Questioning The Book

[bomohwkl]

In Michel's audio interviews, he states that when asked more about God, Thao said "We don't know."

Even thiaooubians don't know much about god, how are we going to know more about god? I think the great Thora should know more......... I think Thao might be telling the true about the fact that they themselves don't much about God..

[Meedan]

I should explain what I am doing.

For two years I have thought both books - TFOC and TP - were true/correct. However, recently, inspired by Vesko's post in the 'Evidence of Design in the Universe' topic, I looked into and found significant problems with the reasoning in TFOC. I decided then (last week) that I would attempt to 'purge' my mind of all of my opinions and beliefs concerning the origin of life, the universe, TFOC, TP, and start fresh.

I want to try to be as objective as I possibly can, and look at all of the arguments, and I'd hoped I would again come to the conclusion that the books are correct. I just needed to make sure that I really did have an open mind, in case I only thought I did.

So now, I'm looking for arguments that TP is true. I actually made a list of reasons why I though TP is true 2 years ago, but this week I've managed to refute all of them and I currently have very little reason to believe that the book is true. I've only just begun though . I suppose I will be happy whatever the outcome of all this is, since I will probably be closer to truth.

I recommend that everyone try this, it is 'enlightening'.

[bomohwkl]

nah..i skip this..i am learning to explore my higher-self.....

[Yothu]

I guess this makes sense as a long-term goal.

[Vesko]

I ought to be more precise here as not to give the wrong impression and disinformation:

Interviewer (Meanwell): "What came before God? Who or what created God?"

Michel: "There's no answer for that one. Nobody knows. I asked Thao, too, and she said, we don't know, even Thao. Nobody knows."

[bomohwkl]

O.K The foundation of truthfulness of Thiaoouba Prophecy seems to ground on Kirlian effect. (looking from skeptic point of view) But it seems that when you look at "kirlian effect" from the hard-core skeptic, it will look like(copy and pasted from a forum)

"I've never heard of Prof Korotkov before, but he does appear to be a legitimate professor in a legitimate Russian university."

He may well be both legitimates, but I don't beleive he's read any Popper...

" GDV TECHNIQUE CLAIMS

* Screening and monitoring of entropy level both of organism as a whole and different systems and organs; * Objective quantitative evaluation of individual's anxiety level; * Estimation of peculiarities of energy homeokinesis of the organism under various diseases; * Prognosis of characteristics of disease process; * Determination of indications, contra-indications and implementation mode of different types of therapy; * Investigation of influence of various therapy types upon the energy homeokinesis; development of indications for combined application of different medicaments and methods of treatment; * Study of person's individual reaction to the influence of CAM (informational, energy, physical medicine): oriental techniques, light, sound, air-ions, magnetic field, etc.; * Development of quantitative criteria of professional selection (sportsmen, rescuers, healers, people occupied with intensive mental work, etc.); * Quantitative evaluation of the Altered State of Consciousness (ASC) using complex Bioelectrography approach; * Revealing of GDV patterns and parameters particular for ASC in different fields of activity: sport, theatre, healing, telepathy; * New technology of the top athletes psycho-physical readiness evaluation based on the GDV method in comparison with battery of tests. Development of prognostic technique for the evaluation of top-athletes' competitive reliability; * Evaluation of Psycho-Dynamic and Bio-Energetic Results of Integrated Mental Training, meditation, healing; * Study of After Death processes. * Testing in vitro: - Study of structural changes of water and biological liquids; - Investigation of bacterial and non-bacterial sensitisation of biological liquids (blood, phlegm, etc.); - Study of threat of development of food, medicinal and professional sensitisation; - Research of characteristics of microorganisms' GDV parameters in various mediums; - Evaluation of energy properties of different stuff and materials."

The above is almost entirely ***. I notice he has an expensive array of equipment for sale. Most 'legitimate' 'professors' I'm aware of don't sell the fruits of their research from their personal hompages.

"However he has published in some reputable journals."

Really? Which ones? He may well be a physisist. He may well be a biologist, but neither physics nor biology can account for the supernatural phenomenon he makes reference to.

"He appears to be mainly carrying out research into the body's electro-magnetic field and how that changes under various conditions such as illness."

Which is about as useful as putting a radio next to your PC when it breaks down. It assumes that the energy radiated by the body as a consequence of biological (and very much not supernatural) processes contains coherent information. Perhaps he if published his findings after actually finding something there might be some value in it. There's not. He writes science fiction.

