Speaker 1: Oh thats are and welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: This is the Cult of Conspiracy. My name's Jonathan, and
Speaker 2: today we are getting a little spooky, a little in
Speaker 2: the spirit of Halloween, and we're going to be talking
Speaker 2: about something that most people probably haven't heard of. I
Speaker 2: do want to give a major shout out to the
Speaker 2: Museum of Tarot. I follow him on Instagram. Great guy.
Speaker 2: I eventually would love to get him on the show.
Speaker 2: I've talked to him, talked to I talked about him
Speaker 2: in the past before because he's the one that kind
Speaker 2: of brought back the Disian and goggles, which are badass.
Speaker 2: I'm like super impressed that he was able to do that.
Speaker 2: But he was talking about this story and I thought,
Speaker 2: maybe I'll look a little bit deeper into it, and
Speaker 2: holy shit, have you ever heard of Fillip the Ghost?
Speaker 3: Fill up the Ghost? Give me an area of the
Speaker 3: world we're talking about?
Speaker 4: I have?
Speaker 2: Well, this was like forty years ago ish, I don't
Speaker 2: remember exactly what the date was, but basically, this group
Speaker 2: of people called the Owen Group, they all got together
Speaker 2: and decided, Yeah it was in the seventies, so about
Speaker 2: fifty years ago now, but they all got together and
Speaker 2: they were trying to, you know, lab science style, try
Speaker 2: and figure out what's really going on whenever somebody creates,
Speaker 2: whenever somebody does like a seance or to try and
Speaker 2: create a ghost or a tulpa or an egg rigor
Speaker 2: like what really goes on, like out of the spiritual mentality,
Speaker 2: out of the religious mentality, Like we're just gonna document
Speaker 2: whatever happens and just try and see if there are
Speaker 2: people out there that are just full of shit, or
Speaker 2: if there's actually something to it. Maybe there is something
Speaker 2: to it, but that people don't understand exactly what they're
Speaker 2: communicating with and so they're trying to really just completely
Speaker 2: open minded, third eye all the way open as we
Speaker 2: like to say, and and just trying to figure out
Speaker 2: what went down with it. And so yeah, it's it's
Speaker 2: pretty interesting, dude. And I think that for anybody out
Speaker 2: there that is ghost hunting or staying at haunted hotels
Speaker 2: and haunted houses like actual ones, not like carnival shit,
Speaker 2: and or anybody that is taken there. What is it
Speaker 2: called like an EVP, is that how they tracked the
Speaker 2: ghost shit.
Speaker 3: It's not an EMP. That's the electromagnetic poles. I know
Speaker 3: he's talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, basically to try and pick up on some kind
Speaker 2: of ghost sounds. And dude, I actually got a lot
Speaker 2: of hate from from uh my opinion about what was
Speaker 2: actually going on with that, because people really they really
Speaker 2: believe that, hey, we can talk to ghosts, We're talking
Speaker 2: to disembodied spirits, right, And this basically people that were
Speaker 2: in like the that are real into ghost hunting and
Speaker 2: and just trying to pick up, you know, with with
Speaker 2: their little devices maybe some disembodied sounds or something like that.
Speaker 2: Although I do hate met on the cult on the cult, yeah,
Speaker 2: like in the comments because I mentioned it like a
Speaker 2: while back, and uh, but that's fine. I mean, everybody's
Speaker 2: entitled with their own opinion. But yeah, and and basically
Speaker 2: what I was saying is is that, you know, I
Speaker 2: believe that what's really going on is is that you're
Speaker 2: putting out the energy and the emotion of wanting to
Speaker 2: connect with something that is outside of you and maybe
Speaker 2: maybe like somehow, some way, we are the ones that
Speaker 2: are generating what we're picking up those on those devices.
Speaker 4: But doesn't that.
Speaker 3: Take away from the validity then And I'm not saying
Speaker 3: this that's some sort of a matter of fact thing
Speaker 3: I'm genuinely curious in your opinion. Right, So talk about
Speaker 3: the double set experiment. Right, molecules and atoms know when
Speaker 3: they are being watched, and they behave differently based upon this. Right,
Speaker 3: setting intentions is important because it can literally change your
Speaker 3: environment if you do it in such a way.
Speaker 4: So I get this.
Speaker 3: So if you are going out, and you're going let's
Speaker 3: say it's just some abandoned house and there's some local
Speaker 3: rumor and legend about what went down in this house
Speaker 3: thirty years ago, and you go in there with your
Speaker 3: devices and your spirit box and your whatever else, right,
Speaker 3: and you are trying to pick up on something, but
Speaker 3: you are like wanting so hard to pick up on
Speaker 3: something that any small thing becomes.
Speaker 2: You heard it too, right, You just heard it.
Speaker 3: In reality, it was like a blip as opposed to
Speaker 3: somebody who's going in there. Just like, listen, I'm not
Speaker 3: saying I do or don't believe in shit. I'm just
Speaker 3: here to take some readings and they pick up on readings. Right,
Speaker 3: one of them seems more valid than the other, doesn't it?
Speaker 3: Or am I just kind of making stuff up here?
Speaker 2: I mean, and I don't know. I've never been ghost
Speaker 2: hunting per se, but just as an outsider looking in,
Speaker 2: I kind of look at that as we're the ones
Speaker 2: that are the battery that is ultimately creating that, whether
Speaker 2: it be energy or something that is emitting from us,
Speaker 2: not necessarily that we're picking something up on the outside.
Speaker 2: And I actually believe, and I could be wrong on this,
Speaker 2: This is just an idea. I believe that it's possible
Speaker 2: that that's what people are like picking up on whenever
Speaker 2: they go bigfoot hunting too.
Speaker 3: So just so we're all on the same page here,
Speaker 3: even because you've done this research before, he presents it
Speaker 3: to me here this evening. Okay, So I have no
Speaker 3: idea where we're about to go. First time hearing about
Speaker 3: Philip the ghosts, I thought I might know this is.
Speaker 3: This is from America, Europe?
Speaker 2: What I oh, you know what, I don't exactly know
Speaker 2: where it is. We're gonna read about it.
Speaker 4: We'll get you.
Speaker 3: So you are still, even after your research, you're still
Speaker 3: of the belief that this is basically people manifesting these things.
Speaker 3: It's not something that's inherent in this house and they
Speaker 3: are just picking up with their with their readers and
Speaker 3: shiit as of right now, like I'm saying the person's
Speaker 3: the battery.
Speaker 2: That's kind of like where I lean. I'm not saying
Speaker 2: that I one hundred percent know. It's just like you know,
Speaker 2: that's where my gut tells me, and it's and to
Speaker 2: be honest, whenever it comes to this, this experiment that
Speaker 2: we're about to talk about, even they left it open
Speaker 2: ended just so we're clear, like it's not like an
Speaker 2: open and shut case, So feel free to have an
Speaker 2: opinion whenever we're we're reading through. I'm not going to
Speaker 2: have like a gotcha moment or on this because I
Speaker 2: don't know, they don't know. They kind of just left
Speaker 2: it up to like, Yo, this is what we documented
Speaker 2: and uh, it's not what you thought, you know, like
Speaker 2: at least the data that they were able to collect
Speaker 2: on it. So we are going to be talking about
Speaker 2: how a psychical research group brought Phillip the Ghosts to life.
Speaker 2: Are you ready for this one?
Speaker 5: Dude?
Speaker 3: I am, dude, let's fucking go yes, Yes, And so yeah,
Speaker 3: I did want to say if anybody wants to be
Speaker 3: able to see the articles that we are that we're
Speaker 3: going to be alluding to rather than just hearing about it,
Speaker 3: then come over to Patreon dot com slash Cult of
Speaker 3: Conspiracy podcast.
Speaker 2: That link is down the show notes below. It's the
Speaker 2: best way to be able to support us, and we
Speaker 2: appreciate all the good Cult members who have done so already.
Speaker 2: The main reason why most people come over to Patreon
Speaker 2: is because it is completely yeah buddy, But we also
Speaker 2: have several tiers over there. So you want to pay
Speaker 2: for the five dollars chaer, you get access to everything
Speaker 2: except what you get on the ten dollars tier, which
Speaker 2: is everything include voting the live show every Tuesday night
Speaker 2: at nine pm Central with the Cult members who sign
Speaker 2: up for the Third Eye All the Way Open tier.
Speaker 2: So you want to be a part of the live show,
Speaker 2: come over and join us. We have a free week
Speaker 2: trial anybody that's interested in that, and maybe if you
Speaker 2: get get through that free week trial. We also have
Speaker 2: a deal going on right now to where if you
Speaker 2: sign up for a whole year, you get three months off.
Speaker 2: Doesn't matter what tear you sign up for, it's three
Speaker 2: months off. So it's quite a deal right now because
Speaker 2: our Third Eye All the Way Open tier is ten
Speaker 2: dollars a month. But whenever you take the three months off,
Speaker 2: now you're only paying ninety bucks for the entire year, right,
Speaker 2: and so it's it's pretty sweet. So yeah, just want
Speaker 2: to throw that out there. So now we are going
Speaker 2: to go to live about dot com. This is my
Speaker 2: first time ever hearing of this website and we actually
Speaker 2: got two of their articles today, so shout out to them. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: how a psychical research group brought Phillip the Ghost to life.
Speaker 2: Now you might be wondering what the fuck is this
Speaker 2: goal research group? That's kind of like if you remember
Speaker 2: back in the seventies, the CIA was doing a lot
Speaker 2: of remote viewing shit, and you know all the weird
Speaker 2: physic psychic shit that they were doing back then kind
Speaker 2: of the same thing, right, Like Uri Geller was never
Speaker 2: a CIA agent, He just worked on behalf of them,
Speaker 2: and like a bunch of other people like that that
Speaker 2: were super into consciousness and quantum stuff and you know,
Speaker 2: like the spooky action at a distance that nobody can
Speaker 2: really understand or explain like that kind of stuff. So
Speaker 2: just want to throw it out there. And we also
Speaker 2: have an article about how Northilpe Grumming is going to say,
Speaker 2: well you can't do this, We're gonna We're gonna create
Speaker 2: some electronics that allow you to do it. Okay, so
Speaker 2: it's gonna get really weird. I had to bring them
Speaker 2: in because I saw that article and I was like,
Speaker 2: get the fuck out of here. You want to talk
Speaker 2: about transhumanists. That's really this is like what I believe
Speaker 2: they're really trying to do. They want people to get
Speaker 2: suit super excited about this kind of stuff and look
Speaker 2: into it and maybe even try it and then give
Speaker 2: up because most people are into you know, one or
Speaker 2: two or three minute videos before they move on to
Speaker 2: the next one on TikTok and you know, everywhere else,
Speaker 2: and so they know that the patience that the people
Speaker 2: have is very thin. It's you need a lot of patients.
Speaker 2: Whatever you're doing, like this kind of work, right, like
Speaker 2: these people. Some people they do it for a couple
Speaker 2: of days without getting any signs. Most people just move on, right.
