*ahem*

you can't prove or disprove synchronicity, it's a very grey topic of discussion and a purely subjective experience. i happen to believe ALL of what we experience as reality is subjective (and quantum physics is beginning to support this, the observer affects ALL outcomes simply by his presence...) but it's way too big a can 'o' worms to get into here.

what's really been irritating me lately is the whole stance of "what i believe is real, and what you believe is bullshit, even though other people think what i believe is bullshit, i'm going to refuse to see how it could possibly apply to me...because i know i'm right, you're wrong, and here's some links to the all knowing internet site that hapens to support my position at the moment."

please make room for other opinions besides your own, god forbid we might have a decent discussion or learn something.

my favorite "news" headline of all time, which appears daily:

"scientists used to *believe* A, but know they *know* B is true."

irregardless that A was presented as fact, not belief, for 100 years previous, just as sure as B is now. and SURELY, B will never, ever, be disproven because no new evidence will EVER come to light, no one will EVER find a different way of looking at it, ever, CASE CLOSED.

lather, rinse, repeat.
you now have a mental model of the entire history of science. and it applies to anything.

you CAN NOT convince anyone of your beliefs, or disbeliefs for that matter. BECAUSE they have not had the same experiences you have, and vice-versa. and that statement is no exception.

so don't bother...

i'm sure the giant ball of light i saw one night, that dwarfed the moon over a blacked out green bay stadium, did a seamless 180 reverse *while accelerating* into the atmosphere, before blinking out of this dimension, was probably swamp gas. or a weather ballon, you pick.

same with the all-silver and all-black 727's spraying kool-aid out of the wing (not the engine) dangerously close to commercial traffic...

on to this:

www.victorzammit.com/skeptic...ton.html
(see, i also have handy links to the all knowing internet site that proves what i believe is right, and what you believe is bullshit.)

***
Argument # 2: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This seems to be the mantra of hard nosed skeptics. One common way it is presented goes like this:

"If my friend told me that on the way here he was delayed because his car got a flat tire, then I would believe it because it is an ordinary claim. However, if he claimed that on his way here he was temporarily abducted by aliens in a UFO, then I would not believe his claim because it is extraordinary in nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Now it would help if the skeptics who proclaim this argument specify what they would accept as extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown. While it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of evidence for more extraordinary claims, there are nevertheless 6 difficulties to keep in mind.

1) First, although this rule is good as a general guideline, the fact that 3 possible alternatives exist make this rule fallible.

a) It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectable evidence as a souvenir to us. For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving "hard evidence" yet they exist. Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can easily exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.

b) It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.

c) It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's subject to interpretation, making it controversial. This is true for instance, of the alleged mysterious implants found by doctors and surgeons in alleged alien abductees. So even when something leaves a trail, residue or mark, they are subject to interpretation anyway.

Of course, skeptics have argued that all these things are possible but not probable, hence the requirement for extraordinary evidence. However, in order to really know all that is probable and improbable in the universe and reality, it would require that one have complete knowledge of every dimension and reality that exists in the universe and beyond. No one, neither skeptic nor believer, has that kind of knowledge, at least not consciously. Therefore, it would be more accurate to state that:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality."

***

millions were duped into death by WW1, WW2 (particularly pearl harbor), and if you don't find anything strange about 9/11 then stop reading NOW, i'm wasting my keystrokes. the argument that a government with near infinite resources couldn't spray a million gallons of kool-aid into the air daily and keep it a secret is ABSURD.

and while i'm at it, my mighty newage cut-and-paste warriors, before right clicking your next irrelevant post that someone else wrote about the "Galactic Walnut Alignment Tomorrow Everyone Must Drop Their Pants at NOON So We Can Pass Through The 7th Magickal Snacking Gate OR ELSE!", please take a moment and replace every instance of the word "walnut" or "dolphin" or whatever the fuck it is you know you're right about with the word "jesus" (or "allah", if you dare) - and then re-read carefully before hitting the 'submit' button.

you may be shocked at how it sounds. or not.

in which case you can screw off and start your own 1500 member "Surviving the Galactic Walnut" tribe.

see? people think your disbeliefs are bullshit too.