/sg/ Skepticism General

>>19182410
>three rules
>Posted four rules

Last one isn't supposed to be greentext.

>>19182419
Vampires are interesting, but logically they don't make any sense.

>>19182438
They make fair enough sense if you think of them supernaturally... but when you think of them through science it becomes obvious that people who truly believe in them just don't understand disease or the symptoms of decaying bodies.

Pop culture vampires are downright absurd though, yeah.

>>19182624
There is no documented evidence of the supernatural, so thinking them as 'supernatural' is redundant.

>>19182657
I suppose that depends on what you considered documented evidence. There's certainly written accounts of supernatural things.

>>19182757
The bible is a written account of supernatural things, should we consider it evidence?

>>19182766
That's the point I was making. Should we?
I don't know. Clearly a lot of people do. Few if any of those things have any other archaeological evidence, though.

>>19182410
>Don't post skepticism in any thread but /sg/
Nah fuck you. This board isn't your safe space shill, I will posts skepticism and debunking material in every single thread I want to. That's part of the paranormal discussion after all.

>>19182796
The whole point is because other threads won't respond to skeptics anyway.

>>19182775
Also, no documented evidence=/= proof it doesn't exist. There are creatures in the deep sea that were thought to be mythological fifty or sixty years ago that have since been discovered. Yeah, we know "If I told you there was a teapot..." and burden of proof and all, but the rules of whom the burden of proof falls on do not change the fact that "lack of evidence for (x)"is emphatically *not* the same thing as evidence against (x)."

>>19182802
Of course they don't, they know they're wrong. That doesn't mean they don't suffer like little bitches when you spoil their retarded roleplaying.

>>19182907
Yeah, like those Bohemian Grove and pizzagate LARPers. They really need to get real and quit making shit up.

>>19182410
i am skeptic about gloab earth,

This thread will never work.

>>19182915
Well, they do.

Since when has a cult having influence meant the object of worship was true? Scientologists, for example.

If astral projection was real it could be proven so easily. Why hasn't anyone done it?

>>19183107
Talking about the morons who post "muh ebull satanic pol-uh-tish-unz" threads on here autistically sperging out against any facts presented, refusing to meet scientific or academic or even legal basic minimums for what constitutes "admissible" or legitimate evidence, and what is conjecture, presumption and fantasy. So you see, methinks you done missed my point.

>>19183200
Dunno. "OBEs" seem to be something that has been confirmed by science, and it is said that the brain while lucid dreaming looks almost identical on an EEG(?) to the brain of one who is "astral projecting"

>>19182410
C-can I be a skeptic ITT?

Scientific illuminism and all that. I think 9/10ths of the board is pretty soft headed myself. FE. Kek face on IRAS.

My library also hots a lot of neuropsych.

>>19182998
Assuming there are any actual skeptics in the board and not just people trolling, it should theoretically work. It's a good idea at least. I'm sure there are people who'd be happy participate in this kind of discussion.

>>19183298
It's a great idea, anon. my commendations to you!

>>19183306
Oh, I'm not the OP. But I'll take the commendations anyway, thanks.

>>19183220
If I'm not mistaken, there was an experiment that hid certain images in hospital rooms to see if OBE's were the brain piecing together information after the fact or one's awareness actually being capable of exploring beyond their physical senses, but the results were muddled up in the report and mention of hiding the images was removed. I think another group should investigate it. OBE's are confirmed "real" in that they have been scientifically proven to be caused by stimulating a certain part of the brain, but whether or not they allow you to sense beyond sensory organs is still untested.

>>19182915
Bohemian Grove's actually been confirmed for a while now, in a weak sense. It's a real place many of the elite go to, but it's basically a fuck camp. Someone infiltrated it and said there's nothing there except a bunch of rich people fucking each other, and they have this meaningless owl ceremony that seems creepy, but it's just so they can say it's a legit thing "society" and not a huge orgy. There's tapes of Nixon saying he'll never go back there because "it's the faggiest place on Earth."

>>19183200
What experimental protocol would one use to easily prove astral projection?

>>19183339

It's not a "ceremony," it's a play. It's theatre.

>>19183200
Because proving it doesn't benefit anyone financially. People seem to forget that for studies to happen, someone needs to fund them. And the studies that usually get funded are those with the potential to financially benefit those paying for it with the findings.

