The Physical Effects of Prayer (Transformation of Patterns)...

human rights violations
United States of America
Obama Administration
DOD scientists/DARPA/Illegal/nonconsenual human experimentation
mikey weinstein
Dr Jun Chen (DOD research grant),Dr Richard Berk(Precrime),Dr Martha Farah(neurology)university of pittsburgh
Dr. Arati Prabhakar(DARPA),Dr. Geoffrey Ling(DOD),Dr Walter J. Koroshetz(Department of Health and Human Services)
Army Col. Charles Engel, M.P.H., M.D.,Demay psychology pentagon,USPHS Capt. Janet Hawkins, MSW, MPA, Navy
Captain Paul S. Hammer (DCoE),
genocide/murder and assault of adults,babies and children
Drones/satellites/elf-vlf towers/cell towers
equipped with MEDUSA and like technologies
Microwave/electromagnetic radiation (neurological manipulation/torture/rape)
voice to skull (V2K) mental torture/rape
---they are also raping children and adults in jewish synagogues and christian sanctuaries
THIS IS PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST OUR OWN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
major general jeffrey jacobs commander army reserve psyops-
lt gen william caldwell, major general jeffrey jacobs army reserve psychological operations
is raping rabbis,preachers,priests,christians,jews, and their children with psychotronic warfare-
drones/satellites and other military equipment-
in their synagogues,cathedrals, and churches....IN THE UNITED STATES
they use v2k(voice to skull) to be the voice of god (the Torah says no man may claim deity!)
the obama administration condones this in the united states-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_weapon
wired.com/dangerroom/2007/12/the-voice-of-go/
Please contact the aclj/aclu/the hague/the u.n./preachers/teachers/evangelists/rabbis
or anyone who can to stop this blasphemy!!!
Where is our constitutionally protected freedom of religion!

reply to post by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Interesting thread,

I generally consider prayer to be useless as there is no evidence of it ever working. Same goes for the rice thing.

Were any of these experiments done in a controlled, fair experiment? It doesn't seem that way. Is there any hard evidence that praying at rice in a jar has any effect on it whatsoever?

I have researched this a little, although it was about 5 years ago. At that time there was no credible evidence and the effect couldn't be repeated under controlled conditions; has this changed?

Peace,
Smurf

If you consider prayer to be useless and do the experiment , then of course the effect will decrease since this experiment is based on consciousness. Then again, there was one person who didn't believe and it still had some effects (Link).

What is the evidence that it works? The many different people doing it on YouTube (some skeptic some not) and the physical evidence (the images) that we see here.

Of course, if you do not like this idea however you can find "evidence" to the contrary, but in my opinion believing is seeing and the images speaks for themselves.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Thundersmurf

 

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Interesting thread,

I generally consider prayer to be useless as there is no evidence of it ever working. Same goes for the rice thing.

Were any of these experiments done in a controlled, fair experiment? It doesn't seem that way. Is there any hard evidence that praying at rice in a jar has any effect on it whatsoever?

I have researched this a little, although it was about 5 years ago. At that time there was no credible evidence and the effect couldn't be repeated under controlled conditions; has this changed?

Peace,
Smurf

If you consider prayer to be useless and do the experiment , then of course the effect will decrease since this experiment is based on consciousness. Then again, there was one person who didn't believe and it still had some effects (Link).

What is the evidence that it works? The many different people doing it on YouTube (some skeptic some not) and the physical evidence (the images) that we see here.

Of course, if you do not like this idea however you can find "evidence" to the contrary, but in my opinion believing is seeing and the images speaks for themselves.

So.. are you saying that I 'lack' consiousness because I don't believe prayer works? Regardless, prayer has no part in this discussion as nothing religious is happening.

All I'm saying is that this has never been re-produced in a controlled environment yet everyone just believes it. Seems kind of counter-productive to the Deny Ignorance slogan of our beloved ATS. You talk about all this as if it's real science and not just wishy-thinking.

Are there any insights in to the actual science that makes these differing results possible?
Have we discovered which part of, or how, the brain is able to transmit the signal in to the jar?
If I do the experiment multiple times with the same thoughts on each jar, will the results be the same each time?

Thanks


Thanks

reply to post by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
So.. are you saying that I 'lack' consiousness because I don't believe prayer works?

This is an experiment of consciousness, and consciousness includes intention, emotions, and beliefs. When I said "consciousness" I was speaking of the "mind" in general. So yes, if you do not believe then that will also have an effect. Remember, this experiment did not say, in anyway that if you pray it will 100% work. It said it has an EFFECT. It is based on influence. It influences the outcome, not 100% make it one way or another. This experiment was done many times and the effects can still be seen even if the effect isn't as major as what is shown here.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Regardless, prayer has no part in this discussion as nothing religious is happening.

