Telepathy - truth or science fiction?

[atmat]

I honestly opened and read the first page or so as satire. Holy smokes. Telepathy because a podcaster proved it at 100% success rate?

C’mon y’all. Be better.

 

[Speaks]

This is simple.

Evidence must be three things:

1) Observable
2) Measurable
3) Repeatable

The last one, repeatability, basically tells us to go get another group to try to replicate the results.

When it is reviewed and repeated - probably by several more teams - then OK, maybe we have something. Until then, yawn.

The beauty of science/scientific method is that it self-corrects, and will always ask more questions. Dogma? Not so much.

This is where people get mixed up.

Someone observed an interesting phenomenon that does not seem to clearly fit evidence based explanations. They then hypothesize an explanation to fit the observation and present it. To the casual observer this looks like science but its missing any evidence that their hypothesized explanation is the actual cause of the observed phenomenon.

RFK investing research funds on a topic that has already been investigated and answer very well (vaccination and autism), while cutting other funding tells me all I need to know. His former running mate is pushing an emotional agenda because she cannot accept reality.

This is also one of 2 things that RFK gets wrong, his arguments almost always follow this formula

1. Presents some facts that are either true or reasonably sourced (though he may be selective in which facts he presents
2. Shows a logical flaw that those facts present in something that is considered common knowledge, often making a good point
3. Draws his own conclusion which he in no way proved

Setting people up with showing them something they have been "lied to" makes them very open to hearing the "truth" even though it was no better proven.

The 2nd thing he does is only present the evidence most favorable to his case as one would expect from an attorney but is not ideal in science. I actually wish some academics would engage in a debate with him as I think while in a vacuum many of his ideas sound logical they would fall apart in a debate format. Ad-hominum attacks and just saying "the science is settled" tends to actually add to his credibility.

I do think he brings up some items that are worth opening the books on, some that are pure trash based on hearing the case be makes alone.



Much conventional science is the best answer we have today even though there is lots that it does not explain and lots of it that will be proven wrong in the future. It not explaining everything is not a conspiracy and those that think it is dont understand it. Likewise those that think the current science is all proven fact that will stand the test of time are either delusional or need to read a history book.

 

[DapperDan]

Again, I’m not saying this is 100% proven. But there is something for sure here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DapperDan]

I honestly opened and read the first page or so as satire. Holy smokes. Telepathy because a podcaster proved it at 100% success rate?

C’mon y’all. Be better.

You’re way off target. But ok. The podcaster didn’t prove anything. She presenting the findings. Good lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Speaks]

One disturbing study found that two-thirds of infants who died of SIDS had been vaccinated with the DPT vaccine prior to death.

This is one of those things you need to be careful about. Given that around 95% of children get that vaccine a neutral result would be 95% of children dying of SIDs should have received it. 1/3 not having received it would show a correlation with not having received the vaccine vs having received it. That argument sounds logical until you do the math.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Episode 6 covers the tests and based on guidelines of tests they are considering quantum physics. Quantum physics is a likely possible scientific explanation of some of the examples you listed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quantum entanglement

 

[Marbles]

So should we know if vaccines cause autism (harms) so we can remove said vaccines off the child vaccine list (helps)? I mean, we are at over 80 child hood injections at this point. I’m sure the aluminum and mercury levels at 3x, 10x or 100x above what is considered safe to children isn’t affecting them at all. Oh, but wait…

“One disturbing study found that two-thirds of infants who died of SIDS had been vaccinated with the DPT vaccine prior to death. Of those, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination, 13% within 24 hours, and 26% within three days.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1844767109995516345

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We know they do not. Continuing to ask the same question is like asking for research on if breast feeding causes autism.

I'm not going to extend this to SIDS, as that ignores the question on autism and is a deflection (one that doesn't hold up on its own).

 

[Marbles]

There are three areas in our world that we still only have limited knowledge on. What’s at the bottom of our oceans, what’s out there in the universe, and what lies between our ears. Remote viewing is another fascinating topic. Look up Ingo Swann and how our military used his skills if you don’t believe in it.

There is a whole lot more than that. Most optimistic is we know 5% of what their is to know. This extends to many things people think are settled.

 

[BBob]

This extends to many things people think are settled.

Agree. Even long standing peer reviewed, accepted, etc... "science" is occasionally shot down with new research findings. Is science therefore not to be trusted? Nope, it's the best thing we've got until it's not. To be clear I am in no way a science denier, I've just been around it long enough to see the above in action. Most of it and most researchers are good but there is some that is pure bunk. I hear about it and see it somewhat regularly.

 

[Beendare]

Agree. Even long standing peer reviewed, accepted, etc... "science" is occasionally shot down with new research findings. Is science therefore not to be trusted? Nope, it's the best thing we've got until it's not. To be clear I am in no way a science denier, I've just been around it long enough to see the above in action. Most of it and most researchers are good but there is some that is pure bunk. I hear about it and see it somewhat regularly.

