Am I OT?

[HelluvaHoax!]

Not bad for, what an hour on the internet? I only wish you would take the time to read the book and research the foot notes in the book to see if they are at all valid. HH - I will pay for the book and send it to you if you will delve into it further. PM me your preferred shipping address.

My question is how qualified are these people who do these critiques? Have they done the experiments and have tested or seen whether or not they work first hand? Have you even tried the above two experiments to see if they worked before trashing them?

It is rather easy these days to attack anything you don't like on the net.

It can be a big problem for researchers that are criticized unfairly. There are groups that post on wiki negative views on any researcher that does not share their views. The founder /ceo of wiki doesn't much care about instituting any fairness in his system either.

As an example - have you heard about the film "Pete's Vermeer"? He posits and demonstrates a simple method of how Vermeer made his paintings, using a small flat mirror, and a larger curved mirror. There are several you tube video's showing his method. However one critic I saw made a couple videos trashing the film. He seemed well reasoned. His arguments made a lot of sense, until you examine Vermeer's paintings. They have no underpainting, no sketches under the paint etc. The only way the could be made was by the mirror method.

So I submit to you, sir, you have let all of us down by making a cursory look into this.

Please get off your high horse and do better.

Respectfully,

Mimsey

Thanks for all of the comments. I'll answer some of them now and probably some of them in later posts. Let's start with the fun stuff, Vermeer!

As an example - have you heard about the film "Pete's Vermeer"? He posits and demonstrates a simple method of how Vermeer made his paintings, using a small flat mirror, and a larger curved mirror. There are several you tube video's showing his method. However one critic I saw made a couple videos trashing the film. He seemed well reasoned. His arguments made a lot of sense, until you examine Vermeer's paintings. They have no underpainting, no sketches under the paint etc. The only way the could be made was by the mirror method.

Yes, I've seen that brilliant documentary, loved every moment. I have been a devotee of Vermeer and other Dutch/Flemish Baroque painter! Once I heard there was an exhibit of most of Vermeer's masterworks (on loan from various museums/collections around the world) at the Met in NY. I just had to see it so jumped on a plane (from Seattle) and went for a day. Phenomenal beauty!

In that film, if I recall correctly, the major (blasphemous, lol) theory about Vermeer's technique is that he must have used a camera obscura (pin hole camera without lens) in order for the painting's optics to render themselves as if through a photographic lens. Both painting "purists" and fans of Vermeer likewise hoped (for different reasons) that this heretical view of Vermeer's technique would not ruin his repute--by the revelation of a technical gimmick he employed. Myths die hard--but regardless of the fact that he used those cleaver technical "cheat" to achieve photo-realism in his painting, it is nonetheless still a great and magical masterpiece.

Spielberg also used special FX (computer graphics in editing) too, but it doesn't diminish his directorial skills or the amount of pleasure moviegoers got from "ET" even slightly.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Originally Posted by Mimsey Borogrove --snipped--

So I submit to you, sir, you have let all of us down by making a cursory look into this.

Please get off your high horse and do better.

Respectfully,

Mimsey

Uh-oh! I have inadvertently stepped on a landline.

Which high horse is that you speak of?

I was simply relaying the results of my own search(es) on this subject. You didn't agree with what I found. I don't have a horse in this race, I am just the messenger.

Maybe in a past life I was a horseless messenger, [STRIKE]riding[/STRIKE] running around yelling: "THE [STRIKE]BRITISH[/STRIKE] BULLSHIT IS COMING!"

 

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

.........snip.........

My point is this:
These are native abilities.

I am not special or OT – you have these abilities as well to a lessor or greater degree.

The big cognition of all this is:

The allure of Scientology is that it offers you OT abilities.

The lie is that it does not give you anything. You have these abilities already to a lessor or greater degree. Hubbard's con is that he is selling snow to Eskimos and calling it something else. He is selling you your own abilities and calling them OT powers.