Speaker 2: And so nowadays you have the military industrial complex saying
Speaker 2: don't worry, we got your back.
Speaker 3: So I mean, you tell me we're combining ghosties with
Speaker 3: the military industrial complex. I mean, you have my undivided attention, sir.
Speaker 3: Let's fucking go.
Speaker 2: Let's go. So but first we before we get to that,
Speaker 2: So it starts out by saying this, consider these familiar experiences.
Speaker 2: A group of teenagers gathered around a Wiji board receives
Speaker 2: mysterious messages from a person spirit who claims to have
Speaker 2: died forty years ago. A parent normal society conducts a
Speaker 2: seance where they contact a ghost that communicates by rapping
Speaker 2: on a table. And I didn't know what rapping on
Speaker 2: a table meant, so I had to look it up.
Speaker 2: Wrapping on a table, happing, Well, it says rapping table rap, but.
Speaker 4: That also like hitting or tapping.
Speaker 2: So table rapping refers to the sounds of knocking or
Speaker 2: tapping made on the table, often attributed to spirits communicating
Speaker 2: with the living during spiritualist sessions.
Speaker 6: So I did.
Speaker 2: I'd never heard of that term before. You think I
Speaker 2: would have, but nope, it was my first time. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I've never really done the whole seance thing though, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean i'd be interested, I'd be interested, but no anyhow. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: and continuing, the residents of a of a century old
Speaker 2: home see the spirit of a young child playing in
Speaker 2: the hallway. Everybody's heard of these stories and maybe you've
Speaker 2: seen a movie on it, right, Yeah, so what are
Speaker 2: these manifestations. Are they truly the ghosts of departed people
Speaker 2: or are they creations of the minds of the people
Speaker 2: who see them? Quite the interesting question. There so many
Speaker 2: researchers of the paranormal suspect that some ghostly manifestations in
Speaker 2: poltergeist phenomena, whether it be objects flying through the air
Speaker 2: or unexplained footsteps and door slamming, are products of the
Speaker 2: human mind. To test that idea, a fascinating experiment was
Speaker 2: conducted in the early seventies by the Toronto Society for
Speaker 2: Psychical Research also known as TSPR to see if they
Speaker 2: could create a ghost. They were trying to create this
Speaker 2: fucking thing right out of thin air. The idea was
Speaker 2: just to assemble a group of people who would make
Speaker 2: up a completely fictional character and then through seances, see
Speaker 2: if they could contact him and receive messages and other
Speaker 2: physical or physical phenomena, perhaps even an apparition. So I
Speaker 2: saw that, and of course I grab my attention right,
Speaker 2: It's it's crazy.
Speaker 3: You got a group of people to create, I guess,
Speaker 3: for the lack of better words here an imaginary friend,
Speaker 3: and then they were going to see it. They could
Speaker 3: make technology to communicate with this thing.
Speaker 2: Well, they had the technology to be able to record it,
Speaker 2: and not even just technology. I mean you're talking about
Speaker 2: like and we're going to get into it, but you're
Speaker 2: whatever somebody might experience that is paranormal within a seance,
Speaker 2: within ouiji borg, within a tarot reading even right, like
Speaker 2: whatever kind of spooky action that you know, oh my god,
Speaker 2: that I know that there's a spirit here, right, whatever
Speaker 2: kind of shit that is, and how they would record it.
Speaker 2: This is what they're trying to document. It is the
Speaker 2: actual physical evidence of this thing existing. And so they
Speaker 2: were trying to create one to try and see like,
Speaker 2: all right, are these disembodied spirits or is this something
Speaker 2: that the human mind is literally creating? And there's it's
Speaker 2: kind of a perceptual reality, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: So that is where we birth Philip, Oh, Philip the
Speaker 2: tspr under, the guy of doctor A. R. G. Owen
Speaker 2: three initials, and then Owen assembled a group of eight
Speaker 2: people called from its membership, none of whom claim to
Speaker 2: have any psychic gifts. The group, which became known as
Speaker 2: the Owen Group, consisted of doctor Owen's wife, a woman
Speaker 2: who was the former chairperson of MENSA. I don't know
Speaker 2: what that is, an industrial designer, an accountant, a housewife,
Speaker 2: a bookkeeper, and a sociology student. A psychologist named doctor
Speaker 2: Joel Whitten also attended many of the group sessions as
Speaker 2: an observer. The group's first task was to create their
Speaker 2: fictional character real quick.
Speaker 3: MENSA is a worldwide IQ group. That is, MENSA International
Speaker 3: is the largest and oldest high IQ society in the world.
Speaker 3: It is a non profit organization open to people who
Speaker 3: score at least at the ninety eighth percentile or hire
Speaker 3: on standardized Supervised IQ or other approved intelligence tests. If
Speaker 3: I'm not mistaken, Natalie Portman is also a MENSA member,
Speaker 3: along with Shakira Oh.
Speaker 2: Her hips didn't lie neither, and she.
Speaker 3: Also speaks four languages. He's actually fucking brilliant. But anyway,
Speaker 3: I do love me some Shakira.
Speaker 2: So anyway, that person and a bunch of other people
Speaker 2: got together and they were they So the group's first
Speaker 2: task was to create their fictional historical character, so literally,
Speaker 2: a fake character that they built the history off of,
Speaker 2: like they created history with right. So together they wrote
Speaker 2: a short biography of the person that they named Philip Aylesford.
Speaker 2: Here in part is that biography so it says. Philip
Speaker 2: was an aristocratic Englishman living in the middle sixteen hundreds
Speaker 2: at the time of Oliver Cromwell. He had been a
Speaker 2: supporter of the king and was a Catholic. He was
Speaker 2: married to a beautiful but cold and frigid wife, Dorothea,
Speaker 2: and the daughter of a neighboring nobleman. One day, when
Speaker 2: out riding on the boundaries of his estate, Philip came
Speaker 2: across a gypsy encampment, shout out to the gypsies and
Speaker 2: saw there a beautiful, dark eyed girl, raven haired gypsy girl, Margo,
Speaker 2: and fell instantly in love with her. He brought her
Speaker 2: back secretly to live in the gatehouse near the stables
Speaker 2: of Diddington Manor, his family home. For some time, he
Speaker 2: kept his love nest secret, but eventually Dorothea, realizing he
Speaker 2: was keeping someone else there, found Margo and accused her
Speaker 2: of witchcraft and stealing her husband. Philip was too scared
Speaker 2: of losing his reputation and his possessions to protest to
Speaker 2: protest at a trial of Margo, and she was convicted
Speaker 2: of witchcraft and burned at the stake. Philip was subsequently
Speaker 2: stricken with remorse that he had not tried to defend
Speaker 2: Margo and used to pace the battlements of Diddington in despair. Finally,
Speaker 2: one morning his body was found at the bottom of
Speaker 2: the battlements, whence he had cast himself in a fit
Speaker 2: of agony and remorse. So this is the fake history
Speaker 2: that they created this for this guy, right, this is.
Speaker 3: Very fake history because like, oh, I'm not trying to
Speaker 3: like poke holes in it because it's their narrative and
Speaker 3: I'm not trying to shit here. But like English in
Speaker 3: the sixteen hundreds, then he was a supporter of the king,
Speaker 3: but he was also a Catholic. That's conflating things here,
Speaker 3: because like the king was Protestant the sixteen hundred. They're
Speaker 3: not like King James the First, the writer of the
Speaker 3: King James Bible, Oliver Cromwell was a Protestant who murdered,
Speaker 3: genocidally murdered Irish Catholics. That's why I would say, to
Speaker 3: the day I die, fuck Oliver Cromwell. And yeah, this
Speaker 3: dude was a nobleman who was also Okay, it's kind
Speaker 3: of weird, it's a little out there, but that's kind of.
Speaker 2: The point in this case, right, Well, I mean you
Speaker 2: could also suggest that they that they did it that
Speaker 2: way on purpose because there couldn't have been this character
Speaker 2: whoever existed, right, They contradict too much so the Owen
Speaker 2: group even enlisted the artistic sick talents of one of
Speaker 2: its members to sketch a portrait of Philip with their creations.
Speaker 2: With their creation's life and appearance now firmly established in
Speaker 2: their minds, the group began the second phase of the
Speaker 2: experiment contact let's go okayby so, all of that, the history,
Speaker 2: the picture, you know what he looks like, you know
Speaker 2: where he comes from, you know what he's about, you
Speaker 2: know that he was kind of hoeing around on his
Speaker 2: wife whatever, right like that is cemented into the image
Speaker 2: that people have of this character that they're now trying
Speaker 2: to connect with through the use of a seance.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay.
Speaker 2: So in September of nineteen seventy two, the group began
Speaker 2: their sittings, informal gatherings in which they would discuss Philip
Speaker 2: and his life, meditate on him, and try to visualize
Speaker 2: their collective hallucination in more detail. These settings, conducting in
Speaker 2: a fully lit room, went on for about a year
Speaker 2: with no results. A year. Dude, this is how like
Speaker 2: consistent they were with the entire thing, right wow. Some
Speaker 2: members of the group occasionally claimed that they felt a
Speaker 2: presence in the room, but there was no result that
Speaker 2: they could consider any kind of communication from Philip, so
Speaker 2: they changed their tactics. The group decided that they might
Speaker 2: have better luck if they attempted to duplicate the atmosphere
Speaker 2: of a classic spiritualist seance. They dimmed the room's lights,
Speaker 2: sat around a table, sang songs, and surrounded themselves with
Speaker 2: pictures of the type of castle they imagined Philip would
Speaker 2: have lived in, as well as objects from that time period,
Speaker 2: and it worked during During one evening seance, the group
Speaker 2: received its first communication from Philip, in the form of
Speaker 2: a distinct rap on the table. Soon Philip was answering
Speaker 2: questions asked by the group. One rap for yes, two
Speaker 2: for no. They knew it was Philip because well, they
Speaker 2: asked him. I mean, hey, how else are you gonna
Speaker 2: get clarification on him? The sessions took off from there,
Speaker 2: producing a range of phenomena that could not be explained scientifically,
Speaker 2: though through the table rapping communication, the group was able
Speaker 2: to learn finer details about Philip's life. He even seemed
Speaker 2: to exhibit a personality conveying his likes and dislikes, and
Speaker 2: his strong views on various subjects, made plain by the
Speaker 2: enthusiasm or hesitancy of his knockings. His quote unquote spirit
Speaker 2: was also able to move the table, sliding it from
Speaker 2: side to side, despite the fact that the floor was
Speaker 2: covered with thick carpeting. At times, it would even dance
Speaker 2: on one leg. Okay, what yeah, dude, Yeah, it's fucking wild.
Speaker 3: And so this was Philip, like it told them, yep,
Speaker 3: I'm the guy you've been seeing, Like this is me.
