Dave Moore

The cloudiness is etching caused by acid. it must be buffed, which actually removes the affected glass. A single grit won't do, most likely. You would need a swirl pad on an offset grinder or polishing machine (low speed drill type power tool). Glass is very hard but grits used to polish stone to a mirror finish would work. A local shop that makes granite counter tops would probably give you a small amount of polishing compound for free, or not much money. Just tell them what the damage looks like. They use different grits. At this point, any fix will be mechanical. The glass is eaten away chemically but no chemical on Earth can fix it. It has to be buffed out. There may also be a shop specializing in auto windshield polishing, a way to remove light scratches from glass surfaces. If the piece is transportable, that may be your answer. Also, itf you do the work, lay down masking tape around the affected area to save making a big job out of a small one.

If subjective reality means that we project our manifestations, the content of those manifestation arise from our beliefs. But we do not know entirely what we believe, do we? Or to what extent? A belief isn't just a religion or a scientific fact, it is a compendium of all we have ever accepted as real. What color is the sky, and what is the word for that? And things like, what does the cat represent to us personally? What does a door mean, and how is it spelled? Much is taught, and much is personally experienced as true. So as we project, the features of our world arise as totems and archetypes of the feelings and meanings associated with the symbology we see before us. In other words, in a subjective universe, our subconscious is not located in some hidden recess of our mind---- it is displayed in that objective seeming world we assume has nothing to do with us, and in memories and dreams of that world we retain when we are in thought. Many of those symbols are common to the culture we live in. And so science has served a wonderful purpose in organizing those symbols by causal interconnection. If we begin to analyze that observed world, we see parallels with the dynamics and inner workings of our own minds. Delayed choice tests represent the application of free will (or the assumption of it). The wave becomes associated with the right hemisphere of the brain. The particle, the left hemisphere. Perhaps DNA represents the expectations thrust upon us even before we were born Our traits, of skin color, physique, a tendency to particular diseases, all expectations of our culture. No more. All of these are cultural or personal, depending on experience alone. Science, or anything at all need not be non-paradoxical to function. The litmus test of final proof (Grand unified theory) never need arrive (nor can it). And I am always speaking of perceptions of the individual, not the greater culture. The famous observer effect shows us that we are indeed manifesting our world. Energy is involved. Energy each of us possesses to one degree or another, and it is finite. With this energy, we apply intent, a means to manifest against a resistance (like I'm doing right now). Belief is like a very heavy weight. If we expect a diffraction pattern to show on a screen, then we do not need energy because we do not need to "move" our belief. If we expect something else, like the ability to send DNA information through the internet for reconstitution like Luc Montagnier claims, we find that we must shift that enormous weight of our current beliefs and we cannot do it. The resistance is enormous. Montagnier in turn fails to prove his work. His inability to convince is energetic as well. He could manage it perhaps when combined with the energy of a thousand researchers like himself who believe in water memory. It can easily be seen that each person involved is applying his energy to manifest and the net outcome involves the energy of each to manifest, and further, the energy of those who will witness the outcome second hand, namely you and I, to the extent our own beliefs are involved.

I certainly don't believe in Bigfoot, though I can imagine they are real to those who report them--- the honest ones. So I am gathering that your belief in metaphysical experiences is conditional or full blown belief in the case of Bigfoot and UFOs at least. Is this because you have seen both? In any case, I would say that imagination is not imagination if it is felt by the person to be reality. People considered insane, in my view, are simply 'allowed" to experience subjective reality openly. I would conjecture that either because of a desperate need to survive at an early age or by some trauma,, They began to accept their own reality over the supplied one, that is, by acceptance by the status quo. If that acceptance isn't there anyway, the subjective reality can diverge tremendously. A young man I know was badly neglected as a child by a heroin-addicted mother. As a child, he was forced to steal her food stamps to survive before she sold them to buy cigarettes. He began to hear voices in his head, called schizophrenia, as a teen or a bit before. Through explaining to him that the voices were not prophetic or meaningful, but would serve to analyze his own psyche, the voices began to diminish eventually. He understands the concept of subjective reality very well, and today it serves him to maintain his sanity. Mixing subjective and objective realms doesn't make sense. Full blown subjective realty would live quite well alongside of science. The reason is that the scientific process simply reflects an almost ironclad belief in objective reality. That belief, exactly like the belief that promotes self-healing by placebo, manifests as an extension of expectation. In ordinary life, expectation, force, desire, and non-expectation all play a role in manifesting or not, otherwise called the observer effect. Proof, or supposed truth, can never be trusted. I agree that Montagnier has failed to prove his work. on the other hand, I understand completely that his own reality has allowed such manifestations. So you can see how I might confuse you and others. I have no language to describe these things in terms that could be easily understood. I'm saying that there is absolutely nothing outside of perception save other perception. That belief that others are aware is my one belief (as opposed to knowledge). That is, I believe my son is real and he has awareness, and he isn't different from me in that respect. I am that close to solipsism. I admit it. I have no proof but I still want to believe enough to leave that question alone. It is very simple to understand subjective reality, and how it is always engaged in every situation. Once one gets over the idea that the lowest energy manifestations are the ones that the greater consensus offers, it can be understood how proof of their beliefs will always arrive. In subjective reality, however, everything is proof, based on the assumption that one is experiencing a representation or sample of a larger reality. But if all we experience are samples, we could easily go through life convinced that those samples can be extrapolated. In other words, if subjective reality means projection that manifests, and those manifestations are an extension of our beliefs, then we are dealing with expectation fulfillment. Add determinism, and we have a scripted reality that always appears to make sense. We can't change the outcomes, but we end up experiencing "agreements" along the way. These are not proof that we are sharing an exact duplicate of another's reality, just one that is a close enough description of he same thing. Determinism would guarantee that in retrospect, all would be seen as believable. It should be noted, too, that if perception is all we have (and that is true), anything beyond perception is outside of our range to know it is actually apart from our perception. The objective world, therefore, is only a theory. You could build any machine, any telescope, any computer, and yet you have to assume it even exists beyond your own senses.

