 | ||||
| ||||
ITC Bridge > Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) > Dedicated SPIRICOM Forum > Was the Spiricom story based on false information ? |
| | ||||
| ||||
ITC Bridge > Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) > Dedicated SPIRICOM Forum > Was the Spiricom story based on false information ? |
| ITC Bridge and iDigitalMedium.com are now VARANORMAL.COM Please visit: https://www.varanormal.com This site does not allow new registrations, and is now an online archive of a decade of Paranormal and ITC (Instrumental Transcommunication) experimentation from 2007 - 2016 We thank you for a wonderful decade! ~ Keith Clark & Ron Ruiz |
| Moderated by: Keith Clark, fratka, ArizonaEvp |
|
||||||||||||||
| Was the Spiricom story based on false information ? | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Oct 20th, 2008 01:23 AM |
|
1st Post |
|
Brian Jones Member 
|
Hello people, without saying much here, I will offer you a link to a website that I've built and just made public with the go ahead by the chief investigator responsible for these findings... Dr. S. Rorke... Here is the link : http://www.spiricomstudy.com Brian J. Last edited on Oct 20th, 2008 05:21 PM by Brian Jones |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 20th, 2008 10:45 AM |
|
2nd Post |
|
Slider2732 Member
|
A challenging view..does that make it something fresh and perhaps needed for us to challenge too ? My view is that the site presents valid arguments against many of those involved...however, it also seems to imply those undertaking spirit contact via a similar Spiricom method are all barking mad. Which is something I don't agree with. Current electronics, methods, learned and theoretical physics all are now far in advance of those early experimenters knowledge. The original was only that, many believe the spark of interest, the direction they find themselves travelling in, was the real work of the Spiricom pioneers. The implications of the opening index are that, In Edisons case, he thought the whole thing hocum regarding spirit communications and not deserving of any worry about him designing any form of apparatus. There is then a link to an unfortunately difficult to read newspaper interview. I presume the idea is to look at the poor PDF copy and merely accept those words of your introduction. On the website, the words relating to Edison are: "In this article Edison is merely responding in hypothetical terms to the reporter’s line of inquiry; there was no indication or reason to conclude that he was personally engaged in such an effort" However, right there within the document is the following: "The apparatus, which he is reported to be building is still in the experimental stage. Obviously, Mr. Edison is too cautious and too well founded in the uncertainties of any new experimental work to say anything definite at the present time. However, he wishes to say the following which is very significant in the light of his past record in so many fields of endeavour: "I have been thinking for some time of a machine or apparatus which could be operated by personalities which have passed on, to another existence or sphere. Now follow me carefully: I don't claim that our personalities pass on to another existence or sphere, I don't claim anything because I don't know anything about the subject. For that matter, no human being knows. But I do claim that it is possible to construct an apparatus which will be so delicate that if there are personalities in another existence or sphere who wish to get in touch with us in this existence or sphere this apparatus will at least give them a better opportunity to express themselves than the tilting tables and raps and ouija boards and mediums and the other crude methods now purported to be the only means of communication"" and further: "I believe that if we are to make any real progress in psychic investigation, we must do it with scientific apparatus and in a scientific manner, just as we do in medicine, electricity, chemistry and other fields. Now what I propose to do is to furnish investigators with an apparatus which will give a scientific aspect to their work" and from there he explains his apparatus. Nowhere within the article does Edison himself believe the concept of him working on a device to be ridiculous. What he does do, is cover himself from typical cynicism, that is a daily barrier to all in the field and to protect his good name should the device not work. The read intention of the site is to blow the field out of the water, but, it actually furthers any instrument transcommunication cause. Through implications which are incorrect and a general air of dismissiveness, the site simply does not work to distance interested persons. Those tones, while important to the idea of the website do not become a constructive argument case. People will wish to be informed about the real work being undertaken today in the field and may become as intrigued as some of us on this messageboard. By the way, your link contains an extra space and a forward slash that isn't seen on the link in the message post.  Last edited on Oct 20th, 2008 11:33 AM by Slider2732 |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 20th, 2008 05:19 PM |
|
3rd Post |
|
Brian Jones Member
|
