It was too real. Also it happened in 1967 - long before I was really well studied in scientology - I was on the DAC, I think, in the NY Academy at the Martinique hotel ball room. I had had some auditing, but I had prior experiences to Scientology of a para-scientific nature, such as when I was in college, running down a flight of stairs - I reached my hand out and caught my Exacta VXIIb camera - I was unaware it's strap snapped. That was a minor premonition. Some stuff with my mom - knowing when she was going to get me from work, going exterior in my college dorm room, a prior life recall, etc.
Mimsey
"I reached my hand out and caught my Exacta VXIIb camera - I was unaware it's strap snapped. That was a minor premonition."
Maybe that was a premonition. Maybe not. I have noticed that you draw many conclusions in your explorations into the paranormal without any mention or inspection of your own assumptions. For example, what if you "reach (your) hand out and caught (your) Exact VXIIb camera" because you WERE aware that it was falling---while being unaware a few short moments later that you had that awareness/perception of an object falling.
I have often had the experience of instantly reaching out INSTINCTIVELY when something began to fall or even slip---and catching in midair--always surprised how impressively accurate that part of the mind/nervous reflexes are. Even a simple life form, like a fly is incredibly hard to hit--because they react in microseconds to avoid a swatter.
What if your own "win" on being so incredibly aware and have a "premonition" were actually based on your UNAWARENESS that your mind/body was simply reacting to a falling object in your immediate and intimate proximity?
I know you don't like anyone to disagree with your conclusions and theories, but this is how "proof of concept" works in the world of science/technology and explorations into the unknown. I work in that field daily and, to be honest (
since it is an inordinately expensive thing to finance R&D) I celebrate the process of debunking the theories, assumptions and merit-less conclusions of the many engineers, scientists, surgeons, designers, physicists and other geniuses in the respective fields---because it saves MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to cut it off fast. Rather than pretend to agree and go along with theories that have no fundamentals or proof under them.
By weeding out the weak/unproven ideas, it then becomes possible to move past 99% of the garbage that would drive any R&D company bankrupt and move on to groundbreaking patents, new innovations and life-improving technology.
You react very badly to any critiques of your "method" because it feels like "invalidation" to you. Yet, this is how it works in the professional sciences and incubators and R&D companies that succeed.
Maybe you should stop lecturing professionals who do research (me for example, lol) about how degraded, evil and "fixed" they are in their "aberrated thinking"---and slow the RPMs down low enough to actually
learn something about how it works.
I don't think you are a bad guy, but if you are not here trolling (
e.g. intentionally using the entire cringey lexicon of special magical words that Hubbard taught you to push others buttons, LOL) then you might want to
humble yourself to the task of really learning ALL SIDES of what you are pontificating and lecturing others about.
And......
Just because someone states that you did not prove your theories, it does not mean that they are "against" whatever it is that you are promoting (UFOs, Exteriorization, telepathy...et al). It doesn't mean that they refuse to even consider that it's possible. These are all your mental machinations and imagination. All it means if someone (myself for example) disagrees with your amateurishly incomplete research, which did not sufficiently support your thesis with PROOF OF CONCEPT.
It's a real thing, "proof of concept". It can be seen, tested and measured.
Everything else is subjective and not of much use to anyone except the person who is impressed with their own imagination.