Yes, it was a bad example. Good work. And I don't suppose, getting back to the subject, you could imagine subjective reality either. Anything but the topic. Are all of you the same person using different names? Because you all attack everything but what I am claiming, which is that reality is not objective, but subjective. Don't bother me any more if you have nothing to say about consciousness. Attack my ideas. Crucify the ideas. But you can't. it's beyond you and we both know it. Next? My spelling?

Because if subjective reality were true, that would explain all metaphysical phenomena. It would explain UFOs, Digfoot, Human levitation, Miracles, Hypnosis, Observer effect, Telekinesis, Meaningful coincidences, and on and on and on. Laser eyes would not. Hundreds of words. Skirting the question, making excuses. Thread title: "Universal Consciousness". Not "Human Super Abilities?"

Good points. However, what remains obvious to me is that the emergence of consciousness along the evolutionary path makes no sense, and particularly because of what you just said. You agree that the brain could wire itself to survive damage that would destroy huge areas , as we have seen happens regularly in the case of people born with very little brain matter. You say you could easily imagine how you could create a computer that could somehow restructure itself to compensate for physical damage. Let's say, okay, maybe in the far future, but possible. All the more reason for me to say, okay. The why would we ever need a consciousness to aid our already amazing computer-like brain? Survival? Why? You could ask, what particular mutation would create awareness when awareness would not survive any better than a better computer? There is no reason I can imagine that survival should benefit from awareness. One could design into a computer any reaction to threat---- something like adrenalin, a flight or fight response, intelligence to figure out an escape route, and on and on. I have said, it seems awareness would be, rather, a detriment to survival. A computer would be much more apt to sacrifice itself for the larger group way before humans would. We humans are hamstrung a bit in that department. We often allow torture to influence our decision to protect the larger group. Clearly, if we had a way to endure torture we would survive better genetically. But awareness works against this. It causes us to defend ourselves at a far greater degree than what would help our culture survive. Screw them! This hurts like hell! So when I hear of people say the brain created awareness, I wonder how Darwin would feel about that. It's the last thing I would ever put into a computer. I can just see the computer giving up all the other computers in hopes of stopping the pain for just a little while...

DrP, you amuse me. How would you talk about Montagnier if subjective reality is true? Come on! I think you must have known my meaning regarding dragons. Okay, not dragons, but say, three-headed dragons. You just don't get what I meant, do you? I am NOT asking you what you believe. I am asking you if you can use your imagination and pretend for a moment that subjective reality is real. What questions arise? Like, (holding your hand here), "Wouldn't there be paradoxes?", or, "How could science work effectively?", or anything but, "But I don't believe in subjective reality." Come on, you can do it! P.S. Why do you go to extreme lengths and post script that you are so open minded that you suppose that there's a very tiny chance that Montagnier is right and everyone else is wrong? I know you think that. I'm no different. One must discriminate. I agree. You are obviously not reading my posts. I am asking you this: Can you imagine subjective reality, and if so, what immediate questions arise? And if you answer, "there is no subjective reality!" one more time, I will assume you lack the intellectual capacity to answer the question I continue to ask again and again and again. This must be amusing to those reading this!