>>19183340
I don't know much about astral projection, but I've heard it thrown around that it's the same as lucid dreaming. To disprove that, I would assume the first step would be using an environment similar to that of a sleep study and comparing vitals during lucid dreaming and astral projection. That would not give a definitive answer, but it would be a good place to start.

>>19183479
AP studies would be absurdly cheap, though. To the degree of a few thousand dollars. You could Kickstart a concrete Astral Projection study.

been having some weird thoughts and stuff gonig on
>predicted the future (after 1 month of zero contact predict that my care coordinator will ring me the next day and she does) also predicted bad stuff happening and my grandmas death as a child figured it was just coincidence but I've predicted the future 4 times in my life and now it's getting less blurry and more specific
>now it's spiraled into me connecting dots leading me to believe the government knew about my abilities before they developed and injected me with something that causes my schizophrenia so they can completely discredit me
>I know they're going to either section me, frame me for a crime or murder me within this month
>been having vivid dreams of doctors injecting me with stuff since childhood
>no idea who I can trust and whos been planted in my life
>I have blue eyes and blonde hair when both parents and sets of grandparents have had brown eyes and brown hair
>starting to think my "family" are just there to monitor me

can anyone explain this? I'm new to /x/ any information would be helpful sorry if this is the wrong thread to ask in

>>19184940
This is a skepticism thread so we probably can't help, particularly considering you admitted to being schiozphrenic.

>>19185191
thanks for the reply none the less

>>19184940
I think you need to get help before you do something really.... unsettling.

>>19182410

>please stop interrupting our alium ERP circlejerking

>>19183367

As I recall, the whole thing is supposed to be some kind of IRL Animal House Experience. Togas, booze, sex, weird rituals, the whole nine.

>>19183200

this

>>19183479
Lucid dreaming is very real, but I woudl put it that your peak "free will state" doesnt last long before your brain i guess looses processign power or start making connections to your body and you physically start moving and wake up

this happens to me often when im try to walk/ run but find myself feeling tired of doing so in my sleep and im actually slowing down, like im dragging a heavy object, right before I wake up

>>19185253
I actually just got tired of being sperged at for interrupting them; this way you can call out whatever and they have the chance to respond without derailing the thread.

>>19183479
>>19184413
But how would you tell the difference between regular 'ol lucid dreaming and astral projection objectively?
In this protocol they'd look the same and there'd be no way to differentiate them.
>inb4 have two people do it and transmit data
There'd be no way to differentiate between AP and telepathy in that case.
I'm not saying let's not come up with a protocol just for AP, but none of this is going to do it.

>>19185376
>Blindfold someone
>Put them in bed
>Tell them to AP and record explore the room/record everything they see and tell it when they wake up
>See if they are accurate.

Simple as that.

>>19185416
In that case how would you differentiate between AP and clairvoyance/RV?

>>19185428
Doesn't matter; that's a step you get to if they even pass the test. So far, NONE of those have been proven.

>>19185440
>doesn't matter
It does if we're trying to prove AP specifically.

>>19185449
We don't know if AP it's related to RV/clairvoyance, therefore you need an specific experiment that rules out the other two.

The only thing you have to make the difference it's the subject testimony, if they don't claim to have leaved their body it shouldn't be AP.

>>19185449
True, but a blanket test is just as fine. I'd rather do the one test and save time since it will fail anyway and then we don't need to run two more tests that will also fail

>>19185473
My point is that if RV is good enough for the experiment, then we don't need the sleep study setup. It'd be a lot cheaper.
If the goal is just to find SOMETHING then we don't need expensive hardware and facilities for things we're not looking for.

>>19185479
>it will fail anyway
Then why throw a single cent at it?

>>19185494
To save people thousands by shutting down a market that peddles stuff pertaining to it.

OR, alternatively, to be BTFO and open up a new era of spirituality.

People fail to understand why I'm a skeptic: Not to be proven right, but to be proven wrong. Thing is, you can't cut slack when it comes to proof. The only way is to be BTFO. I'd love for someone to do it, but nobody has thus far.

>>19185508
I'm not trying to talk shit to you about being a skeptic. I'm just trying to imagine exactly what type of experimental protocol we'd use to test for what exactly.
If we're just looking for RV or telepathy, that might have already been done.