Best,

Mimsey
.........snip.........

I never thought that Hubbard was trying to sell OT abilities. To me what Hubbard was trying to sell was a way to get access to one's natural OT abilities. So it was techniques and/or methods and/or procedures that was sold. With auditing you were supposed to remove whatever was blocking your own abilities. I think the whole point was that it is about natural abilities that can be awakened. Auditing is supposed to let the person find out more about himself/herself and life.

The big question is: Which latent abilities do you actually have? Hubbard promised that you have incredible and great abilities and claimed they could be awakened with the Scientology processes and this is where there is a problem.

***

 

[Hypatia]

..




Uh-oh! I have inadvertently stepped on a landline.

Well, that's much safer than if you'd stepped on a land mine. :wink2:

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Thanks for all of the comments. I'll answer some of them now and probably some of them in later posts. Let's start with the fun stuff, Vermeer!

Yes, I've seen that brilliant documentary, loved every moment. I have been a devotee of Vermeer and other Dutch/Flemish Baroque painter! Once I heard there was an exhibit of most of Vermeer's masterworks (on loan from various museums/collections around the world) at the Met in NY. I just had to see it so jumped on a plane (from Seattle) and went for a day. Phenomenal beauty!

In that film, if I recall correctly, the major (blasphemous, lol) theory about Vermeer's technique is that he must have used a camera obscura (pin hole camera without lens) in order for the painting's optics to render themselves as if through a photographic lens. Both painting "purists" and fans of Vermeer likewise hoped (for different reasons) that this heretical view of Vermeer's technique would not be ruined by the intrusion of a technical analysis. Myths die hard--but regardless of the fact that he used those cleaver technical "cheat" to achieve photo-realism in his painting, it is nonetheless still a great and magical masterpiece.

Spielberg also used special FX (computer graphics in editing) too, but it doesn't diminish his directorial skills or the amount of pleasure moviegoers got from "ET" even slightly.

Yay can't wait.

Next - he didn't use a pin hole camera. A pair of mirrors. The pin hole camera is too dim and the image is reversed. best Mimsey

[video=youtube;CS_HUWs9c8c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_HUWs9c8c[/video]

 

[Hypatia]

IMO, Hubbard was trying to take on enlightenment. He wasn't enlightened, he went nuts and he made people worse due to toxic policies and enslavement. But I think where that OT stuff was coming from.

It ended up sounding like one of those fantasy novel evil magician things .

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

Mimsey wrote:

"So I submit to you, sir, you have let all of us down by making a cursory look into this."

I think you may be very mistaken about that "cursory look".

There are many valid research techniques, depending on the PURPOSE one has in searching at all.

The fact that I can sometimes do an astonishingly fast search has no bearing at all on whether it is correct or not. Hey, what if someone can draw a pistol in only 0.02 second. That's right 2/100ths of a second.

If they are that lightning-fast to draw and shoot, does that automatically mean that they didn't hit the bullseye or perhaps even missed hitting the target entirely?


[video=youtube;r7HN7THecwg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7HN7THecwg&ab_channel=AlexThomas[/video]


Hey, I'm not bragging, but this is one of the skills (researching) I have been practicing for many decades! When I see one lone researcher, for example, publish a study that multiple other acclaimed scientists debunk or, minimally, challenge the validity of, that is a valuable type of research in itself. I don't need to spend the next 3-5 years trying to replicate the original guy's results--when others have already failed to replicate those results. That's the entire point, that it (if not fully fraud) is debunked to the degree that the original "discovery" is no longer a discovery. It's (still) an unproven theory.

In other words, the simple fact that scientists are madly arguing about it is sufficient, in and of itself, to confidently state that the original study DID NOT COMPELLINGLY & SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE the existence of psychic powers. Not yet, anyways, so that's the entire point--that it has not been proven scientifically.

Okay, let me climb down now and give others a chance to respond. lol

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

...