Strange, if you read my last comment you will show once again that you have no idea what I'm talking about. Obviously, this is a simple thing to understand. However, you are personally unable to imagine what subjective reality would imply. You continue to insist that subjective reality be proven by empirical data. I am saying it is axiomatic, and requires no objective proof. Your insistence that the only way one could prove or disprove subjective reality by objective means is extraordinarily illogical. Maybe it's too difficult to wrap your mind around? Nothing I can do there. DrP, I understand that it seems contradictory. You also can't imagine what subjective reality would imply. Simply imagining it is impossible for you. If you did manage to imagine it, you would see what I meant. Give the question some serious thought---- how would you talk about such people as luc Montagnier if subjective reality (no common universe) were true? Just because you don't believe in dragons doesn't mean you can't imagine a story about dragons, right? I was wrong to say that Montagnier was no charlatan. by my own rules, he could very well be one. I am assuming, nut let's just say that I have no reason to say he is, unlike you, who assume he must be. I apologize for that assumption of mine. it was unfair.

To Eise: I don't understand. I am not claiming Montagnier is right. Could you please show me where I claimed that? So you have commented based on what you thought I said. You must learn to slow down. Stop jumping to conclusions. We all know it's a lot of fun for hard materialists to dismember woo-woos. The Amazing Randi has made a career of it. But you're making a weak start if you want to find out what I'm saying. I said what Montagnier did, not what is true in your reality . That isn't my reality either. Reality is subjective. That can be proven, but not with empirical information, which doesn't exist. That would be rather foolish. How could empirical information yield anything worthwhile if reality is subjective?

Is that genuine curiosity I am seeing? That is why I ask questions. Yes, I can explain it. It isn't complicated enough to require links to be supplied. If you can't get it from me, you won't have any luck with information supplied by others. Each time I have tried to explain this, something has happened. Also, it requires a commitment of involvement that I doubt you are willing to expend. Not just you, but most everyone here. Most people believe that information can yield knowledge, but some innate knowledge requires something that isn't information. It requires realization, a thing that resonates or "rings" as true and can't be subjectively denied. Anyone who is willing to learn this knowledge would be welcome to speak directly to me by PM. I would offer hours of involvement to that person, hours and days of my time. But what I see are a lot of people who want quick snappy answers and easy links (God help them if I only spell out the source!). You want to know it all in five minutes. Quick! Tell me about the nature of reality! Hurry, my cell phone is ringing! Such is the nature of modern man. If it's not on a link, it doesn't exist.

DrP, You have my deepest respect. It is rare to find a person who can center like that. Very rare. I'll read your writings. Peace to you. I just returned from Sam's Club. a woman hawking samples in the back offered me a food thing and I accepted, and we talked. She was German, I speak some, lived there as a kid. When I asked how she was, she said, not so good. She had just fled from her church. Evangelical. She said there were grey rats (not bats, she said) flying around her home. Other things too. I forget exactly, but they came at night. She had also found herself floating in the air outside. Sounded scary. The old church was after her. They appeared at her door every week. She liked her new church. Nice people. Not so Satanic. I said she was right to leave that church. I didn't disbelieve her. This was a very honest looking woman who was obviously getting over a very traumatic situation. I asked her, very perplexed, why she was telling me this. Obviously she would be fired on the spot if I had reported her and someone grilled her. She said, "I knew by your face you would understand. I could see it in your eyes." Other people wouldn't understand." Nice woman. I liked her immensely. I left her feeling like a million bucks. It is a good thing to be properly read.

