Evidence of the Afterlife Suppressed?

digme

espinolman wrote: »

I explained why in my last post here , to turn humans into corporations , so humans are no longer considered sovereign , they are considered property that the banks can borrow money on , because you are a owned corporation , you see when your birth cert is registered , your body is owned and your are no longer a soul that owns your body .

Did you know an Irish berth certificate is the same as 1 million euro's for the Irish government in taxes?
Your definitely talking sense as far as I'm concerned, and your last few posts on the subject were great.

digme

RoboClam wrote: »

It's a common misconception, more of an urban myth actually. Yes bodies were measured upon death and yes a scientist recorded varying loss in weight.

However his methods were flawed and no attempts to duplicate the findings have been successful.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Fair enough i wasn't too sure on that.
At least I won't be passing on this urban myth to anyone

me_right_one

digme wrote: »

Society as we know it would fall apart.knowing whether an afterlife exists or not, will have no effect on your daily life is asinine,and quite ridiculous to say the least.
Life would be totally different.It would resemble david deangelo thoughts on how to understand women,get your mouse, and turn it back to front and try use it,try it,it's ridiculous,everything is backwards.

Society would fall apart? Really? Why, would drug dealers and gangsters turn good? Were you trying to type with your mouse back-to-front there?

digme

me_right_one wrote: »

Society would fall apart? Really? Why, would drug dealers and gangsters turn good? Were you trying to type with your mouse back-to-front there?

Do you see nothing changing if this was indeed the case?
Drug dealers and gangsters?What are you talking about?
And since when do you type with your mouse?

me_right_one

espinolman wrote: »

I explained why in my last post here , to turn humans into corporations , so humans are no longer considered sovereign , they are considered property that the banks can borrow money on , because you are a owned corporation , you see when your birth cert is registered , your body is owned and your are no longer a soul that owns your body .

So what you're saying is that banks/corporations/general-money-making-bodies DONT want you to know there's an afterlife so they can convince you to earn more money for them with the precious few years you have on earth? Would it not make more sense for them if it was the other way round?:rolleyes:

digme

me_right_one wrote: »

So what you're saying is that banks/corporations/general-money-making-bodies DONT want you to know there's an afterlife so they can convince you to earn more money for them with the precious few years you have on earth? Would it not make more sense for them if it was the other way round?:rolleyes:

Money would not exist.

me_right_one

digme wrote: »

Do you see nothing changing if this was indeed the case?
Drug dealers and gangsters?What are you talking about?
And since when do you type with your mouse?

What are YOU talking about? If you think there would be changes, what do you think they would be?

Google irony for the last bit.

me_right_one

digme wrote: »

Money would not exist.

OF COURSE it would! What other, more convenient means of translating work/energy/goods/services into food and shelter for your physical body do you think would replace money? You still have to eat until you die!

digme

me_right_one wrote: »

OF COURSE it would! What other, more convenient means of translating work/energy/goods/services into food and shelter for your physical body do you think would replace money? You still have to eat until you die!

BARTER, but that's my opinion.

digme

me_right_one wrote: »

What are YOU talking about? If you think there would be changes, what do you think they would be?

Google irony for the last bit.

You said society would not change if you know there was an after life.Now I think 99.9% of people would disagree with you there.Here's an easy to understand analogy.If you got life in jail, you'd just kill yourself,that's a very extreme example i know,but I think it suits the question quite well.

me right one, stop trolling.

IrelandSpirit

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Prove in any tangible way that the spirit exists independent of the body and you will have taken the first step in proving your theory. Personally I think that we are to most extents our brains. Brain ceases to function, thought process ceases to function - that's it.

It's not my theory. Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day - The Quarterly Journal of Science - back in 1874. Though yes, and I respect your opinion, they were the same opinions as many, many, many prominent scientists and researchers - they too believed it was not possible until they uncovered evidence to the contrary. I mean, what reason could a Nobel Laureate make claims like:
"There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact."

