Orpheus: I apologise for thinking it was you who had said to me "you should be able to convince us in less than a page..".
I have discovered it was "Byofrcs" who actually used those words in one of his posts to me.
The reason why I got them mixed up is because of the "quote function" you use... when you have several people's posts in one post (as it were), it can get a bit confusing.

christine wrote:Orpheus: I apologise for thinking it was you who had said to me "you should be able to convince us in less than a page..".
I have discovered it was "Byofrcs" who actually used those words in one of his posts to me.
The reason why I got them mixed up is because of the "quote function" you use... when you have several people's posts in one post (as it were), it can get a bit confusing.

Actually, the quote function on forum software is to make it readily apparent who wrote what... but apparently it only works for orthodox materialists.

Here's an idea Christine. Quote one person at a time using the quote button on the post you are responding to. Maybe you won't get so "confused".

To Metatron:

You claimed to me, in a recent post, that you do not know whether I was telling the truth, when I said the "Christine Thompson" in the SNU website which one of you posted (she lives - or at least works - in Stafford, as per the website posted) was most definitely not me.
You said (I will paraphrase what you said, for I do not use such crude, base words as many of you lot do...) that because I used a lot of exclamation marks (in the post where I said that SNU Christine Thompson was not me), that that did not necessarily prove its veracity..

Well, I'll give you the factual list of where I've lived, in this lifetime... (and, do you know, the list I'm about to type is what you lot call an anecdote... but nonetheless, what I'm about to type is 100% fact...

I was born in November 1958 in Taunton, Somerset

So, my residences have been:

Taunton, Somerset, 1958-66
Chester, Cheshire 1966-67
Taunton, Somerset 1967-68
Sheffield, Yorks. 1968-74
Torquay, Devon 1974-75
Sheffield, Yorks 1975-80
London 1980-2001
Lincoln, Lincs. 2001-present-day


And those facts should make you understand that the Christine Thompson who works for the SNU in Stafford is not the same Christine Thompson as me.


I am debating whether or not to continue with typing out (tomorrow.. for I do have other things to do in my life than be on the computer all day..) some more of the summaries of the in fact correct data re. the fact we do all survive "death".. for, when I have already typed out some (eg, the fact that there are any number of records re. NDE's that are experienced by blind people, and that, after they have been resuscitated, they are able to tell of what they SAW, and that what they say they saw has been verified as correct... ie, they are veridical sight experiences, in people who, in their ordinary physical life, are blind. Proving that we all have another source of vision: the vision we will all have when we reside in our eternal spiritual body, after the illusory event "death".
But when Dr Piero Calvi-Parisetti himself included the fact of NDE's of blind people, he got (wrongly) ridiculed for it, in his thread on this forum.
That - the NDE's of blind people - is rightly regarded as a "smoking-gun" for the truth of everyone's survival of the illusion that is called "death".
Ie, you lot are presented with specific aspects of the data which does, in fact, show we survive "death", but you simply will not accept it: because materialists are closed-minded. And it is literally impossible to make closed-minded people understand the real true nature of reality.
But there will eventually come a day for each of you, when you will have no choice but to accept that we do survive the event called "death" - and that day will come for each of you on the eventual day on which you each experience that event.
You will have no choice in the matter: it will not be up to each of you, whether you survive or do not survive that event.
When it eventually happens to each of you, one of your earliest reactions will be "oh my god, I've survived the thing called death... oh my god, i didn't believe that Christine and I didn't believe that Dr Piero Calvi-Parisetti... a number of those of us on that Rationalskepticism forum, back on Earth, ridiculed Christine and Dr Parisetti... when, all along, they were right in what they were saying to us... we were the ones who were "batting for the wrong side", not Christine and Dr Parisetti...".