Accepted. But my argument was about how belief played an important role. If disbelief by nearly all witnesses to an experiment plays a pert in manifesting the test outcome, then of course, the experiment will disprove a charlatan. I agree with the fact that many things will not be proven but not because of charlatans. Witness Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel prize for his work in identifying the AIDS virus. He found a way to send, in a radio signal, a homeopathic DNA strand, to another lab 300 kilometers away where the DNA strand reconstituted from simple gene components. Not a fool, not a charlatan. Rather, a bit of a genius who thought he could work in such a controversial field because he had an iron clad reputation. But his work has been non-repeatable in most research labs around the world. It is easy to believe that he must be demented or confused, but I know that disbelief by the consensus group prevented his proving his work, which always succeeded in his own lab and other connected labs. I realize that this amounts to a major heretical claim by me, and I would never blame anyone for not believing me. I do, however, wish to be respected as someone who just might be coming from knowledge. I don't think I appear foolish or unintelligent. I feel my intellect is adequate. I can back up what I say too, but never get the chance if it is preordained that I cannot breach the wall of disbelief that represents the very thing I'm talking about. I keep saying it's a Catch-22. I respect those I argue with too, since I myself was once in their (your) shoes. I know that only a very few of the population out there can even imagine what I'm talking about. I say what I know to be true, and 90% of the time, I am attacked personally. Mocked and discounted without even being allowed to explain. That make it a bit aggravating. But since I understand well why I am treated that way, I am not bothered too much. I need practice dealing with it. It helps me to write better, to explain better. I have said so many times, this simple mantra: If one can imagine that reality is totally subjective, and also predetermined, and belief manifests reality (and disbelief does not), then it is possible that a representative of rank disbelief of, say, paranormal (so called) events, will not manifest any proof of those events. That is it, in a nutshell. I could go on and explain how it all works, and make sense of what I just wrote. I do use the quantum delayed choice as an example of what I'm saying, and when I do use that example, I don't usually add that subjective manifestation would always project the subconscious knowledge of each person, that is, the dynamic workings of consciousness itself, upon the objective world perceived. In physics, this would mean that each of us would be projecting a physics that mirrored the inner dynamics of the mind. In essence, our objective world would BE our subconscious itself. It would describe everything about the mind. It would be coded, as the subconscious is known to be. But it would be displayed "out there" to each, and modified as well where personal subjective symbology occurred. This isn't easily described due to it's non0linear nature. you cannot "hook" a person's attention as you might normally do because its understanding requires a quantum leap in mental attention, a kind of juggling act that requires a more three-dimensional miode of perception. Buddhist can think this way, world class chess player to an extent, and some who have had what is referred to as a 'Kundalini Awakening". However, until I myself had that awakening experience, I was incapable of that mode of thought. I knew nothing of Buddhism at the time. Did you know that Buddhists have unusual brain MRIs? Chess players too. And guess where chess originated. Northern India of all places. But I'm not trying to prove anything about those bits of information. I just want to encourage people to imagine another paradigm. It requires a commitment of heavy thought, and a desire to know. Absolutely challenge me to prove this is all true. I can. I may be one of the few who you will ever meet who can explain it. Millions, I'm sure, have awakened to this knowledge, but are unable to elucidate it very well. Once understood, it begins to prove itself right away. One begins to understand everything out there---- why "metaphysical things happen, how most conspiracies are only personal beliefs, why most everyone can't understand what's going on, and much more. What hypnosis really is, and placeboes and miracles, Bigfoot, UFOs, virtually every last strange thing ever known. And more. Nothing beyond perception is ultimately real in any empirical sense. It is useless to any true understanding of reality to look beyond your own mind, except to understand your subconscious knowledge through decoding your own objective symbology.

DrP, I mentioned the dream first time in comment #11. Again in comment #23 I'm sorry, but anyone can see that I never said what you say I did. That makes you wrong, and publicly so. And thank you for taking the initiative and leaving. That you can't apologize is well understood. You have embarrassed yourself and I am sorry it had to happen. I would much rather have had an engaging conversation about the topic, where you don't finally run out of arguments and simply cry, "Liar!" The way a person should argue a point is to respond to a claim and dismember it using reason. Not, "because people are full of crap, etc.. That is a chicken manure way of arguing a point. You feel very comfortable in your loose and flawed way of arguing because you feel that most people, perhaps Strange, agree with you. Again, that is bull. You can't argue because you can't imagine changing your mind. I need a worthy opponent. You are not it.

No more responses to you, DrP. You waste my time by not even attempting to understand what I'm saying. I said why Randi will keep his money. Argue with that or shut up.

Maine Yankee power plant, probably about '94-'.95. No. I never went on a tour there. You are the one who is misremembering, not me. You aren't reading and comprehending what I wrote, but you accuse me of lying? It's like I say,"I saw an eagle". You say, "when did you see the dog?--- because you've lied before!" Come now, DrP, if you won't read or can't remember what I've wrote, do you really feel justified in calling me a liar? Go back and read and see who should not be calling anyone a liar. Again, for those who can't remember what is written on this thread: I had a dream. In the dream, I was with a group of people visiting a nuclear power plant. an alarm went off and it was announced that there had been a leak of radiation. I had a sinking feeling that I had been dosed. Dream ends. I woke up. Later that day, maybe in the afternoon, I heard on the radio that that day, a group of high school students had been touring the Maine Yankee power plant in Wiscasset, Maine. During their tour, a leak had occurred and they were safely evacuated. Highlighted for easy reference later when you again accuse me of lying. From now on, I will highlight important posts so people with memory problems can avoid embarrassing themselves. And if you must insist that I'm lying, use the quote feature to prove it. Yes, Strange, case in point. Some people think they've read something and feel so confident in their false memory that they even accuse people of lying. Of course, YOU knew what I said. And since you did, what is your take on that dream? P.s.--- The court case where the students sued the power plant over the leak was US district court, district of Maine, Civil # 95-159-P-C Story in the Portland press herald, and other papers. Probably '94. What bothers me, and should bother others who accuse, is that the accusers are so lazy that they don't even bother to read what I've said, or who are so mentally deficient that they can't remember what they have read. I see this again and again, and of course it's provable that it has happened. From now on, I will not give the time of day to people who think they can just willy-nilly and sloppily make accusatory and degrading comments based on nothing but mistakes they have made. It's one thing to make mistakes about what someone has said. To call a person a liar over it is an insult and it deserves an apology.

