Good Article: Woo Woo is a Step Ahead of (Bad) Science

Deepak Chopra wrote an article pointing out some flaws with 'professional skepticism' on the Huffington Post website recently.  As Chopra points out at the beginning of the article, he has been accused of expounding "woo woo" before.  Sometimes I think he might be expounding woo woo, but there are other times that I think he makes some excellent points.  This article is one of those times that I think he makes excellent points.  The article is in response to a recent appearance Chopra made on Larry King Live with famous skeptic Michael Shermer.  Here is a brief excerpt from the article:

Skeptics feel that they have won the high ground in matters concerning consciousness, mind, the origins of life, evolutionary theory, and brain science. This is far from the case. What they cling to is 19th Century materialism, packaged with a screeching hysteria about God and religion that is so passé it has become quaint. To suggest that Darwinian theory is incomplete and full of unproven hypotheses causes Shermer, who takes Darwin as purely as a fundamentalist takes scripture, to see God everywhere in the enemy camp.

Read the whole article here.

H/T

Crossing Back

Michael Prescott posted another interesting near-death experience (NDE) story on his blog.  The story is about Noelle McNeil, who suffered brain injuries in horse riding accident.  Here is an excerpt he quoted from the newspaper story he found the article in:

McNeil was diagnosed with diffuse axonal injury in which many of the connections of the brain were severed. She said less than 3 percent of such patients make meaningful recoveries ...

[But] while her family and community and community prayed for a bedside miracle, the comatose McNeil was on an otherworldly journey. McNeil said she remembers leaving her body, gliding over brightly lit clouds into a brightly lit place where she encountered her Uncle Joe, her father's brother, who had died several years before.

"I asked Joe if this was heaven," McNeil explains in her book Heaven Exists. "He said yes. I asked if I could go back because I did not want to leave my life yet. I had so much more left I want to do."

Communicating telepathically, she said, Uncle Joe ultimately told her she could return to her body. He promised she would recover but told her it would take a long time.

"I had been to heaven and now I would have a glimpse of what hell is -- waking up to find myself totally debilitated in a hospital, unable to eat, walk or function in any real sense," she wrote.

McNeil returned to her body, but she had a long period of recovery ahead of her.

One aspect of her story that I found interesting was that she asked if she could return to her body.  In many of the NDE accounts I have read, the NDErs were content to stay in the spiritual realm.  Some didn't want to return but were told it was not their time yet (or something to that effect).  McNeil wanted to return to her physical body though.  When I thought about her story some more, I wondered if others may have asked to return to their physical bodies but were denied their request.  Could a situation like that possibly result in an 'intelligent haunting' (the type of haunting where the ghost seems to be aware of what's going on around it)?   Intelligent hauntings are commonly thought to be the ghost of a dead person.  If true, could these ghosts be haunting a location because they were denied a request to return to their physical body?  Could they have chosen to defiantly remain in a location familiar to them instead of crossing over?

I'm not claiming to know the answers to those questions, but I figured if someone could ask to return to her physical body and have her request granted, then theoretically, I figure that it may also be possible that similar requests could be denied in some instances.

The Queen of Heaven

Today, the designation 'Queen of Heaven' is often associated with the Virgin Mary.  Historically, the designation has been associated with Isis and Astarte.

In regards to the so-called 'Marian apparitions', it seems to me that the Catholics who claim to have seen the Lady assume she is Mary.  In the accounts that I have read about her, she either refers to herself  as something like 'Lady of the Rosary', or she may not introduce herself at all.  So if she does not specifically introduce herself as the mother of Jesus, why should we assume that she is?

I am not denying that Mary existed; nor am I denying that she gave birth to Jesus.  I'm not denying that she was a virgin either.  The question in my mind is whether or not these so-called Marian apparitions are actually visitations by the spirit of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

What if these apparitions have been appearing for much longer than previously thought?  Could it be that this entity or spirit - whatever you prefer to call her - is the same as Isis?  It's long been thought by mainstream historians that Isis, along with all the other pagan gods and goddesses, is a myth.  Some of the more open minded ones may consider that these ancient pantheons of gods and goddesses were once based on real people that had stories about themselves fabricated or were perhaps fabricated over time.  Fringe historians have suggested that some of the gods and goddesses were aliens or some other type of non-human intelligences.  I tend to think that the gods and goddesses may have once been based on real people, but I can't discount the possibility that the stories are entirely fictional.  But I'm also not closed to the possibility that the pagan gods and goddesses were some sort of aliens, or non-human intelligences - perhaps something akin to angels or fallen angels.  It could be that the pagan pantheons consisted of a combination of any or all three of these viewpoints.