The event called "death" occurs when the sub-atomic "cord" which joins our physical body to our eternal spiritual body is completely severed.. once that has happened... once a person has been declared "dead" - then the individual person we each are (our individual personality, with all our thoughts, memories, feelings, etc, etc) is still alive, but in another place: the next dimension of existence - ie, the sub-atomic dimensions, which interpenetrate (on a higher vibrational frequency level) this physical dimension.
And that fact is why anyone thinking of subjecting their "dead" physical body to "cryogenics" is simply wasting their dollars/pounds/euros etc etc etc... for the individual person they will have been, on Earth, after they have been declared "dead", is, from that point, existing in one of the higher dimensions of this multi-dimensional cosmos.. the people who have paid god knows how much for cryogenic "preservation" of their "mere" physical body, under the wrong assumption that that was the sum total of their person, in the hope that, centuries from now, some scientist would "bring them back to life", will be sadly disappointed... for, all the people who have stupidly spent god knows how many dollars/pounds/euros, for cryogenic "preservation" of their physical body, the instant they "died" (I'm talking, here, of people who have done this, in the past), will have arrived in the sub-atomic dimensions, realised that the thing called death was not what they'd assumed it to be, and will have said "oh, how stupid was I...I thought death was the end, and so i paid out x-numbers of dollars/pounds/euros, to have what I assumed to be the totality of me, "preserved", for future "re-creation",and now I realise that the thing called death is not what I'd thought, i find that the personality I was on Earth is now here - in what I've had explained to me is another dimension of existence - and so I realise that when I was on Earth, I wasted all my dollars/pounds/euros.. through my lack of knowledge of the ACTUAL nature of the thing called "death".

One final word, here... to Chairman Bill, I think it was. Oh yes, in the other thread, the one which the knowledgeable Dr Parisetti started... Chairman Bill, you were - "peeved", shall we say - because in my post to Dr Parisetti I said that all you materialists on here were "intellectually lazy".. What i meant by that was that it is patently obvious that none of you are willing to read the wealth of very high-quality books on this vital, life-changing subject of survival of physical body death; one of you (I can't remember precisely who) actually said to Dr Parisetti, when he made the point that the information is out there for anyone who bothers to look for it and read... one of you actually said to him, in reply ".... we are not prepared to do your legwork for you". Ie, that is evidence of being "intellectually lazy".

I am not prepared to continue to be very wrongly ridiculed by you closed-minded, uninformed (as the very real data which exists) people.... the words you use are often infantile, and are often very, very unnecessary and unwarranted... a point which Dr Parisetti himself pointed out. The language which a number of you use, is horrific and vile.
I am not prepared to any more be the recipient of such vile language. The people I'm talking of, who use the vilest language, are in the gutter, where your level of language is concerned...

You've just volated the FUA again. But I understand that doing that and waffling on endlessly about the same old shit looks like an easy way out of supporting your arse-achingly ridiculous claims, so hey ho. The moderators will probably catch up with you shortly, and then it will be up to you how you proceed. You can either use their intervention as an excuse to play the martyr card, or you can change the way you interact with people and actually be productive. I wonder which it will be.

christine wrote:... One final word, here... to Chairman Bill, I think it was. Oh yes, in the other thread, the one which the knowledgeable Dr Parisetti started... Chairman Bill, you were - "peeved", shall we say - because in my post to Dr Parisetti I said that all you materialists on here were "intellectually lazy".. What i meant by that was that it is patently obvious that none of you are willing to read the wealth of very high-quality books on this vital, life-changing subject of survival of physical body death; one of you (I can't remember precisely who) actually said to Dr Parisetti, when he made the point that the information is out there for anyone who bothers to look for it and read... one of you actually said to him, in reply ".... we are not prepared to do your legwork for you". Ie, that is evidence of being "intellectually lazy".

There is a depth to the stupidity displayed in this post, that is quite profound. Here's a woman who takes such umbrage at anyone criticising her woeful 'argument' & calling her on her constantly broken promises to provide evidence for her assertions, casting insults upon other forum members, and it seems, doing so in blissful ignorance of what it is she is doing. And then she fails to recognise, that refusing to go look for what is most probably non-existent evidence to support her assertions, does not constitute 'intellectual laziness', but that in actual fact, it is her apparent inability to provide what she claims exists that constitutes an intellectual laziness, as well as a complete failure to understand where the burden of proof lies. It lies with you, Christine, not us. If I make a claim, I back it up with the relevant evidence, I don't expect others to do my leg-work for me, nor should you. Your apparent inability to understand such a relatively simple matter, says a great deal about your claim to being scholarly & educated.


Edit: tidying up

Oh great, Christine comes back and doesn't present any evidence and actually repeats the same shit as yesterday that we have already discussed. Maybe Christine is a Poe, one post a day to keep us on the hook but no evidence.

I don't believe that christine, who has been insulting every skeptic from the word go, can still come back and post something complaining about us ridiculing her! honestly for someone so widely (if you count one subject as widely) read I can't believe she didn't spend at least a few minutes on the FUA. Until christine posts something resembling evidence i'm writing her off as either a poe or impossible to debate (or both).