I think you may be very mistaken about that "cursory look".

There are many valid research techniques, depending on the PURPOSE one has in searching at all.

The fact that I can sometimes do an astonishingly fast search has no bearing at all on whether it is correct or not. Hey, what if someone can draw a pistol in only 0.02 second. That's right 2/100ths of a second.

If they are that lightning-fast to draw and shoot, does that automatically mean that they didn't hit the bullseye or perhaps even missed hitting the target entirely?


[video=youtube;r7HN7THecwg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7HN7THecwg&ab_channel=AlexThomas[/video]


Hey, I'm not bragging, but this is one of the skills (researching) I have been practicing for many decades! When I see one lone researcher, for example, publish a study that multiple other acclaimed scientists debunk or, minimally, challenge the validity of, that is a valuable type of research in itself. I don't need to spend the next 3-5 years trying to replicate the original guy's results--when others have already failed to replicate those results. That's the entire point, that it (if not fully fraud) is debunked to the degree that the original "discovery" is no longer a discovery. It's (still) an unproven theory.

In other words, the simple fact that scientists are madly arguing about it is sufficient, in and of itself, to confidently state that the original study DID NOT COMPELLINGLY & SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE the existence of psychic powers. Not yet, anyways, so that's the entire point--that it has not been proven scientifically.

Okay, let me climb down now and give others a chance to respond. lol

Ok Pass if you wish. It is your prerogative.

However, why spend this:

I don't need to spend the next 3-5 years trying to replicate the original guy's results--when others have already failed to replicate those results.

when you can do this:

Let’s look at another experiment you can perform on your own. You can go outside and stare at random people and see how many turn around and look at you. It happens way too often to be chance. How do you explain it? You are giving no clues to the person being stared at. You can do this while looking through windows or in mirrors. Yet it happens. Again, some are better at it than others.

Why don't you try this over the next few days and see if people turn around when you stare at them? Let me know how it goes.

But there's no way that guy's the fastest draw - check out this video. Mimsey

[video=youtube;fMfBk_k_79g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMfBk_k_79g[/video]

 

[strativarius]

<snip>

Yes - it is probably best you look at life as a soulless chaos. It is so much less challenging.

Mimsey

On the contrary, it is enormously challenging. Absolutely no explanation has been given here by you or your fellow 'astral walking' devotees as to how perception of the physical universe can be accomplished without the use of the receptors especially designed by nature, aka 'eyes' and 'ears' etc. Peurile nonsense like that offered by Terril park such as 'you just perceive' simply won't pass muster I'm afraid.

On the other hand, enormous work has been done to increase our understanding of the workings of the CNS, what memory is and where and how it is 'stored' and a thousand and one other problems associated with awareness and perception. To say that it is 'much less challenging' is simply thoughtless IMO.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

On the contrary, it is enormously challenging. Absolutely no explanation has been given here by you or your fellow 'astral walking' devotees as to how perception of the physical universe can be accomplished without the use of the receptors especially designed by nature, aka 'eyes' and 'ears' etc. Puerile nonsense like that offered by Terril park such as 'you just perceive' simply won't pass muster I'm afraid.

On the other hand, enormous work has been done to increase our understanding of the workings of the CNS, what memory is and where and how it is 'stored' and a thousand and one other problems associated with awareness and perception. To say that it is 'much less challenging' is simply thoughtless IMO.

Ok. PM me your address, I'll send you the book - you read it and post what you think of it when you finish. Fair enough?

Mimsey

 

[Free Being Me]

Maybe you are correct. All I am saying is that is what happened to me. You don't have to believe me. In fact it would probably be better if you didn't. Your basic premise is flawed though. Of course it doesn't have a brain. Why does it have to have a brain to have a viewpoint? The animism concept has nothing to do with brains, it has to do with spiritualism. Why do they call ships She's? Does a ship have an innate feministic beingness? The way it flows through the waves, the curves of the prow?

