by finallysomepride 151 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hi GromitSK! Thank you for the link to Leslie Flint.com. I have in my library a book by Hanz Holzer entitled: "GHOSTS" TRUE ENCOUNTERS WITH THE WORLD BEYOND. 758 PAGES. 1997 AND 2004 EDITIONS.
In it he covers much of what you have shared here. Google him if you don't know about him and his works. Under Famous Ghosts he has 116 persons listed. He shares much of what you are talking about here.
I took a look at the Leslie link, Much to read and look over, thanks again!
Walkin
lovelylil, I want to know what's in the attic! Please come back and tell us when you find out. I'm curious about your experiences with your son. Have you ever been sure he was injured or in need of help when he was not?
Has anyone read either of Alison DuBois's books?
Hi Walkin
I am glad you looked up Leslie Flint - he is an interesting case. I have a friend who sat with Leslie Flint over 100 times and who is someone I regard as highly reputable and level headed. He vouches for Leslie's authenticity (and also incidentally for Alec Harris). I am not saying that simply reading these accounts is enough to convince a person that survival is a fact, but it is certainly food for thought isn't it? I think you will find Leslie's autobiography most interesting if you get a chance to read it. I will take a look at Hanz Holzer thank you for the suggestion.
If you are interested in reading further you will find David Fontana's book "Is there an afterlife" worth a read too. Although Fontana has not carried out much original research the book is a good compendium of much of the research that has been done and contains many useful references to the original research he mentions. I would also consider reading "Immortal Remains" by Stephen E Braude.
@ hemp lover - I read the Dubois books and they are basically Alison recounting her own experiences which is probably of interest to many people but doesn't really cut it for me as evidence. Nevertheless taken at face value some of her experiences are interesting, if difficult to validate.
This thread again?
So it would appear :)
This thread again?No.
It's just an apparition.
Judge Dread
Very droll :)
GromitSK Thanks again. Your time here has not been wasted. I don't pay attention to negative responses. I know what I know, others will have to find out for themselves. I will not banter with them. I will read the books you suggested. I have read much on the afterlife, outer body experiences, near death experiences, etc. I could name many books that I too have read, but, I'm sure you have too. Thanks again, its been a pleasure reading your topics and responses
Walkin
GromitSK,
I note in your definition of empirical evidence you neglected the most important element of empirical evidence is that it is repeatable. I.E. That the experiment may be repeated and the same results may be obtained, thus removing the need for hearsay and personal testimony and ensuring that science is free from personal bias.
You continue to claim I have no interest when the simple fact is that I have plainly stated is that I am interested in reading the books you have suggested if they contain something other than personal testimony. Your unwillingness to relate even the most sketchy details (let alone the reams of information you claim) of what scientific experiments your esteemed scientists conducted tells me that your 'evidence' is sketchy and wouldn't be classed as empirical by anyone who understands the scientific meaning of the phrase.
Judge dredd,
My pleasure. If you care to highlight what exactly I said that was so dreadful I shall endeavour to repeat it as often as possible.
I think we are done Caedes. But for the record here is the OED definition:
(also empiric)
• adjective based on observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
— DERIVATIVES empirically adverb .
— ORIGIN Greek empeirikos, from empeiria ‘experience’.
It does not mention repeatable. Interestingly though much of the work Lodge did has been repeated by others many many times. Again you'd have to read about this too if you were genuinely interested but you're not :) and I am definitely not interested in wasting my time on this subject with you. It is far too important.
The fact remains that you are prepared to dismiss the work of a man (in Lodge) who is acknowledged as one of the greatest scientific minds of his day (as was Sir William Crookes). You are not prepared to look at his work and yet you dismiss it. It is clear to anyone reading your comments what your position is - they can make their own mind up about this discussion and read the books I have suggested for themselves. They will quickly see whether or not I have overstated the case.
I will not respond to further comments on this matter by you as it is clearly pointless.
@Walkin - thank you for your comments, if you would like to discuss this further I have sent my email address so that we can exchange information in a sensible way.