>>19185511
>already been done

Mind linking me something?

>>19184413
Perhaps, but when have you ever heard of someone kickstarting a scientific study? It's a risk for their credibility too, at least the way I see it, but I'm the embodiment if the sin of pride so I might be really wrong about that.

>>19185271
I don't think anyone is doubting lucid dreaming exists. I'm saying I've heard people say astral is the same thing.

>>19185376
>In this protocol they'd look the same and there'd be no way to differentiate them.
You don't know that. And I said that's where I'd start. I honestly think astral wouldn't be that hard to prove given that the methods of achieving each of these states are so different, even if there aren't any physical differences while being in the state itself there's still entering and exiting the state, and that could provide clues.
Then again there might be a better way to go about this. Either way, you can't just go "this won't do it". You have no way of knowing that without an actual experiment being conducted.

>>19185416
That's good. A little rough of an idea but good none the less. Having things they would only be allowed to see once in AP for example. That's works.

>>19185449
It doesn't. The purpose of the experiment is to prove there's something to AP. Comparing it to clairvoyance would be a different experiment. Could easily be part of the same study too, with enough funding.

>>19185479
>we don't need to run two more tests that will also fail
So is it truth that you want, or is it to be right? This is what I find absurd about you skeptics. Denouncing the possibility of everything unknown, you seem to me as blinded as religious people. You're allowed to entertain the possibility of these things you know? Even when you don't have any facts. I find the paranormal fascinating precisely because it hasn't yet been explored scientifically.

p.s. sorry for any typos, typing this on my phone

>>19186023
>Even when you don't have any facts. I find the paranormal fascinating precisely because it hasn't yet been explored scientifically.

I do not. That said, I'm open to the possibility, but confident in doubt as well. I'd donate to fund a legit study.

I've found the following extraordinarily helpful for my own lucid dreaming efforts:

https://soundcloud.com/paul-settimio/sets/fast-five-petrofuture-ep

>>19186060
I respect that position.

>>19186212
>>19186212
Thanks.

>>19182657
>There is no documented evidence of the supernatural

How about precognitive psychology findings?

Do you even know about the current replication crisis in science, what the basis is formed on and what started it?

It started when a lot of people couldnt stomach the results they started to get, the rest is on you to dig if you want.

>>19186260
There have to the best of my knowledge been absolutely 0 positive findings of precognition.

>>19186337
Bump

>>19183479
>>19185376
>two astral projectors
>they imagine the same room
>one writes something on the wall
>the other says what it is
Basic

I'm the only one here that usually is very skeptic of paranormal claims and shit, but also despises professional skeptics?

>>19188886
No. I can't stand them either because it's such a lazy profession.
>Make a living from the absence of the burden of proof.

If professional skeptics were running the experiments themselves and getting published it'd be one thing.

>>19188765
This is why you will fail to prove anything.
Have fun wasting those dollars, though.

>>19189086
What's flawed with that experiment?

>>19190653
well for one thing, when you astral project it's like you're on drugs

>>19190653
Not once have these experiments been proven under controlled conditions. You write them and that's fine and dandy, but when it comes to reality they can't perform.

>>19190677
>>19190666
Nice digits.

And the purpose is to run an experiment; saying "you can write an experiment but don't do it" is dumb when the point of the thread is to experiment.

>>19188765
This would be interesting as a part of a study, but I wouldn't count on it being a central experiment.

>>19190677
That would imply there have been enough of these experiments to be able to draw a pattern. Let's not kid ourselves. We need a proper study in order to draw any kind of conclusions. I said it before, we can't know whether something will work or not until it has been tested properly. Your personal opinion on the conclusion isn't particularly valuable.

good distract the shills
Flat Earth!

>>19182438
They could have an iron deficiency explaining
the pale skin and thirst for blood.

>>19192976
Flat earth is a meme anybody can disprove.

>>19192980
I have an iron deficiency and am paler than the moon, do you reckon I'd like blood?

>>19193517
Blood is also pretty fatty. You'd probably enjoy the taste of seatbelts, though. Like, the part that clicks in. I know I did when I had an iron deficiency.

Are there any EXTERNAL paranormal abilities that have been verified? I don't count lucid dreaming because it's internal.

>>19193712
Why would you even...? You know what, I'm not sure I want to know.

Anyway, what do you mean by external?

>>19182757
How can someone believe in the "supernatural" should be the question.
If there are two states, natural and supernatural/paranormal as is claimed, any accounts of something "supernatural" would be natural, to the believer.

Unless the believer thinks the account of the supernatural was a one-off, he must believe the supernatural to be very natural for it to be able to occur.

Only a non-believer of the supernatural would need the verbal symbol of paranormal/supernatural to categorise subjects as "not possible". A believer would find the same subjects, natural.

>>19193733
A manner of physical interaction with something outside of the observer's own experience. For example, we know lucid dreaming is real, but it only affects the dreamer.

Telekinesis on the other hand would affect not only the user's mind and body, but an external body or object, too.

>>19193750
I'm not a fan of the term supernatural for exactly this reason, but common language is a prerequisite for discussion and since this is a widely accepted term I secede for the sake of some common ground, despite it being inaccurate as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad someone pointed this out.

>>19193763
Okay well how about remote viewing. Project star gate? It was just a few months ago that documents regarding that were declassified. I'll admit I was only half paying attention when people where still sifting through them but I remember that being a thing.

>>19193800
Declassified Star Gate documents (I've read them) showed no evidence of RV being real. They gave a man an envelope and coordinates for Mars and he RV'd an entire civilization on the brink of catastrophe. The documents are all, if anything, evidence RV isn't real. The program was shut down for not working.

>>19193834
Huh. Well I haven't concerned myself with this enough to look into it. One thing I found interesting, though wholly unscientific was this mini documentary about kids being taught to see with their third eye. That I'd like to see proper experiments on.

Regarding astral projection/remote viewing, why does no one bring up the official CIA documents that confirm it? Or is that still not enough proof?

I'm honestly confused why people almost never discuss these documents here, it's not like they're top secret or anything (not anymore at least).

>>19193834
The declassified documentS weren't just from project Stargate but from many other projects where they proved RV is real, with picture comparisons and all.
I mean I appreciate a sceptics thread but why even discuss stuff when you guys haven't done your research?

I'm on my phone now so I can't bother with archives, but if anyone has the time, I have a thread saved that contained a bunch of these documents compiled. The thread ID was 18907236 but it's 404 now.

>>19194697
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/18907236/

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
>In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years.

This seems easy enough to test.

>>19194763
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

>Conclusions
The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.

Tldr we have no idea and aren't even close, but God's not real so you can't be right.

>>19194646
The comment above yours is literally talking about the documents AND how they are in no way proof because it's a documented series of astral projection failing each test.

>>19194784
>Not coin flipping
Either it happened or it didn't.

>>19182410
Like I'm gonna obey your stupid rules, skeptics need to be on every thread on this board. I come here interested in actual phenomenon and all I find is faggots trying to make imaginary friends, hardcore larpers of every persuasion, and dumb motherfuckers pretending to be gods and wizards. I'll make fun of who I want and be skeptical where I want

>>19197053
>skeptics need to be on every thread on this board
I agree with this sentiment. The role of the skeptic is to challenge and test, to bring a critical mindset to problems that require it. A containment thread for skepticism is totally contrary to the spirit of skepticism and scientific enquiry into unexplained phenomena. If I just wanted to sit in a thread and join a few other anons in smugly agreeing that there's probably no verifiable evidence of hauntings I could go to /sci/.

>>19197053
The point is not to derail other threads dipshit. You can express skepticism anywhere, but if you want an in depth discussion this is where you do it.

>>19182438

'course not - they're a freakin' metaphor of actual events:
Just replace blood with life/vitality/strenght and take a look around yourself irl.
Chances are you'll find of ton of those fuckers.

>>19197565
Discussing the topic of a thread isn't derailing.

>>19201061
If you go into a thread with people talking about magic in general, you're more than welcome to go "magic is bullshit: discuss". But if you write the exact same thing in a thread about something more specific, say a thread about activation methods for sigils you're being a little shit as far as I'm concerned.

>>19201497
But saying that isn't skepticism. It's just insubstantial contrarianism. You can go into a thread about sigil activation and discuss the idea the sigils are a kind of autosuggestion and get an interesting and productive conversation on the subject.

