Any Evidence of Authentic Predictions?

[Rick Deckard]

For those that believe a prediction wil come true, it does.
For those that believe a prediction will not come true, it doesn't.

God exists for those that believe in him.
God does not exist for those that don't believe in him.

UFO's are ET craft for those that believe they are.
UFO's are not ET craft for those that believe they are not.

Can you see a pattern?

[nomis]

Evidence of authentic predictions, I hate to say it guys but the question is flawed and that is clear by the responses so far.
My personal experiences have led me to belive that our conscious perceptions and rational are what limit this type of discussion.
These experiences go past the horizon of our daily perceptions yet we insist on a answer that fits within that perception.

If one has experiences that leads to the belief that our perception of time and space are false, the events are random and unpredictable, but do offer a view into either the past or future, how does one explain this, and offer proof.

Yes one could call a friend and tell them, but for what reason.
When one does start to experience, you realize that we sit within a very limited perception and the "need" to tell and bloat ones ego
is of little interest.

A "view" is just that, like someone suddenly raises the curtain and you are offered a quick look. Or the example I use is.

Take a photograph, with one glance you know the emotions, conversations, history etc. of the individuals in the picture. Show the same
picture to a stranger and they see only the image without any "knowing".

I suspect in time the "trapped" knowledge of how we see beyond our limitations will be understood. Until then we talk and explore
all of this making the connections required. Instead of trying to prove someone can't "see" and dismissing them, maybe acknowledge
these are people walking in unknown territory. Did they get the big prediction wrong, maybe, or yes they did. On a day to day basis
when they put the brakes on just a moment sooner than expected only to see someone cross there path unexpectedly, when they call up someone to find out what is wrong, or they turn left instead of right avoiding a unseen traffic jam, etc. etc.,
it is a vocabulary that starts to be part of your life, and like life most of it is small things, after all we can't all be super stars, but we
can develop another tool that will help us in the 24/7 reality that we find ourselves sharing. Well thats it back to work.

One last thing a quote from Einstien:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.?

[CapnG]

Precognition violates basic temporal mechanics. Let's say I'm "psychic":

- I make a prediction with a negative outcome (eg. "You will be struck by a bus on thursday.")
- The person in question makes changes to negate that outcome. (eg. He takes the subway)
- The event does not occur.

Since the event did not occur, I could not have forseen it, thus warning the victim. Ergo the event does happen, thus I predict it, thus it does not occur, which means it will now occur because it didn't happen and I therefore could not have predicted it, etc, etc

The only way out of the loop is to assume some quantum level of clairvoyance giving way to possible futures which is really no better than guessing anyway, making it essentially equal to luck.

[Aaron LeClair]

I no longer read up on physics like I used to, so I'm rusty. I'll give it a try though.


There's been experiments done that show the future can change the past. From memory, it was a variation on the slit experiment. I have no idea how they actually pulled it off. In the experiment they shot off a "particle" at the slits. Before the "particle" hit the slit/s one was either opened or closed. The "particle" changed to either wave or particle depending on what lied ahead. How they opened something so fast, I don't know. They changed the slits while the "particle" was in course to the slit/s, unlike the initial slit experiments. Some viewed this as proof that the future can effect the past. Maybe this is bunk, but I read it several times from a variety of sources and thought I'd mention it. Maybe some of you here know what I am referring to.

While looking for the experiment I mentioned (no success yet) I came across this
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_c...res/lec18.html

Wikipedia.com has good stuff as well. Run a search there and that should keep you busy reading about time, for a long time

My own view of time is that it's simultaneous. There can be different values of C. This value is the determining factor on which time line a given being experiences their flow of events. It always appears as a certain speed that doesn't fluctuate, but that is because the being is within it.

Or think of time this way. It's a way of measuring movements through space. Take away space and there is no time. No time, or simultaneous time. Whichever labels work best. To the soul, which is non physical, time is meaningless. If psychics are sometimes genuine, they may be modulating information from their non-physical spirit. Perhaps insight into a high probablity. Predictions CAN be made. Using plane ol reason after all. Maybe the soul uses reason in a fashion that isn't bound by space and time, the person uses their intuition to recieve the info. Then we call them psychics. Or, lucky.

[CapnG]

Originally Posted by A.LeClair

Predictions CAN be made. Using plane ol reason after all.

Those are estimates, not predictions. The difference is subtle but important.

[Greywolf]

Greetings, one and all.
I am a newbie here at this Forum (12/15/06){but longer as a member}, so please know that is why I have not replied until now.
Being the world's most documented clairvoyant, and having been contacted some months ago by the Hosts of Paracast for a future interview, I would invite all interested persons to visit our website and follow the links that 'prove' these 'portents' (predictions) came true--all of them, which were first related in radio interviews (a recorded/documented medium) and then posted at our website weeks, months and even years before these 'events' came to pass, therefore, I invite your objective minds to: http://jasonleigh.org/prophecies1.htm and welcome any and all comments to this amazing ability, which I have publicly related as being my 'God-given-gift,' as opposed to mere ESP or clairvoyance. I leave it to you to decide which term you would accept, for you must read quite a bit of these portents (dozens documented) and the proving thereof in order to know me better as a person and to reach a verdict of your own. For whomever may be further interested, my book, "PowerGlide" is available through UFO Magazine's Filament Books (http://www.filamentbooks.com/scripts...?assetID=1683), which covers my lifetime of relating and discovering of this 'God-given-gift,' and a true 'gift' in life it truly is, for I am an otherwise humble man of lowly means, seeking no fame nor fortune in revealing these 'proven portents,' or, as many notables (Jeff Rense, Dr. Bob Heironimus, Tony Gill to name but a few) have termed them as: "prophecies."
Please feel free to email me in private if you like, and if you should make a post of reply herein; please zip me an email so that I can more readily reply to your post. Thank you, and welcome to the future . . .
Jason Greywolf Leigh
jasonsos@digitex.net

[hopeful skeptic]

Psychics do not exist. No peer-reviewed study from a legitimate scientific body has ever - EVER - proven the existence of clairvoyance. Montel Williams and Gary Schwartz may promote such nonsense, and consumers may spend hard-earned money in an effort to harness those imaginary powers, but they simply don't exist.

The James Randi Educational Foundation has had a long-standing, $1,000,000 challenge to any clairvoyant who can make qualitative, verifiable predictions with a success rate anywhere beyond the statistical "chance" barrier. The test protocols are agreed upon beforehand between the JREF and the applicant, the tests are administered by independent third parties and a prospective contest winner doesn't even have to get all the predictions right. They don't have to get a third, or a quarter, or a fifth right - just beat chance. Many moons have come and gone, and no one has ever passed even the preliminary, "weed 'em out" test. Some, like Sylvia Browne, have first agreed to the test on national television (CNN's "Larry King Show," to be precise), then actively ducked it. (A video of Ms. Browne accepting the challenge can be viewed on Randi's website.)

Here's a prediction: Consult a psychic, give her your money, and you will be poorer and just as ignorant of the future as you were when you started. That's a prediction I guarantee will happen.

I must be psychic.

[Greywolf]

Hopeful skeptic:
* Obviously, you didn't read the documented 'proof' we have posted. You didn't read the letter, posted by permission, from one of my medical doctors who put his name on the line. I met with him the day after I was interviewed up in Canada, a radio show I had asked him to listen to. He did. In his office, Dr. Martin Fisher, MD, related, "You said last night that that jetliner would crash tomorrow evening. If it does, and I hope for the sake of the lives that will be lost that it doesn't, but if it does happen; I'll give you a letter asserting that I paid witness to the prediction. Now, is it really going to happen?" He asked. I bowed my head and related that it would.
Next evening, the jetliner did crash. See the website for a copy of his letter of Testimony and the details of the 'portent.'
* Also: about 'The Amazing Randi.' I hate to pop your doubtful ballon, but I contacted Randi, first by email and then by telephone to relate that he would have a heart attack within 2 weeks from that day. He laughed and stated that he was in perfect health, and for me to 'go fish.' I even followed it up with a certified letter, detailing that the heart attack would indeed happen, "in an office type of setting where a woman would come to his (your) aid and call 911." Well, my 'objective' friend, Randi DID have the heart attack and was saved by the lady who worked in his 'office.' It made National news. I was interviewed in which the Host called Randi who refused to be on the show with me, and he also refused to pay the offered 'reward.' He stated, for the record, "I'm an old man. Old men can have heart attacks, and Mr. Leigh just got lucky."
I never asked for the 'reward.' He publicly offered it, thousands agreed that he should pay me, but he didn't.
We kept his denial posted for over three years at our website, and if you ask him today (BTW: is he still living?), he would even deny hearing his own voice cussing me out like a drunken sailor (although being a former sailor myself, although never a drunken one); I never heard words like that in Vietnam.
If you are like 'most' dedicated skeptics, nothing that I can say would, or could ever change your mind. That's why we have everything 'documented.'
Why not do some reading before you condem?
I have ALWAYS considered this ability a 'God-given-gift,' and have NEVER accepted rewards, even in the missing child cases I worked on.
* Back in the late 1980's, I contacted several leading study groups who were looking for 'subjects' to test ESP on. I contacted them, sent letters, etc., and was told by the one--I forget the name right now--but up in Boston, that if I covered my own expenses; they would test me. I called them and stated, "You folks have Grants; I do not. I'm a disabled Veteran living on a pension. You folks are looking to 'prove,' or 'disprove' ESP or clairvoyance. You can afford my expenses. I can stay as long as you like, and even sleep on one of your sofas."
They never wrote, nor called me back, once I asked a law officer to give them a call after a missing child case I had worked on came to pass.
*** Again, your adventure begins here, if you are willing and if, and only if, you have the heart and nerve: http://jasonleigh.org/prophecies1.htm
Blessings and Good Tidings to All this Holiday Season!
Aho! Washta!
Jason Greywolf Leigh

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by Gwops

So what were you trying to say ? Please, elaborate on your train of thoughts.
Looking forward to hear from you.
Gwops

Well, I was thinking out loud, but I simply mean that most people do their 'research' via the internet - they will always find evidence to support their beliefs and dismiss everything else. They re-enforce their own beliefs by choosing what they read. Their mind is already made up and they just want reassurance.

Some fail to realize that their beliefs have no direct influence on 'objective' reality - billions believe in a god; does that prove a god exists? Nope, it just proves that if parents brain-wash their kids from an early age they limit their kids ability to think objectively.

The argument about "the end of the world" - those that predict such an event will argue that because they predicted it they forewarned the world and therefore prevented it...or some other similar argument. I do like this idea of parallel realities - the idea that we are constantly splitting into new realities where every outcome is played out. Perhaps the end of the world never comes about because we choose to follow the reality where it never happens...would you really want to see that prediction come true? Perhaps our beliefs guide us through these 'forks' in reality. Perhaps 'seers' are witnessing the 'fork' that we never go down and therefore never comes to pass...

[Edited for typos ]

[Rick Deckard]

Originally Posted by hopeful skeptic

Psychics do not exist.

What you mean is that *you* haven't seen sufficient proof that psychics are real. Things "don't exist" until they are discovered...in other words 'absence of proof' is not 'proof of absence'...