in response to slider 2732, and this reply is meant for all to read of course .... I just spent a lot of time and energy putting all Dr. Rorke's material together so he could refer people to these exhibits. He's done a LOT of work investigating things related to Spiricom..... If I'm reading your last paragraph correctly.... I think you are assuming that the intent of this site is to debunk the field of I.T.C. , if this is correct, I can say with total certainty, you are in completely opposing contrast to the intent of this material investigation !! Just because it appears very strongly that the Spiricom story may be far less than legit, I don't see how the jump to assume this is shooting down I.T.C. as a valid phenomenon and field of study makes sense. I've been getting to know Dr. Rorke long distance for over five years now through hundreds of thoughtful interactions . He has been 100 % exceptional in his strong level and ability for critical thinking, while just as strongly fair in all his assessments of challenging questions and material I've run by him. He has observed countless samples of E.V.P. I've sent him, and has been directly involved with rare levels of E.V.P. interruptions during our phone calls.... he knows there's something to this, and he intends to investigate this as a grounded and critically thinking scientific mind ... he just thinks that if Spiricom is a foundation for many people's inspiration to conduct I.T.C. experiments and a core to the field of I.T.C. itself, while it is suggestively based in major falsehood, he sees it as a crucial point of attention, in honoring the integrity of this field of study, to clean up this ( mis. ) or more likely, disinformation. I have come to understand that many people don't really go very far with their homework... myself included.... but then again, I don't think anyone can accurately accuse me of ever trying call myself some sort of expert or authority on this subject.. I'm an experimentor, and I dare say that I've achieved results from years of very hard levels of hands on innovative, and practically creative experimentation. Well in any case, I've left this stuff alone for the better part of two years.... I know potent and mindblowing things are waiting for me and my microphone whenever I decide to to pick it up. I've explained my position over and over again, so it's still about the same, although no doubt missed. Back to Dr. Rorke. After reading just some of what he has collected, it impresses upon me how dedicated he must be to go to such great lengths to obtain so much in the way of ' exhibits " of evidence on this matter.. I just finished the initial completion of the site... I have yet to read through it myself.... I purposely held off, so I could rest a little, then treat myself as a general visitor to the site for reading through the entire material... I figure a few more days will get me there ! Peace .............. Brian J. Dr. Rorke will clarify all of this given the opportunities. Thanks for the interest. Last edited on Oct 24th, 2008 06:29 AM by Keith Clark |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 20th, 2008 07:34 PM |
|
4th Post |
|
Slider2732 Member
|
ITC is such a broad area of research and, while Spiricom undoubtedly has played a large part in the development of devices soldered up all over the world, it need not itself be considered a large part of ITC today. A historical marker for inventive individuals to carry forward ideas and concepts maybe, but not the cornerstone on which the whole 'movement' is based. That would be to say that ITC wouldn't exist...it's doubtful whether a large part of the experimenting community even knows much about Spiricom and yet they undertake experiments daily that do produce results of interest and intrigue. They then may wonder if anyone has done something similar and find such a site as Keith has here. Reading posts on this site has often driven some ideas of my own forward. After beginning TV feedback ITC in 2003, it was only on becoming a member of this site a short while ago that I even heard about Spiricom. Many people have found successes using different methods that may have been forwarded by the wonderings of the Spiricom team. LED frequency manipulations, scanning radios, any number of current devices might have been in some part created because Spiricom did something radical too. If the Spiricom team duped people out of money then that was what it was...doesn't mean every idea was negated, when later used by ITC researchers. Doesn't mean that people need avail themselves of conspiracy thoughts about the original research. As I say, nothing really holds any current worth and certainly would turn nothing upside down for the ITC experimenters of today. While the various persons mentioned on the site may have questionable backgrounds, reasons for involvement and fictitious titles etcetera, such is the speed of progression of science, electronics and especially peoples awareness through the internet, that most of the apparent argument lies with historical concerns. Quite why Mark Macy is attacked so strongly is beyond me, if he's a bad egg then that's all there is to it. He may be and he may not be, same argument would be for someone like Bob Lazar of rocket car and S4 Area 51 infamy. And that is my main point. Rather than steer people toward a conclusion that Spiricom never really existed as a scientific project or whatever the ultimate wish from Dr. Rorke is, the findings amount to little more than a historical wandering ! If, persons mentioned within the website or outside of it are making money from their ventures and directly citing Spiricom as a cash cow, then that is where value would be with the research. If not, then Dr. Rorke needs to inform about why he has such the gripe over something that's been and gone. If he plans to release a book on the subject, then wouldn't that be a carry on of the very ethics being questioned ? As with anything related to spirit contact, it matters little where the ideas are based, just that something is done with them to prove they may or may not hold further potential. If people wish to exactly copy the plans for a Spiricom device, with the purpose of reaching the other side, is it no more than a heads up from your site that they might be wasting their relaxation time and to go and watch a movie instead ?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 20th, 2008 09:03 PM |
|
5th Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator 
|
Hello gentlemen........ Let me start by saying that I respect both of your opinions in reference to this post. Brian, thank you for your post and the manner in which it was presented. It seems that we all know the rules of the game, ie. the respect expected here on the forum, and I am glad to see that standard upheld. I know that is sometimes difficult when debating on a charged subject that hits close to home. As of the present, I found the information on the website to be very informative - much more informative than the previous attempt that I am already familiar with. In an honest assessment of myself, my first reaction to the website and the subject in question as posted here by Brian and presented on the website by Dr. Stephen Rorke, was an unpleasant one. Typically, I am most comfortable focusing on the positive. It is only when I am positive that I feel that real progress can be made. I had a negative experience once, and the resulting lesson was the metamorphosis that somewhat prepared me to create this forum. I will stick by that plan. That aside, I have just navigated through the majority of the site. After completing my initial reading, I feel that there are many points that I find to be very important. It would be fair to mention that there are also valid points made by Mark (Slider2732) that I am in total agreement with. ******************************************************************* I will make a few comments on the foremost things that enter my mind. This is my opinion, and in no way reflects on whether I think Spiricom was real or not. To be truthful, I really don't care one way or the other. It will not change the way in which I work or what I work towards;however, if other people want to debate the validity of something in the past, that is their option. Sometimes there is a need for both kinds of people. First, is there a way to get a better copy of the Scientific American article? I actually considered transcribing it, then my better judgement decided against it. It was readable, but very difficult. This article has been mentioned many times, and I think it's great that we can actually see it. I was glad to see that Mark (Slider2732) had been thinking along the same lines. Second, I took the time to analyze the ITC picture of "Doc Mueller" in question and am in agreement with the opinion that it is extremely similar to the picture it is compared to in Dr. Rorke's argument. An adjustment of exposure in Photoshop led me to this conclusion. I am no expert, but I have spent the last several years looking at images of my work. In that work I frequently look at an image from multiple angles, and adjustment of contrast, brightness, and exposure. Most of my pictures are very subtle, as all of you know. The photo I used to make my own observations was not retrieved from the website mentioned in the first post of this thread. I am of the opinion that there used to be glasses in the ITC photo, and that an attempt was made to remove them. Now, to play the other side of the field - there are a couple of areas of Dr. Rorke's argument that I disagree with. I did not find that mention of Mark Macy's educatory degree of any particular value. There are many people who get diplomas from various schools that are not accredited by the "appropriate authority." Does that make a degree invalid? Who decides that a degree issued by a school other than the commonly accepted appropriate authorities is not on par with the rest of society? I can understand how other people with credentials may feel that the value of their degree is cheapened by comparison with that of a non-accredited school. If I wanted to go to college today and study specific subjects in the metaphysical realm, I think that almost all of the schools are not going to be accredited. Am I wrong? If I go to one of these schools and acquire a degree, does that mean that I am not allowed to use it in public? I think this is a matter of opinion. Then again, how would I know? I don't have any degrees. *************************************************************** Well, enough on my part for now. ITC Bridge is always going to be somewhat neutral on these issues, depending on the circumstances. I cannot stand up for something which is not mine, something which depends upon the opinions and experiences of others. I can weigh the evidence that is presented, but sometimes only the people involved know the absolute truth. Further discussion on this subject is welcome. All forum rules apply. Keith ***This material may only be reproduced with written permission of the author, and must be printed in its entirety, exactly as is shown.***