Prayer doesn't have to be "religious" (pertaining to religion). Prayer is about connecting with a being or object of sacredness (or reverence if you do not like that word) for the purpose of supplication, thanksgiving, adoration, or confession.

And that is what is being shown here. Connecting to the water with respect and adoring it or even just feeling gratitude for it has these effects.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
All I'm saying is that this has never been re-produced in a controlled environment yet everyone just believes it.

It depends on how you define "controlled". The study was done in a proper way to ensure no confusion (3 separate jars all cleaned out). It was repeated multiple times with similar results.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Seems kind of counter-productive to the Deny Ignorance slogan of our beloved ATS.

The evidence was shown. It can be accepted or denied.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
You talk about all this as if it's real science and not just wishy-thinking.

In my opinion, an experiment that has been performed multiple times with similar results, and having photographic evidence of that is enough reason to consider it "real".

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Are there any insights in to the actual science that makes these differing results possible?

In my opinion, actual science is knowledge, and knowledge comes from experience. The experience was seeing these formations of water crystals multiple times after the experiment was done. So, in my opinion evidence shows "actual" science.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Have we discovered which part of, or how, the brain is able to transmit the signal in to the jar?

To be honest, no. There are theories, but regardless of the theory, the fact is it happens. If you hold an apple and let go, it'll fall. This was true even before scientists came up with the theory of gravity. My guess would be the theory of Non-Local Consciousness.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
If I do the experiment multiple times with the same thoughts on each jar, will the results be the same each time?

Probably not, but the effects will be seen. It is not a 100% effective thing. It is statistical, therefore the intensity of the effects may vary. Also, do not just do it with thoughts, try to feel the emotion as well and make sure the 3 jars are not too close.

The first jar is love ("Thank you", "I love you" , trying to feel the emotion)
The second jar is hate ("I hate you", "you disgust me", trying to feel the emotion)
The third jar is the controlled jar (don't give it any attention and let it rot naturally)

This is done for 30 days. A difference should be seen with the 3 jars, but HOW different it will be may vary since consciousness is only an INFLUENCE, so it is not a 100% thing.

reply to post by arpgme

Prayer doesn't have to be "religious"

1. a devout petition to God or an object of worship.
2. a spiritual communion with God or an object of worship, as in supplication, thanksgiving, adoration, or confession.

Yip, it's a religious thing.

It depends on how you define "controlled". The study was done in a proper way to ensure no confusion (3 separate jars all cleaned out).

It doesn't matter if the jars are sterilized. Were all the grains of rice checked to ensure that they all contained the same level of contaminants and spores? If he is using rice from different layers of the pot, then the rice on top will have contact with airborne bacteria. This means that if you did the experiment twice using rice from the top of the pot (once for love, the second time for hate) then the results would be the same for each emotion you are 'transmitting' at it. Not a fair, controlled experiment.

The evidence was shown. It can be accepted or denied.

evidence noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Nope, no evidence here.

In my opinion, actual science is knowledge, and knowledge comes from experience. The experience was seeing these formations of water crystals multiple times after the experiment was done. So, in my opinion evidence shows "actual" science.

Evidence can't show science. That doesn't even make sense. If anything, the scientific method you follow produces evidence, which backs up your science. These formations aren't re-produced time and time again and Masaru even said that he chooses the most beautiful pictures whilst leaving out the ugly ones when it comes to putting a crystal 'face' on each emotion/word.

Oh look, and now he has lots of Hado Instructor Schools - whatever that may be - and look, it only costs $2400 dollars to go along for 4 days. What a bargain..

This is all absolute nonsense. Wishy-thinking at very best. There is no science here, just another snake-oil salesman making money off of gullible, naive people. I applaud your passion on the subject, but have to really criticize you quite heavily for just believing all of this without any evidence.

Deny Ignorance; don't embrace it.

reply to post by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

Yip, it's a religious thing.

You completely ignored how the word "Prayer" was used in this thread (and by others involved with this experiment). The definition being used here is not "religious" regardless of how the word is used in another place.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

It doesn't matter if the jars are sterilized. Were all the grains of rice checked to ensure that they all contained the same level of contaminants and spores? If he is using rice from different layers of the pot, then the rice on top will have contact with airborne bacteria. This means that if you did the experiment twice using rice from the top of the pot (once for love, the second time for hate) then the results would be the same for each emotion you are 'transmitting' at it. Not a fair, controlled experiment.

Obviously not true, as shown by the experiment.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

Nope, no evidence here.

