From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:25:22 +0000 Archived: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:08:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Telepathy & UFOs >From: John Velez <jvelez49.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:52:58 -0500 >Subject: Re: Telepathy & UFOs >>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:08:25 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Telepathy & UFOs >>>From: John Velez <jvelez49.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:23:48 -0500 >>>Subject: Telepath & UFOs [was: Prayer Meditation Cause...] >>>>From: Diana Cammack<cammack.nul> >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<post.nul> >>>>Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:19:32 +0200 >>>>Subject: Re: Prayer Meditation Cause 'White Orbs' To Respond >>>>>Source: UfoExaminer.Com >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/c4muyt6 >>>>>December 15, 2011 >>>>>Witness Says Prayer, Meditation Cause 'White Orbs' To Respond >>>>>Roger Marsh <snip> >>Hello John, >>I can understand the attraction of the source/receiver model of >>communication to account for what we call telepathy. ><snip> >>I think it is more likely that >>the UFO existed somehow inside your own personal psychic >>boundary unbeknownst to your conscious mind. I would suggest >>that the UFO was nonetheless physical and visible to anyone with >>you. This model says that you were a participant in creating the >>sighting at some unconscious level, so you may naturally have >>had some conscious control over the UFO's behavior. >You're not serious are you? So you apparently favor a >'Merlinian' explanation for my report. Something involving >conjuring physical objects out of the subconscious. >William, there were -two- other witnesses (my wife and a friend >of my son who was visiting at the time,) and it seems a bit more >plausible to me that three individuals observing the same >phenomena saw what they say they saw, as opposed to one person >'conjuring' up a vision from their subconscious that was then >witnessed by others. I'd believe 'spacemen' before I'd believe >it was a physical manifestation of my subconscious mind - that >others could also see. Talk about stretching credulity. I >thought I was bad! >I'm sure you'd like to think that it must be some unconscious >manifestation because it makes it so much easier to dismiss the >alternative explanation. ie; We saw what we saw - objects of >unknown origin or manufacture. I can tell you with sober >certainty that what we witnessed was 'there' and I think it's >much more of a stretch to think it was a 'mental construct' >which assumed physical form and was then independently observed >by three individuals. >Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... <grin> John: First, I am a cigar smoker and need to tell you that there are full-bodied and light weights to be smoked. So, there are varying quality and densities of tobacco to be smoked. Enough of that. I hope you get that point. Freud - who originated the saying - never tried to qualify his statement. I am. As for William's analysis of the event you described, I have to agree with William. Yes, it is possible to construct something imaginary, so dense a couple of other people see it. We have accounts of Indian, Tibetan and South American shaman creating just such images - out of their subconscious for the people around them. You can believe anything you want and become confrontational with anyone you think is challenging your perception of what constitutes a 'real image'. However, the studies of how the brain functions argues for William's analyses. KK Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp