Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
HeIsHere said:
Is that why you were saved in 1872?
Click to expand...

I am not certain about your claim that I posted that I was saved in 1872, can you please refer me to that post?

And you have not yet cited your reference to the claim that the experiments were not replicable. I would have to look it up, but there is ample evidence that they were, which includes the admission that for a brief period of time relatively early on there was a problem with replication, but after that brief period of time the results returned even stronger and continued for decades after, to the present day under a different set of administrators. If you are citing the brief period, which is acknowledged in the literature, you are guilty of "cherry picking" the evidence to support your preexisting assumptions.
 
rewriter said:
I am not certain about your claim that I posted that I was saved in 1872, can you please refer me to that post?

And you have not yet cited your reference to the claim that the experiments were not replicable. I would have to look it up, but there is ample evidence that they were, which includes the admission that for a brief period of time relatively early on there was a problem with replication, but after that brief period of time the results returned even stronger and continued for decades after, to the present day under a different set of administrators. If you are citing the brief period, which is acknowledged in the literature, you are guilty of "cherry picking" the evidence to support your preexisting assumptions.
Click to expand...

"the experiments were not replicable"

Let me clarify, independent replication means, it not the testing/experiments but the results of the testing/study that were not replicated.

Prof Stan Jeffers at York University is one, I am sure there are others.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2006/05/the-pear-proposition-fact-or-fallacy/
 
rewriter said:
I am not certain about your claim that I posted that I was saved in 1872, can you please refer me to that post?

And you have not yet cited your reference to the claim that the experiments were not replicable. I would have to look it up, but there is ample evidence that they were, which includes the admission that for a brief period of time relatively early on there was a problem with replication, but after that brief period of time the results returned even stronger and continued for decades after, to the present day under a different set of administrators. If you are citing the brief period, which is acknowledged in the literature, you are guilty of "cherry picking" the evidence to support your preexisting assumptions.
Click to expand...

It is on your profile.
 
rewriter said:
I am not advocating for reincarnation as a means to nirvana or salvation, merely that it fits the available data far better than any other existent theory.

As for the PEAR program, it has been presented in peer reviewed journals and the arguments against it, to my mind, have even less weight than the arguments against the physical resurrection. There was great pushback over many scientific advances when they occurred but that we now accept as fully valid. I do not look at whether or not there are objections to what claims to be an advancement, unlike some people, I look at the evidence and the nature of the objections.,

And you might not be aware, but academia is brutal. Any time someone advances something too far beyond what is currently acceptable there is pushback. One tenured professor acknowledged that he was paid less than many associate professors at his institution because he went too far beyond what was acceptable. A well-respected biblical archeologist had his reputation tarnished because he reacted to a find and published on it while most were debating whether it was legitimate or not. Ass recent political events have shown university funding can be severely impacted by what stance a given institution takes. Princeton was slow to support the PEAR project, not due to its academic or research profile but due to its controversial position. It had, and the ongoing studies based on its work continue to have, support from Nobel prize winners in various scientific fields. That, to my mind, speaks volumes about its rigor and the quality of its research. Skeptics do not like it though as it challenges their assumptions about reality. Claims are made about things not being replicable, but claims are also made by skeptics about contradictions in the Bible that render it meaningless. Anyone else see a double standard for rejecting their work without investigation?

And a final thought on this point. Someone asks you if you would like a nickel and you state that you do not need a nickel, you need a hundred thousand dollars. Their response is that if you walk this specific route the next day they will meet you at the end and you will walk away with a hundred thousand dollars if you are smart enough, but you need to be ready because it will be in cash and that can weigh a lot. The next day you start following the path and notice that there are nickels on the ground but keep on going to get your hundred thousand. When you meet the person, he asks you how many nickels you picked up and you say, "None, I just wanted the hundred thousand." His response is. "You ignored two million nickels which is a hundred thousand dollars."

cont
Regarding Jesus's body, we will have to agree to disagree, I fear. I see evidence in Galatians and 1 John, among other places, that the earliest church did not believe in an empty tomb but sought to conceal the proof of the resurrection from the Romans and so invented a physical resurrection. You do not see that and so be it.

As for divine inspiration, it is easy to claim but extremely hard to prove, one might even say impossible, unless you know of some means to prove divinity rather than just assume it. But if you assume something is divinely inspired it becomes obvious that anything that differs must not be. However, that still leaves all your "proof" resting on just your opinion, with the equally weak opinions of other.

Now as for learning/gaining insight, another factor is what sources you are aware of and willing to use. Do you use only the approved sources, or do you also look at the unapproved to see why they are so considered. There is a reported letter from Tiberius to Agbar, a client king. (all we have is a 5th century source) that might offer some insights into the scriptures, but it is not in an approved source, and there is a section in that source that is clearly a fabrication, although the rest appears plausible, including the reported letter. Now, for the specific letter, there are three possibilities, one, that it is pure fabrication, but why do so many details seem to fit the mid-30's CE, that it is totally accurate as we have it, but why does it reference an issue that is otherwise unknown or the person who copied it in the 5th century made a very believable mistake and misunderstood a well-documented historical event, shifting it to the wrong location. If the last option is chosen, it also fits with strange comments made in acceptable historic Christian document and explains what they refer to.

Your comments about the OT versus NT also suggest to me that there are passages in the OT that you either ignore or are unaware of. As many scholars, both of the OT and NT agree, there is nothing in the NT that does not exist in the OT. Some will even say that the OT is commentary on just two verses, and the NT is pure commentary on the OT. .
Click to expand...

My seeking is for truth about ultimate reality in order to ascertain how to be saved from this one.
Thus, I am unimpressed by either reincarnation or PEAR as providing more hope for heaven than faith in God/Jesus.

Regarding Christ's resurrection, I would appreciate knowing the exact verses in Galatians and 1John that doubt the empty tomb.

Regarding divine inspiration, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have:

The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).

Having read the entire Bible in four translations taking copious notes, there is nothing I was not aware of before I forgot it. I have also considered many other sources during my seeking/research, most of which I have forgotten after deeming them worthless, but
the points I have considered worthwhile are those I have written down elsewhere and am sharing with y'all now here and on other CC threads as my witness/testimony before dying.

Regarding proving divine inspiration, I think the absence of disproof via one or more of the six ways discussed previously is sufficient to warrant belief per my opinion that it is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true. IOW, logical opinions are better than blind assumptions.

My opinion regarding logical argument is summarized by what I believe to be an insight that I call the Propensity Principle,
which I will share next if we are ready to depart this station.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeIsHere
rewriter said:
I am not advocating for reincarnation as a means to nirvana or salvation, merely that it fits the available data far better than any other existent theory.

As for the PEAR program, it has been presented in peer reviewed journals and the arguments against it, to my mind, have even less weight than the arguments against the physical resurrection. There was great pushback over many scientific advances when they occurred but that we now accept as fully valid. I do not look at whether or not there are objections to what claims to be an advancement, unlike some people, I look at the evidence and the nature of the objections.,

And you might not be aware, but academia is brutal. Any time someone advances something too far beyond what is currently acceptable there is pushback. One tenured professor acknowledged that he was paid less than many associate professors at his institution because he went too far beyond what was acceptable. A well-respected biblical archeologist had his reputation tarnished because he reacted to a find and published on it while most were debating whether it was legitimate or not. Ass recent political events have shown university funding can be severely impacted by what stance a given institution takes. Princeton was slow to support the PEAR project, not due to its academic or research profile but due to its controversial position. It had, and the ongoing studies based on its work continue to have, support from Nobel prize winners in various scientific fields. That, to my mind, speaks volumes about its rigor and the quality of its research. Skeptics do not like it though as it challenges their assumptions about reality. Claims are made about things not being replicable, but claims are also made by skeptics about contradictions in the Bible that render it meaningless. Anyone else see a double standard for rejecting their work without investigation?

And a final thought on this point. Someone asks you if you would like a nickel and you state that you do not need a nickel, you need a hundred thousand dollars. Their response is that if you walk this specific route the next day they will meet you at the end and you will walk away with a hundred thousand dollars if you are smart enough, but you need to be ready because it will be in cash and that can weigh a lot. The next day you start following the path and notice that there are nickels on the ground but keep on going to get your hundred thousand. When you meet the person, he asks you how many nickels you picked up and you say, "None, I just wanted the hundred thousand." His response is. "You ignored two million nickels which is a hundred thousand dollars."

cont.
Click to expand...

I have no problem researching ideas, beliefs that may be more on the edge of what is provable by science and data at that time... Mdme Currie comes to mind, yet having stated this the researchers need to adhere to ethical guidelines, use standardized methodology which is transparent and clear.

That is the problem... the shady research practices and reporting of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewriter
HeIsHere said:
"the experiments were not replicable"

Let me clarify, independent replication means, it not the testing/experiments but the results of the testing/study that were not replicated.

Prof Stan Jeffers at York University is one, I am sure there are others.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2006/05/the-pear-proposition-fact-or-fallacy/
Click to expand...

Okay, the Skeptical Inquirer is one of the sources I referenced as willing to ignore or distort in order to support their claims. I have not looked at this specific article, but I would guess that it references the time that the PEAR program itself admitted to people failing to continue demonstrating their abilities for a short time while ignoring that the abilities resumed afterwards with no further interruptions as well as declining to mention that in many, if not all, human endeavors, such episodes are known to occur. Given the Olympics going on right now, referencing "twisties" might be appropriate, that is if you remember comments made by Olympians who miserably fail to perform up to expectations at times.

As for independent replication, I am fully aware of it. I trust that you are aware that many declarations made by scientists are accepted based on the reputation of the scientists and that the claimed results fit within traditional scientific boundaries without prompt independent replication? And even worse, when the independent replication is attempted, it fails repeatedly, but since it was mainstream thought and challenges might harm the original claimant's reputation, the lack of replicability is downplayed. It is only broadcast when the findings challenge conventional scientific theory.

And I can cite Nobel prize winners in support of the PEAR program. Do you really want to play that game or do you want to look at the evidence from both sides as opposed to just the side that makes you feel most comfortable.
 
GWH said:
My seeking is for truth about ultimate reality in order to ascertain how to be saved from this one.
Thus, I am unimpressed by either reincarnation or PEAR as providing more hope for heaven than faith in God/Jesus.

Regarding Christ's resurrection, I would appreciate knowing the exact verses in Galatians and 1John that doubt the empty tomb.

Regarding divine inspiration, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have:

The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).

Having read the entire Bible in four translations taking copious notes, there is nothing I was not aware of before I forgot it. I have also considered many other sources during my seeking/research, most of which I have forgotten after deeming them worthless, but
the points I have considered worthwhile are those I have written down elsewhere and am sharing with y'all now here and on other CC threads as my witness/testimony before dying.

Regarding proving divine inspiration, I think the absence of disproof via one or more of the six ways discussed previously is sufficient to warrant belief per my opinion that it is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true. IOW, logical opinions are better than blind assumptions.

My opinion regarding logical argument is summarized by what I believe to be an insight that I call the Propensity Principle,
which I will share next if we are ready to depart this station.
Click to expand...

I doubt you will catch it, but 1 John 5:8 (the clearest), Galatians 3:1 (why did Paul choose this specific language) and 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 (a perfect place to reference the empty tomb if relevant).
 
rewriter said:
Okay, the Skeptical Inquirer is one of the sources I referenced as willing to ignore or distort in order to support their claims. I have not looked at this specific article, but I would guess that it references the time that the PEAR program itself admitted to people failing to continue demonstrating their abilities for a short time while ignoring that the abilities resumed afterwards with no further interruptions as well as declining to mention that in many, if not all, human endeavors, such episodes are known to occur. Given the Olympics going on right now, referencing "twisties" might be appropriate, that is if you remember comments made by Olympians who miserably fail to perform up to expectations at times.

As for independent replication, I am fully aware of it. I trust that you are aware that many declarations made by scientists are accepted based on the reputation of the scientists and that the claimed results fit within traditional scientific boundaries without prompt independent replication? And even worse, when the independent replication is attempted, it fails repeatedly, but since it was mainstream thought and challenges might harm the original claimant's reputation, the lack of replicability is downplayed. It is only broadcast when the findings challenge conventional scientific theory.

And I can cite Nobel prize winners in support of the PEAR program. Do you really want to play that game or do you want to look at the evidence from both sides as opposed to just the side that makes you feel most comfortable.
Click to expand...

The problem is there is no evidence to look at, the methodology of the study is flawed and therefore so are the results, that is why PEAR not longer exists (closed in 2007) as part of the Engineering program at Princeton.

I have no idea why anyone as highly esteemed like Jahn would have thought ESP/PK was a valid and credible area of study under engineering.

It is, what it is, I guess.
 
HeIsHere said:
The problem is there is no evidence to look at, the methodology of the study is flawed and therefore so are the results, that is why PEAR not longer exists (closed in 2007) as part of the Engineering program at Princeton.

I have no idea why anyone as highly esteemed like Jahn would have thought ESP/PK was a valid and credible area of study under engineering.

It is, what it is, I guess.
Click to expand...

It ended because both principles, elected to do so. I believe Jahn was retiring actually. And if you ever read "The Margins of Reality" you will learn what led to the study. But also, many highly esteemed scientists consider ESP/PK a valid area of study. There is simply too much high-quality evidence indicating that something is going on beyond the purely materialistic realm. Christians who believe in the resurrection of Jesus and the possibility of an afterlife should logically be swarming to support this research in order to find extra- biblical support for God and salvation.

But a question for you, what do you call someone who supposedly receives communication from a non-physical entity? I would suggest the following terms as all possible (not an exhaustive list though): Jesus, a prophet, an apostle or the writer of a biblical book. Those who deny the possible existence of a non-physical entity are call "skeptics" or "atheists".
 
Eli1 said:
Ah okay. I am familiar with this phenomenon but I just didn’t know they had a study about it and I’m glad they did.
But before I say more, I’d like to ask you.
Based on this study of this phenomenon, what have you come up with as a theory of consciousness?
Click to expand...

Sorry I have delayed responding to you Eli, but I have had my hands full with skeptics.

How much of the field of Consciousness Studies or the work of the PEAR program are you familiar with? I go back to some foundational (?) works from the 19th century (Myers, et al.) through the Cross Correspondence work (including Saltmarsh), the work of Rhine and other work done in Russia and the USA (including but not limited to the CIA) in the 20th century and into this century with "Beyond Materialism" (I have three works in this series) and similar works.

My "proof" of God rests on some of the later work in the PEAR program where it implies that the result is greater than the sum of the parts and I then extrapolate that out as far as possible into what is reported as true from NDEs and the result is a theistic entity that is all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful and inherently just, which sounds much like the Christian God.

Can you follow this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
rewriter said:
It ended because both principles, elected to do so. I believe Jahn was retiring actually. And if you ever read "The Margins of Reality" you will learn what led to the study. But also, many highly esteemed scientists consider ESP/PK a valid area of study. There is simply too much high-quality evidence indicating that something is going on beyond the purely materialistic realm. Christians who believe in the resurrection of Jesus and the possibility of an afterlife should logically be swarming to support this research in order to find extra- biblical support for God and salvation.

But a question for you, what do you call someone who supposedly receives communication from a non-physical entity? I would suggest the following terms as all possible (not an exhaustive list though): Jesus, a prophet, an apostle or the writer of a biblical book. Those who deny the possible existence of a non-physical entity are call "skeptics" or "atheists".
Click to expand...

God, the Bible and salvation are not affirmed by the existence of PK, Remote Viewing and ESP.

Generally speaking even if a researcher retires, when there is solid evidence to continue, other professors will pick it up and obtain funding because there is something there to pursue.

The after life has two spiritual realms, one operates on the level of lies and deceit, I think most believers would affirm that the resurrection of Christ Jesus is completely from one realm and not the other.

Gemini informs me that >>>>> the broader scientific community largely rejected these results, citing several fatal flaws:
  • Lack of Reproducibility: Independent labs in Germany and at York University failed to replicate PEAR’s findings.
  • Statistical Issues: Critics argued that in such massive datasets, even a tiny, non-random bias in the machine's hardware could produce "statistically significant" results that have nothing to do with the human mind.
  • Methodological Concerns: Reviewers like psychologist James Alcock pointed to poor controls, potential "optional stopping" (ending a test when the data looked good), and inadequate documentation.
Perhaps find some other, more promising research.
 
I see you dodged my final question.

But other researchers have picked up the research, it is ongoing.

As for other labs in Germany and York attempting, did they follow the EXACT same protocols or did they "adjust" them? I know of several attempts to "duplicate" results where the protocols are "adjusted" and then fail to produce the same results. Gee, changing something in an experiment can change results. A mixture of equal parts carbon and oxygen will produce far less CO2 and far more CO than when the same process is followed with 2 parts oxygen to 1 part carbon, but gee, we mixed carbon and oxygen just like the original experiment, we just adjusted the amounts slightly.

Now on to statistical bias, first they used software that is widely recognized as suitable for random output experiments. Second, it takes a major assumption to think that the same time that the humans are told to tilt the outcome towards "A" that the software also just happens to produce more "A"s on its own and when the humans are told to try to produce more "B"s, the software just happens to produce more "B"s. To my mind that sounds more like, "any explanation that does not require us to accept the findings we don't like is preferable to accepting what was found".

As for "poor controls", the controls are spelled out in the protocols and there is no clear evidence of them not being followed. The number of runs was reportedly always determined in advance and completed. Now unless one of those outsiders raising that objection was present and observed the established protocols being violated, it is pure conjecture and again falls under the category of, any answer but the one we do not want.

And whether you like it or not, there is evidence supporting the types of results obtained from these experiments going back over 200 years and continuing until the present day, with ever tighter controls.

Now are you claiming that ALL this research is invalid or are you just protesting because you do not like the implications. And bear in mind that you have strongly implied that you have zero direct knowledge of the experiment, just what skeptics, who have been known to distort the evidence when convenient, tell you.

Note, at least one magazine with "Skeptic" in its title published an article about one incident that occurred in the 1800's and was recorded after consulting with EVERYONR involved. The original account had three people recording the incident in their diaries and daily writings recorded afterwards without any bland spaces. The article in the skeptic magazine had one person recording the incident in his diary two days afterwards, when he received the confirming news and backdating it. Now which version do you believe, the version verified by three people and their written records or the version claimed by the Skeptic magazine well after all people involved were dead?
 
rewriter said:
Sorry I have delayed responding to you Eli, but I have had my hands full with skeptics.

How much of the field of Consciousness Studies or the work of the PEAR program are you familiar with? I go back to some foundational (?) works from the 19th century (Myers, et al.) through the Cross Correspondence work (including Saltmarsh), the work of Rhine and other work done in Russia and the USA (including but not limited to the CIA) in the 20th century and into this century with "Beyond Materialism" (I have three works in this series) and similar works.

My "proof" of God rests on some of the later work in the PEAR program where it implies that the result is greater than the sum of the parts and I then extrapolate that out as far as possible into what is reported as true from NDEs and the result is a theistic entity that is all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful and inherently just, which sounds much like the Christian God.

Can you follow this?
Click to expand...

If i may, let me rephrase my question.

As far as i know there are 3 pillars or schools of thought when it comes to consciousness.

1. Consciousness is a by-product of biology/brain.
2. Consciousness is pervasive in the Universe and our brain is the equivalent of a radio.
3. I don't know.

