REVERSE SPEECH. DAVID OATES. SKEPTICS SOCIETY.
I went to the great Randi’s website and of course the great Randi is still writing very good columns and if you only read his stuff there would be nothing to be alarmed about. You would think it was just like the good old days when the Skeptics were giants awash in an ocean of 70’s superstition.
But then I noticed that on the global warming threads the kids, affecting to be skeptics, had been more or less totally taken in by this largest and most blatant of frauds. And so I went to try and ascertain the alleged skeptical youngsters attitude to reverse speech. To see if they had successfully debunked it or had they possibly seen cause to pursue this matter.
Here is what we find:
I followed the link in the indigo child forum to this site and can’t help but be amazed at how thoroughly people can convince themselves of perceiving exactly what they want.
This is definitely another instance for my SUASAS Stick.
MY COMMENT: SO HE JUST DISMISSES THE REVERSE-SPEECH TECHNIQUE, ON THE BASIS OF A RELIGIOUS PERSON TAKING THE IDEA AND JUMPING TO SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT TO DO WITH SPIRITUALITY. THIS ALLEGED SKEPTIC MERELY ASSUMES HE KNOWS WHAT HE CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW UNLESS HE HIMSELF HAS BEEN MUCKING ABOUT WITH RUNNING TAPES BACKWARDS. HE IMPLIES THAT HE IS PRIVY TO WHAT AMOUNTS TO OCCULT KNOWLEDGE. kNOWLEDGE DIVORCED FROM A PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION. HENCE WHAT WE SEE HERE IS NOT A SKEPTIC AT ALL. BUT A LEFTIST RUNNING A LEFTIST-REVERSAL.
MY COMMENTS. I’VE SEEN THIS “NEXT” BUSINESS BEFORE. WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THE MATTER THIS FELLOW GOES FOR THE OCCULT VIEW OF KNOWLEDGE AS WELL. THINKS HE CAN KNOW THINGS THAT HE CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE 70’S SKEPTICS, LIKE IAN PLIMER, AND THE GREAT RANDI (STILL ALIVE AND DOING GREAT WORK OF COURSE) WERE ABOUT.
…truh attog s’taht ,hcuO
MY COMMENT. SO HERE WE ARE DOWN TO A SORT OF ADRIEN-ARGUMENT. THE OCCULT IDEA THAT BEING FLIPPANT CAN AFFECT THE REALITY OUTSIDE ONES HEAD.
Well its been very disappointing catching up with this movement. Like running into these clowns who claim to be Milton Friedman fans after not paying any attention to that world for about 20 years. The same sort of degradation of the movement. The same nobodies and know-nothings hitching their wagons to their betters for purposes of ludicrous attempts to secure street cred.
I would have been happy to have seen them conduct a beginning debunking of this speech reversal. It would have saved me a lot of time. Because speech-reversal looks promising to me, but it will be awhile before I am in a position to either further confirm this exciting and important idea, or alternatively discover that there is little or nothing in it.
We are not in the position to confirm OR REJECT the usefulness of David Oates’ analytical technique without looking at independent reversed speech to see if he is creating a valid impression. Obviously if he is creating a valid impression this is a REVOLUTION. And it IS IMPORTANT not to reject such a thing in error and through willful ignorance.