So with that in mind, I can't help but wonder if these apparitions are some sort of non-human intelligent being who has been visiting people for thousands of years.  Maybe she just adapts to the audience.   To the Egyptians, she let them think she was Isis.  To modern Catholics, she lets them think she is Mary.  Mac Tonnies suggested a possibility that the 'aliens' people claim to see today have merely adapted to our cultural expectations.  In the past (and still today, actually), people may have observed such phenomena as gods, angels, fairies, or something else.  Perhaps the aliens are not the scientists with advanced technologies that they are assumed to be; maybe it's just a facade to fit our modern expectations.  The aliens may be something else entirely.  So could it be that this 'Queen of Heaven' (translatable as Queen of the Sky) is doing the same thing?  Does this 'lady' just try to fit the appearance that the viewer(s) would expect?

Catholic traditions that grant Mary her Queen title and divine status come later in history.  The Bible never says that she ascended to heaven and it doesn't say she remained a virgin throughout her lifetime.  In fact, the Bible even makes reference to Mary having other children.  The Catholic version of Mary more closely resembles a pagan goddess than the Mary depicted in the New Testament.   Pagan goddesses of the past were often known by many names and titles, and the alleged apparitions of Mary have many titles too (Lady of the Rosary, Lady of the Pillar, Lady of the Snow, etc).  So the question in my mind remains; are the so-called Marian apparitions actually appearances by Mary?  Or is the apparition actually someone else - perhaps a pagan 'goddess' from the past?  I'm not aware of her ever specifically introducing herself as Mary, but she doesn't deny being Mary either; so does she want people to think she is Mary?  Or does she just not care who they think she is?  Is she content just being called 'Our Lady'?

Of course, skeptics say these apparitions are just hallucinations or hoaxes.  Maybe they are.  But if they are real, I wonder if she is who she is assumed to be.  If she isn't who she is assumed to be, then who - and what - is she?

The Star of Bethlehem

One question that often comes up around this time of year is what the star of Bethlehem was.  The star of Bethlehem is the star that heralded the birth of Jesus Christ.  Many theories have been suggested as to what it could have been.  It's difficult to determine exactly what it was because not much was actually said about it.  Here is an excerpt from chapter 2 of the book of Matthew:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying,

Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,

And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.

Then Herod privily called the Wise-men, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word, that I also may come and worship him.

And they, having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Matthew keeps it simple, he just says they saw a star.  Apparently a star that can move, and not just along the normal progression of the stars in the night sky.  There have been several suggestions as to what the star might have been.

• Comet - A comet would explain the sudden appearance of a star and could even appear to stay in the same place for a while.  Although we base our calendar today on the birth of Jesus, most people seem to think Jesus was actually born around 4 BC, as opposed to the year 0.  Halley's comet is said to have flown by around 12 BC, but that would be too early.  I suppose it's possible another comet could have gone by, possibly a comet that rarely ever passes by earth and has not been recorded before.  There is a whole universe out there, so I guess we shouldn't necessarily assume we have recorded every comet that ever has or ever will pass by the earth.  However, there is a flaw in the comet theory. A comet may appear suddenly and appear to stay in one spot, but therein lies the problem.  The star of Bethlehem didn't stay in one spot.  It moved over to the location of Jesus' house.  
• Supernova - A supernova is an exploding star that would give off an enormous amount of light.  This could account for the sudden appearance of another star.  It's possible it may have been too faint to see, but after going supernova, the added brightness may have made it visible.  Still, we have the problem with the movement of the star.  A supernova wouldn't move outside of the normal progression of stars.
• Astrological conjunction - Considering that the magi from the east were probably astrologers, this sounds like it might be a good explanation.  Here is one suggestion of what the astrological sign might have been:

John Mosley, program supervisor for the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles believes the Christmas star was a rare series of planetary conjunctions that took place in during the years 3 B.C. and 2 B.C. "The show started on the morning of June 12 in 3 B.C., when Venus could be sighted very close to Saturn in the eastern sky," says an MSNBC article about Mosley's findings. "Then there was a spectacular pairing of Venus and Jupiter on Aug. 12 in the constellation Leo, which ancient astrologers associated with the destiny of the Jews. Between September of 3 B.C. and June of 2 B.C., Jupiter passed by the star Regulus in Leo, reversed itself and passed it again, then turned back and passed the star a third time. This was another remarkable event, since astrologers considered Jupiter the kingly planet and regarded Regulus as the 'king star.' The crowning touch came on June 17, when Jupiter seemed to approach so close to Venus that, without binoculars, they would have looked like a single star."