Speaker 2: This is yeah. This They were calling him out and
Speaker 2: and like group meditating and trying to like bring him
Speaker 2: out right, and like the the table was moving around
Speaker 2: so much that it got up on fucking one leg, dude.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, this is much. This is much
Speaker 2: more than just a Ouiji board kind of setting here, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: a little bit. So now we get to Phillip's limitations
Speaker 2: and his power. This is going to be interesting. So
Speaker 2: that Philip was a creation of the group's collective imagination
Speaker 2: was evident in his limitations. Although he could accurately answer
Speaker 2: questions about events and people of his time period, it
Speaker 2: did not appear to be information that the group was
Speaker 2: unaware of. In other words, Philip's responses were coming from
Speaker 2: their subconscious, their own minds. Some members thought that they
Speaker 2: heard whispers and response to questions, but no voice was
Speaker 2: ever captured on tape. Philip's psychokinetic powers, however, were amazing
Speaker 2: and completely unexplained. That would be the table moving around,
Speaker 2: and the little wrappings and whatnot. If the group asked
Speaker 2: Philip to dim the lights, they would dim instantly. When
Speaker 2: asked to restore the lights, he would oblige. The table
Speaker 2: around which the group sat was almost always the focal
Speaker 2: point of peculiar phenomena. After feeling a cool breeze blow
Speaker 2: across the table, they asked Philip if he could cause
Speaker 2: it to start and stop at will. He could, and
Speaker 2: he did. The group noticed that the table itself felt
Speaker 2: different to the touch whenever Philip was present, having a
Speaker 2: subtle electric or a live quality. On a few occasions,
Speaker 2: a fine mist formed over the center of the table.
Speaker 2: Most astonishing, the group reported that the table would sometimes
Speaker 2: be so animated that it would rush over to that
Speaker 2: the table would be so animated that it would rush
Speaker 2: over to meet late comers, to the session or even
Speaker 2: trap members in the corner of the room. The table
Speaker 2: is moving, okay, just so are clear on that. Some
Speaker 2: people would say there's demons in here. Maybe there is.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I want to reserve my own opinions until we get
Speaker 4: the whole story.
Speaker 2: But all right, I mean weird, right, Like, if you'd
Speaker 2: never seen this before, you would assume that there is
Speaker 2: a fucking poltergeist about right a little bit so. The
Speaker 2: climax of the experiment was a seance conducted before a
Speaker 2: live audience of fifty people. The session was also filmed
Speaker 2: as part of a television documentary. Fortunately, Philip was not
Speaker 2: stage shy in perform above expectations. Besides table wrappings, other
Speaker 2: noises around the room, and making lights blink on and off,
Speaker 2: the group actually attained a full levitation on the table.
Speaker 2: It rose only a half inch above the floor, but
Speaker 2: it was but this incredible feat was witnessed by the
Speaker 2: group and and the film crew. Unfortunately, the dim lighting
Speaker 2: prevented the levitation from being captured on the film. Damn,
Speaker 2: imagine getting that caught on camera.
Speaker 4: Wow, And it.
Speaker 2: Says and by the way, I mean, we don't know
Speaker 2: these people could be full on shams, right, there's like
Speaker 2: it's hard to get validation and to find out if
Speaker 2: it's a real story. I'm more inclined to believe that
Speaker 2: it's real because these people literally they they dedicated, you know,
Speaker 2: a large portion of their life to try and figure
Speaker 2: what this, what this is for science? Right, So I mean,
Speaker 2: do do what you will with that.
Speaker 4: So we're gonna keep going here.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I pulled up in article actually shows the
Speaker 3: picture of Philip that they made in all of these things.
Speaker 4: So I'm excited.
Speaker 3: I am excited to see because apparently they made a
Speaker 3: movie based off of this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that that's what this is, the Philip Experiment.
Speaker 3: Oh, this is an actual video of it. So for
Speaker 3: anybody who doesn't know, if you ever heard of the
Speaker 3: movie The Quiet Ones, oh, that is based off of this.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, Yes, I actually have an
Speaker 2: article that's going to be showing like what parts are
Speaker 2: from this experiment and what parts did Hollywood take their
Speaker 2: own liberties too? So anybody has ever seen that?
Speaker 4: Interesting?
Speaker 2: But this is the actual footage of what was going on, right,
Speaker 2: And we're not gonna watch it or anything, but you
Speaker 2: can kind of see how the group is all around
Speaker 2: this one table and.
Speaker 3: Maybe they'll get to it. But it's eleven mites. It
Speaker 3: happened in Canada, just so we're clear. It happened in Canada.
Speaker 3: Although the guy uh three letters Owens was from Britain,
Speaker 3: so like he was from that area, but then he
Speaker 3: move move to Canada for the experiment, so like the
Speaker 3: whole the idea, like a British nobleman and all these
Speaker 3: things like that's where that whole thing came from.
Speaker 4: But still interesting.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, dude, so uh and maybe we'll go back
Speaker 2: and watch a little bit more of that actual the
Speaker 2: actual footage of it, because that's what they said. They
Speaker 2: had the film crew there, so all right. It says
Speaker 2: although the Philip Experiment gave the Owen group far more
Speaker 2: than they ever imagined possible, it was never able to
Speaker 2: attain one of their original goals, to have the spirit
Speaker 2: of Philip actually materialize. That was their goal. Wow, that's
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 3: Like materializing what way? I mean you're making a table
Speaker 3: move maybe bringing material to me. You may actually physically appear.
Speaker 2: Maybe like see a ghost or you know something like that.
Speaker 4: Okay, okay, I got you.
Speaker 2: So it goes on. It says the Philip experiment was
Speaker 2: so successful that the Toronto organization decided to try it
Speaker 2: again with a completely different group of people and a
Speaker 2: new fictional character. After just five weeks, the new group
Speaker 2: established quote unquote contact with their quote unquote ghost named Lilith.
Speaker 2: How about that, But this Lilith, what you know, the
Speaker 2: the fictional history of this character was a French Canadian spy.
Speaker 2: So not the Lilith, not the one that was like
Speaker 2: Adam's girl or anything like that. But this is something different, interesting,
Speaker 2: interesting to call that name out in a in a
Speaker 2: setting like this, though, you know, I was.
Speaker 4: Gonna say, but all right, yeah, let's go.
Speaker 2: So other similar experience conjured or experiments conjured up such
Speaker 2: entities as Sebastian, a medieval alchemist, and even Axel, a
Speaker 2: man from the future. All of them were completely fictional
Speaker 2: yet produced unexplained communication through their unique raps. A Sydney,
Speaker 2: Australia group attempted a similar test with the Skippy experience experiment.
Speaker 2: The six participants created the story of Skippy Cartman, a
Speaker 2: fourteen year old Australian girl. A group reports that Skippy
Speaker 2: communicated with them through raps and scratching sounds, so everybody's
Speaker 2: getting a little something from this, at bare minimum, a
Speaker 2: couple of taps on the table, you know, Like that's
Speaker 2: enough for me. Like that's if I saw that. If
Speaker 2: I heard that, if I was in that setting, I'd
Speaker 2: be like, okay, you sold me right, Like what else
Speaker 2: could explain that?
Speaker 3: So I find it interesting that their first go round
Speaker 3: took over a year before they had any kind of
Speaker 3: thing happen. Next experiment took five weeks, So it seems
Speaker 3: like they might have figured out how to correctly perform
Speaker 3: a seance. Maybe that year's time they were doing an experiment. Okay,
Speaker 3: for anybody who does conduct seances, keep in mind what
Speaker 3: I'm saying right now is completely out of ignorance. Just
Speaker 3: bear with me, maybe, Like okay, so does the candle
Speaker 3: need to be at the very corner of the table
Speaker 3: or does it need to be about six inches in
Speaker 3: from the table?
Speaker 4: Does that matter?
Speaker 3: Does it not like they were really giving it a
Speaker 3: real experimental the old college try if you will. So
Speaker 3: maybe it took them that long to find exactly what
Speaker 3: to do to get a response.
Speaker 2: I don't know. And I'll tell you this, dude, just
Speaker 2: from the magicians that I've talked to in the past
Speaker 2: and stuff like that. They'll say that, you know, the
Speaker 2: big thing that you want to do whenever you're working
Speaker 2: with an angel or a demon or a spirit or
Speaker 2: something on the other side, the main thing that you
Speaker 2: want to do is try and gather as much information
Speaker 2: as you possibly can about them, because you want to
Speaker 2: know who they are so that you can connect to
Speaker 2: them like mentally a little bit, you know what I mean. Like,
Speaker 2: you know, if you're calling on Abe Lincoln but you
Speaker 2: don't even know that his favorite color was red, then
Speaker 2: are you really connecting to them kind of thing. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's more of a contrived example, but you know, you
Speaker 2: want to try and get as much information about that
Speaker 2: about that entity as you can because you're trying to
Speaker 2: almost quantum entangle yourself with them. That's the idea behind it.
Speaker 2: From what I understand, so pretty interesting. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: all mental, is what you know. You're trying to mentally connect.
Speaker 2: So anyhow, moving on, it says the conclusion is is
Speaker 2: that what are we to make of these incredible experience experiments.
Speaker 2: While some would conclude that they would prove that ghosts
Speaker 2: don't exist, that such things are in our minds only
Speaker 2: others say that are unconscious could be responsible for this
Speaker 2: kind of phenomena. Some of the time they do not,
Speaker 2: in fact, cannot prove that there are no ghosts, so
Speaker 2: they left it up to interpretation. They're like, we don't
Speaker 2: know if it's absolutely ghosts or anything. But everybody that
Speaker 2: was over there, they knew that they created this fictional character.
Speaker 2: It was performing as they thought that it would, right.
Speaker 2: It was giving answers, it was tapping on the table.
Speaker 2: It was doing literally exactly what they expected outside of
Speaker 2: materializing in like a ghost y type form. Right. So,
Speaker 2: I mean they were led to believe that this could
Speaker 2: have been something that was kind of mentally charged, which
Speaker 2: is quite fascinating. So where was I So another point
Speaker 2: of view is that even though Philip was completely fictional,
Speaker 2: the Owen group really did contact the spirit world a
Speaker 2: playful or perhaps demonic Some would argue spirit took the
Speaker 2: opportunity of these seances to quote unquote act as Philip
Speaker 2: and produce the extraordinary psychokinetic phenomena recorded. See this is
Speaker 2: where it gets a little muddy, because you're like, all right, well,
Speaker 2: these are just the tricksters. This is somebody who is
Speaker 2: pretending to be this Phillip character, right, and maybe that's
Speaker 2: the case. I mean, I don't know how you would
Speaker 2: go about proving that. Maybe if they kept it around
Speaker 2: for long enough, and maybe Philip would take a little
Speaker 2: turn and you know, get inside somebody's mind and say, hey,
Speaker 2: let's drive off this cliff together. Who knows?
Speaker 4: I mean, right, Fuck dude, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, like, sometimes things take a wrong turn.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but it says so.
Speaker 4: This experiment took a wrong turn, though at.
Speaker 2: Least not documented.