Well, strange, I think you are talking about your favorite theory. The fact that observation collapses the wave function is rather obvious. I think there are a few physicists that still share that view. That may not be your understanding. And yes, it is the observer effect. Just because the terminology has been applied elsewhere doesn't mean I don't know it's the same dynamic. And belief, belief that a particular outcome will ensue with a high degree of certainty allows collapse. Your arguments make little sense. This is what happens when you simply regurgitate what you've been told. It doesn'tseem to matter how ridiculous your beliefs are. If a ridiculous theory is shared, it feels safe to repeat it. You are provided with a lot of mathematical mumbo-jumbo and like so many throughout history, you stand not on your own feet but behind the crowd. In the eighteenth century, learned men all seemed to agree that blacks were a lower form of life, and almost all agreed that they ought to therefore be slaves, bought and sold like cattle. Smart people like you. Smart people like Washington and Jefferson. It seems so strange to people today. It seems like people back then were blind to some things, even while they could do math, or design a bill of rights and be considered wise men. I doubt you could make any sense of the delayed choice experiments. All you could do is theorize, and use someone else's theory to do so. Belief is the thing that you can't pin down. I have outlined many times a very simple way to show why belief could effect your perception to observe such things as different temperature readings. In a deterministic "universe", the script has already been written. Thus, any evidence that later arrives is custom tailored for you alone, and that is due to subjective perception. You are fooled every time. I began to describe it for you but the thread was destroyed by Phi, I think it was. It's all common sense. You could say, "It just sounds too wild to believe", and I could accept that, but you couldn't find fault with the logic. Normally one might say this was because your intellect was failing but I would never say that because I understand what cognitive dissonance is. Again, if subjective reality allows one to project his reality, it will never cause a paradox if others' realities are also projecting what they believe. Determinism guarantees this can be "arranged" to a high level of efficacy. You could never get proof of something around disbelievers who represented the consensus beliefs without an enormous quantity of energy. There is no single reality, just a consensus that manifests easily at a very low energy to those who always go with the flow, which means almost everyone. The king of consensus is the amazing Randi, the most unimaginative and cynical human being alive. Nobody can prove anything to him because he stands with the consensus and their beliefs cannot allow such a paradox to occur. So he keeps his million dollars and takes a bow for being so clever when in fact he's not really doing anything special. The fact that you can't understand this is normal, so I get it. I am writing here more for others who read it and CAN make sense of it.

Vigay said that, and I disagreed. It wasn't a great example, but it could be disagreed with. This highlights what I can't seem to convey to you. Something dead simple. That where belief is concerned, because belief manifests reality (observer effect), you get what you expect within the bounds of all plausible outcomes viewed retrospectively by all persons involved, at the least net energy expenditure on average. which is a mouthful, I know, but I understand it perfectly. It's why you can't prove things to unbelievers, especially if they are going to announce findings. Belief is only "moved" energetically. One must consider what new evidence would come up against. For example, a scientist might peek at 'which slit' detector information, but have a heart attack and die without anyone knowing he'd peeked. Next morning, the others come in and find him dead. They now destroy the detector information and viola! All diffraction! It should have shown no diffraction but since the peeking guy is dead and they don't BELIVE he peeked, its as if he himself was only a detector!