Yes - it is probably best you look at life as a soulless chaos. It is so much less challenging.

Mimsey

First off, you're confusing and conflating Elcon's culty "beingness" with anthropomorphism wherein people project human characteristics and behavior onto inanimate objects. "She's a fine ship" is a metaphorical anthropomorphism, not a literal concept of life.

Secondly, my statement is correct due to lifeless objects like a stapler aren't alive and don't "have a point of view." Lets give your assertions a whirl below:

Rock:
Hey, buddy! Got a kool cigarette?
Say, want to buy a bridge?
A real bargain I'm selling half off for $250K.

Fucking cringe.​

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

Well, that's much safer than if you'd stepped on a land mine. :wink2:

Good catch! I think I should leave my stupid "stepping on a landline" post. Sounds so embarrassingly stupid I should leave it uncorrected! (keepin' it humble y'all to counteract the high-horse propaganda--LOL)

I swear, my computer's freakin' hyper-aggressive, auto-spell-correct function is controlled by a suppressive BT hiding somewhere inside my mouse!

 

[strativarius]

Ok. PM me your address, I'll send you the book - you read it and post what you think of it when you finish. Fair enough?

Mimsey

Thanks, but I've read the book already Mimsey, and the original one about morphic resonance, the title of which escapes me at present, and this one, which I have snapped with my clear bracelet in case you think I just downloaded it from the net.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

First off, you're confusing and conflating Elcon's culty "beingness" with anthropomorphism wherein people project human characteristics and behavior onto inanimate objects. "She's a fine ship" is a metaphorical anthropomorphism, not a literal concept of life.

Secondly, my statement is correct due to lifeless objects like a stapler aren't alive and don't "have a point of view." Lets give your assertions a whirl below:

Rock:
Hey, buddy! Got a kool cigarette?
Say, want to buy a bridge?
A real bargain I'm selling half off for $250K.

Fucking cringe.​

All I am saying is that is what I experienced. If you don't believe me - fine. Really, it doesn't have to make any sense and it can still be true. Look at quantum mechanics. How does that make any sense - that the observer can influence the observed? How does the big bang make any sense? From a singularity we have a whole universe come into existence in complete violation of the internal "laws" of the universe. That doesn't make any sense. I argue that there have been experiments that show the existence of unexplained phenomena - such as staring at the back of someone and having them turn around. Or indicate on a computer 35% of the time correctly - which is over the 20% norm for random chance. This was statistically proven with over 18K tests.

And yet...

Oh, Mimsey, poor thing - you are deluded as the day is long. I have offered the book to Emma, Hellofahoax and[STRIKE] Stradivarius[/STRIKE]and yet, no takers. Hum. What does that say?

Edit - oops didn't see your post. So, please post your review!

Mimsey

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

 

[strativarius]

<snip>

And yet...

Oh, Mimsey, poor thing - you are deluded as the day is long. I have offered the book to Emma, Hellofahoax and[STRIKE] Stradivarius[/STRIKE]and yet, no takers. Hum. What does that say?

Edit - oops didn't see your post. So, please post your review!

Mimsey

Mimsey, I struggle to remember what I had for breakfast this morning, so reviewing a book I read donkey's years ago is simply not going to work, sorry.

BTW, the name's s(lower case)trativarius. :wink2:

And Hellof... oh, never mind...

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Mimsey, I struggle to remember what I had for breakfast this morning, so reviewing a book I read donkey's years ago is simply not going to work, sorry.

BTW, the name's s(lower case)trativarius. :wink2:

Oh - right. Strat! ivarious I loved that the first time i saw it. Aren't you glad you fave git wasn't something else - Lespaulivarious for instance?

Personally, I have long jonesed for an SG, but I don't play a guitar so, why buy one?

Ok - well maybe you'll find time to dig out the book and refresh your memory.

Mimsey

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Ok Pass if you wish. It is your prerogative.