Speaker 4: Right, Okay, okay, right.
Speaker 2: So in any case, the experiments proved that paranormal phenomena
Speaker 2: are quite real, and like most such investigations, they leave
Speaker 2: us with more questions than answers about the world in
Speaker 2: which we live. The only certain conclusion is that there
Speaker 2: is much to our existence that is still unexplained, which
Speaker 2: is my favorite. I love the unexplained shit more than
Speaker 2: anything I think. So, yeah, I had table wrapping. That
Speaker 2: was the knocking on the table. Now I want to
Speaker 2: get over because you had mentioned it a little bit early.
Speaker 2: That's the one I pulled up. Yes, dude, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: So this is actually called Hollywood or history versus Hollywood
Speaker 2: dot com and this is the Quiet Ones history versus Hollywood,
Speaker 2: So we wanted to see, like, all right, where do
Speaker 2: the stories actually match up? Because there is more details
Speaker 2: to that story about Philip that was kind of an overview.
Speaker 2: We're going to get to a little bit more of
Speaker 2: that story later. But yeah, uh so, where does it
Speaker 2: actually match up with the story? And for anybody that's
Speaker 2: ever seen The Quiet Ones, so this is the you know,
Speaker 2: it just shows the different faces of the characters in
Speaker 2: the in the story and then in the movie. The
Speaker 2: questioning the story is the girl in the movie Jane
Speaker 2: Harper based on a real person? No, because this is
Speaker 2: literally based on somebody creating a fucking tulpa, right like,
Speaker 2: So it can't be based on any real character because
Speaker 2: it was never a real character to begin with. So
Speaker 2: it says no, the character is entirely fictional. The real
Speaker 2: experiment did not involve researching the negative telekinetic energy surrounding
Speaker 2: a troubled girl in an effort to separate her from
Speaker 2: it and or stop her from producing it. Instead, the
Speaker 2: real life research team attempted to manifest to go solely
Speaker 2: from a fictional character they made up and named Philip Aylsford.
Speaker 2: In the movie, Professor Joseph Coopland and his team focus
Speaker 2: on Ev, the demonic being that they believe is attached
Speaker 2: to the unstable girl Jane Harper. They perform experiments on
Speaker 2: Jane in hopes of separating her from the Poulter guy.
Speaker 2: In the beginning, Professor Coopland believes that the malevolent spirit
Speaker 2: EV Dwyer is not a Poltergeist at all, but merely
Speaker 2: a manifestation of the negative energy that produced that produced
Speaker 2: by that was produced by Jane, much like a cancer.
Speaker 2: He believes that it can be drawn out and removed,
Speaker 2: in turn healing Jane. That's how the movie.
Speaker 4: Went, right, gotcha? Gotcha?
Speaker 2: So obviously Hollywood's gonna take their little liberties and everything.
Speaker 2: But so what year did the real experiment? The Philip
Speaker 2: experiment happened, and happened in nineteen seventy two, and I
Speaker 2: can't remember there was something else. Oh, check this out.
Speaker 2: So this is the seance in the actual movie, because
Speaker 2: I believe in the movie they were trying to transfer
Speaker 2: the spirit from her into this little baby doll, right.
Speaker 3: Of course, because why would you use what kind of
Speaker 3: container do you use for a Poultergeist? Clearly a doll
Speaker 3: is the correct answer. I mean, we got fucking Annabelle
Speaker 3: who matt rifhones.
Speaker 2: But whatever, not everybody has a spare pig that they
Speaker 2: can cast the negative spirits into.
Speaker 3: Jacob I was thinking maybe like a crystal ball or something.
Speaker 3: I don't know, Maybe that's just Hollywood eching its.
Speaker 4: Way through my brain at this point.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I don't even know if that would work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know either. But and then this is
Speaker 2: the real group right here of the people that were
Speaker 2: kind of trying to bring Philip to life. So you can, man,
Speaker 2: look at how old school that shit is with the
Speaker 2: check like the the checker pants right here, and.
Speaker 4: They all have plaid pants.
Speaker 2: All the women have the short hair weird. Yeah. So yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just like your grandma's look, you know. Yeah. Sure,
Speaker 2: So it says what was the purpose of the Philip experiment?
Speaker 2: So in researching the Quiet Ones true story, we discovered
Speaker 2: that the purpose of the real experiment was to prove
Speaker 2: that the supernatural is a manifestation of what already exists
Speaker 2: in the mind. Proving such a hypothesis true doesn't necessarily
Speaker 2: mean that ghosts aren't real. It just means that they
Speaker 2: are created by us instead of instead of coming from
Speaker 2: somewhere else. For example, if you grew up fearing an
Speaker 2: evil old woman that lurks under your bed and will
Speaker 2: grab your ankles when you step onto the floor, you
Speaker 2: imagining the woman in detail could be enough to manifest
Speaker 2: her into actual demonic spirit. Tell me you haven't thought
Speaker 2: about that before, Like you've ever been scared to hang
Speaker 2: a leg off the bed while you're sleeping, or scared
Speaker 2: to walk down like a dark hallway, and like you
Speaker 2: start to get like these weird images that pop into
Speaker 2: your head that only scare you even more. And maybe
Speaker 2: it's that energy that's scaring. That fear is ultimately the
Speaker 2: battery that creates, at least the perception of it. That's
Speaker 2: kind of what they're alluding to.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean every kid has had that, right, every
Speaker 3: ill on them it's an old woman under your bed
Speaker 3: or something. But the monster under your bed, right, that
Speaker 3: is a That's an old trope that has been around
Speaker 3: for forever. But I mean we've talked about how powerful
Speaker 3: the mind is multiple times. You know, as a kid,
Speaker 3: I can remember one time my closet was open and
Speaker 3: the lights were all off in my room. And I
Speaker 3: didn't have a night light or anything like that, so
Speaker 3: it was pitch black except for like what was being
Speaker 3: shown from like the street light through the blinds in
Speaker 3: my room, you know what I mean. Cool, And there
Speaker 3: was something in my closet, and I know for a
Speaker 3: fucking fact there was and I'm like, what in the
Speaker 3: hell is that thing? I swear I saw this thing move,
Speaker 3: and I'm like losing my fucking mind.
Speaker 4: I flip on the light. It was a sweater that was.
Speaker 3: Like balled up in a weird way on top of
Speaker 3: a shelf that I had in there. And that's why
Speaker 3: it was out of the norm, because I'd never balled
Speaker 3: up my sweaters and put them in my closet. I
Speaker 3: would throw them in a hamper, right, But for whatever reason,
Speaker 3: this was there, and I swear I saw that thing move.
Speaker 3: But once I turned the light on, I could see like, oh,
Speaker 3: I literally made that up in my mind, Like that's
Speaker 3: that's all this was. But the mind is a very
Speaker 3: powerful thing.
Speaker 2: Isn't that crazy that that's even a thing? Though, Like, dude,
Speaker 2: our minds are so much more powerful than we give
Speaker 2: ourselves credit for. And most I'm not gonna lie. Mostly
Speaker 2: it's two people's demise. Like, especially if it's something like this,
Speaker 2: it's usually something scary because most things that are scary
Speaker 2: is the unknown because you don't know what to expect, right,
Speaker 2: and uh, if you're getting you know, steps in a
Speaker 2: hallway or you know, some kind of shadowy figure at
Speaker 2: the foot of your bed, you don't know, so you're
Speaker 2: gonna be scared shitless. And that's what I believe that
Speaker 2: they're trying to say. Here is that, dude, it is
Speaker 2: our mind that is generating it. Now what is even
Speaker 2: creepier to me, at least, is that it's sometimes, yes,
Speaker 2: it is only just one person that is experiencing that,
Speaker 2: but if you get a group of people all with
Speaker 2: the same all with the same goal in mind, and
Speaker 2: they're all thinking about it, they all know exactly, you know,
Speaker 2: like what this character's gonna sound like, what this character's
Speaker 2: gonna do, what's the history of it? Now that becomes
Speaker 2: amplified and everybody can experience it.
Speaker 4: See, that was what I was about to say. Next.
Speaker 3: Now I'm talking about something in my own mind that
Speaker 3: as soon as I flipped the light on it could
Speaker 3: see what it was. The quote unquote fear behind it
Speaker 3: went away. Instantly, and I realized, no, the thing didn't
Speaker 3: actually move in my closet, I saw it move, but
Speaker 3: I could see, oh no, because of the way this
Speaker 3: sleeve was. It like looked a certain way, and my
Speaker 3: brain made it look like it had moved.
Speaker 4: Whatever.
Speaker 3: That is very different than a table with four legs
Speaker 3: getting up and spinning on one of its legs.
Speaker 4: Right, that's two completely different conversations.
Speaker 2: It is. But it starts with one person, but you
Speaker 2: get more people. It's just like you know, praying with
Speaker 2: multiple people, or people that go out and do the
Speaker 2: CE five shit in the desert. You get a big
Speaker 2: group of people, you're more likely to see some kind
Speaker 2: of fucking orb out there or whatever. At least that's
Speaker 2: what people say, right, Like, you gather more people, it's
Speaker 2: only amplifying the energy. And what, in my opinion of
Speaker 2: what's really going on is is that since they're all
Speaker 2: thinking it and they're all believing it, they're all expecting it,
Speaker 2: they're almost all tuned into the same frequency, almost like
Speaker 2: they're all dialed into one oh two point five on
Speaker 2: the radio, right, Like they all they're all listening to
Speaker 2: the same song on the fucking radio, and maybe nobody
Speaker 2: else that's not dialed in wouldn't be able to see it.
Speaker 2: I don't know, maybe that I don't know if that
Speaker 2: would That would be an interesting test subject, right right
Speaker 2: to see.
Speaker 3: Every day when you perform this experiment, have a rando
Speaker 3: just who's not even affiliated with this experiment whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Just to sit at the table with you, right right,
Speaker 2: because is it just happening in our mind? And you know,
Speaker 2: if it is just happening in our mind, how are
Speaker 2: multiple people able to observe said thing that is just
Speaker 2: a perception thing? So is it more of just our mind?
Speaker 2: Or are our minds so energic energetically fused together to
Speaker 2: the same radio band that somehow it brings it into
Speaker 2: physical existence. That's the question to me.
Speaker 4: Anyway, this is interesting. Let's keep going, dude.
Speaker 2: So taking the theory even further. The research is behind
Speaker 2: the Philip experiment gave the character that they were imagining
Speaker 2: a full life, including a name, a nationality, a past,
Speaker 2: and a personality. During their seances, they tried to converse
Speaker 2: with Philip. They're once fictional character. They believe that Philip.
Speaker 2: They believe that giving Philip such realistic traits and attempting
Speaker 2: to communicate with him would help conjure up an actual ghost.
Speaker 2: So that is and here's the picture that they drew
Speaker 2: of Philip, Right, it says, so what it looks like like? No,
Speaker 2: it looks like the fucking caveman from the Geico commercials, right,
Speaker 2: get a little bit, a little bit.