I'm with the "I don't know" group because nobody knows anything for sure with 100% certainty.
So, under which group is your theory? Or, even more exciting, are you under a new 4th group?

Thank you.
 
Number 2 is the closest. My mind is mine, but it also operates in a different dimension with other consciousness(es, at least that seem most likely)) and I can only get some of what it has access to.

Number 1 involves ignoring a lot of reports as well as some things that are measured that cannot currently be explained via any materialistic means.

Number 3 is legitimate for most people who have not really looked into the field, I held it for a time even after I started investigating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
rewriter said:
Number 2 is the closest. My mind is mine, but it also operates in a different dimension with other consciousness(es, at least that seem most likely)) and I can only get some of what it has access to.

Number 1 involves ignoring a lot of reports as well as some things that are measured that cannot currently be explained via any materialistic means.

Number 3 is legitimate for most people who have not really looked into the field, I held it for a time even after I started investigating.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing.
I can say that option number 1 is definitely something very atheistic to me and it's a view mainly held by atheists who have blinders on. I'm very far from believing that as a fact.
Option 2 has merit and i have seen documentaries, cases and even some of the CIA programs you mentioned and know of work done by Russians during the cold war.
But ultimately nobody knows for sure.

For example, when we look at this from a Christian perspective where we factor-in the Miracles, in my church at least, consciousness doesn't end when the body dies. In the Bible the main example is when Jesus was at the mountain with the other prophets. So, their energy/consciousness or whatever you want to call it since we don't have the words to explain the un-explainable, continued when they met Jesus at the top of the mountain.
But nobody knows the HOW in how this whole thing operates in the background, despite the CIA programs and Russian programs during the cold war and work done by Dr. Sam Parnia or Dr. Jim Tucker, God bless them both for trying and risking their careers.
 
rewriter said:
I see you dodged my final question.

But other researchers have picked up the research, it is ongoing.

As for other labs in Germany and York attempting, did they follow the EXACT same protocols or did they "adjust" them? I know of several attempts to "duplicate" results where the protocols are "adjusted" and then fail to produce the same results. Gee, changing something in an experiment can change results. A mixture of equal parts carbon and oxygen will produce far less CO2 and far more CO than when the same process is followed with 2 parts oxygen to 1 part carbon, but gee, we mixed carbon and oxygen just like the original experiment, we just adjusted the amounts slightly.

Now on to statistical bias, first they used software that is widely recognized as suitable for random output experiments. Second, it takes a major assumption to think that the same time that the humans are told to tilt the outcome towards "A" that the software also just happens to produce more "A"s on its own and when the humans are told to try to produce more "B"s, the software just happens to produce more "B"s. To my mind that sounds more like, "any explanation that does not require us to accept the findings we don't like is preferable to accepting what was found".

As for "poor controls", the controls are spelled out in the protocols and there is no clear evidence of them not being followed. The number of runs was reportedly always determined in advance and completed. Now unless one of those outsiders raising that objection was present and observed the established protocols being violated, it is pure conjecture and again falls under the category of, any answer but the one we do not want.

And whether you like it or not, there is evidence supporting the types of results obtained from these experiments going back over 200 years and continuing until the present day, with ever tighter controls.

Now are you claiming that ALL this research is invalid or are you just protesting because you do not like the implications. And bear in mind that you have strongly implied that you have zero direct knowledge of the experiment, just what skeptics, who have been known to distort the evidence when convenient, tell you.

Note, at least one magazine with "Skeptic" in its title published an article about one incident that occurred in the 1800's and was recorded after consulting with EVERYONR involved. The original account had three people recording the incident in their diaries and daily writings recorded afterwards without any bland spaces. The article in the skeptic magazine had one person recording the incident in his diary two days afterwards, when he received the confirming news and backdating it. Now which version do you believe, the version verified by three people and their written records or the version claimed by the Skeptic magazine well after all people involved were dead?
Click to expand...

Before I invest real time I would like to know if you have ever formally studied statistical analysis and research methodologies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back