Ilovecoffee

Trolls give it away free no need to buy anything.

I feel you man 110%

I think you misunderstand the situation, most in our group remain silent rather than become targets. I do my best to remain as respectful as is possible. Were I not to do so I would quickly be removed as have many others in the group.

I am not going to post a link to the court documents here as they contain personally identifiable information, but anyone who knows his real name and address can find them quickly via Google.

His real name and real address show he was in court after these people claim he died.

Hi, Originally quoting posts from other threads into different threads in my PPD resulted in my PPD being suspended. May I please request permission to quote a person from one thread in my PPD to another thread in my PPD, and then hide their original post? I am having some trouble with a certain member derailing a thread so they can prevent discussion on it. If this is not acceptable, may I please request forum permissions to move posts from one topic in my PPD to another in my PPD? Right now the best solution I have been able to come up with is starting new threads and renaming the old ones, but this seems less than ideal. Thanks very much in advance.

Then they dragged John's dead corpse or yang spirit into a court room as part of a lawsuit. John's real name and real address are part of some court documents you can find online searching for them. I think most likely your teacher is mistaken.

So you remember that your teacher told you this, but you do not remember when your teacher told you? Did he tell you this last year in 2017, or the year before in 2016, or the year before that in 2015? Etc.

Do you remember when your teacher told you that he died? (Not the date of death, but the date your teacher told you?)

That was 2016 I am still curious if siryuris teacher agrees with that time frame.

According to your teacher what year did he die exactly?

Link?

Chang is a fictional last name. A newspaper would refer to him under a different name if he really died.

"it was reported in the local newspaper that he "died" a couple years back." Any links to back that up?

"people who wrongly believe that they can trust their own experience" Ultimately we are creatures of our senses. What we personally see and experience along with objective video evidence to record the event exactly as it occurred is the best we can do. "one can be fooled by frauds" When it's only you and the camera rolling, and you are reviewing footage of an event, it will reassure you a bit that you aren't hallucinating. "stubborn refusal to consider the fallibility of our naive ways of viewing the world is a form of wilful ignorance." "Ilovecoffee is a good example. The video doesn't rule out fraud, and I have explained many times over why that is so. But it doesn't have any effect. Nothing ultimately rules out fraud. 100 scientists and medical doctors, x-rays and whatever else you want to throw at it, and someone somewhere could still argue John was a fraud because one of the researchers was in on it. We can only do the best we can do, and present the best objective video evidence we have. I believe the researchers gave it their best effort to rule out fraud, but if you believe they missed something that certainly is your prerogative. His will to believe is too strong to seriously consider the possibility that nothing paranormal occurred." Nothing paranormal occurred. There is no such thing as the supernatural, nothing above or beyond what is natural. There is nothing paranormal, above, or beyond what is normal. There is only the natural and normal universe. Anything that exists or occurs here is purely natural and normal. That does not mean we understand reality any better than they did in the 1400s when it would have been considered supernatural or paranormal witchcraft to talk over distances via radio-waves. We still have much to learn. "this form of self-deception is even applauded by New Agers who think it's enough when you "resonate" with a particular claim or theory to accept it as your "personal truth" and consequently ignore any factual criticism someone might give. After all: it's you personal truth. " No, you have us pegged wrong wandelaar. We are not hoping to encourage people to practice mopai because it resonates with them as a personal truth. We are hoping to encourage people to examine the objective video evidence, with scientists and medical doctors doing their best to rule out fraud, and then for these people to investigate the practice first hand. If they stay the course what they will experience is as real as anything else a person can experience. It is not based on faith or personal truth, or it resonating with you, but rather on directly observed events that occur during the training itself.

All we can do is provide the best evidence we have and hope some are serious enough to do the legwork and prove it to themselves.

If a team of scientists and medical doctors stripping a level 20+ mopai master to his undershirt and underwear, checking him for metal with a metal detector and getting a demonstration at a random location they chose wouldn't convince you then even Jim McMillan a level 2b student if he were still alive would have no chance. That is the point I am making. Nothing here is hidden, people who seriously pursue this can see as plain as day the reality and legitimacy of the practice. No faith in anyone or anything, just your own direct observation.