I don't understand the term, "supernatural". To me, it's all the same thing. I think, DrP, that you might need to consider that what is considered woo-woo is possibly very well understood by some people. I told you or somebody that I always mentioned predictive dreams to other people before the event. I even woke up my wife to tell her I'd just had an extraordinary dream, like it was real--- the day before the Algiers quake. I described to her in detail the people running, the ground shaking, the scene of the city of Algiers (at least a middle-eastern city). Thousands died. 30.000 homes destroyed. Worst in history. Around 1980. Look it up. No, I don't have that dream every night. About the worst earthquake in Algiers in history. And yes, it could have been Cairo for all I knew, but really! I already said that I never predicted earthquakes that didn't happen. Only ones that did, and only three times. Always the day before, so I don't know what you mean when you say I hear the news and viola! I was right! No, I repeat, I always tell someone before the next day begins, before the earthquake even happens. I otherwise can't recall any earthquake dreams. Next you'll say, well maybe I dream of nuclear power plants leaking radiation every night and then after it happens, I am jogged to remember the dream. No, I remembered the nuke dfream upon waking and only later heard it on the news, and it happened after I remembered it, not before. There's just no way around it. One can have predictive dreams. Why can't that be possible? And insofar as supernatural goes, you said that, not me. I don't separate real from supernatural. I know they are all a part of one big reality. I know why those dreams occur too, but I am not pushing that agenda here right now. Suffice to say, I will explain it to anyone with ears but since few can even imagine the ramifications of determinism, I never get very far in the explaining. Strange, you are not making sense! Read what you just wrote! What occurs with otherwise perfectly intelligent people upon being confronted with something that they can't explain but believe they can is called cognitive dissonance. And Strange, you are proving that to be true. When your mind is split, and yours is, the intellect is also somewhat split. It's weird but it happens all the time. It's not stubbornness, nor is it even intended. It's just that we humans have an awfully hard time remembering that we once knew certain things about reality, before we even had words to describe what we knew. Some people can get back to that way of knowin, but very few. So I understand. It gives me patience. I certainly don't blame you for not understanding. In fact, something tells me you read ny stuff because something in you knows something but you can't pull it up.

MANY EARTHQUAKES HAPPENED WITHOUT MY DREAMING OF THEM. So what? Strange, each time I had a precognitive dream about an earthquake, the dream was so real that I announced it the same day to someone. Then, the following day, the event occurred. I never had dreams like that where I announced anything to anybody, and I was wrong----- involving earthquakes that did not occur the following day. And what about the nuke plant leak? That is very detailed--- I was with a group of people touring the plant and a leak occurred. That happened the next day. At the closest plant to where I was, 40 miles or so away. Would that be just coincidence?