>>19182410
someone give solid proof that sigils work and magic exists

>>19201687
>But saying that isn't skepticism.
Oh, I agree, but that is what I see more often than not from people calling themselves skeptics on this board. No desire for discussion at all.
If there are people who would have a problem with the example you gave, they're just as worthy of criticism as the disruptive self-proclaimed skeptics.

>>19201718
Can you be more specific about what you would consider a solid enough proof?

>>19182410
You know, I was just thinking about how great it'd be if there was a skeptic general on /x/, and wa la I found this thread.

What brings my fellow skeptics to /x/? Is it purely to prove people wrong or are you genuinely interesting in the paranormal?

I myself just come here for spooky stories and images because I find it entertaining.

>>19201944
I'm personally genuinely interested, but not so much as to suspend my reasoning. If the paranormal exists, I want to be aware of that and not someone's LARPing.

RE an AP study, I think a certain degree of redundancy would make the results more clear. Instead of two people, I suggest six.

Two people to initiate a lucid dream. Two people to initiate astral projection. Two people to sleep and dream normally, as a control.

In this way you can compare the results more thoroughly, control A to lucid A to astral A and so on. Multiple sessions with the same or similar objectives for lucid and astral subjects would also be appreciated.

I dig the idea of this thread.
Hopefully it doesn't attract the over zealous types who would rather prove someone wrong than have a reasoned discussion.

I recently experimented with a form of magic called the new avatar power ritual, a ritual that supposedly provides results within a few weeks.
I tried it specifically because of those lofty claims, normally if you ask about magic (especially with the fags in the general) you'll get a lot of vague nonsense without much in the way of a tangible outcome.

After a week or so I did sort of get what I asked for. Not in an immediate way, more like pointing me in the right direction towards my goal.
I stopped after that, I wasn't rattled or anything because it could just be me looking for things to confirm progress but it definitely made me more open to that sort of thing.

I'm glad this thread exists too. I'm not a skeptic, but I would likely be one if not for my experiences. This sort of healthy discussion and interest in finding scientific answers to things yet unexplained is something I've been hoping to see here for a while. Open-mindedness and civil discussion go a long way.

>>19202505
Your genuine interest is refreshing. If you're interested in something more immediate, you might want to try energy manipulation. Most people can feel it on the first try. Let me know if you want help or a starting point or whatever.

>>19202808
I'm up for trying energy manipulation.
Please post a starting point, I think it'd be good for the thread as a whole, then we can all try it and report our personal experience.

>>19182438
Well, they might if they were created by a retrovirus.

File: ascensionquake2.png (253KB, 1413x908px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1413x908px

>>19182657
>There is no documented evidence of the supernatural, so thinking them as 'supernatural' is redundant.

Are you sure there's no documented evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsLDTyxkP7A

>>19182438
arent vampires supposed to not need sleep and never die of old age? or is this just some hollywood bullshit

>>19194806
Could you fucking read my post instead of being snarky for the sake of it? There are a lot of documents and they actually state that remote viewing works. The reason they suggest against it is that getting a drone for area inspection is a much more efficient way.

Actually read the fucking documents and look at the picture comparisons and written evidence they give, instead of skimming over them or parroting what some other retard said.

>>19203988
>Being snarky

I read the documents and they were deemed too inaccurate for use. Also
>I see some people
>Location is Mars in the past

Yeah fucking no.

>>19184940
These are all symptoms of your schizophrenia. Seek professional help rather than posting on an anime image board.

>>19201944
I just want to read creepy pasta, talk about horror movies, and talk about unsolved murders/mysteries.
I fucking hate all the larping, schizos, and fundies that have infested this board.

>>19204694
THIS. /x/ used to be a fun place to get spooked, whether it was creepypasta or real things that happened (non-paranormal). Now it's roleplaying, crazies, and /pol/fags.

>>19201956
This and

>>19201944
>I myself just come here for spooky stories and images
That

>>19202808
Alright! I think a good starting point is energy balls, also known as qi balls. I'll provide the technique I was taught by. There might be better techniques out there (and almost certainly are) but I don't have the time to find them at the moment, and besides the point of this is to feel the energy and learn to bring it up your hands easily and for that it's at least adequate.

