#Login Register


  • 3 Vote(s) - 4 Average
Home 


The Third Eye and The Pineal Gland
failboat Show this Post
12-29-2013, 02:58 AM #16
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-29-2013, 02:38 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 02:36 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 02:33 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 01:58 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  Maybe it's true. Any psychics ever had their pineal gland removed and then try to be psychic? She provides evidence based on her theories. But one thing debunkers forget. If you are going to debunk a claim, you need to come with hard evidence. Not opinions based on attitude toward the subject.

Just sayin'....

coffeetime.gif

it's more likely that she is full of shït.

just sayin'....

coffeetime.gif

State your evidence.

Just sayin' AGAIN. coffeetime.gif

Because at this time, she has provided more evidence and stated her case and you haven't.

ever actually read what she wrote?
ever read her biography?

she has been a scam artist. just like hubbard and smith.
in addition none of the thoughts she published have been her own - most were plagiarized from other occult authors.

and she hasn't provided any evidence - just ludicrous claims.

and it's not me who has to provide the extraordinary evidence for her extraordinary claims.

coffeetime.gif
12-29-2013, 03:06 AM #17
Wayne5 Member
Posts:660 Threads:61 Joined:Nov 2013
Blavatsky was taught that the most powerful symbol of these esoteric ones was the Swastika. She wrote there were 7 stages of evolution – she named them “route races”. The race which should rise again to true spirit she named Aryans. In Tibet the Swastika was known as the “son of fire and creation” , but in Madame Blavatsky’s teachings the Swastika was the symbol of the Aryan race.

http://www.illuminati-news.com/hitler-occult.htm

Sound familiar? damned.gif
12-29-2013, 03:25 AM #18
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,985 Threads:1,473 Joined:Feb 2011
Well if the swastika is a powerful symbol 'they' certainly took care of that! damned.gif
12-29-2013, 03:38 AM #19
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,393 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
(12-29-2013, 02:45 AM)Wayne5 Wrote:  Lucis Trust Books.... Alice Bailey....

Google that. What a can o' worms and strangeness.

wonder.gif
12-29-2013, 07:14 AM #20
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,881 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-29-2013, 12:41 AM)failboat Wrote:  this "the third eye is the pineal gland" bullshit you read on many conspiracy boards emerged from Helena Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine".
if you don't believe me get a pdf version of her book and make a quick search in vol. 2.

Maybe it's not bullshit. Some of the pineal cells resemble the cells of the eyes and are photosensitive as is the retina.

From Wikipedia: "Pinealocytes in many non-mammalian vertebrates have a strong resemblance to the photoreceptor cells of the eye. Some evolutionary biologists believe that the vertebrate pineal cells possess a common evolutionary ancestor with retinal cells.

Pray for me. hug.gif
12-29-2013, 07:30 AM #21
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,881 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-29-2013, 02:58 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 02:38 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 02:36 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 02:33 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 01:58 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  Maybe it's true. Any psychics ever had their pineal gland removed and then try to be psychic? She provides evidence based on her theories. But one thing debunkers forget. If you are going to debunk a claim, you need to come with hard evidence. Not opinions based on attitude toward the subject.

Just sayin'....

coffeetime.gif

it's more likely that she is full of shït.

just sayin'....

coffeetime.gif

State your evidence.

Just sayin' AGAIN. coffeetime.gif

Because at this time, she has provided more evidence and stated her case and you haven't.

ever actually read what she wrote?
ever read her biography?

she has been a scam artist. just like hubbard and smith.
in addition none of the thoughts she published have been her own - most were plagiarized from other occult authors.

and she hasn't provided any evidence - just ludicrous claims.

and it's not me who has to provide the extraordinary evidence for her extraordinary claims.

coffeetime.gif

That final statement regarding extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim is a clever sounding statement that has utterly no basis in reality.

There is no such thing as extraordinary proof. There is proof only. Extraordinary proof is a debating trick where the person demanding it can keep moving the goalpost: "Um, that wasn't extraordinary enough!"

In a court of law, reasonable proof is given and it is enough to put the defendant in prison for life or even to be executed.

But the cynics play the word game asking for a higher standard than that demanded by a court of law where the stakes are very high, and replaces it with a highly movable standard that suits their own whims.

Extraordinary claims require not one scintilla of proof more than does an ordinary claim.

Proof is proof. Period.

Whether Madame Blavatsky's statements are true or not is not my argument to make. My argument is strictly concerning the empty canard regarding "extraordinary proof."

Pray for me. hug.gif
12-29-2013, 07:37 AM #22
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,881 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
As to Blavasky's claims, she lived in an era where she could not prove her claim because there was not enough scientific know how.