Speaker 3: So it was a sketch artist and this is a
Speaker 3: fictional person, so it doesn't have to look like, you know,
Speaker 3: the greatest self portrait ever or no, you know, I get.
Speaker 2: It right, And it says, did they really hold seances
Speaker 2: to communicate with the ensity? Yes, However the real seances
Speaker 2: were much more tamer. Obviously, you know, it's not going
Speaker 2: to be hollywooded, you know, like that, and so yeah,
Speaker 2: it's it's similar. But I mean whenever some like a
Speaker 2: movie says that it is based on you know, true
Speaker 2: a true story, that can mean like zero point one
Speaker 2: of a percent out of the entire one hundred percent,
Speaker 2: right like, as long as they're pulling something from it.
Speaker 2: And that's usually what Hollywood does.
Speaker 4: Based on a true story quote unquote.
Speaker 2: But you know it's like that movie The blind Side
Speaker 2: was Sandra Bullock, right, like that took a lot of
Speaker 2: creative liberties for that one. As a matter of heday, Yeah, dude,
Speaker 2: Michael Orr won't talk to them like he hates them.
Speaker 2: He's like trying to family to the family that adopted him. Yeah,
Speaker 2: because he found out that they were using him for
Speaker 2: a ride to get him to the NFL and they
Speaker 2: were trying to mooch a lot of his money, which
Speaker 2: they did. So it's like, you know, Hollywood has their
Speaker 2: liberties of making people more, you know, so, which is
Speaker 2: sad because you know that that was a really heartfelt movie,
Speaker 2: but it was great. So it says, did they really
Speaker 2: videotape the experiments? Yes, like the Quiet Ones movie. The
Speaker 2: True Story confirms that the seances were often filmed. Watched
Speaker 2: the footage from several Philip Experiment seances, which we were
Speaker 2: going to do a little bit later as a matter
Speaker 2: of fact.
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 2: And so it was doctor Owen's son, Robert E. Owen,
Speaker 2: often took the photos and did the filming. So pretty interesting.
Speaker 2: I mean it was kind of kept in house in
Speaker 2: that sense. But yeah, So.
Speaker 4: It says, is it possible that the Philip experiment was
Speaker 4: a hoax?
Speaker 2: Let's find out. I mean, I'm open, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is just what I was able to find.
Speaker 6: So.
Speaker 2: In an interview conducted in the nineteen seventies, doctor arg
Speaker 2: Owen's wife, Iris Owen interesting name, an English born social
Speaker 2: worker and a leading participant in the seances, admitted that
Speaker 2: they were initially suspicious of one another, as most people are.
Speaker 2: You ever get in front of a ouiji board, You're like,
Speaker 2: I know you moved that fucking thing. Come on, stop
Speaker 2: fucking with I've never done it, but you hear about
Speaker 2: these things. And she said that they admitted that they
Speaker 2: were initially suspicious of one another, believing the possibility that
Speaker 2: someone at the table was sliding it. It says in quotes.
Speaker 2: The first few months, we were watching each other like hawks,
Speaker 2: says Iris, And if anybody's finger moved the slightest bit,
Speaker 2: they would say, you're pushing. So they were holding each
Speaker 2: other accountable, which is good, you know.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 2: Joel Whitten, an observer and psychiatrist, says that they went
Speaker 2: as far as to place paper dout doile's. How was
Speaker 2: that word, paper doile's. I've never heard that word in
Speaker 2: my life under the hands of the seance participants to
Speaker 2: ensure that no one was moving the table. He explained
Speaker 2: that if someone tried to move the table, the doiles
Speaker 2: would slide instead of the table and everyone would notice.
Speaker 2: It's a good idea, so you do is.
Speaker 3: You ever like it looks like lace, but it's paper.
Speaker 3: It's like a little round thing like this you would
Speaker 3: set a plate on, oh.
Speaker 2: Like a like a plate coaster, basically whatever they're.
Speaker 4: Called basic, But it's not fabric.
Speaker 3: It's it's literally a piece of paper that is cut
Speaker 3: to make it look pretty. It's like for like, you know,
Speaker 3: if you're doing like a big Thanksgiving dinner at like
Speaker 3: a school or something, you put these on the table
Speaker 3: to make it look nicer, but in reality it's just
Speaker 3: it's whatever.
Speaker 2: Oh like the paper that they have over a like
Speaker 2: TJ ribs. Yeah, okay, okay, the rib place they always
Speaker 2: have the paper mats or whatever so that you don't
Speaker 2: damage the tablecloths with with your barbecue fingers. Right right, right,
Speaker 2: makes sense. I used to work there, you had to dude.
Speaker 2: It was actually pretty fucked up, not fucked up. It was.
Speaker 2: It was interesting, but it was hard, so you had
Speaker 2: to learn. So I used to serve over a TJ ribs.
Speaker 2: I don't I think that's just a Louisiana thing right.
Speaker 4: I don't know. I mean I do fuck with TJ. Ribs.
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm also a whore for Ribs, let's be real.
Speaker 2: Same. So anyway, it's I mean, it's a really awesome
Speaker 2: restaurant if anybody's ever been. But whenever I so I
Speaker 2: was serving over there. This is one of my first jobs.
Speaker 2: And so I was serving over there, and you had
Speaker 2: to learn how to write were name incursive, upside down
Speaker 2: and inverted. Right, Why that was just like a signature
Speaker 2: of the restaurant, of the people that were serving. That's
Speaker 2: just what everybody does over there. And so obviously I
Speaker 2: have a pretty long name, Jonathan Is. You know, it's
Speaker 2: a few more letters than the average goat. And and
Speaker 2: so I would always just simplify it to John j
Speaker 2: oen right easiest, and and even that, like dude, learning
Speaker 2: how to draw your name incursive, upside down and inverted, dude,
Speaker 2: that took a little while, but anyway, that was on
Speaker 2: that that doile paper or whatever. So that's my experience
Speaker 2: with it. No, yeah, so where were we all? Right?
Speaker 2: So here we go. Although the group eventually believed that
Speaker 2: Philip could accurately answer questions, he was still a creation
Speaker 2: of their collective imagination, which was evident by his limitations.
Speaker 2: For example, he was able to answer yes or no
Speaker 2: to questions about his time period by responding with Knox,
Speaker 2: but both question Both the quest questions and the answers
Speaker 2: were not information that the group was unaware of, at
Speaker 2: least not the whole group. Essentially, this means that Phillip's
Speaker 2: responses were most likely coming from their own minds, either
Speaker 2: their subconscious or, if it was indeed a hoax, their
Speaker 2: conscious minds. But they were holding themselves accountable though, so
Speaker 2: I'm just kind to believe that it was a hoax.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I'm not even saying like I'm trying
Speaker 3: to call a hoax on this. I I can at
Speaker 3: least appreciate the experiment that was done. But again, they
Speaker 3: already knew the answer because this was a fictitious character
Speaker 3: in their own minds. So whenever they say, uh, did
Speaker 3: you live to see the year eighteen hundred, well, they
Speaker 3: know that the answer would be no before you even
Speaker 3: asked this question. So whenever you you know what I mean,
Speaker 3: it's it's sure, but I'm certain.
Speaker 2: That doesn't Like where did the Knox come from? Then?
Speaker 2: Is the question is the main question, right, Like maybe
Speaker 2: they were projecting the answer to this you know, this
Speaker 2: spirit or whatever, but how did that spirit know how
Speaker 2: to for yes or for no?
Speaker 3: See now, I really do want to watch some of
Speaker 3: this video to see, like was there even a knock
Speaker 3: or was it any small noise like yep.
Speaker 2: That was him.
Speaker 3: He said yes, y'all heard it, and it was like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: I totally.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: It's very possible, like they said it was in their
Speaker 3: own mind, So any small noise they took to be confirmation.
Speaker 3: Maybe there was a legitimate like a heart like a
Speaker 3: legit knock that they I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't. I'm we're gonna get to it, you
Speaker 2: know what, fuck it, We're gonna watch the whole video
Speaker 2: once we get cover a little bit more information about
Speaker 2: this and these type of of things that transpired even
Speaker 2: coming from it. So so yeah, it says have any
Speaker 2: other experiments been done that were similar to this the
Speaker 2: Philip experiment? It says the Philip experiment has been replicated
Speaker 2: several times. The most notable of these effort efforts is
Speaker 2: the Skippy Experiment, sometimes called the Sydney experiment, conducted in Sydney,
Speaker 2: Australia in the two thousands. The researchers devised the story
Speaker 2: of a fourteen year a girl, which we kind of
Speaker 2: already alluded to. She was impregnated by her Catholic school
Speaker 2: teacher Jesus Christ.
Speaker 3: They had to go with the worst possible scenario, not
Speaker 3: like she died in a car crash and it was
Speaker 3: nobody's fault.
Speaker 4: It was just one of those things.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, Yeah, Catholic school girl impregnated by her.
Speaker 4: Priests, so she had to die.
Speaker 2: Wow. Not only was she impregnated by her Catholic school teacher,
Speaker 2: but that school teacher later murdered her so that the
Speaker 2: church wouldn't find out.
Speaker 4: I love a fuck what is wrong with these Australians.
Speaker 3: You couldn't have just kept it semi g rated, just
Speaker 3: a sad tragedy, just one of those things, though, you
Speaker 3: had to go with the fucking whole movie plot.
Speaker 2: Well, because the idea is what most people believe is
Speaker 2: that whenever there's a ghost, it's like an energy that
Speaker 2: is trapped here because either a they don't know that
Speaker 2: they've died, or b they don't accept their death like
Speaker 2: it's usually one of those couple of things. And so
Speaker 2: if you're killed, you know, unknowingly, like maybe you're I
Speaker 2: don't know, shot and you didn't know that you were
Speaker 2: even in a gunfight kind of thing or whatever, like
Speaker 2: your life almost taken from you. Then you're and you're like,
Speaker 2: what the fuck is going on? And you go up
Speaker 2: and you're trying to talk to your mom, you're trying
Speaker 2: to talk to your dad. You can't really get any
Speaker 2: of their attention because you're just a disembodied spirit at
Speaker 2: that point. And so that's what people, I think would
Speaker 2: attach to that. And so maybe what they're trying to
Speaker 2: say is that, all right, we're gonna try and make
Speaker 2: this girl as real as possible, and by making her
Speaker 2: as real as possible, we're gonna make her like believe
Speaker 2: that maybe she didn't even die kind of thing.
Speaker 4: Jesus Christ.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I get the ideology behind it only because
Speaker 2: I like, I'm always obsessed with all the ghost shit.
Speaker 2: I mean, it doesn't matter what you think of it,
Speaker 2: it's still exciting to like look at and watch all
Speaker 2: the what's that that ghost show that I always talk
Speaker 2: about on YouTube? Danny Fantom, No, No, that's a Disney thing,
Speaker 2: isn't it.
Speaker 3: That's a nick thing man Nickelodeon. But hold on on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like two dudes and they're younger, like early twenties.