What led scientists of the calibre of Crookes and Lodge and Baird and Richet etc, etc, to proclaim the experimental proof of survival after death, as fact? Personally, I don't believe they were hoaxers, I'm certainly not going to call them liars and fools. It's unlikely any of us would even be having this discussion now if it wasn't for their contributions to science. So what else might they have discovered? That we survive physical death? I think these were repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions, and the evidence was suppressed. The fact that hardly anyone even suspects any of this these days led me to ask that question, and I think the answer is clear why.


Please feel free to check out the links to the sites I posted earlier. Thank you.

IrelandSpirit

digme wrote: »

Keep us updated IrelandSpirit,as I like this type of discussion a lot!

Yep, me too, i think it cuts to the heart of it Digme, I'll try to keep posting, sent an email earlier to that website in the op ...

But I reckon you and others here are spot on. So-called society as we know it would cease to exist. Living with the full knowledge that we all survive physical death, fear-based ignorance and greed would have a difficult time taking hold - religions traumatised us (and do still) for centuries with their eternal hellfire and damnation - get on your knees you filthy sinners, do as you're told and submit to our holy laws! Hahaha, give us your sweat and labour in other words, bend over and take it and we'll line our cathedrals with gold. Science does it with 'non-existence', in other words fukc everybody else and fill your boots NOW cos there is nothing else and that's what life's about - consume! Consume! Consume!

What a life .. while billions suffer in abject misery and starve.



In any case,, thanks for the encouragement

IrelandSpirit

espinolman wrote: »

I explained why in my last post here , to turn humans into corporations , so humans are no longer considered sovereign , they are considered property that the banks can borrow money on , because you are a owned corporation , you see when your birth cert is registered , your body is owned and your are no longer a soul that owns your body .

Well put. It is ultimately a question of sovereignty in the true sense of the word. And the freeman perspective dose fit in with all this, hand in glove.

We are living breathing eternal souls, not soulless corporate legal fictions.

me_right_one

Lads, I'm not trolling. I'm just saying I disagree A) that info about the afterlife is being suppressed, and that life would be any different if PROOF of afterlife existed, instead of BELIEF.

A) The afterlife either exists or it doesnt. We'll all find out someday. So what would be the point in hiding info on the subject?

For example, would you live under a cardboard box for 80 years and not bother getting a mortgage just because you knew you your soul lives on after your physical body? I wouldn't! Thats like never cutting your hair cos you know it'll just keep coming back.


Most people live their lives with the BELIEF, that is the "acceptance without proof", that an afterlife exists anyway. If science comes up with a mathematical formula that confirmed their already well established convictions, so what?

This thread began as an open, sensible, logical, scientific debate about the afterlife. Its beginning to stink of the usual paranoid CT stuff about banks and corporations. If money didnt exist, barter would mean people would stockplie food, fuel etc. as currency instead. The system of society would not fundamentally change.

IrelandSpirit

me_right_one wrote: »

Lads, I'm not trolling. I'm just saying I disagree A) that info about the afterlife is being suppressed, and that life would be any different if PROOF of afterlife existed, instead of BELIEF.

A) The afterlife either exists or it doesnt. We'll all find out someday. So what would be the point in hiding info on the subject?

For example, would you live under a cardboard box for 80 years and not bother getting a mortgage just because you knew you your soul lives on after your physical body? I wouldn't! Thats like never cutting your hair cos you know it'll just keep coming back.


Most people live their lives with the BELIEF, that is the "acceptance without proof", that an afterlife exists anyway. If science comes up with a mathematical formula that confirmed their already well established convictions, so what?

This thread began as an open, sensible, logical, scientific debate about the afterlife. Its beginning to stink of the usual paranoid CT stuff about banks and corporations. If money didnt exist, barter would mean people would stockplie food, fuel etc. as currency instead. The system of society would not fundamentally change.

"This thread began as an open, sensible, logical, scientific debate about the afterlife. Its beginning to stink of the usual paranoid CTAs"

You're right. and my apologies - something deep down made me think you were not here merely on the troll. I no longer think the CT forum is the right place for this discussion. And as previously stated, I have evidence in the form of direct personal experience anyway, as have others, anecdotes are not relevant here.