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 20th, 2008 09:58 PM |
|
6th Post |
|
Brian Jones Member
|
To address one point.. and this no doubt will get some of you upset.... Slider2732 ( Mark ) not Macy or ? I find Mark Macy's character suspect, and this audio might get some of you up to speed. http://www.spiricomstudy.com/files/10d_.mp3 I have personally found disappointment in this man over the years.. yes my interactions with him have been quite limited, but his overall theme towards me in my approaches and inquiries toward him have been consistently disappointing. I agree with Dr. Rorke, Mark is a bully... if you want to rise above reacting in his defense without reading the evidence available on http://www.spiricomstudy.com that is your choice, but I think this ought to be shown some fair hearing by those who would invest in knowledge as well as opinion. So also let me be blunt on this point ... Slider2732... are you Mark Macy ? Last edited on Oct 20th, 2008 10:12 PM by Brian Jones |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 20th, 2008 10:00 PM |
|
7th Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
I suppose it is appropriate to share the reason I came to one of my conslusions. The rim of the non-existent glasses on the left and the shadow of the eyeglasses on the right are the two items that led me to my current conclusion. Keith ***This material may only be reproduced with written permission of the author, and must be printed in its entirety, exactly as is shown.*** Attached Image (viewed 798 times):
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 20th, 2008 10:20 PM |
|
8th Post |
|
Brian Jones Member
|
Good work Keith ! .... I've literally been a back bencher on this matter all along until very recently. I see the obvious in your photo ' exhibits ' here.... like Dr. Rorke instructed me to paste across the picture of Bill O'Neil standing in front of the Spiricom on our index page ... TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION ! So I will add this : Something else does !
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 21st, 2008 06:28 AM |
|
9th Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Slider is not Mark Macy. Please observe his original introductory post: http://www.itcbridge.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=445&forum_id=23 Saying that Mark Macy's character is questionable would be the farthest extent of what ITC bridge would allow - and only that because it is linked to elsewhere and I believe in free speech. Saying that he is a "bully" is out of bounds, and inappropriate for this forum. Please keep the character attacks elsewhere. Those are the kind of things we want to avoid on this forum. The subject matter of this thread is allowed because it focuses on much more than Mark Macy, and the idea of Spiricom. If the entire website was about Mark Macy and his character, it would not be welcome here. Please keep balance. Thanks, Keith
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 21st, 2008 12:53 PM |
|
10th Post |
|
Slider2732 Member
|
I concur with the thoughts about the questionable character of Mr. Macy. Only because I haven't encountered any positive perceptions of his character. I don't know him, have never met him and it would be up to him to resolve perceptions. If someone is anything like myself, people with the same forename are often noted, much more when the first and last name of the person is the same. Kind of wonder if their name lead them down particular routes, shaped elements of their life...all just idle curiosities. Interestingly, name connections in themselves like this help to allow more understanding of the Dr. Mueller problem area of the Spiricom research. Interestingly too, the same aggressive tone of the website was used by Brian in the asking of any name connection of myself. Mark is hardly a rare name, but jumping around like that in bold letters really is for this messageboard. The website does have an importance in linking together many areas, for a broader understanding of the names, locations, time frames and correspondence. As part of a wider site, looking at professionally weighed up evidence and debunking, it could become a very valuable resource. In such a way, the site may have the same URL name, deal with Spiricom and Dr. Rorke's findings, but have more relevance to current techniques and understandings of processes which may be at work. It could easily work as a real world factual debunk type of site and allow findings to carry the impact. Being challenged and kept true to fundamentals, rather than fanciful notions, is an important area of ITC work. Of note, I hope, is that my usual online presence is the same as offline in being placid and keenly supportive of individuals. The manner in which the site describes evidence detracts from that evidence...prompting my stand for a little more of a balanced approach within spiricomstudy.com. Last edited on Oct 21st, 2008 12:56 PM by Slider2732 |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 21st, 2008 04:05 PM |