Speaker 4: H didn't didn't have them on the show.
Speaker 2: Something in Cody, Cody I think is one of them.
Speaker 3: I want to say Zach and Cody would know that
Speaker 3: is a Disney thing. It's something in Cody. I know
Speaker 3: the dudes you're talking about. Yeah, Rogan had them on
Speaker 3: his show like last year. They seem to do pretty
Speaker 3: good dudes.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, but yeah, I mean, no matter what you
Speaker 2: think about it, it's still like pretty entertaining to watch
Speaker 2: if you ever go check them out. But so, yeah,
Speaker 2: so she was murdered by the guy so the church
Speaker 2: wouldn't find out that she got pregnant. And after the
Speaker 2: initial table used by the researchers didn't produce any results,
Speaker 2: they found success sitting around a light, three legged card
Speaker 2: table a light three legged card table. They reported similar
Speaker 2: knocking and scratching sounds heard during the Philip the Philip experiment.
Speaker 2: They also said that the table moved and spun around
Speaker 2: on one leg. However, they never managed to capture any
Speaker 2: audio or visual evidence, so Pixar it didn't happen kind
Speaker 2: of thing.
Speaker 3: Well, hold on, what wait a card table with three legs?
Speaker 3: I know what a card table is. I've only ever seen.
Speaker 2: A four legged but okay, word, yeah, that's kind of strange.
Speaker 2: A three legged card table, that's what it says.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's like a circular table. I don't know. I
Speaker 4: guess we'll see.
Speaker 2: Yeah maybe, so yeah, yeah, this is the actual Oh damn,
Speaker 2: they got a couple of them here. So they got
Speaker 2: the quiet one's trailer. But then you have the actual
Speaker 2: Philip Experiment documentary. Oh damn, I'm gonna have to watch
Speaker 2: that later. I wish I would have watched that in
Speaker 2: preparation for the show.
Speaker 3: But I mean, how long is the Is it a
Speaker 3: clip or is it the entire documentary?
Speaker 2: I'm sure it's the whole damn thing. M Oh, they're
Speaker 2: not even letting you watch it, of course, not those whores. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but the the other one will watch. It's like ten
Speaker 2: or eleven minutes. So this was something I was like,
Speaker 2: all right, they're kind of what they're alluding to as
Speaker 2: far as our mind's creating. You know, whatever energy or
Speaker 2: action is going on is known as psychokinesis Okay, So
Speaker 2: Psychokinesis can be defined as the ability of using mind
Speaker 2: over matter without any physical intervention. The term psychokinesis comes
Speaker 2: from Greek meaning psych mind and motion. Basically, so, yeah, my.
Speaker 3: Entire documentary is forty one minutes long, So yeah, we
Speaker 3: ain't watching all that.
Speaker 2: Oh it's actually shorter from what I expected though, so anyhow.
Speaker 2: It was coined in nineteen fourteen to psychokinesis by American
Speaker 2: author Henry Holt in his book called on the Cosmic Relations.
Speaker 2: Psychokinesis is sometimes abbreviated as PK. The study of psychokinesis
Speaker 2: falls under the field of parapsychology. Obviously, psychokinesis refers to
Speaker 2: influence of mental forces upon the physical realm that would
Speaker 2: not otherwise be subject to ordinary physical causation. The term
Speaker 2: PK refers to the ability that appears to rely on
Speaker 2: the conscious intention of the human operator, which influences a
Speaker 2: physical system at both the macro scale, which is detectable
Speaker 2: with the naked eye, and the micro scale, which would
Speaker 2: require an advanced machine to detect. So, okay, I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm more inclined to believe that this is some I'm
Speaker 2: not maybe it's not one hundred percent of what's going on,
Speaker 2: But to say that at zero percent that has to
Speaker 2: be wrong, right.
Speaker 3: I'm still kind of piecing it all together in my
Speaker 3: own mind here and assuming that it is not a hoax, right,
Speaker 3: assuming that the information that we are getting from the
Speaker 3: experiment itself exactly happened, as they said, I'm really trying
Speaker 3: to take it all in here, So I don't want
Speaker 3: to just cast judgment as of this moment.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I actually have the Philip experiment completely documented
Speaker 2: right here, and so I was thinking, you know, it'd
Speaker 2: be pretty interesting to read a little bit of it
Speaker 2: and we'll see how it looks and how it sounds.
Speaker 2: But this is everything that they documented. This was reprinted
Speaker 2: in seventy five, seventy six, and seventy seven, it says
Speaker 2: so the New Horizon Journal. It says Philip's story continued.
Speaker 2: The abstract is a brief account is given of a
Speaker 2: further year of the Philip research and variations thereon. The
Speaker 2: group has developed new PK psychokinesis abilities, including that of
Speaker 2: bending metals bending metals because they believe that it's coming
Speaker 2: from them. As so, they were looking a little bit farther, like,
Speaker 2: you know, like in the matrix bending spoon dog like
Speaker 2: the spoon bending Yeah, yeah, so it says. The story
Speaker 2: of the creation of Philip the Imaginary Ghost was first
Speaker 2: published in the newri New Horizons in January nineteen seventy four.
Speaker 2: This was followed in July nineteen seventy four by an
Speaker 2: article attempting to explain some of the underlying psychological skills
Speaker 2: required in order to generate the phenomena that occurred. The
Speaker 2: experiment is continued and grown, and it seems appropriate to
Speaker 2: record what a happened since those two reports were written.
Speaker 2: The response to the experiment was fantastic. Philip seems to
Speaker 2: have caught the imagination of everyone who has read about him.
Speaker 2: We had a correspondence from physicists, psychological psychologists, spiritualists, parapsychologists,
Speaker 2: as well as reporters, television producers, et cetera from almost
Speaker 2: every country in the world. So they really impressed. I mean,
Speaker 2: some people got that information. They saw the footage and
Speaker 2: people everybody was reaching out of all of all shapes
Speaker 2: and sizes, right, So yeah, everybody was reaching out to
Speaker 2: them so much so that we that we have felt
Speaker 2: the necessity to record the whole experiment in book form.
Speaker 2: And this was This is with the publishers right now,
Speaker 2: and hopefully we will be available in the fall of
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy five. The book will be a full and
Speaker 2: factual account of the whole experiment, together with some discussion
Speaker 2: on the relevance to various aspects of the field of
Speaker 2: parapsychology and spiritualism, and speculation as to its poss future applications.
Speaker 2: But for the present record, it will probably be best
Speaker 2: to give a blow by blow account, so to speak,
Speaker 2: of what the Philip Group has achieved since the report
Speaker 2: of the experiment in January nineteen seventy four. So, in
Speaker 2: January of nineteen seventy four, concurrently with the writing of
Speaker 2: this first report, it was suggested that a short at
Speaker 2: a short factual film of the experiment, giving the details
Speaker 2: of how the experiment was conceived and what exactly happened,
Speaker 2: together with some wraps and table movements, should be made.
Speaker 2: This would effectively record the whole thing and dispose once
Speaker 2: and for all any allegations that the phenomena were in
Speaker 2: any way subjective or the result of mass hallucination. The
Speaker 2: group itself regarded this as a challenge to perform under
Speaker 2: the light of film cameras and in front of people
Speaker 2: whom they had never met before. A member of our society,
Speaker 2: Bruce Raymond, who was a filmmaker and distributor, generously offered
Speaker 2: to arrange to have the film made and to back
Speaker 2: the production financially. The film was to be made professionally
Speaker 2: and subsequently be available for distribution to trade. The film
Speaker 2: was made during the course of one whole Sunday, a
Speaker 2: fantastic day in every respect. The members of the group
Speaker 2: were able, under the direction of Ian Brims, to completely
Speaker 2: recreate the experiment, and in spite of being under the
Speaker 2: glaring lights and somewhat restricted space because the film cameras
Speaker 2: were everywhere, Philip produced raps and movements entirely to order.
Speaker 2: It is a very interesting fact that, however skeptical new
Speaker 2: however skeptical newcomers are, when they actually hear the raps,
Speaker 2: they are immediately convinced it is quite clear that under
Speaker 2: those conditions there is no possibility of fraud whatsoever. The
Speaker 2: group were delighted with the film, which is available for
Speaker 2: commercial distrib distribution, and in fact, at the time of
Speaker 2: writing and has been shown in many countries of the world,
Speaker 2: the latest being in Finland. Of course, the film being
Speaker 2: available for distribution attracted the attention of the media, both
Speaker 2: newspaper newspapers and television, and we had to cope with
Speaker 2: the fact that this was not just regarded as a
Speaker 2: scientific coup by those seriously interested in the subject, but
Speaker 2: it was also a very remarkable, a very marketable form,
Speaker 2: very marketable from the entertainment point of view, and the
Speaker 2: group had made much trouble with this aspect. Basically, as parapsychologists,
Speaker 2: we shy away from publicity that takes the form of
Speaker 2: popular entertainment. People who are not well read in the
Speaker 2: subject do not understand the issues involved, and generally there
Speaker 2: is a more misunderstanding and misconception than justifies the publicity. However,
Speaker 2: parapsychology is also a people subject, and without people, no
Speaker 2: work can be effectively accomplished, and sometimes as a result
Speaker 2: of media publicity one has found people very valuable to
Speaker 2: work with. In the event, the group found itself, almost
Speaker 2: against its will, involved in giving a half hour performance
Speaker 2: on a local television station, a talk show with doctor Owen,
Speaker 2: Doctor Whitten and a local United Church minister, the Reverend
Speaker 2: Ndsey King, was arranged with the Phillip group in a
Speaker 2: corner of the studio, ready to perform. Philip would deign
Speaker 2: to appear, and of course he did, even with a
Speaker 2: fucking reverend there and all these doctors and everything. Crazy right, wow, okay,
Speaker 2: so and he did. The group were beginning to realize
Speaker 2: that there were that there was nothing Philip liked more
Speaker 2: than to appear in public, and the bigger the audience,
Speaker 2: the better. You wouldn't expect that maybe it would from
Speaker 2: a trickster entity.
Speaker 3: I guess, uh yeah, yeah, I mean, but.
Speaker 2: Yep, that's wild. That's some wild shit. I mean, I
Speaker 2: if this was all fake, how do you rope all
Speaker 2: these people into it not? I mean, you know, we
Speaker 2: all have our falls and our fallacies, and I guess
Speaker 2: anybody can be fooled. But these people don't seem like
Speaker 2: they're coming at it from that angle. They don't seem it.
Speaker 3: No, But to answer your questions, so you mean that
Speaker 3: when it was time to show up, the entity.
Speaker 4: Would always be sure to show up.
Speaker 3: That does sound a little bit more of the hoax
Speaker 3: variety to me, But again, I am not trying to
Speaker 3: throw that at this moment.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, it says it is obvious there is a
Speaker 2: bit of ham in all of us. Whatever that means.
Speaker 2: Philip quickly.