One last message to Christine if she bothers to read it: Thats a nice story you posted, i don't believe you, back it up with something.

Christine, I have a serious question for you. How do you do it?

How do you actually manage to compose such lengthy diatribes about nothing? I mean, when I do it I use an online computer program. What's your secret?

Wow...... So, Christine, the answer to my question is that you haven't even a basic understanding of the scientific method, therefore you are not qualified to criticize it. Got it! You have to understand, unlike yourself, many of us here have educational and vocational backgrounds in various fields of science, so our bullshit detectors are highly sensitive to those that make wild claims that they say are supported scientifically. So Christine, in light of your absurd claims, lengthy rambling diatribes about nothing, and inability to provide any actual data or substantiation, it's reasonable for one to deduce that you are full of shit.

Oh wait i know how to debunk this!

Christine and all those books she posted about are wrong 100% fact. I know this because i'm a genius and i've read thousands of books over the years and there is evidence all over the place if only you bothered to stop being intellectually lazy and go and find it.

Tomorrow I will explain at length that all believers are wrong.

Rhubis wrote:Oh wait i know how to debunk this!

Christine and all those books she posted about are wrong 100% fact. I know this because i'm a genius and i've read thousands of books over the years and there is evidence all over the place if only you bothered to stop being intellectually lazy and go and find it.

Tomorrow I will explain at length that all believers are wrong.

Yeah, well I've read MILLIONS of books, just this year alone. That makes me an erudite, highly intelligent, confirmed genius and sex god.

Macroinvertebrate wrote:... That makes me a ... sex god.

'Tis true. At least, that's what Justin Beiber says.

This is really just a rerun of The search for God, an expedition in thinking., just replace 'God' with 'multi-faceted data' and you can predict the outcome.

christine wrote:....
I was born in November 1958 in Taunton, Somerset

So, my residences have been:

Taunton, Somerset, 1958-66
Chester, Cheshire 1966-67
Taunton, Somerset 1967-68
Sheffield, Yorks. 1968-74
Torquay, Devon 1974-75
Sheffield, Yorks 1975-80
London 1980-2001
Lincoln, Lincs. 2001-present-day

.......

The first we can verify the fact but the rest we cannot unless they coincide with census or land registry records. That is a lot of work. We cannot confirm that YOU at the end of this forum account is that person that lives at those places. If we can verify the data then you could fabricate that data, As I said - we can never trust what you say unless we can verify what you say.

The only way we can glue you to the address is to send a message code by post to an address which we verify a person called your name is at that location and then if you get that you post the code back via PM to a moderator.

This is the same round-trip process used by banks, tax, companies house etc.

WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE DO THIS !. Your address is irrelevant, we do not care where you live. We care where is your data that addresses the topic claims ?.

One page is all we ask for with external references. It can't be that hard ?

Metatron: I have today (as well as my ordinary life... as Dr Parisetti said - words to the effect "do you all have jobs, families, lives...how can you all post so much...?") been reading the initial post of Dr Parisetti (12th September) and all the 19 or so pages of replies.
Prior to finding his initial post, I'd been drafting out the next section of some summaries of the data, for you all.. but will do it in a slightly different order, now.
But before I get onto that, I have to refer to the fact that Dr Parisetti has felt he needed to leave this forum. And I am not surprised. With the reaction he got from 99% of you..