It appears to be in the right timeframe and may even explain how the star was able to move in the sky.  Even the astrological significance of the event sounds kind of fitting.  However, the passage in Matthew says that the star went and stood over the location where Jesus was.  It doesn't say the star just moved in the sky and then the wise men went towards the direction of the star until they bumped into Jesus' house. Perhaps that is what it meant, but that isn't what it actually says.  It said it stood over the house.                                                                                                   

(Update 11/26/12: I've come to prefer this explanation since I originally wrote this piece.  See my new posting about this here.)

• UFO - In the strictest definition of the acronym, I suppose you could say the star was an unidentified flying object.  That's not to say it was necessarily a metal spaceship built by aliens, it's just saying that it was an unidentified flying object.  But, some kind spaceship would explain how it was able to change positions in the sky.  

These are the most common explanations.  We now know that stars are actually big balls of burning plasma, and they maintain a normal progression in the sky.  So we know that a star itself didn't just move out of its normal progression because stars can't do that.....

......or can they?  It wouldn't be the last time a star moved - or at least appeared to move - out of its normal progression.  In Fatima, Portugal in 1917, thousands of people saw the sun spin around and 'dance' in sky.  The dancing sun was accompanied by an apparition who called herself the Lady of the Rosary (presumed to be Mary, the mother of Jesus, by Catholics).   Of course, billions of other people didn't notice the sun doing this, so apparently the so called 'miracle of the sun' was only visible to those people assembled in the Cova da Iria fields in Fatima (and apparently not everyone in attendance there saw the sun do anything out of the ordinary).  But the fact that only a limited number of people observed the sun dance may be significant.  If you read chapter 2 of the book of Matthew, it seems that Herod and the Judeans hadn't noticed the star had appeared.  Not only that, considering the passage says the wise men  followed the star to Jesus' house, it may be that the wise men were the only ones that saw the star move.  I don't know what the Lady of the Rosary did to make the sun appear to move in the sky in front of thousands of people, but if she could do it, I suppose a similar event could have occurred a couple thousand years ago with another star.

Even if what the Lady of the Rosary did and what happened in Bethlehem in 2000 years ago are totally unrelated phenomena, I don't think we should assume that it wasn't some other kind of supernatural event.  I mean, it's not like it's the only supernatural event recorded in the Bible.  Unless you are someone who is 100% skeptical of anything supernatural, there's no reason  to assume that the appearance and movement of the star of Bethlehem couldn't have been a supernatural event.

However, there is another question about the star of Bethlehem that I think often gets overlooked.  People are so busy trying to figure out what it could have been, they don't bother to ask why the wise men associated the appearance of the star with the birth of Christ.  I've asked that question before, and no one seems to have a good answer.  Sometimes people don't seem to even understand the question when I ask.  They'll answer by trying to explain what the star was.  But that's not what I was asking.  What I'm asking is how did the wise men know exactly what the significance of the star was?  How did they know to travel west to Bethlehem to visit Jesus?  How did they know the star appeared because of the birth of Christ?

The only answer I've ever really gotten is the suggestion that maybe the Jews, who were held captive in Babylon and Persia for 70 years, passed along a story of a star appearing that would herald the birth of the Christ.  It sounds plausible that eastern astrologers might have learned about Jewish traditions while the Jews were held captive, however, there is no record of a Jewish tradition concerning a star appearing at the birth of the Christ.  Some people have suggested that Numbers 24:17 is a prophecy of the star of Bethlehem, but I disagree.  I think the passage has been taken out of context, and furthermore, the passage doesn't specify anything about what the star would look like or where it would appear in the sky.  So if Jews living during the Babylonian captivity passed along a tradition about a star appearing to herald the birth of the Christ, then that tradition has been lost to history.

So I'm still left wondering how the wise men knew what to associate the appearance of the star with.  If we knew the answer to that, we might be able to figure what the star was (or which one appeared to move).  I guess it's just one of history's mysteries though.