Speaker 3: Whatever that means, due to say that, oh, that kid's
Speaker 3: a ham bone, that means that he's like, he's a
Speaker 3: little jokester.
Speaker 2: Oh I got you all right? Yeah.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 2: Philip quickly made it obvious that he felt his place
Speaker 2: was on the das deos whatever that word is, with
Speaker 2: the speaker's panel, rather than in the corner of the studio,
Speaker 2: and his efforts to mount the dais uh and take
Speaker 2: his rightful place. We're hilarious, to say the least. Both
Speaker 2: the audience and studio staff were in fits of last
Speaker 2: fits of laughter as the table lifted its first one
Speaker 2: leg and then another, and then swung around, wriggling and
Speaker 2: pushing to get to the forefront of the show. Could
Speaker 2: you imagine if this is real? If this is real?
Speaker 2: What the fuck? Man?
Speaker 3: So everybody was laughing when this went down? Well they,
Speaker 3: I mean, I guess they adored old Philip. They thought
Speaker 3: nothing harmful of it. That's were they laughing because oh,
Speaker 3: such a playful spirit. Or were they more like, sure, dude,
Speaker 3: sure that's what you're doing here.
Speaker 2: Well let's keep reading. So it says yeah. Eventually it succeeded,
Speaker 2: and the moderator, Reverend Lindsey King, who had been watching
Speaker 2: with some amusement, was asked to say hello to Philip.
Speaker 2: Whoa they got a reverend involved on this one. So
Speaker 2: and he did so, and a very loud rap in
Speaker 2: response came from the table right underneath his hand. His
Speaker 2: facial expression of surprise was a picture until he had
Speaker 2: probably not believed the table would talk to him, or
Speaker 2: until then he probably didn't believe that the table would
Speaker 2: talk to him. He carried on a conversation for several minutes,
Speaker 2: and the table, as Philip, responded with loud and clear raps.
Speaker 2: All of this, all this, of course, is recorded on
Speaker 2: both camera and sound, and the show was so successful
Speaker 2: that the television station regularly replays it. Later on in
Speaker 2: the year, at the special request of our where was
Speaker 2: I oh, of our president of the company, I guess
Speaker 2: Alan Spraggett Okay, the Philip group gave another similar television
Speaker 2: performance for Alan's show. The highlight of this performance was
Speaker 2: that the table flipped upside down completely, as it does
Speaker 2: on occasion when the group knelt around it. The raps
Speaker 2: came loud and clear from the table, which had its
Speaker 2: top flush with the carpeted floor. Again, the rappings were
Speaker 2: reportedly or were recorded loudly and clearly. So during the
Speaker 2: year nineteen seventy four, the Philip Group proved that they
Speaker 2: could produce their rapping phenomena in any table, under underblazing lights,
Speaker 2: anywhere and with anybody present. Oh man, they went on
Speaker 2: a little tour with this. It sounds like a little
Speaker 2: bit right. They got took that show on the road.
Speaker 2: I mean, why not, you know, if you can make
Speaker 2: a couple shekels along the way, it's yep, so all right.
Speaker 2: So to go back to the actual phenomena. Following the
Speaker 2: making of the film, on that same evening, the group
Speaker 2: felt that they were particularly charged, if that is the
Speaker 2: right word, and had a private session after the film
Speaker 2: had stopped. Doctor Witten made a strong suggestion that at
Speaker 2: this time they could get the table fully levitated. The
Speaker 2: table did actually leave the floor about one inch above
Speaker 2: the carpet and glided for four to five feet. Doctor
Speaker 2: Witten and Robin Owen, which is the wife who were
Speaker 2: in the room both witnessed this, but unfortunately, although Robin
Speaker 2: had his camera in hand, the lighting and positioning were
Speaker 2: such that an adequate picture could not be obtained. I'll
Speaker 2: so you gotta think about it. The seventies, How good
Speaker 2: of a camera you're going to really have back then?
Speaker 3: I mean, allegedly we had good enough cameras to see
Speaker 3: the man on the moon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, ok, right, all right, buddy, I mean that's only
Speaker 2: because you had the man, the myth, the legend, fucking
Speaker 2: Stanley Kubrick shooting that one. Indeed. Indeed, so, although on
Speaker 2: occasion the table has appeared to be floating, it has
Speaker 2: never lifted sufficiently for the group to be sure of this.
Speaker 2: Generally speaking, the group has continued to concentrate on production
Speaker 2: of rapping because this seems to be the most easily
Speaker 2: measured phenomena. A conference was held in June in Toronto,
Speaker 2: and the proceedings of this were reported in the last journal.
Speaker 2: But it will be seen from this that the Philip
Speaker 2: Group have felt through most of nineteen seventy four that
Speaker 2: they should continue to produce raps as their first priority. However,
Speaker 2: on one occasion, on a very hot night, they decided
Speaker 2: to concentrate their energies on producing a cool breeze and
Speaker 2: succeeded in doing this. They were wonder whether this was
Speaker 2: in fact subjective. When Georgia Owen walked into the room,
Speaker 2: somebody said, put your hand in the middle of the
Speaker 2: table and tell us if you feel anything, said one
Speaker 2: of the group. George did so and remarked, it feels
Speaker 2: like a cool breeze, as if a fan were blowing.
Speaker 2: So if it was subjective, it had affected him. Also,
Speaker 2: following the visit of Matthew Manning and the work done
Speaker 2: with Yuri Geller, who we mentioned earlier, the Philip group
Speaker 2: were interested in metal bending, and in November, at one
Speaker 2: of the meetings, a light metal medallion was placed on
Speaker 2: the table and Philip asked to bend it. It was
Speaker 2: left there during the evening and the group members did
Speaker 2: not touch it, and at the end of the evening
Speaker 2: it was bent slightly at the edges. All right, here
Speaker 2: we go, baby, So the group generally felt a little
Speaker 2: disappointed and left it lying on the table when they
Speaker 2: went out. I was the last to leave the room
Speaker 2: and switch off the light. And switch off the light
Speaker 2: where was I and it was still only slightly bent.
Speaker 2: The group members went straight upstairs and left, and George
Speaker 2: returned to the room to check ashtrays and noticed that
Speaker 2: the medallion was completely crumbled up. He thought that it
Speaker 2: was a chocolate wrapper and didn't bother to move it.
Speaker 2: I went downstairs the next morning and found it still crumpled,
Speaker 2: so it had apparently continued to bend after the group left.
Speaker 2: The following week, under the same conditions, a key was
Speaker 2: bent slightly, but this did not continue to bend after
Speaker 2: the group left, and the group decided to discontinue the
Speaker 2: metal bending attempts. Oh my god, these are some wild claims, though, right,
Speaker 2: like really all right, so it says. However, in January
Speaker 2: of nineteen seventy five, the group were visited by a
Speaker 2: journalist from the National Inquirer, mister Bill Dampier, who had
Speaker 2: been given permission to write about the phenomena. He proved
Speaker 2: a very pleasant pleasant visitor and quickly related to the
Speaker 2: group and Philip, and was soon part of the circle,
Speaker 2: asking his own questions and getting answers under his hand.
Speaker 2: He asked about the metal bending and was told of
Speaker 2: the previous efforts. Will you try and bend my house key?
Speaker 2: He asked. The group somewhat reluctantly agreed to try, but
Speaker 2: warned him it might not work. A professional photographer was
Speaker 2: present taking pictures continually, and the room was in bright light.
Speaker 2: After about half an hour, the key was bent very slightly,
Speaker 2: but quite obviously. Pictures had been taken of it beforehand,
Speaker 2: quite flat on the table, and now further pictures were
Speaker 2: taken of the bent key. Mister Dampierre replaced it in
Speaker 2: his pocket, and he was told that it might continue
Speaker 2: to bend. The next day, at about three pm, he
Speaker 2: telephoned to say what he had difficulty in getting his
Speaker 2: house opened the previous night owing to the amount that
Speaker 2: the key was bent, but had left it lying around
Speaker 2: during the day, and now it had bent considerably, more
Speaker 2: so much that he had sent the photographer to come
Speaker 2: and take another picture of its present state. So even
Speaker 2: not on the table, it continued to bend. Like if
Speaker 2: this is real, what do you make of it? If
Speaker 2: it's imagine if it is, I would like to see
Speaker 2: how much it has bent? Right?
Speaker 3: Are we talking about like a slight like where like
Speaker 3: you know, oh, I just didn't notice it before. We're
Speaker 3: talking like full on, just like the Matrix movie. This
Speaker 3: spoon bent to like a ninety degree angle kind of thing.
Speaker 4: I'm just curious.
Speaker 2: But even if it's meant just a little bit. What
Speaker 2: do you explain that as.
Speaker 4: Maybe that's the thing.
Speaker 3: See again, I'm not trying to I'm not trying to
Speaker 3: poke holes in it at this moment. I'm trying to
Speaker 3: really take it all in. I don't really have a
Speaker 3: clear answer at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't either, other than just to believe it.
Speaker 2: I mean, That's where I'm at, sonnyhow In December of
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy four, the Phillip Group was invited to Cleveland,
Speaker 2: Ohio to demonstrate before a group of psychologists and physicists. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: being just before Christmas, only four of the group could
Speaker 2: go al Dorothy, Bernice and sid However, this did not matter.
Speaker 2: The group was able to give a superb demonstration, so
Speaker 2: much so that some of the physicists present declared that
Speaker 2: this would mean that they had to completely rethink their
Speaker 2: theories on physics. What's over that?
Speaker 5: Then?
Speaker 3: I don't understand how this would disprove or prove the
Speaker 3: like the laws of thermodynamics and shit.
Speaker 2: Okay, well it says the table used there was an
Speaker 2: antique heavy wooden chest table with wheels on casters, one
Speaker 2: of which was broken, the other three needing oiling and
Speaker 2: squeaked when the table was pushed. Nevertheless, the table glided
Speaker 2: around the carpet floor without the wheel squeaking and without
Speaker 2: making tracking, without making track markings on the carpet. My god.
Speaker 2: So it says on two occasions one of the men
Speaker 2: present sat at the table and was thrown off once,
Speaker 2: quite violently, thrown off of the table. I don't. I mean,
Speaker 2: for this to be fake, a lot of people have
Speaker 2: to be in on it, right, Like the I mean, they're.
Speaker 4: Bringing how many people in this experiment?
Speaker 3: There was like what six of them, eight of them
Speaker 3: that were like all a part of the experiment.
Speaker 2: Yep, and then you and then they started presenting it
Speaker 2: to a physicists and the reverend, and they started taking
Speaker 2: it on the road. I mean a lot of people
Speaker 2: saw what was going on here.
Speaker 3: But my point is, from what I could understand here,
Speaker 3: it wasn't like a newcomer or a bystander that was thrown.
Speaker 4: Off the table.
Speaker 3: It was one of the people that was a part
Speaker 3: of the experiment consistently.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Well, it says on two occasions one of the men
Speaker 2: present sat on the table and was thrown off quite once,
Speaker 2: quite violently. So it doesn't I guess one of the newcomers.