He says, for instance...

"This new (3 year old) technology allows one to capture by a special camera the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual energy emanating to and from an individual, plants, liquids, powders, inanimate objects and translate this into a computerized model. This allows researcher and client to see imbalances that may be influencing an individual's well-being greatly facilitating the diagnosis of the CAUSE of any existing imbalances showing the area of the body and the organ systems involved."

There's no such thing as emotional energy. There just isn't! As for 'spiritual energy', well, what is it!??? He doesn't know, so how does he know it's spiritual energy?

"Just because Prof Korotkov chooses to interpret his results in terminology such as auras, energy fileds and spirit, does not necessarily make him a "quack"."

Yes, it does. Since none of these things have any meaning.

"I assume your assertion that he has "invented quack therapies" is based on a detailed reading of his published works and scientific testing to disprove his conclusions? "

I don't need to. But I'll read anything you throw my way. I would like to say that your faith in science is refreshing, but it's not faith in science.

"I have no idea whether he's right or wrong, but I think it's rather offensive to rubbish both him such terms without some "evidence" of your own to support your statements."

I don't need to supply "evidence" for something which doesn't happen. It would be meaningless.

With regard to Prof Korotkov's 'legitimate' status, he says on his site...

"Dr. Korotkov is also an Associate Professor at Holos University Graduate Seminary and Greenwich University, Norfolk Island, Australia."

The Holos University Graduate Seminary can be found here...

http://www.hugs-edu.org/

"Holos University Graduate Seminary provides post-graduate education that prepares mature adults to serve as Ordained Ministers, Spiritual Directors, and Spiritual Intuitive Counselors who integrate the healing triad of body, mind, and spirit as their focus for conducting original research and promoting holistic well-being in individuals and communities". - this is not a science qualification. It sounds more like a cult.

And the Australian government has this to say about Greenwich University, Norfolk Island, Australia...

"No independent evidence has since been provided to the Australian Government that Greenwich University degrees meet the academic standards of Australian universities. It is open to Greenwich to apply for accreditation in Australia and to demonstrate that it does meet the standards required of an Australian university. It has not done so to date."

http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/quality/greenwich.htm

I reckon this smells very sus. Further searching on the net provides ample evidence of ***. Look for yourself.

If Korotkov is not a quack, why would he list such dodgy associations?

Evidence enough for you?

[Lachie]

Bomo: lots to comment on, but i'll say this: there is an emotional energy - you shouldn't discount something because you don't know what it is. Reasoning like "there just isn't!!!" is more in common with a seven year old being asked why Santa Claus doesn't exist. Emotional energy is something you can feel, rather than see. I'm sure if the scientific community focused on it, they could perceive and measure it. I have no idea whether or not the GDV process can measure it. I highly doubt it. But i can feel it, i know plenty of other people who can feel it, and it definitely exists. If you want an excellent, if slightly obfuscated, explanation of the process of emotional energy and spiritual interaction, read the Celestine Prophecy.

Meedan: this is an admirable quest you have started. It's entirely natural to question your belief system, and it's very healthy. I don't think either book (TFOC or 9th Planet) were designed as guides to live your life by - they were designed as a broad, philosophical swathe that you can slect parts, and apply them to your life where you see fit. Everyone is different, and it's impossible for one book to accurately cover everyone's needs.

Here is a quote from the legendary Bruce Lee, who figured it out a long time ago, that sums it up:

"Research your own experience, absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, add what is specifically your own."

Most spiritual books contain some truth. Some contain vast amounts while others contain just enough to be believed. It's your duty and homework to find out what is truth, and what is ***.

Also, remember that TFOC is under constant revision. It's not impossible for you to out-logic Tom and to come up with something better... as I've seen you do in this forum with the improved version of the creation stuff.

Take care all,

Lachie

[Vesko]

Hey bomo, is this really a hard-core skeptic? This person seems to really not know how to argue judging from this post. Did you notice that it's just an ad-hominem attack against Korotkov?