Rather it is interesting to look at the statements made in earlier eras to see if they are later validated by science.

Sometimes, we discover that indeed the person was on to something even if they couldn't prove it in a laboratory. Sometimes the person isn't exactly right, but they do contribute to our knowledge.

That's why doctors study Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus even if those old guys weren't always correct.

Pray for me. hug.gif
failboat Show this Post
12-29-2013, 08:23 AM #23
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-29-2013, 07:37 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  As to Blavasky's claims, she lived in an era where she could not prove her claim because there was not enough scientific know how.

Rather it is interesting to look at the statements made in earlier eras to see if they are later validated by science.

Sometimes, we discover that indeed the person was on to something even if they couldn't prove it in a laboratory. Sometimes the person isn't exactly right, but they do contribute to our knowledge.

That's why doctors study Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus even if those old guys weren't always correct.

you know it would have been sensational if she had known that some cells in the pineal gland resemble those of an eye before science even found out... but this was not the case... she even talks about who gave her the idea of the pineal gland being an eye in "the secret doctrine". she said it was a biologist or physician called "professor lankester" or "lankster"... don't remind his name.
back in the days people believed that the pineal gland is the very center of our thoughts because it was such a weird structure and lied in the very center of our brains - some even claimed the pineal gland was the interface between our "souls" and "the material world"... descartes was one of them.
what blavatsky did was nothing more than what most charlatans do today: mixing up scientific findings which are unexplainable or difficult to understand with their religious bullshit to come up with ludicrous theories about how the world works.

and your post regarding extraordinary proof is wrong.
an extraordinary claim is extraordinary because it has no basis in reality. therefore you would need an extraordinary proof to prove it.
for example:
1000 people claim to have witnessed that i can read other persons minds.
under normal circumstances this would have been sufficient proof but unfortunately telepathy isn't something normal that is explainable with what we know about reality therefore it needs an extraordinary proof: someone needs to come over and test my telepathic abilities with special tests and in a special laboratory because i could be a conman, right?
another example: witch trials. if the judges insisted upon an extraordinary proof for those extraordinary claims no person would have been harmed.
12-29-2013, 08:34 AM #24
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,881 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-29-2013, 08:23 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 07:37 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  As to Blavasky's claims, she lived in an era where she could not prove her claim because there was not enough scientific know how.

Rather it is interesting to look at the statements made in earlier eras to see if they are later validated by science.

Sometimes, we discover that indeed the person was on to something even if they couldn't prove it in a laboratory. Sometimes the person isn't exactly right, but they do contribute to our knowledge.

That's why doctors study Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus even if those old guys weren't always correct.

you know it would have been sensational if she had known that some cells in the pineal gland resemble those of an eye before science even found out... but this was not the case... she even talks about who gave her the idea of the pineal gland being an eye in "the secret doctrine". she said it was a biologist or physician called "professor lankester" or "lankster"... don't remind his name.
back in the days people believed that the pineal gland is the very center of our thoughts because it was such a weird structure and lied in the very center of our brains - some even claimed the pineal gland was the interface between our "souls" and "the material world"... descartes was one of them.
what blavatsky did was nothing more than what most charlatans do today: mixing up scientific findings which are unexplainable or difficult to understand with their religious bullshit to come up with ludicrous theories about how the world works.

and your post regarding extraordinary proof is wrong.
an extraordinary claim is extraordinary because it has no basis in reality. therefore you would need an extraordinary proof to prove it.
for example:
1000 people claim to have witnessed that i can read other persons minds.
under normal circumstances this would have been sufficient proof but unfortunately telepathy isn't something normal that is explainable with what we know about reality therefore it needs an extraordinary proof: someone needs to come over and test my telepathic abilities with special tests and in a special laboratory because i could be a conman, right?
another example: witch trials. if the judges insisted upon an extraordinary proof for those extraordinary claims no person would have been harmed.

Sorry, but your explanation regarding extraordinary proof is simply a rehash using more words to claim the same thing.

The claim that something has no basis in reality is simply an empty claim. Ordinary proof determines whether something has a basis in reality or not.

Proof is proof. Convicting someone of murder is a great example of what I mean. There was a case of a man who was convicted of murder simply because some May Fly larvae casings were found on the body when the body was found in the Fall of the same year.

These larvae are seen only in the Spring of the year. The suspect claimed he saw the victim on the 4th of July, a memorable day. The defendant was convicted based on the very ordinary lie and the ordinary existence of the may fly larvae.