All we can do is present the best evidence we have and encourage others to see for themselves.

John was past level 20 when he was filmed. We only have instruction for the first few levels. It took Jim 10+ years to complete level 2a and begin his 2b training, and he worked diligently. A few in our group have considered doing a demo, but ultimately we feel if John's demonstration was unconvincing then what we could demonstrate would not be either. The best we can do is present the evidence and hope others will see for themselves.

"until we actively engage and experience for our own self" Ultimately what we hope to accomplish is to provide the evidence we do have and encourage people to seriously investigate this for themselves. Even if one doesn't believe "fire" exists, or that it is possible to make "fire" by using sticks, a bow tool, and a lot of elbow grease, if they are persistent, a "fire" they will make no matter if they believe in its existence or not.

They could have x-rayed John and had 100 scientists and medical doctors present and someone somewhere would still cry fraud. People could argue that the researchers or at least one of them was in on the fraud and slipped a device by so John could perform a hoax. I feel that John's demonstration is the best evidence we have, and the researchers gave it their best effort to rule out fraud. It certainly is the best objective video evidence of this nature with doctors and scientists present to do their best to rule out fraud that I am aware of. Even if this was repeated at several major universities, some people would still argue fraud, no matter what. Whether someone accepts evidence as proof or not is purely up to them, and no one can force anyone else to accept a piece of evidence as valid. You can take a flat-earther to the edge of space, and they could argue what they were seeing was an illusion or a deception and was only a hoax. We can only present the best evidence we have and nothing more, people can either accept it or not.

As one example, take the video of John Chang. The researchers present included: Gregory V. Simpson, Ph.D. is a neuroscientist, formerly the Director of the Dynamic Neuroimaging Laboratory at UCSF, Co-Director, Dynamic Brain Activity Imaging Laboratory at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a Senior Scientist at the Brain Plasticity Institute. Also present were a Medical Doctor and a the head of the Mind Science Institute. The subject was stripped to his underwear, and an undershirt and searched with a metal detector. He then gave a demonstration inside his home. After that, he gave another demonstration outside his home. Then the researchers took him to a random location they chose for a final demonstration. Granted maybe he hid some non-metallic electronic device inside a body cavity and the researchers missed it. Certainly, we would all love to have seen him x-rayed in a hospital immediately before the final demonstration. I feel, however, this objective video evidence (with scientists and medical doctors present to their best to rule out fraud) certainly is better than the alternative which is nothing at all. Keep in mind John never charged any student or patient anything, nor accepted donations. You continue to suggest that stage magicians can be stripped to an undershirt and underwear and checked for metallic devices with a metal detector by scientists and medical doctors at a random location and fool them with an identical demonstration. Certainly, I have seen no evidence of such an event taking place. What seems more likely to me is that you need a way to deny the event occurred and this excuse that "it was stage magic" is a convenient way to maintain your worldview.

"and it is so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to chikung or neikung" I would have to disagree here. It is very easy. Create two piles, a garbage pile, and a retention pile. If scientists and medical doctors have been present to do their best to rule out fraud on camera, put it into the retention pile. If they haven't, put it into the garbage pile. If in the future better evidence arises for something you tossed into the garbage pile, pick it up, reexamine the evidence and reconsider it for the retention pile at that time. "There's so much disinformation everywhere so I believe we must thread very carefully..." I agree 110%. "Basically, what I'm looking for is legitimate practices and legitimate students to share experiences and ideas. " The problem is that people who beat their head against the wall as a spiritual practice consider it legitimate. They will work hard to sell you on their practice. If you don't buy into their practice, they get offended, and a flame war extraordinaire ensues. It sounds like your definition of the word "legitimate" is drastically different than most other people here. Please be aware that trying to discuss why you think things are legitimate and others are not will only result in a fight here, no matter how friendly and polite you attempt to be.

Menezes, Unfortunately it is not possible to have the discussion you are looking for openly on this forum without a fight breaking out. If you are serious and want something real please email me and we can talk further.

I see.