Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot

[shemp]

Could a Little Boy Be Proof of Reincarnation?

June 30, 2005 -- Six decades ago, a 21-year-old Navy fighter pilot on a mission over the Pacific was shot down by Japanese artillery. His name might have been forgotten, were it not for 6-year-old James Leininger.

Quite a few people — including those who knew the fighter pilot — think James is the pilot, reincarnated.

James' parents, Andrea and Bruce, a highly educated, modern couple, say they are "probably the people least likely to have a scenario like this pop up in their lives."

But over time, they have become convinced their little son has had a former life.

Yeah, it's pretty convincing stuff... if you're a delusional idiot.

At least the skeptics get thrown a bone near the end:

But professor Paul Kurtz of the State University of New York at Buffalo, who heads an organization that investigates claims of the paranormal, says he thinks the parents are "self-deceived."

"They're fascinated by the mysterious and they built up a fairy tale," he said.

They could have given some space to an explanation of how people become self-deceived, but they dropped the ball.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That Paul Kurtz is such a spoil sport.

 

[Nucular]

Why do parents think they know exactly which knowledge has entered their child's consciousness?

This story should be headlined "Little Boy Knows More About Aeroplanes Than His Mum"

Then James' violent nightmares got worse, occurring three and four times a week. Andrea's mother suggested she look into the work of counselor and therapist Carol Bowman, who believes that the dead sometimes can be reborn.

Oh for pity's sake

 

[Nucular]

This made me go and scowl through Bowman's book again (Children's Past Lives: How Past Life Memories can Affect your Child).

From there, her tale of her defeat of that nagging sceptical instinct:

The skeptical voice in my mind interrupted, chiding, "You're just making this up." But the compelling images and emotions were stronger than my doubting mind. This skeptical voice soon quieted and disappeared as I was pulled deeper into the experience ..."

Wow, what a hero.

It's annoying enough that some people choose to take money for giving adults delusions, but it's this quack's job to give children delusions, whole families too.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I know a kid who talks about nothing but automobiles. He must be the reincarnation of Ettore Bugatti.

~~ Paul

 

[RichardR]

Look at this "Children's Past Lives" discussion forum: The little boy's Mom and Dad have been contributing. Lots of comments about skeptics being "closed minded" etc - anyone want to go over there?

I also found this news article which says:

At 18 months old, his father, Bruce Leininger, took James to the Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas, where the toddler remained transfixed by World War II aircraft.

A few months later, the nightmares began.

Anyone see a connection here that doesn't involve reincarnation?

 

[CFLarsen]

Anyone see a connection here that doesn't involve reincarnation?

Of course not....How close-minded of you to suggest a natural explanation!!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

child abuse

 

[Open Mind]

But professor Paul Kurtz of the State University of New York at Buffalo, who heads an organization that investigates claims of the paranormal, says he thinks the parents are "self-deceived."

"They're fascinated by the mysterious and they built up a fairy tale," he said.

Kurtz’s claims on the CSICOP website is that his organization ’ Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully’ …. Hmm…. Did Paul Kurtz investigate this case before commenting it is a ‘fairy tale’ ?

These truly strange cases of young children who on average are under 3 years old! telling parents about vivid memories of being an adult in previous life, with 70-80% of these infants including a recall of a violent death ……. are curious to say the least
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_stevenson.pdf

Some skeptics in here have implied a ‘quack’ put these ideas in the child’s mind . At 3 years old? Are you sure that is a good explanation?

Or you could argue that all these 3 year old infants invented a phoney previous lives with a common feature of a violent death just to fool their parents? Are you sure that is a good explanation?

Paul Kurtz thinks the parents are self deceived? So a parent somehow interacts with a their 3 year old child, accidentally convincing the child it was an adult who suffered a violent death and had other parents, etc. ......Does Paul Kurtz think this is a good explanation?

If we assume that somehow, someone, indeed anyone put an idea of previously being an adult + a violent death into the mind of an infant … why are these much rarer after 6 years old and why do vivid memories tend to have stopped altogether by teenage years? Any chance the developing brain shuts down PSI? (Parapsychology trials on children under 5 have never been properly done)

Nor am I arguing these prove reincarnation, even in cases where there is reportedly accurate information given by the child ….it is still too quick to assume it proves reincarnation, it could be (a) Reincarnation (b) Confused earthbound spirits influencing infants minds - Note: ghosts, poltergeists, hauntings
etc. also are often associated with violent deaths (c) Human memories are collectively stored somewhere and at times people can pick these up (super PSI theory) .......

