is delusional egomania.

Ok, lets consider this is all romantic ramblings. The alternative is that we are a cosmic accident with no valid porpose but to live, work, accumulate and die, only to remain dead. I would rather entertain a positive alternative as to stimulate a positive brain and spread happiness. And even if it is false, and just a placebo, doesn't it work anyway?

We'll thats just my 2 cent.

Okay and I can accept that some people need to have a spiritual dimension to their psyche.

But what on earth does any of the above do to help you "prove" Icke is right, or that we are all children of God?

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Earthquakes and stuff, It hasn't happened yet. Don't jump to conclusions yet.

Riiiight. Isn't it convenient that he left out a timeframe, eh?

All those doomsayers....y'know....sandwichboarders with "The End of the World is Nigh" and so forth....you think they're all credible because they haven't been proven wrong?

Why wouldn't the idea that we are all children of god not be a valid one?

I didn't say it wasn't valid. I said I can't see how its relevant to his "The end is Nigh" message, whereas I can see how alternate interpretations of the comment are relevant.

Even conventional science agrees that the universe was created in a sudden burst. What triggered that? People think science and spirituality are poles apart. Thats not true.

Ummm.......yes, it is true.

When asked "what triggered that", science answers "Don't know".
I'm 100% certain that spirituality does not say the same.

I'm also suspicious of the notion that science "agrees" that the universe was created in a sudden burst. Science only agrees that the universe in its current form can be traced back to a rapid expansionary event. It does not definitively tell us that this event was the start. It doesn't require that the universe was created at the moment the Big Bang initiated at all. It allows for a number of possibilities as to what came before the point where our models fail (which are a number of Planck Time units after the Bang started).

Spiritualists claims the same things as science, it's just that science gives them technical terms formed with a rational mind

Personally, I see it as yet another case where spiritualists attempt to "borrow" the respectability that science has garnered by claiming a connection to it. I don't think they say the same thing at all. Lets have a look at what you give as an example :

For example, David Icke, Edgar Cayce, Bill Hicks and many other people all claim through inner and outer learning and intuition that we are all one and the only god is love, we are the imaginations of our selves and this world is an illusion formed by our thoughts (what a mouthfull). Anyone would agree (Or hope to agree) with this, psychiatrists especially.

And the connection to science is where, exactly? Is it your unsupported belief that psychiatrists and the rest of us would all agree with this sentiment?

Tell me....after the universe was created, but before there was no life in it (which science states, so spirituality presuambly agrees if you're correct)....where exactly was this love coming from? And how is it scientifically represented?

But more interesting is that spiritual sects throughout history all claim that we have auras, chakras and points in our bodies and brains that draw in energy from the universe for our own usage.
Science also claims this, although they use technical terms, they agree that energies throughout the universe coincide and intertwine with one another through series of vibrations (String Theory) and matter.

These two stances don't actually agree with each other. At all. They have, in fact, nothing to do with each other.

Not only that, but String Theory, Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity, or any other explanation of "how things work" is as compatible with the notion that aura's don't exist as the notion that they do.

I might as well say I've an invisible elf in my garden, and science agrees with me because we can't see the strings in string theory, and besides there's all those extra dimensions string theory predicts/requires that it could be hiding in.

"Doesn't refute" is not the same as "is in agreement with".

I'm willing to bet that the people who argue that spirituality and science are in agreement are the spiritualists, not the scientists.

Ok, lets consider this is all romantic ramblings.

Progress

Lets.

The alternative is that we are a cosmic accident with no valid porpose but to live, work, accumulate and die, only to remain dead. I would rather entertain a positive alternative as to stimulate a positive brain and spread happiness.

Or, rephrased : "I reject the scientific option, because it may lead to conclusions I find unpalatable".

Note - if you reject some of the possible scientific conclusions, then you reject the scientific approach. You can't say that science is all good as long as it only ever comes up with agreeable answers. That is a rejection of science. Science doesn't care what you think about how nice an answer is. It only cares about what the answer is.

And even if it is false, and just a placebo, doesn't it work anyway?

I've no problem with people believing what they want to believe. My objection is when they start impinging on science, claiming false kinship with it.