At any rate, we're not talking about our beliefs. Only some form of hard evidence could lead the most respected and brilliant scientists in history to proclaim the reality of the afterlife as scientific fact. Either the evidence they claim exists, or perhaps the very foundation of science is in question: these were men of integrity; they developed the scientific method we use today; they were neither hoaxers nor religious maniacs nor deluded fools (at least I can't bring myself to think they were) - afterlife communication was not simply a question of 'belief', they clearly state it is fact.


So maybe the mods should move this thread to the science forum, where this topic can be explored soberly, and thoroughly, and with the respect it merits? Before it degenerates further.

If there is no solid foundation to the claim, it will be debunked and put to rest within minutes.

You decide. I contacted the author of the website in the op, and was thinking of contacting others. I'd be very surprised if anybody's going waste their time with us here, if we're just going to end up bickering with each other about our personal beliefs.



My apologies also, if in recent posts I have appeared to have encouraged this, it stops here for me as regards this subject.



Edit: to my knowledge, it might well be the first serious scientific on-line discussion on this subject.

digme

Any update Ireland spirit? Did he conduct any scientific experiments as of yet?

IrelandSpirit

Digme, haven't had time to look into it further, tbh, not yet ... And as I say, the reality of afterlife communication is already resolved for me through direct experience, and the most respected and brilliant scientists in history uncovered the evidence long ago anyway.

That is, of course, if scientific evidence ever existed and it's not all a cruel hoax or the foolish ravings of deluded minds! It's either one or the other. We can't have it both ways with this subject.

And as you can see, our esteemed scientists and self-proclaimed sceptics on boards.ie, who are generally very vocal about such issues, are indeed eerily silent in offering any sober scientific rebuttal to Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Baird, Richet and all the other great scientists who proclaim the experimental proof of survival after death as fact.

I suppose we can only take their silence as acquiescence to the fact too. If there is no scientific foundation to these scientists' claim, it would be debunked and put to rest within minutes anyway.

In all fairness though, nobody to my knowledge has been able to stand up to the challenge. It's probably the reason why we don't hear of scientific debates on the subject. So yet again, it appears the evidence is firmly locked behind a wall of mainstream silence, along with so much else we don't hear about.

RoboClam

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Digme, haven't had time to look into it further, tbh, not yet ... And as I say, the reality of afterlife communication is already resolved for me through direct experience, and the most respected and brilliant scientists in history uncovered the evidence long ago anyway.

That is, of course, if scientific evidence ever existed and it's not all a cruel hoax or the foolish ravings of deluded minds! It's either one or the other. We can't have it both ways with this subject.

And as you can see, our esteemed scientists and self-proclaimed sceptics on boards.ie, who are generally very vocal about such issues, are indeed eerily silent in offering any sober scientific rebuttal to Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Baird, Richet and all the other great scientists who proclaim the experimental proof of survival after death as fact.

I suppose we can only take their silence as acquiescence to the fact too. If there is no scientific foundation to these scientists' claim, it would be debunked and put to rest within minutes anyway.

In all fairness though, nobody to my knowledge has been able to stand up to the challenge. It's probably the reason why we don't hear of scientific debates on the subject. So yet again, it appears the evidence is firmly locked behind a wall of mainstream silence, along with so much else we don't hear about.

I know you're just looking for answers, but you're making a few mistakes in this post. You state that because no skeptics are replying to this post, that there must be a scientific basis to these claims. This is kind of a false dichotomy.

Now, the scientists you quote were very talented in their respective fields. However, this does not make them any authority on the afterlife. You are arguing that because certain people believe it, then there must be some scientific merit. This is an argument from authority: "This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant".

I have said before, the afterlife is not falsifiable. If it were falsifiable then this could be proven through research. Something that is unfalsifiable is by definition, not science.

IrelandSpirit

RoboClam wrote: »

I know you're just looking for answers, but you're making a few mistakes in this post. You state that because no skeptics are replying to this post, that there must be a scientific basis to these claims. This is kind of a false dichotomy.

