Child has WWII memories.

Hey, I dreamt once that I died in waterfall...it had really mucky looking water and was a really big waterfall in that the river was very wide. I'm not sure what sex I was, but I most definitely an adult. Any famous person known for dying in a waterfall, especially during a flood?? In must have been me in a past life!

Reincarnation is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. We ALL start out as sperm and egg. Where in the world are the memories stored? The fact is that we all start out with no brain, and no memories. Memories don't start leaking in after a certain point.

This is case in point where a kid has a dream. His parents blow it out of proportion, and the kid is loving all the attention.
 
RichardR, thanks for linking to your review of his books.

Is Ian Stevenson the same as our Interesting Ian?
 
CurtC said:
RichardR, thanks for linking to your review of his books.

Is Ian Stevenson the same as our Interesting Ian?
:D That would be funny. I don't think so, though.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Hey, I dreamt once that I died in waterfall...it had really mucky looking water and was a really big waterfall in that the river was very wide. I'm not sure what sex I was, but I most definitely an adult. Any famous person known for dying in a waterfall, especially during a flood?? In must have been me in a past life!

Reincarnation is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. We ALL start out as sperm and egg. Where in the world are the memories stored? The fact is that we all start out with no brain, and no memories. Memories don't start leaking in after a certain point.

This is case in point where a kid has a dream. His parents blow it out of proportion, and the kid is loving all the attention.

It all has to do with Universal Consiousness, and of corse, quantum mechanics and entanglement.... look you either "get it" or you do not. Buy the book and you will see! Its ancient! Studies from 1920-1933 prove it! Hmmm, what else can we drum up to sell a few books, oh yeah, Gary Schwartz says so!
 
Interesting Ian said:
Even if there were no evidence for reincarnation whatsoever, that doesn't mean that it's not an eminently reasonable and plausible hypothesis. Do people agree?
Well, it’s not in any way a plausible hypothesis, just a pure hypothesis, at best. But as a hypothesis is must be falsifiable (is that the correct spelling?). And while reincarnation is falsifiable, most advocates of reincarnation don’t accept that. So I’m going to go with the scientific approach: “Show me the evidence”.
 
Scientifically this is the best and only evidence that kooks have for ghosts! Which proves that they have just about nothing for their false views!

255.jpg
 
Anders said:

Well, it’s not in any way a plausible hypothesis, just a pure hypothesis, at best.



Explain why it's not plausible.

But as a hypothesis is must be falsifiable (is that the correct spelling?).

No, it's spelt "it" not "is". The idea that it must be falsifiable is wrong and moreover absurd. For a kick off the hypothesis that reincarnation doesn't take place is also unfalsifiable.

And while reincarnation is falsifiable, most advocates of reincarnation don’t accept that.

It's falsifiable? I doubt that. Explain.
 
RichardR said:
Ian Stevenson's research is usually put forward by the easily impressed as being the best evidence for reincarnation. I read his book, "Children Who Remember Previous Lives, A Question of Reincarnation", which supposedly showcased 14 of his most compelling cases. My conclusion was, if Stevenson's work is the best evidence there is for reincarnation, then there is no good reason we need to believe in reincarnation.



At least you've read one book of his, which is commendable. I haven't read the book you commented on, only his latest one regarding European cases. I'll order the book that you read to see if I agree with you. I don't regard any of the European cases as being compelling enough to make a skeptic change his mind.

Where I definitely disagree with you is where you say there is no good reason to believe in reincarnation in the absence of compelling evidence. The unstated premise here is that the reincarnation hypothesis is prima facie unlikely. I doubt you can justify that thesis.
 
So if Ian says it's likely enough times, then it is.

Right?

Even though I can see nothing "likely" about it.
 
Entirely off topic and of no importance at all, I just noticed that the WWII pilot that is the subject of this article was born in South Bend Indiana, where I live now, and lived in Uniontown Pennsylvania, which is not far from where I was born (maybe an hour away). I like coincidences.
 