 

[RichardR]

Kurtz’s claims on the CSICOP website is that his organization ’ Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully’ …. Hmm…. Did Paul Kurtz investigate this case before commenting it is a ‘fairy tale’ ?

Irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.

These truly strange cases of young children who on average are under 3 years old! telling parents about vivid memories of being an adult in previous life, with 70-80% of these infants including a recall of a violent death ……. are curious to say the least
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_stevenson.pdf

Stevenson is a well meaning but credulous fool. I wrote about him here and here.

Some skeptics in here have implied a ‘quack’ put these ideas in the child’s mind . At 3 years old? Are you sure that is a good explanation?

Straw Man

Or you could argue that all these 3 year old infants invented a phoney previous lives with a common feature of a violent death just to fool their parents? Are you sure that is a good explanation?

Straw Man

Paul Kurtz thinks the parents are self deceived? So a parent somehow interacts with a their 3 year old child, accidentally convincing the child it was an adult who suffered a violent death and had other parents, etc. ......Does Paul Kurtz think this is a good explanation?

Straw Man

If we assume that somehow, someone, indeed anyone put an idea of previously being an adult + a violent death into the mind of an infant … why are these much rarer after 6 years old and why do vivid memories tend to have stopped altogether by teenage years? Any chance the developing brain shuts down PSI? (Parapsychology trials on children under 5 have never been properly done)

If we assume that somehow, this child really was reincarnated. Why are these much rarer after 6 years old and why do vivid memories tend to have stopped altogether by teenage years? (Parapsychology trials on children under 5 have never been properly done)

Nor am I arguing these prove reincarnation, even in cases where there is reportedly accurate information given by the child ….it is still too quick to assume it proves reincarnation, it could be (a) Reincarnation (b) Confused earthbound spirits influencing infants minds - Note: ghosts, poltergeists, hauntings
etc. also are often associated with violent deaths (c) Human memories are collectively stored somewhere and at times people can pick these up (super PSI theory) .......

Occam’s Razor indicates we should look for prosaic explanations first.

 

[Open Mind]

Irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.

Fine, you have faith in this principle, what happens when CSICOP claims to be the Committee for the 'Scientific Investigation' of Claims of the Paranormal' .... where is the evidence they have done any proper 'scientific investigation' ..... where is the evidence one can offer revisionism without any proper scientific experimentation not based on a-priori belief?

Occam’s Razor indicates we should look for prosaic explanations first. [/B]

Fine, you have faith in Occams Razor.

Stevenson is a well meaning but credulous fool. I wrote about him here and here.

So you are claiming (and the burden of proof is on the claimant)
Stevenson investigates claims for 40 years = incedulous fool ...... Richard Rockley comments from armchair = wise dude.

Should we apply Occam's Razor to this too?

 

[Zep]

The "investigative process" Bowman used with the boy probably ran like this:

Is this a picture of the pilot you were in a past life? This man here in the photograph?

Yes!

And is this a picture of the plane in which you were shot down by Japanese artillery over the Pacific? Just like the one in the museum?

Yes!

And is this what you are dreaming about? Getting shot down and crashing and dying? Is that making you dream bad dreams?

Yes.

Case proven!






Umm, objection, m'lud - leading the witness???

 

[RichardR]

Fine, you have faith in this principle, what happens when CSICOP claims to be the Committee for the 'Scientific Investigation' of Claims of the Paranormal' .... where is the evidence they have done any proper 'scientific investigation' ..... where is the evidence one can offer revisionism without any proper scientific experimentation not based on a-priori belief?

I have no faith – that is belief without evidence which is stupid. But it should be obvious the person making the claim should back up that claim. Since there is no real back-up for this extraordinary claim (other than anecdotes), there is nothing really to investigate.

Fine, you have faith in Occams Razor.

Again, no faith in anything. But Occam’s razor says don’t invent unnecessary explanations – and why would you want to invent extraordinary explanations when a prosaic one fits?

So you are claiming (and the burden of proof is on the claimant)
Stevenson investigates claims for 40 years = incedulous fool ...... Richard Rockley comments from armchair = wise dude.

Should we apply Occam's Razor to this too?

No because Occam’s razor does not apply here – you clearly don’t understand Occam’s razor.