Closing your eyes is optional but recommended, I find it makes it easier to focus.
Okay, so the first thing you do is bring your hands in front of you, palms flat, fingers touching and thumbs closed.
Now turn one hand so that it points to the ground while the other points up.
From this position, close your hands into fists and then open them back up while making sure your fingers stay connected.
Open and close 4-5 times and then while your hands are balled up into fists turn them so the one that was facing up is now facing down, and the one that was facing down is now facing up.
Repeat that several times (10-15 should be more than enough).
An important part of this step is visualizing the energy moving through your body, starting at your core or brain and moving through your body, making its way through your arms to your fingers and palms and lingering there. Focus on this thought while doing the above steps.
Don't try and rush through this, slow deliberate movements are what is required here, rushing through it will either bring minimal or no results.

>>19204973
Ah, shit. I meant >>19202927

Once you're done with that bring your palms close together, not touching (you don't have to keep your fingers closed anymore at this point) and concentrate on the space between them. You might already feel something there, but even if you don't, direct energy from your palms towards that space, forming a ball. Allow your hands to move freely, as the ball grows like a balloon.
A little ways in concentrate on the walls of the ball, making them stronger to hold the energy within and then start filling the ball and making it bigger.
At this point you should be able to feel it and what you do with it is kind of up to you. Make it denser, bigger, try to spark some color in it (and you might even be able to see it).
Just make sure not to let it get too big and also try to absorb it back instead of letting it go once you're done playing with it (nothing will happen if you let it go, but if you do it one too many times you'll tire yourself out).

As for how it feels, as far as I know it's a different sensation for everyone. Whatever it is it's pretty distinct, and may or may not feel familiar. I would advise you to concentrate on the technique itself.

Now, I feel like I need to add a disclaimer.
I'm only speaking from my own experience. The research I've done on energy balls was over 10 years ago so the information I'm relaying may be incomplete, so you shouldn't take my word as gospel. If this isn't working for you and you can't feel anything, do your own research and find a proper guide. This is sort of a quick start into energy manipulation and should only be viewed as such.

>>19182438
so christians who claim to come from inside the occult are pretty interesting lecturers, especially on this topic.

there was a guy who claimed to be a vampire, he became one from drinking blood off the chest of a vampire, which looked like a decrepit old man (the lecturer theorized that it was a fallen angel)

>Hydrophobia
People born with an inability to digest water or an allergy to water
^ was posted in another thread, pulling it into here because it relates

part of his change into a vampire was that he could not drink water, and it would literally burn his stomach to the point of vomiting, and that he constantly drank blood, he had a job that involved him driving late at night, and the only thing that you see when driving in the city late at night is prostitutes and homeless people, and how he had to fight off urges in order to function and fear of being discovered.

he also claimed it by accepting jesus christ and repenting for his sins.

there is a spiritual side of life, and a soul, that the skeptics seem to tragically ignore, and completely deny

File: 1.png (135KB, 645x621px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 645x621px

>>19204488
>all closed room attempts were a success
>too inaccurate
Just admit you didn't even read the documents and get done with it. For the last time, the document about Project Stargate isn't the only document they released.

Take a look at this one for example:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000300110001-8.pdf

Or if you have the time, you can check these links that an anon compiled the other day. All documents make it clear that the procedure works and they have tested it under various settings.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002600360002-3.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700330002-7.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R000800120005-6.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79-00999A000400050012-3.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79-00999A000200010092-4.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160011-2.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160011-2.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300420006-3.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160011-2.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000500420001-2.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001000130001-7.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001100050001-5.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001100050001-5.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R001900810001-2.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160012-1.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R003300210002-1.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R003300210002-1.pdf

There's a guy on youtube who tests paranormal stuff in a semi scientific manner, xroom mod is the name.

His stuff is super dry imo but it provides a fair look into shit without any bias one way or the other.

>>19183340
Someone would have to define it first. What do astral projectors actually claim they can do?

>>19205827
I'll read them all when I get home.
I Want to believe but I have yet to find evidence atheist materialism is not the objective truth.

>>19182410
>there's a certain stimulation of the brain that can reliably cause out of body experiences, though that doesn't explain why.