----------
Update 11/26/12: I now prefer the astrological conjuction theory and have written a new posting about it.  Click the link below to read it.

The Star of Bethlehem revisited

Some 'What if' questions of what we are a part of

I've been putting this post off for a few days because I haven't been sure how to word it or organize it.  Sometimes it can be hard to put some of my thoughts into words.  It makes sense in my mind, but sometimes it's difficult to find the right words to convey my thoughts.  It's not necessarily that the words don't exist, it's just that it might be necessary for others to understand  a certain point of view or have knowledge of certain things related to the subject first.  A point of view and a person's specific knowledge can be gained over time and from different experiences, so sometimes it can be difficult to just sum everything up and still properly convey the message to someone else.  Sure, you could try to write about every aspect of your thoughts and what you base it on, but that could get very time consuming and wordy.


So the contents of this post mainly consist of some of my mind's ramblings over the past few days.  I don't really have a singular point I'm trying to make.  A lot of these thoughts are just questions, and shouldn't necessarily be considered  'beliefs' or even theories.  This post is of a rambling nature, but hopefully the questions will at least make sense.

____________________

Why is it that we are so concerned with seeking "life as we know it" somewhere "out there?"  Because we want to know that we, the billions of us living now plus all of our ancestors before us, are not 'alone' in the vast universe?  So far, not much has been found.  Sure, it's been claimed microbes have been found and even water on the moon and mars, but so far, we haven't found plants or animals or people like us anywhere else.

But why should we be so focused on finding "life as we know it?"  How should we define life anyways?  Plants are not sentient, yet they are life.  Most people don't think of the sun as a lifeform, but if you consider that a plant is a lifeform, why not the sun?  Stars are born.  They live for a while (a very long while).  They 'grow' into red giants and red dwarfs and white dwarfs and towards the end of the life, they go supernova and 'die'.  I guess a black hole could be considered the death of a star too, but technically, it still exists, albeit in a form so dense it is not even measurable.  In a way, maybe they don't really 'die' at all.  But they do appear to have some sort of life cycle.  So is the sun not alive?  Consider this; would you be alive if the sun wasn't there supplying light and life giving energy to the earth?

As Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."  But so often do we try to view everything through a particular lens. If you viewed the Mona Lisa through a microscope without ever stepping back to see the bigger picture, would you ever really know what it is? Sure, you could analyze the paint particles you see. You could do an in-depth analysis of what colors they are and maybe even conclude what chemicals were combined to make that color. But is that what the Mona Lisa really is? Is it just paint particles and a chemical analysis? Or is it a picture of a woman? If all you did was look at the painting through the lens of a microscope, you'd never see that is actually a picture of a woman.

So is this how we view our reality? Through the lens of a microscope or a telescope? What if we are a part of a much larger whole? We can see what matter is made up of through a microscope. The atoms we see consist of an atomic nucleus with electrons clouds orbiting it. Is it that much different from the moon orbiting the earth or the planets orbiting the sun or the stars spiraling in a galaxy (granted, an electron's orbit may not be elliptical like we are used to seeing with planets, but it is nonetheless orbiting around something). So what is this common theme of orbiting objects? Why is it when you look through a microscope you can see orbiting objects, and yet when you look through a telescope you also see orbiting objects?  If the atoms we see through a microscope make up matter, then what do the stars and planets we see through a telescope make up?

And what of consciousness? Biologist Rupert Sheldrake considered the possibility that the sun may be conscious. Now of course if you go along with scientific establishment's current thinking that consciousness is entirely a manifestation of the brain, then that would sound absurd.  The sun has no brain, so how could it be conscious?  But if you consider that consciousness is not just a manifestation of the brain, then I suppose you could ask the question of "why not?"  If the brain is merely an instrument for consciousness to control the physical body, then that means consciousness can still exist without a physical brain.  So if consciousness can exist without a brain, then why couldn't the sun be conscious?  If it were conscious, would we even be able to grasp a consciousness so vast?

What of our cellular structure?  Our bodies are made up of many individual cells.  Each cell has a purpose it serves.  Some cells are part of the makeup of our skin, some cells are part of the makeup of our organs.  Some cells are dead, making up our hair and nails.  But do these cells understand what they are?  Do they understand what they are a part of?  Do they understand they are a part of a conscious being?  Do they know what consciousness is?  Sure, a cell serves it's purpose, it forms part of the makeup of life as we know it, but does it really understand what it is?