Exactly...glad I hung around on this thread....I was almost out when someone insinuated that Mice tele connect......grin

 

[5MilesBack]

Exactly...glad I hung around on this thread....I was almost out when someone insinuated that Mice tele connect......grin

Well, based solely on everyday experience with the average people in our society, I fully believe that a very high percentage of people are incapable of thinking at all. Until proven otherwise, I'm sticking with my conclusion. Of course I've been saying this for years, and sticking to my conclusion for years.

 

[bpa556]

People believe what they want to believe. Always have and always will.

People that understand this will make fame/fortune hawking interesting “new discoveries”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bozeman]

5MilesBack- I was thinking the same thing....see we just proved Telepathy exists.

 

[Marbles]

Agree. Even long standing peer reviewed, accepted, etc... "science" is occasionally shot down with new research findings. Is science therefore not to be trusted? Nope, it's the best thing we've got until it's not. To be clear I am in no way a science denier, I've just been around it long enough to see the above in action. Most of it and most researchers are good but there is some that is pure bunk. I hear about it and see it somewhat regularly.

There is the philosophical sceptic, which boils down to just poking holes in everything. And everything , even the fact that I actually exist, can have doubt cast on it. I have little value for philosophical scepticism as it contributes little of value.

Then there is healthy scepticism and questioning. So much of it boils down to what you "know" and how you know it.

How you know is important. There are things that it would take a lot for me to question. There are other things that I freely point out what common and recommend practice is and that the foundation for that is quite shaky (but the best we have). Then there are things were I am content with not fully knowing how I know it because for me it doesn't matter enough to put in the work (or I once put in the work, but forgot).

 

[dlee56]

I’m on episode 7 and I’m still blown away. It all makes a lot of sense, my brother and I have always had a weird thing where we wear the same shirts to family gatherings etc without coordinating. And we’ve always been great at communicating with little to no words (awesome for a hunting buddy). I always just chalked it up to knowing each other well, but after listening to all the evidence I think there’s got to be some kind of old skills folks just don’t acknowledge or practice at all (call it telepathy or what have you). It’s like if it was common practice to never walk or exercise at all so everyone is sedentary and incapable, then you tell them about people who climb mountains and run marathons, it would sound insane but it’s just a matter of gradual and intentional exercise.

 

[fngTony]

Yes it is. My wife and oldest daughter use it then I get in trouble for not being able to follow along.

 

[DapperDan]

We know they do not. Continuing to ask the same question is like asking for research on if breast feeding causes autism.

I'm not going to extend this to SIDS, as that ignores the question on autism and is a deflection (one that doesn't hold up on its own).

No, we don’t. In fact, there is insurmountable evidence to suggest otherwise. But if you want to give your child the MMR vaccine (one of which that had no clinical placebo trial and resulted in adverse effects) then that’s your choice. Just remember, those that develop the drug are 100% immune to accountability.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684344319904448517

Maybe you can tell the same to Nicole, her daughter, and THOUSANDS of other children and their families that have suffered the same outcome.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1902446437087986125

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atmat]

No, we don’t. In fact, there is insurmountable evidence to suggest otherwise. But if you want to give your child the MMR vaccine (one of which that had no clinical placebo trial and resulted in adverse effects) then that’s your choice. Just remember, those that develop the drug are 100% immune to accountability.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684344319904448517

Maybe you can tell the same to Nicole, her daughter, and THOUSANDS of other children and their families that have suffered the same outcome.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1902446437087986125

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you quote peer reviewed clinical trials instead of screen shots of social media?

Clinical trials always report AEs, even in placebo groups. You very much expect AEs in a vaccine trial.

 

[DapperDan]

Can you quote peer reviewed clinical trials instead of screen shots of social media?

Clinical trials always report AEs, even in placebo groups. You very much expect AEs in a vaccine trial.

Clinical trials always report AEs, even in placebo groups. You very much expect AEs in a vaccine trial.[/QUOTE]

Tell me you didn’t click on either link I posted without telling me you don’t click on either link…


It was in the link….

Smh…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Speaks]

Exactly...glad I hung around on this thread....I was almost out when someone insinuated that Mice tele connect......grin

I never said mice tele connect. I said it was observed in studies done at Harvard, Edenburgh, and Melbourne that when rats in one place solved the maze that rats in other areas started solving them more easily. Every pseudo scientific explanation I have heard is totally unsubstantiated though coincidence seems unlikely. I mentioned it as simply an observed phenomenon that we do not have an explanation for.

I am highly skeptical of at least the conclusions drawn in the telepathy tapes if not how they captured what phenomenon they claimed to capture. The simplest explanation is that it was faked.