You started by saying that spirituality and science say the same thing. You concluded by saying you reject anything science renders possible because you'd prefer to believe in something you find more meaning in, even if its wrong.

If this isn't proof definite that spirituality and science categorically are not singing in tune, then I don't know what is.

Furthermore....if it works, and what is important is that it works, then why do you need to falsely claim science is on your side? If it works, then why not say "I know its a rejection of science, but hey, it works for me"????

So Glad

I brought up the points badly, and thats my downfall. I believe science and spirituality arn't that different. I go about my spiritual journey with science in mind, knowing the truths of science. I am not implying science is wrong.

What I ment is that I'm sure that if scientists studied the areas of spirituality with open minds and tryed to prove it, I'd say they wouldn't at least discount the probablility of love being a driving force. But when dealing with god, you can't test his/her credibility and expect and answer. If you were god I'd say you'd find that quite disrespectfull.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I brought up the points badly, and thats my downfall. I believe science and spirituality arn't that different. I go about my spiritual journey with science in mind, knowing the truths of science. I am not implying science is wrong.

A few points,

What are the truths of science?

How can you claim that science and spirtuality arent that different. One is a believe system in a higher power that cannot be proved or disproved, the other is science.

What I ment is that I'm sure that if scientists studied the areas of spirituality with open minds and tryed to prove it, I'd say they wouldn't at least discount the probablility of love being a driving force.

What? Seriously, what?

Love is a driving force? Science will prove an emotion is a quaniftiable thing? What are the units of love measured in?

But when dealing with god, you can't test his/her credibility and expect and answer. If you were god I'd say you'd find that quite disrespectfull.

So you're saying you shouldn't look for proof of God's "credibility" in case you make him mad. And doesn't this fly in the face of everything you've said previously about your believes being hand in hand with science, and that spirituality and science are threading the same path. Science doesn't walk away from something on the off chance they'll "disrepect' god...

Way to explain yourself, much more coherantly...

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

I brought up the points badly, and thats my downfall.

With respect, I disagree. Your downfall (I believe) is that your points cannot be made properly in the sense that you mean.

For example:

I believe science and spirituality arn't that different.

You can believe it as you like, but they are utterly different.

The best that one can manage to say is that spirituality should not be inconsistent with science. It shouldn't make any claim that science can refute. In other words, it should deal with the non-scientific - the spiritual - and nothing more.

The problem, of course, is that we don't know what science will and will not refute 20 years from now, but a spiritualistic claim today should remain equally valid 20 years from now. Time after time, this one has tripped up religions and systems of belief.

I go about my spiritual journey with science in mind, knowing the truths of science. I am not implying science is wrong.

I don't believe you know enough science to know whether or not you are implying its wrong.

Your comments about String Theory relative to energy points in the body, for example, do not make me terribly confident that you have the requisite scientific knowledge to know whether or not you are making statements at odds with science.

The notion that you believe science and spirituality aren't that different suggests that you misunderstand at least one of the two. They are that different. In the purest sense, they should have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

What I ment is that I'm sure that if scientists studied the areas of spirituality with open minds and tryed to prove it, I'd say they wouldn't at least discount the probablility of love being a driving force.

I thought you knew the "truths about science" and kept them in mind? How can you then make such a claim?

For a start, the "love is a driving force" idea isn't a hypothesis, postulate, theory or anything else in a meaningful scientific sense. It isn't predictive, for a start. I'd argue that its also not falsifiable. Furthermore, I'd say that in order to even consider the question, you'd have to first redefine love away from being the psychological/emotional state that we associate as being an aspect of human behaviour. You'd also have to define what you mean by "driving force".

Its a classic situation where abuse is made of the fact that scientific terms also have vaguely-similar non-scientific meanings, and one can use this to blur distinctions to make it appear like there is similarity. Y'know...like when Dubya claimed that Creationism was "the other theory". Or when people start throwing the word "energy" around to mean anything from spiritual energy, emotional energy, and sop forth right through to the scientific meaning of the word......ignoring that these are not all interchangeable until one can show that they are.