K

In a way, it's true. I don't know what I'm talking about. I am full of wonder. I wonder why I am here. I have sought truth your way, Argent. It has led nowhere. After so many years of stumbling along in the dark, I asked, what do I know? What is the value in applying technology to the bigger questions and expecting answers? What is it that I can know? I can't trust my senses. They lie to me. I can't trust information. It only guesses. Worse, it often lies. Detective work is no longer good enough. Knowledge, that which may be limited, but nevertheless is real and true. I used to be interested in strange things. things like the paranormal, UFOs, Crop Formations, and so forth. Then one day, I had a very strange event occur in my life. I had what some people call an awakening experience. Do you know what the major change was that was a result of this awakening? I know longer had any interest in investigating all those strange things any more. They held nothing for me any more than any normal every day occurrence. Another thing was that I only knew as true the simple things I must have been born knowing, but had never developed due to having never known a language to describe them to myself. When I later awoke, I realized I had become exposed to a new kind of knowing that was real. It required no description yet it was real and it could even predict. I knew, for example, that belief had power. I tested my new knowledge. There was a crop circle forum I belonged to. The moderator was an electrical engineer named Paul Vigay. Paul had invented and built a meter that could pick up magnetic fields in crop formations. Paul was a hard-nose scientific type like you. Whenever he was in a "real" crop formation, his meter would register anomalous readings. at one point, Paul and I had a disagreement. I claimed that reality was subjective, that each of us, due to or differing beliefs, manifested entirely different realities. Paul said that the temperature of water to boil was the same around the world at sea level, and so forth, and I disagreed, saying it could be different depending on the person. I asked him if his little meter always told him if a crop formation was genuine rather than man made. Other tests such as would correlate with magnetic anomalies always aligned with features also considered anomalous. Ninety degree bends of stalks, as if steamed over at the node of the stalks, things like that. I told him that if ever National Geographic ever visited a site he deemed genuine, his e-meter (he called it) would suddenly malfunction. A couple of months passed and as luck would have it, Paul actually was asked by National Geographic if he would meet them in a field he deemed genuine and show them his meter readings, which were supposed to be anomalous compared to outside the formation. Unfortunately, for the first time ever, his meter didn't show any response even though it could be tested with a magnet, for example. Paul never did own up to my being right. Not long after, he was found floating in the Atlantic ocean, drowned by either suicide or murder, it was never discovered. Later, I was able to predict a lot of things. That evidence would go missing, whether concerning crop circles or chem trails or UFO videos, or Bigfoot sightings, or anything that would be considered impossible to the general culture---- but mostof these were geographically specific. In the USA, crop formations were rare but in England where they abounded, anyone could see them by taking a drive. When a phenomenon was prevalent in some particular place, it seemed to "grow" there as if a seed had been planted. As if belief of local people were allowing such things to exist there more than other places because they had been exposed to their existence on a more personal level. I remembered the observer effect and how science also knew that reality issued from human expectation (they would not use those words, but it's the same thing). Science would prefer to use terminology that resulted in long equations and complicated theories rather than ever use the term, 'Expectation'. But there it is. You could call the expectation that manifested reality the 'Observer's effect' and then it was just an effect. You could call the miracle at Fatima Portugal a mass hysteria or hallucination and walk away satisfied that the terms themselves were an explanation all by themselves. Just like the word, 'psychosomatic', which explains nothing but is accepted as a real thing nonetheless. Words are like that. we eventually just accept them just because they have a name. So science has proven that belief or expectation (same thing) manifests reality in a very obvious way. You look and reality suddenly manifests. Before, it was a probability and a later choice could effect a past event, no matter how long ago. No paradox would surface because cheating was impossible. You had to hide the test results to maintain the possibility of later choosing. Yet. physicists almost invariably would disagree that any expectation could produce full blown reality. It funny, isn't it? Obvious, you might say. But, I'm sure your arguments are honed. You would never allow words like 'expectation" or "belief fulfillment". You would only agree that when we look, we are doing something we don't understand. Anything but say what's really going on, because in doing so we are admitting our world view is incorrect. If we can change whether a phosphor screen had a diffraction pattern or not just by asking the question, what does that translate to on a larger scale? The answer is, it means that our supposition that we are actually making a choice is incorrect. Better to call it delayed action, not choice, and any erasing would be simply the discovery of what we were always going to do. All this makes for fat grants and years of employment, which supposedly might one day lead to a grand unified theory of everything, but it never will. Not because it can't, but because it isn't possible in a "universe" that is constructed out of paradoxes. A Universe that is based on both free will and determinism, and subjective reality and objective reality. Those are the major paradoxes, no matter how much math you throw at the problem. Never will such a paradox resolve. Thought experiments show that a simple quantum test with delayed choice can easily be enlarged to blow up an object on the far side of the moon. Causally speaking, a major catastrophic event could easily be initiated by a quantum delayed choice experiment. So there's your macro event. There can't be a difference from micro to macro if that is possible. None of this was available to me before my awakening experience. Yet, it isn't exactly difficult to grasp.

DrP, Strange, I Neither of you are reading what I wrote. EVERY time I had an earthquake dream, I made sure to announce that dream and EACH time, the earthquake occurred the next day. No remembering only the dreams that came true. No false alarms. This is nothing like meeting someone in a foreign city. I don't think that is very significant. I've had hundreds like that. And yes, DrP, I do know why coincidences occur,. Most appear to be statistically possible. But mine? I was reading a book about coincidences and as I read, "Lincoln's birthday", I heard EXACTLY in cadence and timing with my mental reading of the same words, "Lincoln's birthday". As if my mind was speaking from the radio. I literally jumped! What was cool was how my hearing 'Lincoln is terminated' inside my head (schizophrenic style), that was a mystery to me why the word 'terminator' was used. But the following morning, I found out. EXACTLY as I was viewing the arrowheads that were labelled, 'Terminator', I heard the salesman across the store say "this is the gun Schwarzenegger used in the movie, 'Terminator'. I'm awake enough to know that I'm not selectively cherry picking these things. I hear things on the radio all the time. I'm thinking about a subject, and I hear the same subject on the radio. Just recently I hooked back up with a friend I hadn't seen in 37 years. Between calling him the first time and his calling me back, I watched a movie that featured a robin's egg blue 1970 Volvo 240 sedan. It was identical to my friend's car that he drove back in '78 when I last knew him. Yes, I could have been missing seeing that car all along. I might have seen it many times over the years and thought nothing of it. I'm only mentioning it here because it falls short of my own litmus test for being statistically significant. The precognitive dream about being with a group in a nuke plant and having the alarm go off is fairly detailed. The following day, the EXACT same thing actually happened, and in the plant that was xclosest to me, the Maine Yankee plant in Wiscasset, Maine. The story may still be available. I felt, before hearing the news, that I had had a very frightening and real dream. I think there's a place for doubting claims of coincidences and then there's grasping for straws. To say my experiences are easily discounted as normal is certainly grasping for straws.