Whether this is spiritual energy or not is a moot point when it works. Korotkov writes (http://www.korotkov.org/wibb04.htm) that it's all based on empirical evidence, i.e. it's not rigorously proven nor there is a solid theory to be stamped "fully scientific", but it works and is useful:

Sector diagnostics is based on a diagnostic table, connecting glow characteristics of separate zones of fingers with the functional state of body zones. For the first time the idea of such connection was proposed by P.Mandel, then it was further developed and modified. The diagnostic table is based on the concepts of traditional Chinese medicine, micro-acupuncture systems and empirical experience. The analysis suggests using notions on Chakras and Ayurvedic medicine. Basing on 10-fingers BEO-grams and the diagnostic table, the model of field distribution around human body is built in the GDV Programs. Independent clinic observations in different countries revealed diagnostic validity of the GDV-technique and, in particular, the model of field distribution - Aura.

Instead of detracting Korotkov or anyone else, those "skeptics" should just find a way to try the (unfortunately) expensive Kirlian camera and see for themselves.

BTW Bomo, is the CCD module that makes the camera so expensive?

[Meedan]

With regards to the "skeptic", I agree that he did not do himself many favours in the way he argued his points. But I do think some of his points are valid.

I agree that the accuracy of TP largely comes down to whether colour affects the mind without the requisite of eye perception. In fact, at this point, not only am I unconvinced that this has been shown, I actually found some points which somewhat suggest that TP is false . This is a strange time for me . I will certainly post those points soon, I wouldn't keep them to myself and assume that they are valid.

Let us not forget what GDV stands for. Gas Discharge Visualisation. My first post on this forum was to ask about Prof. Newton Milhomens' theory (and from the name 'GDV', there are evidently more who agree) of what GDV actually is.
http://www.kirlian.com.br/ing/main_introduction3.htm

It is also a great shame that the largest test of whether bioresonant shirts improve this GDV image was harmed by the crucial lack of blind-folding, leaving it open to a combination of the effects of placebo and perception through the eyes. We already know that colour (perceived through the eyes) can slightly affect mind-states. Plus, has anyone noticed the "texture" - can't remember a better word - of the bioresonant shirts. As the ticket says they are 100% cotton, yet they feel significantly different - at least to my somewhat sensitive skin .

[bomohwkl]

BTW Bomo, is the CCD module that makes the camera so expensive?

YES! CCD is the most expensive component.

It is also a great shame that the largest test of whether bioresonant shirts improve this GDV image was harmed by the crucial lack of blind-folding, leaving it open to a combination of the effects of placebo and perception through the eyes.

the problem is when someone wear it, they cant really keep looking at the shirts...........besides, when you wear it underneath it with another shirt, you can't really see it and Kirlian pictures taken in Mind-body festival in Manchester last year obviously shown an increase of glow.

[Meedan]

the problem is when someone wear it, they cant really keep looking at the shirts...........besides, when you wear it underneath it with another shirt, you can't really see it and Kirlian pictures taken in Mind-body festival in Manchester last year obviously shown an increase of glows.

That's good, but the point is to guard against both the placebo effect and eye perception at the same time. That sounds like the placebo effect was still open. I think of it as the two necessary conditions.

[Meedan]

Now, why do I think the book is true? Not because I've proven it all of course, but because everything in it makes to me and the more I learn, train and investigate other sources, the more I am convinced it is true. I have been accussed by some people that I'm too logical. Well, the book seems very logical to me. It's an absolutely unique book.

If anyone has any examples of anything that they think has been 'verified' from the book, could you please post them?

It would be preferable if they met the following criteria:

* verification from after 1987 - obviously.
* issue not really discussed at all before 1987 - for example, quantum computing 'discoveries' in 2000 do not count because there was a lot of information prior to 1987 about how electrons and photons could be used for encoding information.

I need to re-form some arguments that the book is true, if there are any. The purge experiment has revealed that I wasn't critical enough previously.

[Vesko]

I don't think anything has been verified by the book itself, because all those topics have been either discussed in previous books, or there is no material evidence for them. It's our task to prove or disprove the book.

By the way, for some people who may be under a slightly different impression, Michel never said that by reading the book, we suddenly "know". One of his interviews ends as follows:

"I don't believe, I know, and that is my reward [after being abducted]. I'll have to admit, everybody listening to me, you, and everybody, say we have to believe him or not, and that is a big problem. I wish I could really prove more to you, but my belief is finished. I know and that is my reward."

[Meedan]

Then why do we spend our time on this book? Why do we think it there's a good chance that it is true? We should be scientists (type of person, not profession or qualification), which doesn't only mean looking for material evidence. Is there any non-material evidence?

Currently, it seems that I have more reason to think that it is a clever fabrication. Early days yet though.

[Vesko]

Because I can't find a contradiction. Let's prove that something particular in it isn't true.