Now, the scientists you quote were very talented in their respective fields. However, this does not make them any authority on the afterlife. You are arguing that because certain people believe it, then there must be some scientific merit. This is an argument from authority: "This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant".

I have said before, the afterlife is not falsifiable. If it were falsifiable then this could be proven through research. Something that is unfalsifiable is by definition, not science.

No, no, no - do not put your type in my post! lol. If you read back, you will find that I never made the claim that they were an authority on the afterlife, In fact I have been very careful to stay faithful to what they actually said by quoting them directly, and I provided a link for you in every instance.

I agree with you: these scientists were highly intelligent and honourable individuals. When you have Nobel Laureates the likes of Charles Richet saying "There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact," you can't say they did not apply the scientific method to achieve their results - not without calling them liars and hoaxers in the same breath.

I seriously can't see how you can say the evidence was was based on what they 'believed' and unscientific. I think they would know that evidence has nothing to do with personal belief, and stayed with the facts, however challenging the evidence was to them personally.

IrelandSpirit

RoboClam wrote: »

I have said before, the afterlife is not falsifiable. If it were falsifiable then this could be proven through research. Something that is unfalsifiable is by definition, not science.

Can't find where you said that tbh, but I think you're very mistaken thinking that evidence for the afterlife can't be falsified, there were many frauds then as there are today... leastways the UKs Fraudulent Medium's Act had a lot to say about it.

RoboClam

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, no, no - do not put your type in my post! lol. If you read back, you will find that I never made the claim that they were an authority on the afterlife, In fact I have been very careful to stay faithful to what they actually said by quoting them directly, and I provided a link for you in every instance.

I agree with you: these scientists were highly intelligent and honourable individuals. When you have Nobel Laureates the likes of Charles Richet saying "There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact," you can't say they did not apply the scientific method to achieve their results - not without calling them liars and hoaxers in the same breath.

I seriously can't see how you can say the evidence was was based on what they 'believed' and unscientific. I think they would know that evidence has nothing to do with personal belief, and stayed with the facts, however challenging the evidence was to them personally.

Perhaps you did not say they were authorities. But you do use them as examples of scientists to prove your point. This is not always a bad thing to do might I add. I could do the same and quote amazing scientists of the past who did not believe in the afterlife, but that wouldn't really get us anywhere.

You are not using their data as evidence of the afterlife. Instead you are quoting what they think their data is showing. People are prone to bias and no one is perfect. I'm not calling them liars or hoaxers, but they may have simply been wrong. Maybe they wanted to believe in an afterlife so much, that it affected their testing methods. There could have been too much focus on their subjective experiences rather than the use of reliable measurement apparatus to collect their data too.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Can't find where you said that tbh, but I think you're very mistaken thinking that evidence for the afterlife can't be falsified, there were many frauds then as there are today... leastways the UKs Fraudulent Medium's Act had a lot to say about it.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because individuals can be falsifiable, that as a result the theory is too. No matter how many people are frauds, this doesn't change the falsifiability of the theory "There is there an afterlife". Falsifiability only refers to the theory, not practitioners.

Oh, and not that I'm trying to prove you wrong on this, but I said it in post 32. Not that it matters anyway!

RoboClam wrote: »

You say because it's reproducible that it is worthy of scientific investigation. Well, not necessarily. It is reproducible, but only by mediums. It is only reproducible under certain conditions (usually set by the medium). If the results are not obtained, the excuse could be that "the spirits were not active" or "your testing machine is disturbing the spirit". This hit and miss tactic is used commonly in cold reading for example. This makes it unfalsifiable. You cannot prove it wrong no matter how much testing you carried out. So, while this alone does not prove that mediums are all fakes, it does mean that it cannot be considered a scientific theory.

IrelandSpirit

RoboClam wrote: »

Perhaps you did not say they were authorities. But you do use them as examples of scientists to prove your point. This is not always a bad thing to do might I add. I could do the same and quote amazing scientists of the past who did not believe in the afterlife, but that wouldn't really get us anywhere.