Quasi said:


It all has to do with Universal Consiousness, and of corse, quantum mechanics and entanglement.... look you either "get it" or you do not. Buy the book and you will see! Its ancient! Studies from 1920-1933 prove it! Hmmm, what else can we drum up to sell a few books, oh yeah, Gary Schwartz says so!

Why don't you explain universal consciousness and what that has to do with our memories in our brains and past lives, etc.

It's not that I "don't get it". I have no reason to buy into it.

Why don't you try to sell it me? I somehow see a tongue in your cheek though :D :D

Thanks,

Eos


Or if somebody who truly believes can explain how those memories get in our brains from 'past lives'??
 
Interesting Ian said:


Explain why it's not plausible.

I don't know, it is just not a hypothesis, and whether it's plausible or not is out of the scope.


No, it's spelt "it" not "is". The idea that it must be falsifiable is wrong and moreover absurd. For a kick off the hypothesis that reincarnation doesn't take place is also unfalsifiable.
Yeah right! Popper was wrong. Right! :rolleyes:


It's falsifiable? I doubt that. Explain.
Of course it is falsifiable! Take a person, anyone that claim she's been reincarnated form whatever dead person can be debunked/or not. But I admit it could be a little tricky.

Anyways, if it, like you claim, is not falsifiable, it's also not provable, by definition!
 
Hmm....

To refresh your memories here is the link to the article;
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/news/s_189477.html

So what do we have here that is actually verifiable as fact?
The USS Natoma Bay – yes this ship existed and yes it took part in the invasion on Iwo Jima in 1945. It was officially designated CVE-62, and was an escort carrier – a small carrier designed for the ferrying of aircraft, anti-submarine work or shore bombardment.

And, that’s about it. However, there is a host of information that contradicts the boy’s (and his parent’s account), or that cant’ be verified;

1. “He flew a Corsair and took off on a boat called the Natoma.”
Nope = the Natoma embarked composite air group 81 (VC-81) during the Iwo landings. It was equipped with a mix of Wildcat fighters and Avenger torpedo bombers – NOT Corsairs.

2. “James Huston's plane was hit in the engine by Japanese fire on March 3, 1945, went down in flames and sank immediately. Flyer Jack Larson witnessed the crash.” = could not verify this as factual, but assuming it is why does the newspaper story state one cause and the on-line story of this event from
"I was reading him a story and he got a faraway look," she recalled. "I asked what happened to your plane? 'Got shot,' he said. Where? 'Engine.' Where did it crash? 'Water.' When I asked him who shot the plane, he gave me a look like a teenager, rolling his eyes, 'the Japanese,' like who else could it have been?

"What little kid knows about the Japanese," she asked. "He said he knew it was a Japanese plane because of the red sun. My husband and I were shell-shocked."
RESULT = downed by a Japanese fighter

“Bruce (father) says James (son) also told him his plane had sustained a direct hit on the engine. Ralph Clarbour, a rear gunner on a U.S. airplane that flew off the Natoma Bay, says his plane was right next to one flown by James M. Huston Jr. during a raid near Iwo Jima on March 3, 1945. Clarbour said he saw Huston's plane struck by anti-aircraft fire. "I would say he was hit head on, right in the middle of the engine," he said.”
RESULT = downed by a Japanese AA fire.

So which is it – and which news organization didn’t get their story straight?

Link:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/US/reincarnation_040415-1.html

3. “Maybe it was so my husband could write the book about the Natoma Bay," she said. "It helped turn the tide of the war in the Pacific and was one of the most highly decorated carriers, but it hasn't received much recognition." = Err…not quite and not even close. The Natoma Bay was one of hundreds of escort carriers that filled an important role in the overall war effort. The ship did receive 7 Battle Stars – but others received MANY more.

4. The cousin states that, “James was on his 50th mission and would have come home if he'd lived another five minutes." = No, Navy carrier fliers had no set amount of missions or flight time to fulfill before they could come “home.” Their time in combat was pretty much determined by that of their ship.