So tell me...how exactly does one transform love energy into electrical energy? I ask because you hold scientific truth in your head whilst persuing this love energy spiritualistic stuff, so you should know this better than me. Either that, or you should admit you don't know and therefore have no scientific basis on which to suggest that there's any connection between these two things, despite them both being called energy.

Ditto for your arguments about auras and String Theory. It relies on blurring the distinction through common words rather than common meaning or common language.

But when dealing with god, you can't test his/her credibility and expect and answer.

Which means its not an issue science can address. So science doesn't address it. Its non-scientific.

So in one sense the "would at least not discount it" position you took is correct. In another sense, its incorrect in that what you should have said is that science could not discount it because its not something that science can address.

Science cannot rule out that I have an invisible elf living in my garden. It cannot rule out that this invisible elf is, in fact, the driving force behind all of existence. It cannot rule out that at 10am, every Tuesday morning, an invisible elephant pays teh elf a visit for morning tea, and that the two of them betwee them decide how much love the world is to experience in the coming week.

From a scientic perspective, my elf is on an equal footing with your love. That is the truth of science, and you did say that you hold such truths in your head whilst considering these issues.

Will you join me in worshiping my elf?

Its existence hasn't been disproven, so like Icke's earthquakes and lizards, so at the very least you shouldn't rule it out....right?

And it can't be any less palatable than the "its all random" possibility that science allows but you (apparently) wish to deny.

If you were god I'd say you'd find that quite disrespectfull.

I think thats got nothign to do with anything, but it does raise a question. A goodly number of them actually.

You say Love is the driving force, but also suggest that god exists. So is god love? If not, did god make love, or did love make god? If on the other hand god is love, then does this mean love is sentient? Or is god non-sentient?

If God isn't sentient, how could it find something disrespectful? And how would it react to this feeling of disrespect, if not by loving the disrespecter? Unless God isn't love at all. In which case we're back to whether God madfe love or love made god.

And what about the alien lizards, if they exist? Can't forget about them. Are they driven by love, despite being a great evil? They part of the universe which is an illusion made by our minds and our love, so we made them, right? But they're evil and control us. How does that work?

See...all these are logical issues arising from the stuff you apparently are giving credence to. If you hold on to the "truths of science" then at least one thing you must do is seek to remove internal inconsistency in your beliefs.

billy the squid

Diogenes wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2912878405399014351&q=DAVID+ICKE%3A+The+Lizards+and+the+Jews

Jon Ronson's documentary on Icke(includes I think the Wogan clip) were he says "I am the Son of God", which he then later retracts to claim "we are all the children of god"

What makes you think it is a retraction and not just a clarification? If he had said that "no I am not the son of God" then that would have been a retraction.

Now normally I'd allow a clarification, but seeing as we're on the conspiracy forum, and as we know the first thing a person says is what they actually definitively mean. This is a forum where no one is allowed to misspeak, or clarify what they actually mean, or explain they are being misquoted.

That is for me to decide, The fact that this is the conspiracy Theories forum does not give licence to those who wish to make baseless claims.

So Glad

bonkey wrote:

Will you join me in worshiping my elf?

Of course. Elf pwn.

Diogenes

billy the squid wrote:

What makes you think it is a retraction and not just a clarification? If he had said that "no I am not the son of God" then that would have been a retraction.

With respect crucial "evidence" of 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracys are quotes from people like Peter Powers and Silverstein, or Rumsfield or Cheney, respectively talking about" identical training exercises", "pulling it" "missile hitting the pentagon", or "act of heroism". In these cases the conspiracy theorists do not allow for the possibility of people misspeaking, why should we allow Icke the luxury of a clarification?

That is for me to decide, The fact that this is the conspiracy Theories forum does not give licence to those who wish to make baseless claims.

With respect baseless claims seem to be the mainstay of most of the conspiracy theories here. Demolition grade thermite anyone? Sachel charges? Scott Forbes?

So Glad wrote:

Of course. Elf pwn

Nope. Unlike Icke's dire claims, my prediction of your pwning has come true.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote:

why should we allow Icke the luxury of a clarification?

Because to do otherwise would negate our ability to say CT-supporters are wrong to the very tactic you are trying to highlight as being incorrect.

What we can (and arguably should) do is accept Icke's clarification (at least to the same extent that we accept others), whilst criticising CT supporters for not rejecting it like they do other clarifications.

jc

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

Because to do otherwise would negate our ability to say CT-supporters are wrong to the very tactic you are trying to highlight as being incorrect.

What we can (and arguably should) do is accept Icke's clarification (at least to the same extent that we accept others), whilst criticising CT supporters for not rejecting it like they do other clarifications.

jc

Excellent point, remark cheerfully withdrawn, I was merely highlighting a degree of hypocracy that fuels conspiracy theorist arguments.

datruth

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-13.htm


can this **** really be a conicidence?
this is crazy

datruth

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040406-4.html

top of that when you go to whitehouse.gov and 5th search of "brandon corey" result leads to dick cheney

im not guillable at all but this definetaly either a super researched fiction movie or a fact.

bonkey

datruth wrote:

can this **** really be a conicidence?

Yes.

im not guillable at all but

If you say so.

this definetaly either a super researched fiction movie or a fact.

What is either a movie or a fact?

You posted links to a psychology piece and a transcript of an interview with the VP taken at a football game. Neither are movies.

So Glad

Well, the movies main char "Brandon Corey" is actually an playwrite who works for the company and has a different name altogether ;p

Also, you could can see all the reasons why "The Brandon Corey Story" is extreamly fishy on the thread links above.

So Glad

This should argue my belief a little better:

What science can say about the collective conciousness

bonkey

Wow.

Only not too long ago you were asking for videos because you had problems reading large amounts of text online.

Now you're presenting large amounts of text online to back up your position.

Tell me - do you think this is perhaps because enough of us wanted you to be able to do this, and you were thus enabled through collective consciousness?

secret_squirrel

So Glad wrote:

This should argue my belief a little better:

What science can say about the collective conciousness

Errr maybe Im missing something, but what has that psuedo-scientific gibberish go to do with Brandon Corey???

So Glad

I've just had a brainfart.

So I am constantly being told that infinite consciousness, spiritualility and things like that all to be illusionary, and all made up in the mind, and that science holds the real answers. I believe that anyone can get all the answeres they need within themsleves, no external influence required. So is this illusionary? People would like to throw out the "science is the only truth" card, and not have to consider what you have to say at all, because the white coats haven't spoke out.

But let us consider science. Where has that origionated? Where did all the laws and theorums eminate? From the minds of the genius people, of course. They realised these things through intense thought and inner searching. Isn't that not a bit of a catch 22? You believe inner thoughts to be false, yet your arguements are also founded on inner thoughts.

Just a thought.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I've just had a brainfart.
So I am constantly being told that infinite consciousness, spiritualility and things like that all to be illusionary, and all made up in the mind, and that science holds the real answers. I believe that anyone can get all the answeres they need within themsleves, no external influence required. So is this illusionary? People would like to throw out the "science is the only truth" card, and not have to consider what you have to say at all, because the white coats haven't spoke out.

So Glad no one is telling you you cannot believe anything or something. It's people are objecting to your claims that science supports your spiritualistic beliefs. when they don't.

You're practicing the exact same arguments that intelligent designers do.

But let us consider science. Where has that origionated? Where did all the laws and theorums eminate? From the minds of the genius people, of course. They realised these things through intense thought and inner searching. Isn't that not a bit of a catch 22? You believe inner thoughts to be false, yet your arguements are also founded on inner thoughts.

Just a thought.

Not a very good one.

This whole thing is just wrong. Newton didn't decide there should be a force called gravity and "LO" there was gravity. He looked at the world and developed his theory around it. Boyle didn't decide that the volume and pressure of a fixed quanity of a ideal gas is constant, he studied and then presented his theory. Clausius and Thomson didn't decide laws of thermodynamics, and the universe fitted around them, they learned the attributes of heat, and the rules that apply to it and developed a theory.

Once again you're twisted science to bend to your own pseudoscientific beliefs.

