On 05/04/2013 11:10 PM, salyavin808 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: >> On 05/04/2013 02:41 PM, salyavin808 wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>>> On 05/03/2013 11:52 PM, salyavin808 wrote: >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: >>>>>> A scientist explains in this short clip. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm5L8z34sNg >>>>>> >>>>> I'm fairly sure that remote viewing isn't a science. If it was >>>>> it would work and the US government wouldn't have taken 10 years >>>>> to find Bin Laden, for instance. >>>>> >>>>> They probably wouldn't have abandoned their RV project when they realised >>>>> it didn't work either. >>>>> >>>>> So there wasn't any need to watch to another crap quantum bollocks >>>>> youtube video. If there is no signal there is no need to invent an >>>>> explanation for one. >>>> Supposedly they found Bin Laden and he was killed in the battle of Tora >>>> Bora but not enough remained to claim the kill. So they used him as a >>>> Bogey Man to keep Americans in fear making all kinds of money for the >>>> military industrial complex. Since he has worn out his welcome (IOW, >>>> the public was catching on) they staged a bogus assassination a couple >>>> years ago. >>> A well qualified supposedly. >> At least as "qualified" as believing the mainstream media or government >> officials. It's anecdotal but from a variety of sources over the years. > Is it the same sources that think the WTC attacks were an inside > job
Not necessarily. > > Like all conspiracy theories it's more complicated than the > depressing truth that shit just happens. They always involve > too many people who would have to remain silent about deeper > sinister motives. The official explanation has too much of > the ugly ring of truth to it. You DO understand hat the 9/11 Official Report is of course a conspiracy theory? The "ring" to me is that the official "explanation" is a cover-up. There is a difference between a "conspiracy theorist" and a "conspiracy investigator." I guess it is whatever you want to believe and if the blue pill makes you feel comfortable. What would Miss Marple think? :-D > >>>> I have experienced the tantric kind of remote viewing and we also have >>>> other "remote" kinds of things such as maran, vashikaran, uchattan, >>>> stambhan and videshan. The military studied these things but probably >>>> that was a bad environment to get it right. >>> I will convert for evidence. >> Good luck. You'll have to find a teacher as mine isn't around anymore. > I would consider scientific evidence, like a controlled experiment > with remote viewers finding hidden things they couldn't have known > about. No one has managed to do this. The CIA group had satellite > photos to work with, they didn't just sit there with their eyes > closed. Even though one of them seemed initially very impressive, > after a while the "hits" got swamped with misses, this is familiar > to any student of paranormal research. Modern science is still too primitive to understand such things in the realm of the supernatural especially tantra. So what actually do you know about the military's experiments? I do know that they looked at what Indian tantrics and yogis could do but didn't follow that system. Besides tantrics wouldn't give out techniques to them anyway. > > But having the CIA on your CV must be gold on the new age lecture > circuit. What "new age lecture circuit?" I don't have one. Do you?