What if we too are just part of the makeup of something bigger?  What if the cells of our body are to us what we are to the earth?  What if the earth itself is a lifeform?  If something much larger than us observed the earth through a microscope, could it not consider that the earth is alive?  The earth is teeming with life of different types.  The lifeforms on earth completely rely on the life giving resources of the earth and its star.  If the earth itself was 'dead', then how would life exist on it?  If the sun was 'dead', then how would one of its planets have life on it?  And shoot, if were going to toss out the question as to whether or not the sun might be conscious, why not the earth too?  Maybe it would help explain some of the mysteries of the world that we still don't understand.  When a person is dreaming or under hypnosis, the dream world or memories seem real, as if they were really happening.  Perhaps an earth mind could have a similar effect on the reality that we live in.

But then again, perhaps it is a ridiculous thought to consider that the earth or sun could be conscious.  I can point out that life on earth may just form part of a bigger whole in much the same way that our cellular structure forms part of a much bigger whole that make us what we are, but I suppose a key difference between the two is that I am able to actually question what it is that we are a part of.  I can question what I am a part of, but does a cell really question what it is a part of?  So is it even a good analogy at all?

Nevertheless, I still wonder what all it is we are a part of.  And I'm glad that I can wonder that.  I'm glad to be able to say that I AM.

Meteorology: A Falsehood

Admittedly, the title of this post is slightly tongue in cheek.  But only slightly.  I looked at the weather report the other day and it predicted rain and thunderstorms all day.  By lunch time, the sun was coming out.  I got to thinking that if meteorological predictions were judged by the same standards psychic predictions were, would skeptics consider meteorology a falsehood?

I think the answer is no, otherwise meteorology wouldn't still be considered a credible science.  I suppose that because meteorologist use technology and can visibly see how their technology is affected by the atmosphere, that somehow makes meteorological predictions more credible than psychic predictions, nevermind if they're wrong.

And boy are they wrong quite a bit.

I haven't come across any comparative statistics regarding psychics and meteorologists, but I'd be curious to see who's more accurate.  Granted, most any statistics you'd find on the subject would probably be cherrypicked and biased, and it would be hard to actually compare statistics between the two anyways.  Psychics come in many forms, some predict the future, some read objects and can tell you about its past, others read people's feelings, and some do a combination of those techniques.  Psychics may see something relatively routine, however, they may also see something that they would be unlikely to have known beforehand.  The meteorologists though, they mostly just focus on normal events that can be expected to occur somewhere at some point regardless of when or where they predict it will happen.

With that in mind, I think meteorology should scrutinized with much higher standards.  I mean, if any of us were to wake up in a room with no windows and were asked if we thought it would rain that afternoon, we'd pretty much have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.  So why shouldn't meteorologists and their fancy gadgets be expected to achieve significantly better results than just guessing?

Although I didn't find any comparative statistics, I did find an article on the New York Times website reporting how inaccurate meteorological reports can be.  Here are few interesting comments the article quotes from meteorologists and station managers that were asked about the accuracy of meteorological reports on TV:

“We have no idea what’s going to happen [in the weather] beyond three days out.”

“There’s not an evaluation of accuracy in hiring meteorologists. Presentation takes precedence over accuracy.”

“All that viewers care about is the next day. Accuracy is not a big deal to viewers.”

I can't say that I'm surprised that presentation takes precedence over accuracy.  The primary purpose of the news is to sale advertisements, and good presenters help bring in good ratings.  But if a psychic were to admit they were more focused on putting on a good show for paying customers as opposed to being focused on accuracy, they'd be branded as charlatans.  Which, of course, if they are scamming people out of money they should be branded as charlatans, but the point here is that meteorologists are practically doing the same thing, yet they aren't considered charlatans at all.

The article also queried the meteorologists about how close the actual temperature had to be to their prediction for them to consider themselves accurate.  Here is what the article says:

All of the chief meteorologists were asked, “How close does your high-temperature prediction have to be to the actual temperature for you to feel like you did a good job?”

Without exception, all of the meteorologists answered, “within three degrees.”

The chart above shows the results of the stations’ temperature prediction accuracy for their full seven-day forecasts. For next day predicting (one day out), all stations met their “within three degrees” goal. For two days out, all but one was within three degrees. But for three days out and beyond, none of the forecasters met their three-degree benchmark, and in fact get linearly worse each day.