Brain fart is an accurate description of what you're trying to say.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

So I am constantly being told that infinite consciousness, spiritualility and things like that all to be illusionary, and all made up in the mind, and that science holds the real answers.

Who's told you that?

My stance here has generally been to defend science (per se) against being abused or misrepresented. I'm not arguing that its right or wrong or that it is the only source of answers.

For certain types of question, where answers of a particular type are sought, it is the best system when used correctly. For other questions, its simply not applicable.

I object to people not using science where they should. I object to them using it where they shouldn't. That's significantly dfferent to what you seem to suggest you're being told "constantly".

I believe that anyone can get all the answeres they need within themsleves, no external influence required.

And as I've said before...you can believe what you like. Its when you (or others) start claiming its more than an unsubstantiated belief, and that it is somehow scientific in nature....that's where you're no longer talking about beliefs.

What seems to p1ss so many people off is that they want to claim some sort of kinship between their beliefs and science (to "borrow" its respectability and credibility, I guess), but having done so do not want the very rigours of science which have given it its respectability and credibility then applied in return.

You can't have both. Either you can have your belief and keep it seperate, or you can say that there's a link to science at which point that link must stand up to scientific scrutiny. Thats the cost of siding with science - you get treated scientifically and if you fail you get dismissed as being wrong from a scientific perspective.

People would like to throw out the "science is the only truth" card, and not have to consider what you have to say at all, because the white coats haven't spoke out.

Hey - you want to believe reality is illusary...go right ahead. You want to tell me that this is consistent with superstring theory or quantum mechanics, then you are making a scientifically testable claim and should expect to be tested.

As with religion, the problems come when you cross that divide. Science as never tried to explain why the universe was created, so if yuo want to offer an opinion on that you can laugh at anyone who tells you you're wrong because of science. But as soon as you claim that your theories are supported by science.....you've put your claims in a dirty big crosshairs. Science, after all, works off an adversarial system where shooting theories down is a critical aspect.

If you don't want to be shot at, stay out of the sights. Don't claim affinity with science.

But let us consider science. Where has that origionated? Where did all the laws and theorums eminate? From the minds of the genius people, of course.
They realised these things through intense thought and inner searching. Isn't that not a bit of a catch 22? You believe inner thoughts to be false, yet your arguements are also founded on inner thoughts.

What about those people who came up with scientific theories which turned out to be not true? Doesn't this refute the idea that inner thoughts are true, or that they shape reality somehow?

See....I've never said that no inner thought can be wrong. I've simply argued with the notion that we shape existence. We model existence with science. The system was there and working and we came along and tried to figure out how it works. Its like I learned the rules of American Football by watching it on TV as a kid. Over time, I started understanding what was going on. I didn't change reality so that American Football was how I envisaged it. I didn't create American football. I simply formed a model which represented what I saw, and which was consistent enough for me to be able to understand and make predictions about what I was seeing.

Are you going to argue that science is different? That until we decided that our models worked a certain way, the universe maybe didn't work that way at all? That would be akin to saying that the laws of American Football may have mystically changed sometmie in the 80s because I started watching it and figured out what I was observing to the point where I could effectively "model" the laws, rules, actions, etc. in my head.

Similarly, just as I believe the universe existed before life (and later, consciousness) came into being, I believe that American Football existed before I started watching it in the 80s.

Science is a modelling tool. It is an attempt to describe the observed with sufficient accuracy that we can make meaningful predictions. Similarly, my understanding of American Football is a model. In both cases, what is being modelled is distinct and seperate from the model.

So while I can accept that man has "created" science, all that says is that we have created a somewhat successful means to answer certain types of observation-based questions, to the point of being able to predict outcomes rather than simply explain them after the fact.

If the model (i.e. science) ceased to exist, what effect would I expect that to have on what is being modelled (i.e. reality)? About the same as I expect my death would have on the continuation of American Football - none whatsoever.

So Glad

Ok, now were getting somewhere. Although maybe there should be a seperate thread for this? Anyways, I'll keep on going.

Diogenes wrote:

Not a very good one.