You are not using their data as evidence of the afterlife. Instead you are quoting what they think their data is showing. People are prone to bias and no one is perfect. I'm not calling them liars or hoaxers, but they may have simply been wrong. Maybe they wanted to believe in an afterlife so much, that it affected their testing methods. There could have been too much focus on their subjective experiences rather than the use of reliable measurement apparatus to collect their data too.





Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because individuals can be falsifiable, that as a result the theory is too. No matter how many people are frauds, this doesn't change the falsifiability of the theory "There is there an afterlife". Falsifiability only refers to the theory, not practitioners.

Oh, and not that I'm trying to prove you wrong on this, but I said it in post 32. Not that it matters anyway!

My apologies for missing post 32, I honestly wish i had more time for this as yes I am looking for answers, as regards the scientific evidence for afterlife communication in particular. I'm a little unclear about what you mean by 'unfalsifiable'... any theory could be said to be false perhaps, or at least require a leap of faith unless backed up by evidence. And evidence too can be falsified, no? I am not a scientist. I would not feel confident to judge on that level. Going by their credentials, it seems unlikely to me that they would falsify evidence, or be so easily taken in by evidence which was falsified.

Also, please understand, I know it might sound like I've been 'name dropping' with Nobel Laureates and so on but I am not using the likes of these great scientists to prove my point, rather the scientific evidence in support of the afterlife is their point. They conducted the research. They produced the results. And very often it's a huge surprise the names involved! Which is why this thread is titled as it is. What they uncovered is already proved to me personally. It does not need to fall within the scientific method - it is a direct experience, and I've tried to make the distinction between the two as clear as possible.

Evidence and personal experience, while they might often correlate, are not necessarily the same thing. I have no personal experience of a blackhole, or a quark or so many of the things scientists claim exist beyond the five senses, but I'll take it on faith that these great minds are not deluded, and their equipment (or 'medium') through which they make their discoveries are likewise functioning correctly, or that at the very least they're not pulling my leg! Though i am obviously excited by the fact that many scientists appear to uphold my personal experiences in regards afterlife communication.


And I am sure there are just as many scientists who, as you rightly say, deem afterlife communication unscientific and not worthy of study - it is the predominant mainstream perspective afterall. And I agree with you that there could be a 'hit and miss' element' as regards these,experiments, but whether that disqualifies their claims (in strictly scientific terms) again I don't know. I'd venture that all scientific fields suffer from this, to greater or lesser degrees, but that does not necessarily disqualify them outright; the entire 'materialistic' Newtonian paradigm appears to break down at a quantum level, and yet can still repeatedly put a plane in the air or bake a cake. The proof's in the pudding...

Forgive me for not producing their raw data in a manner in which you'd perhaps find more palatable, I don't think I'd have time to root it out, nor would I know where to locate it, if indeed it is locatable still which is another reason why this thread's titled as it is. I am also uncovering new things as I go along. An interesting fact I recently discovered is that the word ectoplasm was first coined by. Charles Richet, and, 'is derived from the Greek ektos (without) and plasm (form). Dr. Richet, one of many critical observers of materialization phenomena, states:

"I have clearly seen in conditions of good light, the ectoplasmic forms in the process of organization. Fraud under the conditions imposed was impossible. Rectilinear extensions emerge from the medium's body terminating and acting like a living hand ... at first the ectoplasmic limbs appear thin and stiff. Little by little they thicken, taking the form of more or less solid limbs.

"I personally in good light have seen the first lineaments of ectoplasm emerge as a kind of liquid or pasty jelly from the mouth or the breast of the medium. It organizes itself by degrees into the shape of a face or limb. Under these same conditions of good visibility I have, along with Schrenck-Notzing, Dr. Geley, Mine. Bisson, Zöllner and Oliver Lodge, seen this paste spread on my knee and slowly take form so as to show the rudiments, of the radius, cubitus or metacarpal bone whose increasing pressure I could feel on my knee. The ectoplasmic cloud would seem to become living substance while at the same time veils develop around it that conceal the mechanism of its formation into ephemeral living tissue."