Before I go onto some of the data (and here, I have to remind you, I have, actually, described some of the available data to you all, but you ("conveniently") ignore it.. eg, the fact that there are records galore of blind (and deaf) people who have had NDE's.. and, whilst, for eg, in a deep coma, or whilst doctor(s) are desperately trying to resuscitate them, they have had an NDE, wherein they actually SEE things. Things which, once they have been resuscitated, and have "recovered" to whatever degree, they describe to the medical staff.. and those medical staff make enquiries, etc, and the things which the BLIND person SAW, whilst having the NDE, are all VERIFIED. Ie, these are what are called "veridical NDE's". I told you of at least one book that is about this very subject: "Mindsight", by Kenneth Ring (Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Univ. of California, San Francisco). Published 1999.
Ie, blind people who have had NDE's, wherein they SEE things which are subsequently verified. Such things as: whilst having the NDE, their consciousness goes to the nearby waiting room, where anxious relatives are waiting... and the blind person is able to SEE what items of clothing their anxious relatives are wearing... describing, exactly, the items of apparel, the style, the colour, etc etc. And these descriptions are subsequently verified. Ie, the person who is, in their ordinary physical life, blind, whilst having the NDE (which truly does mean when their (eternal) consciousness is outside their physical body, and can thus travel to wherever it wants to... ) - and so, in this example, the blind person, when their physical body is on an operating table being worked on by doctor(s), the consciousness of that person travels (for our eternal spiritual body is able to move at will, anywhere, simply by thinking of where you want to be) to the nearby waiting room, sees his/her very stressed, worried relatives, and SEES what they are each wearing. And then, when they have been resuscitated, they tell the medical staff that they SAW their relatives wearing, for eg "my husband was there, he was wearing a navy blue shirt, with the cuffs turned up almost to the elbows, and he had his glasses on, and he was sitting in the chair, with his head in his hands, crying "oh, Elizabeth, please don't die, please don't die..." . THAT is the sort of detail that BLIND people having an NDE are able to give to the medical staff, after they have been resuscitated. Other details that blind people are able to tell that they SAW, whilst having the NDE, is, for eg, that they say "whilst I was "out of it", I was able to SEE myself hovering above my physical body..and I saw that there were 5 people in the operating theatre... 3 doctors, and 2 nurses... one of the nurses was black, and one was white. Two of the doctors were black, and one was a Chinese man".
And then, having told the medical staff those details (remember, these things have been related by BLIND people who've had NDE's...ie, people who, in their ordinary physical life, are blind... many of them having been blind from birth.
And these descriptions of what they saw are then investigated, and are VERIFIED. So, in the above example, the medical staff are stunned, and they say "oh my god, how could you have known that there WERE 5 medical staff in the theatre, that 2 of the doctors were black, and that one of the doctors is Chinese...and that one of the nurses is white, the other one black..".

THAT is the sort of VERIDICAL data that is in existence.

That, above, was not how I intended to open this post... my intention was to open it in order to express huge anger that you actually think I am lying when I listed my places of residence on Earth, from the year of my birth, 1958, to the present day.
I assure you that that list of my residences, and the years involved, which I listed in an earlier post, today, is the truth.
You actually said (I'm sorry for the fact I cannot master the "quote function"...):
"Ah i see. All you have to do then, is to type that the bollocks you write is 100% fact, and then you expect us to accept it as such? The only evidence we actually have is that the Christine Thompson from Stafford is publicly listed on an organisation's website which is more or less aligned with the woo you are peddling here. See, that's real evidence. Everyone can see it. There is more telling us you are her than anything else you have, or could possibly, write". (end of your post).

I am astounded and disgusted. For my place of birth, the places of residence, and the years I lived in those places, are 100% truth. If you actually think I have made them up, then there is something very wrong with you.

I will continue on this forum later this evening. We are having a meal in a short while.

Christine please read a couple of replies on this thread, stop repeating the same shit over and over without evidence, stop claiming 100% fact when you don't back it up. Please learn something about the scientific method, please stop assuming that your word is good enough.

I've already discussed the blind people NDE's when you posted it the first time.

I'm astounded and disgusted that you think we should accept anything you say on FAITH as well as the veiled insult about us having jobs, i noticed that your earlier posts happened during standard work hours in England during the work week (as were mine but i run an IT department so I have a rather large amount of freedom when it comes to what i do with a computer).

Just in case you missed it the first time:

Why would blind people not be able to have visual hallucinations if the parts of their brain that process visual input are still working? Just because someone can't see with there eyes doesn't mean their brain can't create images itself (I can still see images when i dream even though my eyes are closed).

As for being able to describe people? There is a study in a number of UK and US hospitals where images are on the top of cupboards and shelves in operating rooms so that if someone has an NDE and is floating above their body they should notice them, I can't find the results of this study at present but when i find it (or if someone else manages to find it) i shall post a link for it here.

If a blind person has been recorded as having a NDE and was able to perfectly describe what someone looks like (that they would be unable to if they were not having a real out of body experience) then that would constitute as reasonably good evidence. Please present the evidence and not just tell us about it because i'm not willing to take you at your word.

christine wrote:... I told you of at least one book that is about this very subject: "Mindsight", by Kenneth Ring (Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Univ. of California, San Francisco). Published 1999.
Ie, blind people who have had NDE's, wherein they SEE things which are subsequently verified. Such things as: whilst having the NDE, their consciousness goes to the nearby waiting room, where anxious relatives are waiting... and the blind person is able to SEE what items of clothing their anxious relatives are wearing... describing, exactly, the items of apparel, the style, the colour, etc etc. And these descriptions are subsequently verified. Ie, the person who is, in their ordinary physical life, blind, whilst having the NDE

Christine, up to this point, I agree that there are questions to seek answers to. The data is fascinating & requires further investigation. But then you go on to say ...