And skeptics are supposed to be convinced by this thin tale concocted out of a little boy’s fascination with planes and his parent’s wishful thinking? And what of the role of Carol Bowman and her “work” on children's past lives? I would dearly love to get my hands on her notes to see how much information actually came from the boy – and how much was “suggested.”

Sources;
http://www.hazegray.org/
http://pacific.valka.cz/

Barkhorn.
 
I sent the following email to Primetime Thursday's "email" link:
Dear Primetime Thursday:

I was severely disappointed in your paranormal stories from April 15 about the boy who is allegedly reincarnated, and the "Psychic Sherlock" Carla Baron. I had seen your teaser commercial a couple of days before, which said something like "if you're a skeptic, we dare you to watch," so I was expecting something quite a bit better.

It took me about ten minutes of researching on the Internet to conclude that the reporters either didn't check their facts, or they intentionally left out key details which would cast doubt on the stories as presented. What happened to the maxim "if your mother tells you she loves you, check it out"? The PT reporters didn't even find basic evidence to question their stories.

For example, the story about the reincarnated boy differed from the account offered in the Pittsburgh Daily Courier from April 15. That article specifically said that the boy was taken to the Cavanaugh Flight Museum when he was 18 months old, and that his fantasies and nightmares started *after* that time. I don't recall your TV show clearly stating this timeline - I had the impression after watching the show that the "memories" happened by themselves, without an incident to prompt them.

Then in the interview with the mother, she tells the astonishing story about how her son knew what a "drop tank" is, and she had never heard of one. It didn't take me too long to visit the web site of the Cavanaugh Flight Museum and see, among the few items exhibited that are not actual airplanes, a drop tank! This isn't some obscure museum piece that wouldn't be noticed, there are not that many of them there, others being an ejection seat and some guns. Why did you not mention this in your program? Was it because the reporter didn't even do very basic research, or was it intentionally hidden?

In the segment about Carla Baron's psychic detective work, you mentioned two of the other cases which she claims demonstrate her ability. The first was the case of Rafael Tello, who killed his wife and daughter. Your story said that Ms. Baron's psychic predictions about an incinerator led the police to find some victim body parts near an industrial building almost 40 miles away, right? However, according to articles in The Desert Sun by Christine Mahr, these body parts were found by hikers, not by police. Also, you tried to make it appear that Ms. Baron got a "hit" by describing the smokestacks and saying that the body parts were incinerated. In the pictures you showed, the building didn't appear to have incinerator smokestacks, but things on the roof that looked like they could be ventilation, or possibly chimneys. And you glossed over the fact that the body parts weren't incinerated. So in light of this, how does this case support her abilities?

In her second case that she supposedly got right, teenage boy Lloyd Israel disappeared and Ms. Baron correctly predicted where the body would be found - in some corn fields. What your reporter neglected to tell the audience in this case was that his car was discovered at the time of his disappearance, abandoned on a road among corn fields, and his body was discovered not far from where his car was found. This little fact would completely destroy any claim to a psychic "hit" of Ms. Baron, yet you conveniently left it out.

The case she was trying to solve during the segment was the disappearance of Cindy Song. Even though she completely struck out, you close with the frustratingly vague "a source tells Primetime that an informant has given details possibly linking Song's disappearance and the area where Baron says she got the strongest vibes." I've never taken a journalism course, but I can't imagine this kind of work would receive passing grades in any of them.

Then of course you had Michael Shermer and Paul Kurtz as skeptics, for "balance." Both of these guys are quite capable of debunking what you're peddling, but they would have needed more than the four or five seconds that you gave them.

ABC's own John Stossel has recently made the claim that no psychic has ever actually helped solve a missing persons case (using psychic ability). As far as I'm aware, this is true. Do you think your cases here show how he's wrong?

--
Curtis Cameron
 
TheBoyPaj said:
I just tried regressing myself, and I remembered how I escaped from a prison camp by dropping dirt down the legs of my trousers and jumping over the fence on a motorbike.

That was me, I was the yank, then I was Steve McQueen now I am me. I am exhausted.
 

Back
Top Bottom