I backed up my claim about Stevenson with a detailed analysis of what is wrong with his work. So if you want to disagree with that you will need to find faults in my analysis, as I did with Stevenson’s. So I suggest you find something wrong with my analysis or go away.

 

[sophia8]

I know a kid who talks about nothing but automobiles. He must be the reincarnation of Ettore Bugatti.

~~ Paul

Oh no he's not! I know, because my son is. His very first word, at nine months old, wasn't "Mum" or even "Dad" - it was "CAR!!!!!" He was pointing at one too! In fact, it was the only word he would say for the next three weeks - every time we took him out, he would unerringly point at a car and shout "CAR!!!!" And he was correct every single time!
Twenty years later, he'll point at a car and say "Oooh look! A 6-cylinder overhead cam 2000zigzfrop Porshe 911XXL - and take a look at those double furled rear doodads! You don't see many of those around!"

He likes cars. Just like this child likes airplanes.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

"Open Mind",

Do you have children? If so, you should know how utterly easy it is to make small kids belive and expand upon any old nutty story you cook up and feed them with. It's one of the reasons nonsense (including religion) is so readily perpetuated from generation to generation - children are very gullible and suggestible because it's a very necessary evolutionary survival trait related to their incredible ability to learn and absorb the World...

 

[Dredred]

children are very gullible and suggestible because it's a very necessary evolutionary survival trait related to their incredible ability to learn and absorb the World...

Yes, and it would be so nice to use this impressionability to teach them critical thinking. Today i really had some explaining to do to convince my kid that you can NOT make diamonds out of pieces of broken glass. Apparently someone told her that, and now she wanted to pick up every piece of broken glass on the streets.

 

[Open Mind]

No because Occam’s razor does not apply here – you clearly don’t understand Occam’s razor.

But it seems to me you don’t understand it …… the true value of Occam’s Razor is in choosing which hypothesis to test first when several hypothesis can explain an observation…….One is suppose to test and challenge the least contrived hypothesis to see if it can be falsified, if it doesn't fit perfectly the next simplest is tested and so on….. but you are not doing this, you are using Occam’s Razor as a faith that your opinion on what is the least contrived solution is the correct one, ~The End ~ ...... but there is doubt (or should be) and you don't seem to be trying to test it or falsify your hypothesis

……. Have you investigated actual cases? The problem with indirectly reading about these is that to prevent your hypothesis being falsified requires Professor Ian Stevenson (and Professor Erlander Haraldsson) to be an ‘credulous fool’ such an idiot he unaware that children are very impressionable and such an idiot he did not even consider such an obvious hypothesis? Have you considered the possibility he investigated it and he is of the opinion a more complex explanation is required?

Professor Ian Stevenson does not argue his research proves reincarnation, so I’m not sure why you are calling him an ‘credulous fool’ ….. he points out the problems, the flaws and the weak cases too.

I backed up my claim about Stevenson with a detailed analysis of what is wrong with his work. So if you want to disagree with that you will need to find faults in my analysis, as I did with Stevenson’s. So I suggest you find something wrong with my analysis or go away.

Stevenson has investigated over a 1000 cases, your article did not seem very detailed to me. ……. But you are entitled to your opinion.

As for me to ‘go away’ your wish may be granted shortly

 

[KelvinG]

As for me to ‘go away’ your wish may be granted shortly

If this is true, please promise me that you'll spare us one of those dramatic, self serving, arrogant "I'm leaving this forum forever" threads where you decry all the evil skeptics and how you feel sorry for us, blah, blah, blah.

It's mean, it's been done to death. I think leaving without saying a word and never coming back is much more original.

 

[Open Mind]

I was actually referring to leaving this one topic ...... it seems another wants me to leave the forum?

It is nice to be popular here

 

[KelvinG]

I was actually referring to leaving this one topic ...... it seems another wants me to leave the forum?

It is nice to be popular here

If you're referring to me, I never said I wanted you to leave this forum. I will be ever so happy if you stick around and grow old with the rest of us.

When you said you might "go away" I thought you meant from this forum. I had a hunch you were dropping a hint, that would prepare us for a grand exit, not unlike we've seen from other posters who seem to think their leaving actually matters in the grand scheme of things.

As you can tell, I'm not a fan of "Goodbye forever" threads.

But, it would appear I misunderstood your post. It happens.