... which truly does mean when their (eternal) consciousness is outside their physical body, and can thus travel to wherever it wants to...

... and you overstep the mark. The reported accounts say nothing about an eternal consciousness. Nothing. You've made that bit up. The reported events say nothing about an ability of this discarante consciousness (if that is what it is) being able to travel whereever it wants to. You've made that bit up too. Stick to the facts of what has been reported in the studies. Don't embellish with fanciful imaginings. Even if it was possible for people to somehow 'project' their consciousness beyond their physical form, there is nothing here to suggest that the ability persists beyond death. You'll note that at no time does Ring claim that these are things that dead people do. His case studies concern people undergoing traumatic events, during which many are within the still reversible process of dying. He offers nothing that indicates survival of death. Nothing.

... and so, in this example, the blind person, when their physical body is on an operating table being worked on by doctor(s), the consciousness of that person travels (for our eternal spiritual body is able to move at will, anywhere, simply by thinking of where you want to be) to the nearby waiting room, sees his/her very stressed, worried relatives, and SEES what they are each wearing.

Again, you are overstepping what is reasonable, even within the context of events that are extraordinary. Nothing in these accounts justifies your embellishment with wild speculation about the nature or ability of consciousness. You have introduced willful spirits, able to move wherever they wish. This does not derive from the accounts you are describing. You call yourself a researcher. Not on this evidence you're not.

... And then, when they have been resuscitated, they tell the medical staff that they SAW their relatives wearing, for eg "my husband was there, he was wearing a navy blue shirt, with the cuffs turned up almost to the elbows, and he had his glasses on, and he was sitting in the chair, with his head in his hands, crying "oh, Elizabeth, please don't die, please don't die..." . THAT is the sort of detail that BLIND people having an NDE are able to give to the medical staff, after they have been resuscitated. Other details that blind people are able to tell that they SAW, whilst having the NDE, is, for eg, that they say "whilst I was "out of it", I was able to SEE myself hovering above my physical body..and I saw that there were 5 people in the operating theatre... 3 doctors, and 2 nurses... one of the nurses was black, and one was white. Two of the doctors were black, and one was a Chinese man".
And then, having told the medical staff those details (remember, these things have been related by BLIND people who've had NDE's...ie, people who, in their ordinary physical life, are blind... many of them having been blind from birth.
And these descriptions of what they saw are then investigated, and are VERIFIED. So, in the above example, the medical staff are stunned, and they say "oh my god, how could you have known that there WERE 5 medical staff in the theatre, that 2 of the doctors were black, and that one of the doctors is Chinese...and that one of the nurses is white, the other one black..".

Fascinating stuff. I've read many such accounts in the past. They raise significant issues concerning the nature of consciousness, our ability to sense things, and more besides. They are not evidence of survival of death. To claim that they are is to misrepresent the data. For a researcher, that is professional suicide.

That, above, was not how I intended to open this post...

A shame, because but for a few things I've indicated, it's the first time we've really had any substance from you. Still, better late than never.

... my intention was to open it in order to express huge anger that you actually think I am lying when I listed my places of residence on Earth, from the year of my birth, 1958, to the present day.

You really don't get it, do you? It's not about thinking you're lying, it is about the nature of verifiable evidence. I have no reason to doubt that you are who you say you are, but the point is that there is a huge difference between you asserting that you're a different Christine, and us being able to trust that you are beyond doubt, telling the truth.You could be called Simon Jones. How would we know?

I assure you that that list of my residences, and the years involved, which I listed in an earlier post, today, is the truth.

As may be the claims you make about people's consciousness surviving death, but without the evidence, why should we accept it? And even when faced with the evidence, the interpretation of it may be subject to disagreement. Assurances don't cut it. Assure us you were born in Somerset, I'm inclined to believe it. It really isn't that big a deal. Tell me that when I die my consciousness will persist in some sub-atomic energy form, well forgive me if I ask for some greater evidence than just your say so.