This whole thing is just wrong. Newton didn't decide there should be a force called gravity and "LO" there was gravity. He looked at the world and developed his theory around it. Boyle didn't decide that the volume and pressure of a fixed quanity of a ideal gas is constant, he studied and then presented his theory. Clausius and Thomson didn't decide laws of thermodynamics, and the universe fitted around them, they learned the attributes of heat, and the rules that apply to it and developed a theory.

Once again you're twisted science to bend to your own pseudoscientific beliefs.

Brain fart is an accurate description of what you're trying to say.

Diogenes, it looks like you have misinterperated me entirely. I never said Newton CREATED and decided gravity exsisted, nor have I said Boyle likewise. What I REALLY said was that thanks to their inner thought they followed clues to explain a force that was always there. Never did I say they created or decided it to exsist.

Also, you say thet "he studied and then presented his theory" or in other words, thought to himself in dept to understand. IE inner thought.

The same "pseudoscientific" beliefs I believe in are also, the same "pseudoscientific" beliefs (as most new scientific studies were considered to be back then, later to be varified) so likewise, thought and research should be given to my claims, even if you don't know how to explain it.

Yes, people make mistakes. Trail and error. Eistien's first theory gave him great credability, only to be prooved flase with time. He later confesed it was "the biggest mistake of his life". Having gone through this, he then refined his theories and techniques to come up with one of the most prominent theories ever THOUGHT UP.

E=MC2

All matter is mearly energy condesed (this is believed by scientists and spirualists alike). Matter is denser when the vibrations are slower, thus the higher consentraction of atoms, making a "Solid" object (although the object would most likely be 98% nothingness). This can be varified by any scientist who has studied Einstien. This is not "pseudoscientific" garbage. So, everything is condenced energy in the form of vibrations, it is all connected, such is the way planets revolve around our sun, moons around the planets. Spiritualists believe this is how we are connected via our DNA.

People are falsly informed obout DNA. Only 5% of our DNA is known for it purpose. The rest (95%) nobody knows what it does, so the white coats label it "Junk DNA", just because they don't know what it does. These numbers are also relfected through visible matter. Only 5% of matter is visible to our eyes (the spectrum), the other 95% is invisible to us (dark matter, infrared). These numbers are also reflected in our brains. We, on avarage, only use 5%-10% of our brain capacity, the rest (90%-95%) is not used. Are these numbers relevant to each other? Is the unkown (or not used) 95% of our DNA connected to how we use our brain and visualise things?

Maybe the extra DNA could be used to tap into the vibrations around us so we could access a sort of, "Human Internet". Like Dolpins comunicate through soundwaves, and other animals through instinct, or infrared?

Here is an amazing video of a blind boy who can visualise his surroundings, through sound.

Obviously, and amazingly, the human body can interperate sound, if it needs to, or but in the effort in to believe it can.

And Diogenes, don't ever say I have distorted facts. Everything I have said can be reflected in conventional science.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Ok, now were getting somewhere. Although maybe there should be a seperate thread for this? Anyways, I'll keep on going.



Diogenes, it looks like you have misinterperated me entirely. I never said Newton CREATED and decided gravity exsisted, nor have I said Boyle likewise. What I REALLY said was that thanks to their inner thought they followed clues to explain a force that was always there. Never did I say they created or decided it to exsist.

No again so glad you did. And I quote

So Glad wrote:

Where did all the laws and theorums eminate? From the minds of the genius people, of course.

You may not have meant to have said what you said but you clearly suggest that the physical laws of the universe were created in the minds of the "genius" people.

Also, you say thet "he studied and then presented his theory" or in other words, thought to himself in dept to understand. IE inner thought.

No again stop this all may have made sense last night when sucking on a chillum, put in the cold hard light of day its nonsense.

Exactly what is the scientific merit of your beliefs. Start there and we'll discuss this further.

The same "pseudoscientific" beliefs I believe in are also, the same "pseudoscientific" beliefs (as most new scientific studies were considered to be back then, later to be varified) so likewise, thought and research should be given to my claims, even if you don't know how to explain it.