But, I didn't "pass", that's my point.

I did the research to the degree that I discovered that Scientists are debunking the guy's study, even seeking to un-publish it to lessen the shame on the institution who allowed it to be published in the first place.

Why would I have to re-do all the debunking work that is already done?

Let me put it another way, fully outside of academia:

SCENARIO: A wog is curious about L. Ron Hubbard's Bridge to Total Freedom. They heard a lot of great things about Clear and OT. They also just came into a half-million dollar inheritance and there has been a squadron of registrars literally living in their home for the past week, in order to get a $500,000 check to pay for their entire Bridge.

TWO POSSIBLE CHOICES:

1. The wog writes the check, because there is no way for them to know if Dr. Hubbard's scientific breakthrough is real--unless they do the Bridge up to OT VIII personally!

2. The wog reads ESMB and some other websites/books and takes special notice of the fact that 98% of all Scientologists ultimately blow and now say that it is a fraud. And the wog also reads hundreds of various ex-Scn members, all posting their own version (story) of how they got defrauded, disconnected & degraded by Hubbard and his fanatical scientology agents.

So, what if someone does #2 above and after an hour they say:

"Hey, there is no f*cking way I
would ever do Scientology after
reading all the lies and shit that
people were forced to endure."​

Are they on a high horse because they took 1 hour, rather than 21 years to figure out Scientology is a cruel hoax?

Do they need to go up to OT VIII before deciding?

Or can they use the well-documented research (of others who tried and failed to go up Hubbard's OT bridge?) and save 21 years of being lied to and bankrupted?

For my money (and sanity) its just smart to use the extensive research of others. Bernard of Chartres (and Sir Isaac Newton) said it best:

"If I have seen further, it is by
standing on the shoulders of giants." ​

 

[Free Being Me]

All I am saying is that is what I experienced. If you don't believe me - fine. Really, it doesn't have to make any sense and it can still be true. Look at quantum mechanics. How does that make any sense - that the observer can influence the observed? How does the big bang make any sense? From a singularity we have a whole universe come into existence in complete violation of the internal "laws" of the universe. That doesn't make any sense. I argue that there have been experiments that show the existence of unexplained phenomena - such as staring at the back of someone and having them turn around. Or indicate on a computer 35% of the time correctly - which is over the 20% norm for random chance. This was statistically proven with over 18K tests.

And yet...

Oh, Mimsey, poor thing - you are deluded as the day is long. I have offered the book to Emma, Hellofahoax and[STRIKE] Stradivarius[/STRIKE]and yet, no takers. Hum. What does that say?

Edit - oops didn't see your post. So, please post your review!

Mimsey

You can subjectively and philosophically believe what you want to all day long but defending that subjectivity as objective fact contrary to critical thinking & valid scientific methodology is when I disagree.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

..

But, I didn't "pass", that's my point.

I did the research to the degree that I discovered that Scientists are debunking the guy's study, even seeking to un-publish it to lessen the shame on the institution who allowed it to be published in the first place.

Why would I have to re-do all the debunking work that is already done?

snip

For my money (and sanity) its just smart to use the extensive research of others. Bernard of Chartres (and Sir Isaac Newton) said it best:

"If I have seen further, it is by
standing on the shoulders of giants." ​

Oh, whatever. A pass is a pass however you care to justify it. You are simply opting for someone else's viewpoint because it isn't worth your while to look any further. This is why Scientologists stay in the cult. They believe the doctrine of Hubbard without inspecting further.

That he has double blind experiments and statistics that refute your debunkers is of no consequence to you. The debunkers trump him no matter what tests, experiments, statistics he may bring to the table.

Case closed. No more inspection shall be required. By by Mr. Mimsey. Adios. Hasta la vista. Sayonara.

I can dig it. It's your life. Lead it as you choose.

C'est la vi.

Here's a good web site for you: http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

Enjoy.

Mimsey