Here's a question the article asks the reader:

Have you ever noticed that the prediction for a particular day keeps changing from day to day, sometimes by quite a bit?

Yes actually, I have noticed that.  One reason why the reports change so frequently is because the meteorologists are basically just guessing for anything beyond three days out.  Here is what the article says about it:

Meteorologists take a blind stab at what the high temperature and rain possibilities might be seven days out, and then adjust their predictions on the fly as the week goes on. As mentioned earlier, one meteorologist told us: “We have no idea what’s going to happen beyond three days out.”

Meteorologists have such a bad track record they don't even bother keeping any statistics on how accurate their predictions are.  Here's another excerpt from the article:

No meteorologist or television station kept records of what they predicted, nor compared their predictions to actual results over a long term. No meteorologist posts their accuracy statistics on their résumé. No station managers use accuracy statistics in the hiring or evaluation of their meteorologists.

Instead, the focus is on charm, charisma, and presentation. Their words say they care about accuracy, but their actions say they do not. Yet, they wish to continue providing inaccurate seven-day forecasts that are no more than a semi-educated shot in the dark because a) their competitors do and b) they can get away with it since they think the public does not know how inaccurate they are.

I recommend reading the whole article at the New York Times website here.  The article has some interesting statistics about precipitation and makes some other good points.

So why is meteorology considered a credible science when they get predictions wrong so often?  Is it because they have fancy scientific gadgets?  Why are they not more heavily scrutinized for just guessing on what the weather will be a week into the future?

Imagine if a skeptical scientist was conducting an experiment on psychic phenomena and the psychic used in the experiment kept changing his or her story everyday.  In addition to that, the psychic just predicts events that are relatively common and already has a good chance of occurring anyway.  The scientist probably wouldn't even bother to see the experiment to the end.  Yet meteorologists do it day in and day out and its considered credible science.

My intention in this post is not to criticize meteorology specifically, but to criticize the double standard of how significant statistics are when it comes to meteorologist predictions and psychic predictions.  Many people check weather reports daily to try and plan events, yet no one seems concerned with scrutinizing the inaccurate predictions of meteorologists.  Yet when a psychic predicts something, suddenly accuracy statistics are necessary and the standard is expected to be set very high.

I've mentioned before how ambiguous the results of psychic experimentation can be.  I think part of the problem with research on psychic phenomena is it is focused on accuracy statistics.  The research need not be focused on accuracy  but on the mechanism.  If a psychic receives information telepathically and the information is wrong or they just interpret it wrong, their inaccurate prediction isn't proof that they didn't receive information telepathically at all.  If research were done as to what the mechanism is that makes psychic phenomena possible, perhaps it would be possible to better learn how it works.  If we can better learn how it works, maybe people could better learn to hone their psychic skills too.

We know how meteorological equipment works and no one seems concerned with statistics.  Maybe if we better understood how psychic phenomena worked, people wouldn't be concerned with statistics on it either.

And you know, it's funny, but I remember as a kid I read about some of the old ways people used to predict the weather, and one of the ways mentioned was based on how high starlings flew in the evening.  If the starlings flew high in the evening, the next day would be sunny.  If they flew low, the next day would be stormy.  I haven't thought much about it anymore over the years, but one thing I do recall from when I would watch the starlings as a kid is that the starlings were never wrong.

I'm also reminded of how so many of the animals on the Sri Lankan and Indian coastlines somehow seemed to know they needed to move inland when the big tsunami was about to hit in December 2004.  It seems that despite all of our fancy technologies, no one was able to predict the tsunami until the people saw it looming over them.  The animals had no technology, but they seemed to somehow know a tsunami was coming.

I'm not aware of any psychics that specialize in predicting weather, but maybe some of them should start trying to do it.  Hey, maybe one day psychics could do the weather report on TV!  Statistically speaking, they probably wouldn't be much worse, and they might even do better.

Psychic Research: Mainstream Science or Not?

The mainstream scientific community has a tendency to shy away from belief in psychic phenomena.  When they do consider it and try to experiment with the phenomena, they oftentimes do so with a condescending approach. They are typically more concerned with trying to debunk it than they are they trying to prove it.  There are some scientists, such as Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake, who take a more positive approach to studying psychic phenomena, but Radin and Sheldrake are a rare breed in the scientific community.