The prosecution had no other real evidence, so their claim was extraordinary. The evidence was a lie...a simple lie and some simple life forms.

GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!

Pray for me. hug.gif
failboat Show this Post
12-29-2013, 08:59 AM #25
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-29-2013, 08:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:23 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 07:37 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  As to Blavasky's claims, she lived in an era where she could not prove her claim because there was not enough scientific know how.

Rather it is interesting to look at the statements made in earlier eras to see if they are later validated by science.

Sometimes, we discover that indeed the person was on to something even if they couldn't prove it in a laboratory. Sometimes the person isn't exactly right, but they do contribute to our knowledge.

That's why doctors study Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus even if those old guys weren't always correct.

you know it would have been sensational if she had known that some cells in the pineal gland resemble those of an eye before science even found out... but this was not the case... she even talks about who gave her the idea of the pineal gland being an eye in "the secret doctrine". she said it was a biologist or physician called "professor lankester" or "lankster"... don't remind his name.
back in the days people believed that the pineal gland is the very center of our thoughts because it was such a weird structure and lied in the very center of our brains - some even claimed the pineal gland was the interface between our "souls" and "the material world"... descartes was one of them.
what blavatsky did was nothing more than what most charlatans do today: mixing up scientific findings which are unexplainable or difficult to understand with their religious bullshit to come up with ludicrous theories about how the world works.

and your post regarding extraordinary proof is wrong.
an extraordinary claim is extraordinary because it has no basis in reality. therefore you would need an extraordinary proof to prove it.
for example:
1000 people claim to have witnessed that i can read other persons minds.
under normal circumstances this would have been sufficient proof but unfortunately telepathy isn't something normal that is explainable with what we know about reality therefore it needs an extraordinary proof: someone needs to come over and test my telepathic abilities with special tests and in a special laboratory because i could be a conman, right?
another example: witch trials. if the judges insisted upon an extraordinary proof for those extraordinary claims no person would have been harmed.

Sorry, but your explanation regarding extraordinary proof is simply a rehash using more words to claim the same thing.

The claim that something has no basis in reality is simply an empty claim. Ordinary proof determines whether something has a basis in reality or not.

Proof is proof. Convicting someone of murder is a great example of what I mean. There was a case of a man who was convicted of murder simply because some May Fly larvae casings were found on the body when the body was found in the Fall of the same year.

These larvae are seen only in the Spring of the year. The suspect claimed he saw the victim on the 4th of July, a memorable day. The defendant was convicted based on the very ordinary lie and the ordinary existence of the may fly larvae.

The prosecution had no other real evidence, so their claim was extraordinary. The evidence was a lie...a simple lie and some simple life forms.

GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!

their claim would have been extraordinary if they claimed that a psychic saw how the suspect murdered the victim...
but if they found the same may fly larvae on the body of the victim (or at the crime scene) and on the suspect i guess that would have been evidence for him being the murderer. or whatever. lol i don't know the background story nor am i a forensic specialist. :/
12-29-2013, 09:26 AM #26
Softy Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-29-2013, 12:41 AM)failboat Wrote:  this "the third eye is the pineal gland" bullshit you read on many conspiracy boards emerged from Helena Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine".
if you don't believe me get a pdf version of her book and make a quick search in vol. 2.

Hi failboat,

Interesting post,,,did not know the origin of this claim,,,

certainly that cast doubt about it,,,

interesting how far and wide these things can spread,,,

Thanks for that...

(:X
failboat Show this Post
12-29-2013, 10:45 AM #27
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-29-2013, 09:26 AM)Softy Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 12:41 AM)failboat Wrote:  this "the third eye is the pineal gland" bullshit you read on many conspiracy boards emerged from Helena Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine".
if you don't believe me get a pdf version of her book and make a quick search in vol. 2.

Hi failboat,

Interesting post,,,did not know the origin of this claim,,,

certainly that cast doubt about it,,,

interesting how far and wide these things can spread,,,

Thanks for that...

(:X

The only thing that i think is interesting is that it seems like someone tries to implement those belief systems into society - and by "society" i mean the whole world...
for what reason? - i don't know.
12-29-2013, 10:51 AM #28
Screaming Yellow Zonkers Member
Posts:2,706 Threads:265 Joined:Apr 2013
This is very very very old news, that anyone interested in psychic abilities knew, long before any book.
Never ever heard of this woman or her book, but I know all about the pineal third eye connection for over thirty years.
Most of the brain is not used, and gifts from unused parts of the brain were lost millenia ago.
It's why people who suffer brain injuries sometimes end up psychic afterwards.
Not sure where mine comes from, as I had it since I m very young. I think I had it to begin with, but it became apparent after the age of twelve or so, after my head injury at the age of eleven.

aaah2.gif
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
12-29-2013, 01:30 PM #29
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-29-2013, 02:58 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 02:38 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 02:36 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 02:33 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 01:58 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  Maybe it's true. Any psychics ever had their pineal gland removed and then try to be psychic? She provides evidence based on her theories. But one thing debunkers forget. If you are going to debunk a claim, you need to come with hard evidence. Not opinions based on attitude toward the subject.