A microscopic analysis of a sufficient residue of this ectoplasmic substance was obtained by Schrenck-Notzing. It indicated epithelial cells, bacterial forms and substantial evidences of fat. It appeared entirely organic in nature, comprising matter equivalent to living tissue.'


http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/researchers/richet.htm

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/home.htm


OK, we know these scientists were the vanguard of the scientific method and they claim evidence on those grounds. It is a claim that is either true or false. 'Maybe they wanted to believe in an afterlife so much, that it affected their testing methods', as you suggest. Again, I don't know to what extent they could've been distracted by that. It is possible that one or two might, but it is highly unlikely that all would've let themselves be swayed by wishful thinking.

The scientific community were very hostile towards mediums as a whole; that they were charlatans and frauds often preying on the bereaved was the consensus; Sir William Crookes for one selected a team of leading scientists specifically to discredit their claims. Charles Richet carried out the same (repeatable) experiments and under laboratory conditions too. Everyone involved report being in the physical presence of people who had once lived on earth. They might well have been wrong about this, as you say, and you are of course entitled to your opinion. To my mind, however, it far surpasses merely being wrong - it is arguably the craziest fukcin thing a scientist could say!

Or the bravest... "yeah, i talk to dead people, come into my lab"... lol

Either way, I think we can agree that these men were definitely not crazy,

We can safely agree that they were not all, if any, swayed by wishful thinking or that they were all consistently fooled by frauds, or that they stooped so low as to conduct any foul play themselves.

Which means either their experiments into afterlife communication yielded the results they claim, or it takes us back to the start, they were deluded....

Personally I'd go along with what Crookes said about that:

"the supposition that there is a sort of mania or delusion which suddenly attacks a whole room full of intelligent persons who are quite sane elsewhere, and that they all concur to the minutest particulars, in the details of the occurrences of which they suppose themselves to be witnesses, seems to my mind more incredible than even the facts they attest."

digme

I emailed a few people IrelandSpirit and received no responses.Have you gotten anything back at all?

IrelandSpirit

digme wrote: »

I emailed a few people IrelandSpirit and received no responses.Have you gotten anything back at all?

Hi Digme, well I received an encouraging email from Dr Hogan (from the site in the op), and it's good to hear you've invited others here too, so maybe they'll participate at some point. We'll just have to wait and see...

digme

Good stuff.
I tried to buy Sir William Crookes book on ebay, but got outbid.Don't want to see this thread disappear.

Darlughda

I would be of the opinion that evidence of the afterlife would be, has been and is suppressed. If it could be proved as scientific fact that death is not the end and existence is eternal the hegemony of the Catholic and Christian churches would be in turmoil. And as history has proven these guys like control. And power. And corruption.

Can you really imagine what it would be like on this planet if people on a mass scale realised that they don't get a ticket to heaven if they are 'good' and they wont suffer for eternity if they are 'bad'.

All those priests and popes and movers and shakers in high authority would no longer be able to claim that they can save people if they just follow them. I'd imagine a lot of people would be very pissed off.
In fact it would be like a sudden freedom from slavery all over the planet.

Then what happens when people start looking at all the finances and involvements in wars that these holy organisations are up to their necks in. A lot of very powerful people would have vested interests in keeping people in a state of fear about death.

It would have very far reaching results.

the_syco

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That's what the afterlife speakers report, there's very little qualitative difference at first - most don't even realise they've crossed over.

They don't realise that they died?

digme

Any updates Ireland spirit?

IrelandSpirit

digme wrote: »

Any updates Ireland spirit?

Digme! Hiya, no updates, no, just been mad busy in this crazy life! But this thread will most likely die into the cyber-afterlife of forgotten agendas and passions unless, i feel, it is moved to the science forum where it can be explored further (after all, these are the founders fathers of science making the scientific claim for afterlife communication), either that, or ... thing is, I don't know but I do believe the entire issue is suppressed to the nines!


PM a mod maybe?