However, the opinion of mainstream science on the subject of psychic phenomena hasn't been of much interest to some government agencies.  It's no secret that some law enforcement agencies have consulted with psychics to gain tips on cases they are trying to solve.  And it's has now been known for some time that the U.S. government had secret research projects regarding psychic phenomena that went on for many years.  The Stargate Project, which was a code name for several sub-projects by the U.S. government regarding research on psychic phenomena, existed from the 1970s until 1995.

Obviously there are 'authority' figures in both politics and science that have taken the subject seriously.  So why do the academics typically shy away from it?  Are they afraid they won't be able to come up with a good enough explanation?  Or are they really that closed-minded?  I wouldn't be surprised if, considering many universities are government supported, the government has purposely coaxed the educational establishment to avoid the subject and try to debunk it just to keep the public consciousness away from the subject so they can monopolize on the advantages psychic phenomena could potentially bring.

Although if that was their plan, their plan has failed.  Public interest in psychic phenomena has not waned, and I think interest in the subject is actually booming now.   The government has acknowledged their own research on the subject and you can see many TV shows and documentaries relating to psychic (and paranormal) phenomena in general.

But not mainstream science.  They still aren't that interested  They are still avoiding the subject or trying to debunk it.  It's like these guys are in some sort of Darwinist dark age.

I mean, if the government declassified documents that state they have some sort of partnership with gray aliens  and Larry King interviewed a little gray alien, would the academics still rush to debunk the whole thing?  Would they be like, "Well, the alien is obviously a genetic altered human.  We took a DNA sample and we saw the similarities.  See look here at this picture.  You see how similar that strand is?  Here, let me circle it.  You see it?  You see it?  That indicates it's a genetically altered human.  The whole thing was probably a Soviet experiment from the beginning."

I doubt they would react that way (although I wouldn't be surprised if some did), so why are they so apprehensive about psychic research?  Why are guys like Radin and Sheldrake thought of as mavericks?

I think mainstream science needs more mavericks.

Hawass investigates the tunnels at Giza

I've been following information regarding Andew Collins' discovery (or, more accurately, rediscovery) of tunnels beneath the pyramids at Giza (Read my previous posts on the topic here and here).  Initially, Dr. Zahi Hawass, Director of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, denied that the tunnels existed, and he still doesn't seem to think they are anything significant.  But according to a new article I found, Hawass has now sent an Egyptian excavation team to investigate the the tunnels.

Read the article here.

H/T

Papal Predictions

I've written about predictions of who the final Pope would be before (here and here).  Saint Malachy predicted the last man to rule the Roman Catholic Church would be Peter the Roman.  Jeane Dixon made a prediction that is similar to what Saint Malachy said.  Some previous Pope's have had visions of their own about the subject.

Here is what four previous Popes have said about their visions (Excerpt from the Popes and Prophecy article on Paranormal.About.com.) :

• Pope Pius IX (1846-78): “There will come a great wonder, which will fill the world with astonishment. This wonder will be preceded by the triumph of revolution. The church will suffer exceedingly. Her servants and her chieftain will be mocked, scourged, and martyred.”
• Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903): After saying Mass on October 13, 1884, the Pope suddenly collapsed. Upon waking, he recounted a vision he had seen. "Oh, what a horrible picture I was permitted to see!" he said. He described a period of about 100 years when Satan’s power was to reach its maximum, a decline of moral and spiritual values. Those hundred years would have included most of the 20th century.
• Pope Pius X (1903-14): This Pope had a number of prophetic visions. In 1909, in the midst of an audience with members of the Franciscan order, he seemed to fall into a trance. Moments passed, then his eyes sprung open and he jumped to his feet. "What I have seen is terrifying!” he cried out. “Will I be the one, or will it be a successor? What is certain is that the Pope will leave Rome and, in leaving the Vatican, he will have to pass over the dead bodies of his priests!" It’s uncertain what this vision alluded to, but it is similar in many respects to the reported third prophecy of Fatima. Later, shortly before his death, another vision came to him: "I have seen one of my successors, of the same name, who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death. Respect for God has disappeared from human hearts. They wish to efface even God's memory. This perversity is nothing less than the beginning of the last days of the world."
• Pope Pius XII (1939-58) also experienced strange visions of a bleak future. After one of these experiences he told confidants, "Mankind must prepare itself for sufferings such as it has never before experienced… the darkest since the deluge."