Just sayin'....

coffeetime.gif

it's more likely that she is full of shït.

just sayin'....

coffeetime.gif

State your evidence.

Just sayin' AGAIN. coffeetime.gif

Because at this time, she has provided more evidence and stated her case and you haven't.

ever actually read what she wrote?
ever read her biography?

she has been a scam artist. just like hubbard and smith.
in addition none of the thoughts she published have been her own - most were plagiarized from other occult authors.

and she hasn't provided any evidence - just ludicrous claims.

and it's not me who has to provide the extraordinary evidence for her extraordinary claims.

coffeetime.gif

No, but if you are going to debunk something you do.
12-29-2013, 11:14 PM #30
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,881 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-29-2013, 08:59 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:23 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 07:37 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  As to Blavasky's claims, she lived in an era where she could not prove her claim because there was not enough scientific know how.

Rather it is interesting to look at the statements made in earlier eras to see if they are later validated by science.

Sometimes, we discover that indeed the person was on to something even if they couldn't prove it in a laboratory. Sometimes the person isn't exactly right, but they do contribute to our knowledge.

That's why doctors study Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus even if those old guys weren't always correct.

you know it would have been sensational if she had known that some cells in the pineal gland resemble those of an eye before science even found out... but this was not the case... she even talks about who gave her the idea of the pineal gland being an eye in "the secret doctrine". she said it was a biologist or physician called "professor lankester" or "lankster"... don't remind his name.
back in the days people believed that the pineal gland is the very center of our thoughts because it was such a weird structure and lied in the very center of our brains - some even claimed the pineal gland was the interface between our "souls" and "the material world"... descartes was one of them.
what blavatsky did was nothing more than what most charlatans do today: mixing up scientific findings which are unexplainable or difficult to understand with their religious bullshit to come up with ludicrous theories about how the world works.

and your post regarding extraordinary proof is wrong.
an extraordinary claim is extraordinary because it has no basis in reality. therefore you would need an extraordinary proof to prove it.
for example:
1000 people claim to have witnessed that i can read other persons minds.
under normal circumstances this would have been sufficient proof but unfortunately telepathy isn't something normal that is explainable with what we know about reality therefore it needs an extraordinary proof: someone needs to come over and test my telepathic abilities with special tests and in a special laboratory because i could be a conman, right?
another example: witch trials. if the judges insisted upon an extraordinary proof for those extraordinary claims no person would have been harmed.

Sorry, but your explanation regarding extraordinary proof is simply a rehash using more words to claim the same thing.

The claim that something has no basis in reality is simply an empty claim. Ordinary proof determines whether something has a basis in reality or not.

Proof is proof. Convicting someone of murder is a great example of what I mean. There was a case of a man who was convicted of murder simply because some May Fly larvae casings were found on the body when the body was found in the Fall of the same year.

These larvae are seen only in the Spring of the year. The suspect claimed he saw the victim on the 4th of July, a memorable day. The defendant was convicted based on the very ordinary lie and the ordinary existence of the may fly larvae.

The prosecution had no other real evidence, so their claim was extraordinary. The evidence was a lie...a simple lie and some simple life forms.

GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!

their claim would have been extraordinary if they claimed that a psychic saw how the suspect murdered the victim...
but if they found the same may fly larvae on the body of the victim (or at the crime scene) and on the suspect i guess that would have been evidence for him being the murderer. or whatever. lol i don't know the background story nor am i a forensic specialist. :/

The jury did not need to find larvae on the killer, only in the victim. The conviction was based on timing. Had the victim been alive on July 4th, it would have been impossible for May Fly larvae material to be present because the body was found in the Fall too soon for the May Fly larvae to return.

Thus the claim by the killer that he'd seen the victim alive in July was a lie, evidence of a guilty conscience. Simple, ordinary evidence proved an extraordinary claim.

The same requirement for proof applies regardless of the example, whether it be psychic abilities or anything else. No extraordinary proof is required, only ordinary proof because ordinary proof is all there is. There is no such thing as "extraordinary proof" other than in the minds of the cynics who push this mythical canard.

Pray for me. hug.gif



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com