|
11th Post |
|
Cougar Member 
|
Hello, Brian, Mark and Keith! Although I don't post much, Mark has brought this subject to my attention, and I thought I might add a few thoughts of my own. First of all, I am Mark's wife (if you may recall, Keith), and I can attest that he is NOT the Mark Macy in question.  I'm pretty sure the name on our marriage certificate is not Macy.  Brian, I respect your point of view. A healthy skepticism is necessary for the progression of research. However, I think many people forget the true meaning of the word "skeptic." I took this from Wikipedia, from the topic "skeptic": "In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to (a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object; (b) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or (c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster). In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about (a) an inquiry, (b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing, (c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values, (d) the limitations of knowledge, (e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment." Please note that the definition of skeptic does NOT imply that what is disbelieved is true. It is a method by which one studies a subject in order to present an opposing alternative to presented material WITHOUT claiming something to be true. "Suspended judgment" is what is called for, not claiming a conclusion. In that light, BOTH skeptics and believers should remain open minded. Brian, you quoted the line which was placed over the pics on the opening page of the Spiricom Study site: "TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION !" What is "truth?" Isn't that what we're all trying find? Evidence may eventually point to a conclusion which then generally becomes accepted as truth. However, I hope we can all agree that this field is so new and so challenging that no absolute concrete proof has been generated one way or the other. We each have our individual truths, do we not? Case in point: I do believe we survive bodily death, but Mark is still looking for evidence one way or the other. I believe that was all Thomas Edison wanted. Did he not state that he didn't know if there was life after death, that he merely wished to research ways to facilitate communication IF there was? I noted the article was dated 1920. The Spiritualist movement which began with the Foxx Sisters was ebbing at that time, having enjoyed a brief resurgence during and after World War I. The Society for Psychical Research had debunked and defrauded many (but not all) mediums from the rise of the movement up to Edison's time. I know this is probably not news to you, but I present it as edification for those who may not know the history. I would imagine a man of Edison's stature would be very cautious at this point not to present himself as a proponent of Spiritualism. According to The Death and Afterlife Book: An Encyclopedia of Death, Near Death and Life After Death by James R. Lewis,1 the Spiricom was not developed until 1982: "EVP researchers were tantalized by new possibilities when in 1982 George Meek, a retired engineer, announced that he and William O'Neill, a medium and electronics expert, had constructed an instrument throuigh which one could communicate with spirits of the dead. Instructions for the device had been given in a seance, and they called it Spiricom. Meek made the information necessary to build Spiricom widely available, but no one who actually put together such an instrument reported that it worked satisfactorily. Some people in the field speculated that Meek's own success with Spiricom was a function of O'Neill's abilities as a psychic medium." It appears it was acknowledged even at the time that Spiricom wasn't successful. So, why the argument? Was the conclusion made that becuase Spiricom didn't work satisfactorily that ALL scientific attempts to facilitate communication with the dead are fraudulent? O'Neill may have been out to make a buck, I don't know. But should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Hans Holzer asserted in Ghosts: True Encounters with the World Beyond2 that one must be psychic to perceive and receive information from the dead: "For us to be able to see or hear a ghost requires a gift known as psychic ability or ESP--extrasensory perception. Professor Joseph Banks Rhine of Duke University thinks of ESP as an extra sense. Some have referred to it as "the sixth sense," although I rather think the gift of ESP is merely an extension of the ordinary senses beyond their usual limitations. If you don't have ESP, you're not likely to encounter a ghost or connect with the spirit of a loved one. Take heart, however: ESP is very common, in varying degrees, and about half of all people are capable of it. It is, in my view, a normal gift that has in many instances been neglected or suppressed for various reasons, chiefly ignorance or fear. Psychic ability is being recognized and used today worldwide in many practical applications. Scientific research, business, and criminal investigations have utilized this medium to extend the range of ordinary research." While my own personal truth does not coincide with Holzer's (I do not feel one has to be