There is, it is just ignored.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

Evidence can't show science. That doesn't even make sense. If anything, the scientific method you follow produces evidence, which backs up your science.

Evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. Science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. So yes, evidence must exist in order to show science.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

Oh look, and now he has lots of Hado Instructor Schools - whatever that may be - and look, it only costs $2400 dollars to go along for 4 days. What a bargain..

Irrelevant. Even if he wanted to see it for a million dollars, that will not disprove what is shown here. It would just show that HE as an individual have an interest in making money off of people but the actual EVIDENCE here done by himself, others, and those not associated with his group, speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

This is all absolute nonsense. Wishy-thinking at very best. There is no science here, just another snake-oil salesman making money off of gullible, naive people. I applaud your passion on the subject, but have to really criticize you quite heavily for just believing all of this without any evidence.

Deny Ignorance; don't embrace it. [ /quote]

Again, the evidence was ignored. Ignorance is not being embraced by me. I accept the evidence and change my world view according to it. Now, because the evidence is on the side of it's existence, to call it "absolute nonsense", "wishy-thinking" and "no science" would just be denial and belief.

It seems like you are repeating yourself and ignoring the explanation of the evidence presented here. It was already explained. If you repeat yourself again, I may consider ignoring you, no offense, because your responses were already replied to and there is no need for me to make multiple posts repeating myself on this one thread. So, unless you are saying something new or presenting new arguments for what you've already said rather than just repeating ("wishy-thinking", "no science", "no evidence") when it was already responded to, I may consider ignoring you.

reply to post by arpgme


Hmm,

I'm done here. You won't listen to reason; it's a you vs the rest of the world thread. You don't seem to understand what the scientific method is. You claim that the evidence is now on the side of Masaru, despite there being innumerable instances of it not working or having completely different results each time.

If this had even any iota of truth around it, then it would be bigger. Instead, professionals continually knock this down as the nonsense it is. Ignore me all you want (I know typing that made you feel better, and reading this is probably aggravating you). You ignored the salient points of my thread anyway, or twisted your answers to suit your own agenda.

It is sad when naive people believe this kind of pseudo-science. It's even sadder when you can't realize how closed-minded you are being.

reply to post by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

Hmm,

I'm done here. You won't listen to reason; it's a you vs the rest of the world thread.

Not really, this is an open discussion. I don't see it as "me" versus "anyone". Even arguing with you is just discussion. I am not "against" you (personally), I am just providing my reasoning. Do with it what you will - accept it or not.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

You don't seem to understand what the scientific method is. You claim that the evidence is now on the side of Masaru, despite there being innumerable instances of it not working or having completely different results each time.

I've already explained this, and so do many experiments with prayer. It is not a 100% thing. It is an effect - and influence - there is no guarantee that it'll be "100%" effective, however almost all of the time we can see at LEAST some visual differences.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

If this had even any iota of truth around it, then it would be bigger. Instead, professionals continually knock this down as the nonsense it is.

Eastern scientists are knocking it down. They are more open-minded. It's important to keep in my that "peer-reviews" are just an agreement of scientists and if they don't like it they can try to tear the theory apart. There are many things which are proven to be true today which were only theory before and were knocked down by mainstream scientists. It takes awhile for some scientists (and people in general) to adjust.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

Ignore me all you want (I know typing that made you feel better, and reading this is probably aggravating you). You ignored the salient points of my thread anyway, or twisted your answers to suit your own agenda.

I am not ignoring you at will. I've already set the condition that I will ignore you if you repeat yourself without giving new arguments. As you can see, I am responding now. I am not aggravated. I am happy because I see the benefit of arguing with you. By arguing with me, I am giving you more and more opportunity to go into more detail of your views of this study, as you argue with me, you give me the same opportunity. It is good on both sides.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by arpgme

 

It is sad when naive people believe this kind of pseudo-science. It's even sadder when you can't realize how closed-minded you are being.

I am open-mined. I never said you better believe like me or anything. I am just speaking what I believe to be true, and I understand that you are doing the same from your point of view. I am not forcing you or anyone to accept anything. I am just providing more information which you can take in and look over and determine yourself whether you see it as "true" or "false".

Here are more photos that I've found recently and translated into English. Look at the effects that the words have and how the positive words have the power to transform.

If you see something "evil" or that you "do not like" , do you feed it to grow even LARGER in negativity saying "I hate it" or do you TRANSFORM it into positivity saying "I love it".

Do you sat "Wrong!" or do you say "Good Job!" and give the person a pat on the back for a least trying?

Do you say "Do it!" forcefully, or do you say "Can you please try to..." in a more polite manner?

Feed negativity with positivity so that it can transform into something better, if that is what you want: