It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by an0maly33
I caught it on youtube a while back and I was unimpressed. I didn't catch that this lady was supposed to be channeling Ramtha (or whoever). That's pretty funny.
Ramtha. (www.ramtha.com) One of the great enigmas that scientists have studied in the last decade is Ramtha, a mystic, philosopher, master teacher and hierophant. His partnership with American woman JZ Knight, his channel, still baffles scholars.
Using a sophisticated polygraph, noted parapsychologists Ian Wickramasekera and Stanley Krippner of Saybrook Graduate School repeatedly observed that while JZ Knight is channeling Ramtha, the readings of her brain-wave activity shift to delta, and that the lower cerebellum operates her body which talks, walks, eats, drinks and dances while Ramtha teaches – about the mystery of mind over matter.
Originally posted by dariousg
Dude, you're title is completely debunked. Why? Well, first off you need to study psychology to understand why this statement is TRUE. To them, as was displayed in Pocohantus (Disney), they appeared to be strange clouds on whatever they viewed the ships as. They DID NOT SEE SHIPS.
Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Actually this seems to be an idea that is gaining traction in some acedemic circles. IE that one must beleive to see. Its ridiculous psudeoscience of course, as concepts are usually based on bservation rather than vice versa, but it is fashionable.
Our Stone Age brains may simply be unable to cope with the pace of modern life, says Roger Highfield
Look around, and you could be forgiven for believing that you can see a vivid and detailed picture of your surroundings. Indeed, you may even think that your eyes never deceive you. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for your brain.
Looking without seeing: Dr Simon Singh and Prof Richard Wiseman from Theatre of Science
Scientists have gathered some remarkable evidence which shows that it is possible to see something without observing it, in research that sheds new light on traffic accidents that occur when a driver "looked but failed to see", and other examples of mayhem and mishap in everyday life.
The astonishing lack of attention we pay to our surroundings has been highlighted by research conducted by Dr Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois and Dr Daniel Levin of Vanderbilt University. At the end of this article, Dr Simons invites readers to explore the limitations of their own brains.
In one experiment, people who were walking across a college campus were asked by a stranger for directions. During the resulting chat, two men carrying a wooden door passed between the stranger and the subjects. After the door went by, the subjects were asked if they had noticed anything change.
Half of those tested failed to notice that, as the door passed by, the stranger had been substituted with a man who was of different height, of different build and who sounded different. He was also wearing different clothes.
advertisement
Despite the fact that the subjects had talked to the stranger for 10-15 seconds before the swap, half of them did not detect that, after the passing of the door, they had ended up speaking to a different person. This phenomenon, called change blindness, highlights how we see much less than we think we do.
An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.... The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
The black & white thinking displayed in this thread is inappropriate in my opinion.
Just because something has a few poor elements (such as ramtha or what the OP mentions) doesnt mean the whole thing is bad or "debunked".
And just because something has a few good elements, doesnt mean the whole thing is fantastic.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Just because something has a few poor elements (such as ramtha or what the OP mentions) doesnt mean the whole thing is bad or "debunked".
And just because something has a few good elements, doesnt mean the whole thing is fantastic.
Originally posted by Unit541
However, the data presented on the RNG experiments is completely factual. As are the water crystals.
It turns out, just like many conclusions made by those believing in spiritual stuffs, the method of the experiment is not robust.
In particular, the photographers knew before hand which water has good words in it and which water does not.
Hence, it is possible that Masaru got his result even though there is no causal effect whatsoever between the words and crystal structure.
How? Well, there are plenty of crystals in the water. That’s pretty obvious. A photographer that knows before hand and expect “good” crystal will pick the beautiful crystal from the positive water.
The photographer that knows before hand that the words are negative, like “I hate you” then he’ll simply photograph the bad crystal.
Now, that seems like a much more plausible explanation. James Randi, a skeptic, offers Masaru $1 million dollars if he can perform his experiments with double blind tests that would solve the original problem.
So far, Masaru still promotes his idea ignoring Randi’s pleas.
What the film makers didn’t say is that Emoto knows the word used, and looks for a crystal that matches that word (biased data selection). To demonstrate a real effect, Emoto would need to be blind to the word used. James Randi has said that if Emoto could perform this experiment double-blinded, it would qualify for the million dollar prize. (He has never applied.) Such a protocol would show there is no correlation between the words taped to a bottle and the crystals formed within. These experiments have not been performed to a scientific protocol and have never been independently replicated.