PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - Indigo Children

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Indigo Children

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Indigo Children
Author Message
Posted on Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:08 pm

UltimaRage

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 146

MindFreak wrote:
ive been a natural at psi since i was born. ive been able to see auras and use TK since i was about 5 or 6. ive shut doors just by walking past them and thinking that they would close.

the first time i heard of a Psiball though was when i came to this site and i made a psi ball like my 3rd time trying and the only reason why i didnt make one earlier is because i was to skeptical about it.

I also made a shield on my first try because until i came to this site i didnt know how to create one.

ive als been able to use psionics i just used it in the wrong way. as in i used my own energy instead of the earth's, sun's or moon's.

so if your gonna try and tell me that their arent naturals at psi then i will laugh in your face.


When was this topic ever about being a narural at psi? I believe, it was about the existance of these so-called 'Indigo Children'.

I am a natural at psi. I created my first psi-ball my first try when I first visited the site.I used PK the first time I tried it. I almost had an OBE meditating.

But still, that doesn't mean I have some indigo aura and I'm an indigo child, It means I've always been open-minded. The phrase indigo children is just a made-up phrase.

A label to make sense of something, which no sense can be made.

You could see auras, use PK, but, you were too skeptical about psi-balls, because seeing fields of energy around people and creating balls of energy in your hands are so different.

Whatever.

Oh yeah, you do not have the capability to laugh in our faces. This is the internet. So, incidentally, you should go get a life and live it.

Oh yeah, I have one, a g/f, and this is just something I do on the side to amuse me, and further myself as a person.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:14 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

UltimaRage wrote:
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
paraplayer wrote:
Awesome picture! Is it of a leaf?
Yep. That's a picture of a leaf using a Kirlian camera.


Alright. So, Kirlian photography is just a photograph of something's electromagnetic field. Makes sense.

zomg, no, you don't get it.

"Living things...are moist. When the electricity enters the living object, it produces an area of gas ionization around the photographed object, assuming moisture is present on the object. This moisture is transferred from the subject to the emulsion surface of the photographic film and causes an alternation of the electric charge pattern on the film. If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears. If the Kirlian image were due to some paranormal fundamental living energy field, it should not disappear in a simple vacuum (Hines 2003). "
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:19 pm

UltimaRage

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 146

JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
UltimaRage wrote:
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
paraplayer wrote:
Awesome picture! Is it of a leaf?
Yep. That's a picture of a leaf using a Kirlian camera.


Alright. So, Kirlian photography is just a photograph of something's electromagnetic field. Makes sense.

zomg, no, you don't get it.

"Living things...are moist. When the electricity enters the living object, it produces an area of gas ionization around the photographed object, assuming moisture is present on the object. This moisture is transferred from the subject to the emulsion surface of the photographic film and causes an alternation of the electric charge pattern on the film. If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears. If the Kirlian image were due to some paranormal fundamental living energy field, it should not disappear in a simple vacuum (Hines 2003). "


Those findings were made by a skeptic's society. Do you think they would actually try and prove it?

Anyways, no, I don't get it, 'cause I don't care, and I think it's funny. Still, that doesn't prove the site I found which takes pictures of peoples auras using a different technique.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:39 am

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

UltimaRage wrote:

Those findings were made by a skeptic's society. Do you think they would actually try and prove it?

Well you cannot prove it through direct testing, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. The conclusions made by scientists are based upon evidence from previously perfomed experiments. On the contrary, the idea that Kirlian photography shows auras was based purely on the fact that it looks funny.

Quote:
Anyways, no, I don't get it, 'cause I don't care, and I think it's funny. Still, that doesn't prove the site I found which takes pictures of peoples auras using a different technique.


auraphoto.com wrote:
29. Has there been scientific research supporting this technology, and the existence of Auras?

Please read “The Roll Study” in Rosalyn Buyere’s Wheels Of life. This study is very important for you to know about. Basically they used biofeedback technology to correlate what different psychics were reporting seeing in subject’s Auras while they were being rolfed. Rolfing is a deep tissue type of massage.


As you can see, this experiment was extremely subjective to the bias of the psychic.

There's also this little tidbit I found on the website:
auraphotos.com catalouge wrote:
6. Does the equipment photograph the actual Aura?

The cameras produces an electronic interpretation of what we believe the actual Aura would look like. Nothing exists in the world that can photograph the actual Aura. All Aura Imaging cameras on the market today work on the same basic biofeedback principles developed by Guy Coggins. They all give an electronic interpretation of the Aura.

Therefore, it does not prove the existence of auras.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:27 pm

mattz1010

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 885

MindFreak wrote:
im glad i was allowed to grow up "RX" free because i now look back and can see all of the other kids that were part of the "RX Factor" and im glad i wasnt. drugs in any form are not good for you illeagal over the counter or even prescribed. but people would rather take a pill and fix everything rather than condition the mind to not have these problems.


Drugs are the only things keeping my dad and at least 5000 other patients alive right now.

Heard of an IV?

What about pain medication, nausea and vomiting medication, pills for athsma/allergies?
Are you saying these are all bad too?


Don't generalize.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:59 pm

Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

I'm sure he means that there is a root cause underlying the physical symptoms people experience. For example, I have a disorder that doesn't allow me to eat wheat or dairy products. An allergy of sorts although the implications are that I am basically guaranteed to get intestinal cancer in my life. However I looked at what emotions and issues correspond with that area of my body and worked on my own beliefs and perceptions. Now dairy doesn't bother me in the least and my body is starting to accept wheat for the first time since I was 5.

So yes, even allergies, disorders and diseases can be cured by looking at the root issue and dealing with it rather than popping pills. Most people however are unwilling to do work on themselves to fix their issues and are deliberately ignorant to the fact that they cause their own misfortunes in the form of diseases.

That doesn't make drugs "bad". They are just the quick fix that may ultimately harm the person in the long run. More importantly, the question transforms from "Are drugs bad?" to "Why are people choosing their diseases?"
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Indigo Children