No sorry stop. Firstly "thought and research thought and research should be given to my claims, even if you don't know how to explain it" You cannot explain this so I should give thought and research to this because you cannot understand this? This is utter jibberish

You are misusing the words "science" and "pseudoscience". And misusing them very badly. When Galielo presented his theories it wasn't pseudo science, it was science. It just wasn't understood or accepted. That doesn't make it pseudoscience. Now you've not bothered to explain what the hell you're on about just made some vague claims that science doesn't disagree with you therefore science agrees with you thats not the same thing.

Yes, people make mistakes. Trail and error. Eistien's first theory gave him great credability, only to be prooved flase with time. He later confesed it was "the biggest mistake of his life". Having gone through this, he then refined his theories and techniques to come up with one of the most prominent theories ever THOUGHT UP.

E=MC2

Seriously what on earth does this have to do with anything.

All matter is mearly energy condesed (this is believed by scientists and spirualists alike). Matter is denser when the vibrations are slower, thus the higher consentraction of atoms, making a "Solid" object (although the object would most likely be 98% nothingness). This can be varified by any scientist who has studied Einstien. This is not "pseudoscientific" garbage.

Stop you can quote the last words of Rant in E Minor, over and over again. It doesn't make it true.

Some scientists in string theory have theorised that matter is energy vibrating. However, if you had bothered to read the link I put in a few posts ago. You will see that science is rejecting this theory.

So, everything is condenced energy in the form of vibrations, it is all connected, such is the way planets revolve around our sun, moons around the planets. Spiritualists believe this is how we are connected via our DNA.

People are falsly informed obout DNA. Only 5% of our DNA is known for it purpose. The rest (95%) nobody knows what it does, so the white coats label it "Junk DNA", just because they don't know what it does. These numbers are also relfected through visible matter. Only 5% of matter is visible to our eyes (the spectrum), the other 95% is invisible to us (dark matter, infrared). These numbers are also reflected in our brains. We, on avarage, only use 5%-10% of our brain capacity, the rest (90%-95%) is not used. Are these numbers relevant to each other? Is the unkown (or not used) 95% of our DNA connected to how we use our brain and visualise things?

Maybe the extra DNA could be used to tap into the vibrations around us so we could access a sort of, "Human Internet". Like Dolpins comunicate through soundwaves, and other animals through instinct, or infrared?

The above despite the inclusion of scientific words like DNA and dark mark is just pure speculation and guess work. It is the equvilent of the Medivial believe in the Aether
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29

You have grabbed several half understood scientific concepts and banded them all together to add a veneer of science to your spiritualistic side. Theres not a shred of proof there.

And Diogenes, don't ever say I have distorted facts. Everything I have said can be reflected in conventional science.

For starts you have on several occasions on this and the 911 thread.

Could you care to prove that there is a relationship betwen junk dna, and our brain capacity? Or the visual spectrum? Or Any of this. Simply quoting the statistic 5% over and over again is not proof of a connection. Which is what you're implying it is.

So Glad

I am now not going to bother discussing anything with you Diogenes, as I have given you ample evidence to work with and you have ignored it, disaproved it, called it imaginary and vigorously denied the possiblility of anything beyond your comprehension. I think you really disaprove of intuitive thinking and rather than pointing out what is wrong you say things like "utter jibberish", "nonsence", "vague", "not a shred of proof" (bar, of course, the proof I have given) and general personal quips like calling me a drug user(therefore, clutching at straws to ignore me).

Bonkey has allways been an intelligent person to debate with, as he does not personally accuse and always debunks with integrity.

I will not read your disected response as it will most likely be everything I have listed above.

So Glad

Now for some links:

Wikipedia on junk DNA.

As for the 10% of our brain, you can google it yourself and you'll get a clather of info. I'm not being lazy here but it depends on what you mean by "10%". "10%" as in what our brain contains then, no that is not true, we use all of our brain, and that is the truth. What I mean is, we only used about 10% percent at a time, and that is true.

I honestly don't see the point in prooving that 5% of matter is what we can see. You learn this in physics when studying light, we can only see the spectrum, and bits of ultraviolet. But I'll refresh your memory.

Visible Light

So Glad

Also, more about visible matter:

Space Matter