>Because it indicates that you don't have to be near death to experience NDEs, and seems to suggest that our association of the two is false.

>>19189062
>If professional skeptics were running the experiments themselves

They are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

>>19208164
Did you mean to quote the second line?

File: 335.jpg (54KB, 448x473px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 448x473px

>Let's make x into sci: the thread.

What a bunch of butthurt homosexuals.

>>19208376
Do you not enjoy learning?

Hi. I believe in nothing. How much nothing do you believe in?
This seems like a boring idea for a thread.

>>19208376
The scientific method is a good way for purifying any discipline, including the paranormal and religions, in a way.

It doesn't seek to discredit the entire thing, but to skim impurities and enhance the accuracy of your faith or the realization of the paranormal.

>>19205827
These documents were extremely informative.
His remove

File: 1448415299494.jpg (254KB, 1024x803px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1024x803px

>>19208395
>On four chan
>Learning

Gtfo

>>19208406
Go to bed, didn't-read-the-thread-kun

>>19182822

Burden of proof is on anyone making any sort of claim, whether that claim is positive or negative. Nonexistence needs to be proven just as much as existence does.

>>19184940

You need to be incredibly cautious of delusions especially due to your schizophrenia. Find a professional person you can trust and let him/her be an angel on your shoulder.

>>19209915
>Burden of proof is on anyone making any sort of claim
only if they wish to prove their claim. If they know it to be true, why would they care about arguing with someone who is just going to say any form of evidence that could be presented here is faked in some way or another. Burden of proof falls on who ever gives a fuck about knowing the validity of a claim, or on the person making the claim if the seek approval from their peers.

Your legal jargon is ineffective on those who truly know their claims to be truth.

>>19209915
>whether that claim is positive or negative
That's not how burden of proof works.

>>19210315
>only if they wish to prove their claim
Neither is that.

Skelegtons don't real

>>19211174

So did anyone actually try this out did I just waste my time writing it?
>>19204973
>>19204979

>>19211498
I've got "Chi Balls" but they are physical metal balls with sort of bells in them. Any ideas on what you're supposed to use them for?

>>19211506
Nope. I don't see how that's related.

>>19211174
Sorry bud they're an empirically verified fact. You can test it yourself by making a small, deep incision over any bone in your body. Or someone else's. Don't cut too much or the skelly will escape.

>>19211498
Why would anyone try it out when you didn't even explain what it can do?

So you do some hand movements and imagine a ball of energy, then what? Can it be seen? Measured? Can it do anything at all?

>>19211537
>don't see how that's related
They are literally called "Chi Balls"

>>19182438
skepticism is interesting, but in real life it just make any sense.

>>19211832
Because someone asked for it.
It won't "do anything" at least not in the way you mean. It wasn't posted as proof, or something measurable, nor scientific, more so as something to try out and observe for those who are curious. It can be felt and also seen, the latter being harder to achieve, that was the point. The point was to have a glimpse into the basis of the other side's point of view.

>>19211846
Right, I'm sorry. I don't see how it's related, other than sharing a name. I know nothing about them other than they feel strange and I've never come across anything about them, nor do I have an inkling of an idea as to how one could use them.

>>19211901
Well if it can be seen and felt then it can be measured. So go win one of these >>19208174 prizes. Good luck anon.

>>19211918
So you're one of those huh? Real productive suggestion there buddy, you must really be a truth seeker, regurgitating the same old shit, trying to shut down conversation.

>>19211949
I'm not trying to shut down conversation, I'm serious. You have an ability that could change the way we see reality itself, your name could go down in history as one of the most important people to ever live. All you have to do is provide proof, which should be simple if you can make feelable, visible energy with your hands.

>>19212041
Well, here's the thing though.
I'm not claiming to have any special ability, unless you consider consisting of the same particles that everything else consists of to be an ability. No one is disputing the existence of energy, and energy manipulation itself is at the very least possible. As for it being provable that's another matter that would require, at least in my pessimistic opinion a change in why research is conducted and how it is funded.
What I think you fail to realize here, is that I'm not claiming any sort of superhuman ability. You want me to prove something I don't necessarily understand myself. The only thing I can attest to is my own observation. If you're interested in understanding my point of view, going "prove it" isn't going to yield any results.