These sound similar to what Dixon and Malachy said.  I guess skeptics would probably say they are all just borrowing from Malachy's prophecy.  But what if they are all seeing the same thing?  It should be noted that all of these predictions were made by Catholics.  Are they seeing the end of their own organization?  Is what they have seen going to happen in the not so distant future?  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

The Alien - Angel Topic Revisited

I've written about the alien-angel connection before and dedicated a whole post to the topic a while back.

As I stated previously, the phrase 'angel from heaven' translates to 'messenger from the sky'.  But people have been questioning for a long time whether or not extraterrestrials could exist from a religious perspective.

Here is an article I came across today about it.  But the topic isn't something new, people have been questioning the subject for years.

I guess I'm just really surprised that there is some much confusion about this.  I mean, it just seems like such a non-issue!  If an angel from heaven has come to earth from the sky, then technically, you could classify it as a type of extraterrestrial.  This doesn't mean that the traditional concept of an angel is the only type of extraterrestrial life there is - there may very well be grays, reptillians, insectoids and other types of extraterrestrial life - but the point is, by definition of the phrase 'angel from heaven', angels themselves could very well be considered extraterrestrial.  So the whole question as to whether extraterrestrials exist from a religious perspective is like questioning whether or not angels themselves exist.  I suppose it's possible some angels could actually be terrestrial in origin, but if it's an angel that has specifically come from heaven, then technically, it's an extraterrestrial.  I don't think it matters if it is made of flesh and blood or not, a lifeform is still a lifeform.

So why all the hoopla about whether or not extraterrestrials fit into God's universe?  I guess it's somewhat understandable why some people might question from a religious perspective whether or not specific types of alleged ETs such as grays or reptilians exist, but I see no reason why anyone with a religious perspective should question whether or not extraterrestrials exist at all.

The whole debate just seems like a waste of time to me.  It's like spending years trying to decide whether or not we should say the sky is blue, or say the sky appears to be blue.


H/T for the linked article.

Just a thought...

I've never experienced an "astral projection" (at least not that I can recall) and don't know a whole lot about it, but I do consider it to be a possibility and more than just someone having a vivid dream.

I saw an astral projection FAQ page, and I don't know if the author of the page is credible or not, but one of the questions and its answer on the page piqued my curiosity.  Here it is:

You had said that there is an image of every physical object in the astral. Can you touch or change a particular object in the astral? Say, if it is a piece of paper, can you write? If you can, will it be in the altered condition when you return to the physical world? 

 The astral counterpart is exactly that. For example, once in the astral, I picked up a lipstick and drew something on the bathroom mirror, but it was not there in the physical. I have heard of cases where electric objects can be affected by the astral. All things can be changed in the astral but whether they will be changed in the physical depends on how close vibrationally you are to the physical. I have read that things exist in the astral because of our thoughts, and how long that remains in the astral depends on how much it is thought about. For example, mass religion may construct a "heaven" which becomes almost a permanent place in the astral because of so many millions of continual thoughts; whereas the lipstick I drew on the mirror will not be there after a few hours. That is why you can sometimes see furniture in your room that is not your own. It is probably the previous owner's furniture, which has its own imprint that has remained, and will take months to years to fade.

Again, I can't vouch for how credible that answer might be, but let's just take it into consideration for a moment.

Now, before we go any further, think back to the ancient Egyptians and their burial practices (the kings in particular).  When we think of the Egyptians, we often think of what a magnificent civilization they were.  We marvel at their accomplishments and their amazing architectural skills that still remain a mystery today.  The ancient Egyptians seemingly appeared out of no where in the historical record as an already advanced civilization.  There's little evidence of their progression from primitive to advanced.

But when we think of their burial practices and how they included all sorts of treasures and objects that they thought their dead kings would need in the afterlife, we often think of them from a perspective of 'oh those silly old ancient peoples and their hokey rituals'.

Now, with the above question and answer in mind, could it be that the ancient Egyptians thought their kings would be able to use the 'image' of the physical objects they placed in their tombs?  If so, then going by what the author of that FAQ page said, it would explain how the dead king would be able to use the objects, while the objects appeared to remain physically intact and in place.

If so, then I guess maybe the old burial rituals the Egyptians used might not be as silly as we thought they were.  Of course, presumably the dead king's spirit wouldn't be limited to just hanging around his tomb, so the ritual of putting the objects in his tomb would have still been kind of pointless.  However, I thought it was an interesting thought to consider that maybe the dead kings spirits  might have actually been using the objects in their tomb!