But notice how, like Strange, they avoid what I wrote about my own precognitive dreams, which always were followed by the event I dreamed about. I always made sure to tell someone about the dream. That was my own way of avoiding the trap of cherry picking only successful predictions. I only rarely have precognitive dreams. Nor is anyone touching the coincidences I mentioned. Such a phenomenon is difficult for cynics to deal with. They prefer in such cases to simply avoid the issue. it seems to be about denial. Pretending to be open-minded clear-thinking people, they have no desire to know the truth. They spout tired old mantras about gullible people and self-deluding unscientific types. Some things can't be tested in a lab. Since scientific types don't ever believe that expectation can steer results, they fool themselves every time. A whole world of evidence escapes them. So I challenge them to explain coincidences as I described. Or why I dreamed of the biggest earthquake in Algeria's history the night before it happened, and how I was one of the people running through a middle-eastern city along with a lot of people who were panicking as the Earth shook. And it was the only time a dream was so real that I woke my wife up to tell her about it. Or when I dreamed of a radiation leak in a nuke plant when with a group as tourists and the next day, it happened just like that. You can't deal with that at all, so you just avoid even commenting on it. I have see the images of dying relatives passing in front of me, causing me to note the time, and later found out they had passed at that moment. This never happened as a false flag. I was always right. You guys---- Strange, Argent, and Velocity Boy, don't know what you're talking about.

Strange, what about the coincidences! What would be the reason? Why would such coincidences occur like that? Does the topic frighten you? Is it that you need to be right and you can't be, so you simply ignore compelling information like that? You can't deal with it, can you? Anyone reading this thread can see it. You have real people claiming they have had experiences and you won't admit it's happening. You cherry pick things you feel comfortable with and if you can't argue the case for absolute materialism, you slide away? Does that make sense?

I have spent hours watching a 2500 mile area become completely hazy, watching jet trails turning to clouds. I have hundreds of photographs of strange spotted skyscapes of bright variegated colors. You can call them anything you want, but there was nothing normal about what was going on. At the same time, I am aware that what was up there was only emergent reality, a lot like UFOs---- real to some, never seen by others, and yet I know I saw what I saw. My father didn't. That was stupendously weird. Strange, you don't understand belief. You have no idea how belief shapes reality. That's okay. I wouldn't dream of telling you what is and what isn't real. One man's real is another man's fantasy. But I can imagine much more than you appear to be capable of imagining. Not because I am insane or out of touch, or, especially gullible. There is a difference between being skeptical and being incapable of considering alternative ideas. I am as hard-nosed as they come. I believe in the scientific process too. But I include in my knowledge the possibility that your exclusionary beliefs fall short of answering why I have had precognitive dreams, or witnessed paranormal events take place. I think if you had a paranormal event take place in front of you as many times as I have, you would not be so cynical. And why do you avoid commenting on my many precognitive dreams? Why not explain to me why I should have had those dreams of tomorrow's events? Is it because you can't say,"Huh! I can't explain that!" Because this discussion shouldn't be about who "wins", but about honest seeking of new knowledge. All I see is people defending deeply anchored beliefs to the death, avoiding the hard questions at every turn. People who would rather NOT think too hard. Another interesting subject is coincidences. I have had strings of coincidences that progressed to sixth stage, that is, even if there were a one in a hundred chance of having one coincidence, a sequence of five in a 24 hour period would be 100 to the sixth power to one odds. A trillion tp one? I can't find my calculator but that's one hell of a chance just using my fingers, don't you think? 1) Reading book about coincidences and as I read, 'Lincoln's birthday', I simultaneously hear the radio in the next room saying, "Lincoln's birthday". 2) Half asleep, a voice in my head (like a speaker, not a thought) says, "Lincoln is terminated". You may omit that one for obvious reasons. 3) I visit sporting goods store and look at bows and arrows. Name on arrows, "Terminator" 4) Salesman across room is showing big hand gun to customer. He says as I read the word, "Terminator on the box of arrow heads, "This is the gun Schwarzenegger used in the movie... Terminator!" 5) Home again, girlfriend has a job interview. Writes down location of building in industrial park and directions to said building on 3 x 3 piece of paper. Goes there, stops at library, picks up book. Comes home, opens book. Out of book falls a small 3 x 3 piece of paper. Instructions on piece of paper to building forty miles away---- within forty feet of the one she'd just visited. Side by side, the instructions are almost identical. 6) Come to discover it was Lincoln's birthday the day before when I picked out a book that gave no indication that Lincoln was going to be mentioned. How would you deal with that? I'd have to be lying, right?