psychic to experience paranormal activity), I merely present this as a possibility. If Holzer is right, and if one needs to be psychic to experience paranormal activity, wouldn't it then follow that the Spiricom actually worked for O'Neill because he was psychic, but wouldn't work for those who aren't? Just a thought. It's good to have a mentor, someone from whom you can learn, but please be careful not to close your mind and accept someone else's truth as your own. If you've come to the same conclusion after careful research and feel innately that this is your truth, great! However, this is an area where innumerable beliefs abound and not everybody has studied the same material; indeed, we are still just trying to find ways to study this field! Spiricom has its history in ITC, just as the Kittyhawk had its history in aviation. What Frank and Orville Wright's truly intrinsic motivations for developing manned flight were, we don't know. Were they out to make a buck? Perhaps. But you can bet they made a few modifications and had a few crashes before they successfully took flight. If it weren't for them, however, Mark and I wouldn't be married! (He's from England, I, the United States). So, whatever the motivation, there it is. Thank you for your time -- Cougar 1The Death and Afterlife Book: The Encyclopedia of Death, Near Death, and Life After Death, Lewis, James R.; pp. 130-131; 2001 by Visible Ink Press 2Ghosts: True Encounters with the World Beyond, Holzer, Hans; p.29; 1997 by Aspera Ad Astra Inc.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 21st, 2008 07:12 PM |
|
12th Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
I have a comment in agreement with a part of Slider's above post. Here it is simply: If Dr. Rorke wants to prove his case about Spiricom not being valid, then that's fine. My question is this - after the dust has settled and some satisfaction has or hasn't been attained, what is going to be done to further the knowledge of life after death? If a hoax was perpetrated, what good is going to come of its discovery? What is the end result, and has anyone been helped. To be sure, if the same intense attention and thorough research was applied to proving life after death - some serious ground could be covered. That's what I'm interested in. Keith
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 21st, 2008 07:25 PM |
|
13th Post |
|
Keith Clark Administrator
|
Hi Cougar, I wanted to reply to you separately. Thank you for sharing your opinion, your points are well taken. Your comment is well-spoken and organized. Keith
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Oct 21st, 2008 11:14 PM |
|
14th Post |
|
Brian Jones Member
|
Hi everyone, obviously we've got some energetic thinkers here !! I just read through these last posts.. I agree with cougar... truth is illusive, seemingly ultimately individual, and maybe never tangible in the truest sense of earthly perceptions... of course, we could all pick that random spontaneous bit of words I just threw out apart for eternity, but I'd rather not, or the countless words available constantly .... We talk about striving to understand and desire to validate more and more evidence about the afterlife being real.... Well I will say this once again, I didn't get into I.T.C. to the degree that I had, to spend my time and energies participating in infinite contemplations which would never generate or produce tangible bits of audio evidence, from my best overall observations, this seems to satisfy so many people discussing I.T.C. I asked months ago for focused feedback here on one single point of my hard earned discovery work ... and yes I did use emboldened fonts in a so far futile attempt to emphasize my more pertinent points of concern, hoping that this would increase my odds of actually being heard and answered. I asked for feedback on what others might hear of the audio I deeply analyzed, purportedly of Bill O'Neil from the vintage Spiricom material where I heard my first name jump out at me... Keith Clark is the only soul that offered any bit of feedback on this... if you go look, I did not presuggest what I had heard, yet he heard it too, and typed so. Thank you again Keith ! I've been sitting on the big fence, contemplating the fact that I can readily document interaction with the voices constantly, yet I've had to go down too many roads of dead ended reactions forever it seems... Dr. Rorke and I agree, direct, energetic and focused peer review on evidence presented is a foundation stone for the basic process of scientific discovery, yet it seems to be as rare as observing a bigfoot creature on display in a public zoo. Thanks for the reminders of the collective perpsective's reality, and the obvious differential of my perceptions to those of others... I'll get back to my I.T.C. work if ever, once I get to the point of needing absolutely no assistance in the process. But then what would that be...? No hard feelings... well, maybe just a little disappointed.. but why don't we just say that's me ! Peace all ! Thanks again Keith... you are a good guy ! I'll be moving on for awhile now ~ Brian J.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 05:49 AM | |
| ITC Bridge > Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) > Dedicated SPIRICOM Forum > Was the Spiricom story based on false information ? | Top |