Speaker 2: I'm guessing it doesn't specify one way or another. It
Speaker 2: doesn't unless we misread it, which I don't think we did.
Speaker 2: But anyway, let's keep going. So Also, a drawer in
Speaker 2: the table, which fell out very easily under normal conditions
Speaker 2: when the table was moved, did not move at all
Speaker 2: when Philip was moving the table. As a result of
Speaker 2: this and the fact that some of the physicists had
Speaker 2: seen some of Uri Geller's metal bending, a serious attempt
Speaker 2: to study these phenomena is being made at Kent State
Speaker 2: University in Ohio under the heading of teleneural physics thing.
Speaker 2: And they just made that up.
Speaker 4: I feel like they might have.
Speaker 3: I've never heard of that combination of partial words before.
Speaker 3: But I mean, we're also talking about something that doesn't
Speaker 3: fit neatly into science that you might have to come
Speaker 3: up with a new field of study to really explore it.
Speaker 2: I don't know, well, I mean, tellneurophysics is I mean,
Speaker 2: I would imagine that the definition is not very far
Speaker 2: different from psychokinesis. It's just the same same It's referring
Speaker 2: to the same thing, I think.
Speaker 3: Exactly the same thing, like I had never heard of
Speaker 3: psychokinesis before this conversation, so I guess you would have
Speaker 3: to come up with new words to describe what the
Speaker 3: fuck you're doing here.
Speaker 2: If you don't know any better, you're just gonna make
Speaker 2: shit up, which is fine. So it says to return
Speaker 2: to Toronto for a few further facts are worth reporting.
Speaker 2: A second group of people completely different from the Philip group,
Speaker 2: decided to attempt the experiment as their imaginary ghosts that
Speaker 2: they invited a personality quite different from Philip, Lilith. Now
Speaker 2: we're getting to Lilith, the French Canadian. Yeah, so she
Speaker 2: was a French Canadian girl who was in love with
Speaker 2: an officer, Da Da Da dah. We already know the
Speaker 2: whole story about that. However, she was betrayed and captured
Speaker 2: and lost her life at the hands of a firing squad,
Speaker 2: a story full of love and drama. As Philip's history,
Speaker 2: The group attempting to produce Lilith very quickly had some
Speaker 2: success they as they had the experience of the Philip
Speaker 2: group to draw on and had seen Philip in action
Speaker 2: many times. Unfortunately, once they had taught themselves to produce
Speaker 2: the phenomena, they had become somewhat bored with the procedure
Speaker 2: and decided to switch to trying to produce voices in
Speaker 2: the manner of the row dive experiments. All right, that's
Speaker 2: something new. How you spell that r a udived ive
Speaker 2: the road dive roative experience or experiments rather? All right,
Speaker 2: so while you're looking that up, I'll continue reading. So
Speaker 2: interestingly enough, they are still continuing this type of experiment
Speaker 2: as they have been having results that seem to explain
Speaker 2: in any rational e. They have wait, well, let me
Speaker 2: read that again. As they have they have been having
Speaker 2: results that seem difficult to explain in any rational manner. Okay,
Speaker 2: So their experience and other shit too, even doing with
Speaker 2: the roative experience.
Speaker 3: Okay, so also real quick on the road of experience here,
Speaker 3: we were talking about what's that thing?
Speaker 2: It's EVP. Oh, I think that's what I yeah, I know.
Speaker 3: But earlier we were trying to figure it out, we
Speaker 3: had said, like e MP or something like that. It's EVP,
Speaker 3: so electronic voice phenomena.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: So, within ghost hunting and.
Speaker 3: Parapsychology, EVP are sounds found on electronic recordings that are
Speaker 3: interpreted as spirit voicing. Parapsychologis just constantinous Jesus hold On
Speaker 3: Constantin's Constantin's Roe Dive all Right, who popularized the idea
Speaker 3: in the nineteen seventies, described EVP as typically brief, usually
Speaker 3: the length of a word or short phrase.
Speaker 4: Long story here.
Speaker 7: To do.
Speaker 3: Spiritualist religious movement became prominent in the eighteen forties to
Speaker 3: nineteen forties with a distinguishing belief that the spirits of
Speaker 3: the dead can be contacted by mediums. New technologies of
Speaker 3: the era, including photography, were employed employed by spiritualists in
Speaker 3: an effort to demonstrate contact with the spirit world.
Speaker 2: So popular were the idea.
Speaker 3: Is that Thomas Edison was asked in an interview with
Speaker 3: Scientific America to comment on the possibility of using his
Speaker 3: inventions to communicate with the spirits. He replied that if
Speaker 3: the spirits were only capable of subtle influences, a sensitive
Speaker 3: recording device could provide a better chance of spirit communication
Speaker 3: than the table flipping and Wuigi board mediums employed at
Speaker 3: the time. However, there was no indication that Edison ever
Speaker 3: designed or constructed a device for this.
Speaker 4: All Right, Cool, cool, cool, Moving on, so the rod
Speaker 4: ive voices.
Speaker 3: Constantine constantin, it's spellweird, It's like it's k O S
Speaker 3: T A n T I in constantin. Rod Ive, a
Speaker 3: Latvian psychologist who had taught at Uppsali University, Sweden, who
Speaker 3: had worked in conjunction conjunction with Jurgensen, made over one
Speaker 3: hundred thousand recordings which he described as being communications with
Speaker 3: discarnate people. Some of these recordings were conducted in an
Speaker 3: RF screened laboratory contained words Rodive said were indeli fual in, indefit, indefiable,
Speaker 3: Jesus as words. In an attempt to confirm the content
Speaker 3: of his collection of recordings, Rodive invited listeners to hear
Speaker 3: and interpret them. He believed that the clarity of the
Speaker 3: voice is heard in the recordings, implied that they could
Speaker 3: not be readily explained by normal means.
Speaker 4: Wrote.
Speaker 3: I published his first book, Breakthrough, an Amazing Experiment in
Speaker 3: Electronic Communication with the Dead, in nineteen sixty eight, and
Speaker 3: it was translated to English in nineteen seventy one.
Speaker 2: Okay, so they took it a step farther with the
Speaker 2: EVP device, or at least the initial early EVP devices.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it seems like EVP devices really became what
Speaker 3: people are using today in the late seventies early or yeah,
Speaker 3: late seventies, early eighties from what I get, which.
Speaker 2: Makes sense because this Philip experiment was in seventy four,
Speaker 2: so people, those people that created those EVP devices learned
Speaker 2: from this initial experiment.
Speaker 3: They were running in the same kind of circles around
Speaker 3: the same kind of time frame. So yeah, you know
Speaker 3: what I mean, Birds of a feather kind of get
Speaker 3: I get.
Speaker 2: It right, right, So to continue, The Toronto Society for
Speaker 2: Psychical Research has an annual Christmas party, which is one
Speaker 2: of their main social events. This party was held on
Speaker 2: December eighteenth, and almost all the members were present. The
Speaker 2: party spills over the whole house at headquarters, and it
Speaker 2: was natural that a number of people would drift down
Speaker 2: to the basement room where the Philip experiments are carried out.
Speaker 2: There were party goodies and decorations, and the pictures of
Speaker 2: Philip and Lilith were on display. A paper Christmas cover
Speaker 2: was on the table. Someone put hands on the table
Speaker 2: and said is anyone there? A loud rap came in reply.
Speaker 2: The rest of the people present joined in and the
Speaker 2: table continued to answer and move around. However, as the
Speaker 2: group around The table consisted of a job lot of members,
Speaker 2: some of the Phillip group, some of the Lilith group,
Speaker 2: one or two from a new group that was just starting,
Speaker 2: and some who had not even seen the phenomena before.
Speaker 2: It was difficult to know who was responsible for the phenomena.
Speaker 2: I would imagine you get a bunch of different, you know,
Speaker 2: personalities over there. Somebody wants to see something, somebody wants
Speaker 2: to spook somebody. You can't be sure I get.
Speaker 3: It right, especially if you're talking on this group of academics. Right,
Speaker 3: they're at a university, so it's people who are all
Speaker 3: up in the academia and the scholarly debates of things.
Speaker 3: So how many of these are people just trying to
Speaker 3: fuck with their colleagues?
Speaker 4: How many of these people were like Okay, no, seriously,
Speaker 4: I want to hear what they got to say? Like,
Speaker 4: who's to say?
Speaker 2: Right? Yeah? I mean, you know, we weren't there, and
Speaker 2: there is not any film footage of it, so you
Speaker 2: can kind of only rely on their word. But at
Speaker 2: least from them documenting all their prior experiments, you know,
Speaker 2: you're inclined to, you know, kind of take them at
Speaker 2: their word. So it says it being Christmas. Somebody said,
Speaker 2: I wonder if this is Santa Claus. Are you father Christmas?
Speaker 2: Said another Yes, came the reply. The group then continued
Speaker 2: to such questions as have you finished packing all the
Speaker 2: children's presence? Are you tired now with all that work?
Speaker 2: Is it cold at the north pole? And are your
Speaker 2: reindeer with you? They were under the table. They were
Speaker 2: under the table, said Santa. It was a perfect example
Speaker 2: of childlike approach to the phenomena that is recommended, the
Speaker 2: complete belief, and a beautiful example of the fact that
Speaker 2: in this situation you get what you expect.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: While they were expecting to hear these things, and then
Speaker 3: they heard these things.
Speaker 2: And it was projected yeah, well it was a knock. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean whatever it is, a knock, a whisper, maybe
Speaker 2: a breeze or whatever. However, they were able to get confirmation,
Speaker 2: you know, to the questions most of the time, yes,
Speaker 2: a knock, but it says later after Christmas, the third
Speaker 2: group of people that were working on this experiment, again
Speaker 2: a completely different set of people, having produced wraps and
Speaker 2: table movements in a somewhat random fashion without having made
Speaker 2: a clear decision as to who who they should have
Speaker 2: for their imaginary character, suddenly decided to have a literary ghost.
Speaker 2: One of the group, obviously a classics fan, asked the table,
Speaker 2: are you a character from Dickens? Yes? Came the reply,
Speaker 2: I know, are you the artful Dodger said the same person. Yes,
Speaker 2: came a loud and clear rap. Thus the group had
Speaker 2: acquired their imaginary character. Some of them were familiar with
Speaker 2: the original story as written by Dickens, and they all
Speaker 2: knew and loved the musical Oliver. The raps were loud
Speaker 2: and enthusiastic. Dodger, as they quickly called him, admitted to
Speaker 2: loving to pick pockets, but, on being asked if he
Speaker 2: would like to pick theirs, seemed hesitant. It soon transpired
Speaker 2: that the fact that all the ladies were wearing slacks
Speaker 2: confused him fashion or fagin. Oliver, Sykes and Nancy and
Speaker 2: even the dog were with him. He said, okay, these
Speaker 2: are all the characters of the Dickens story. Predictably, he
Speaker 2: said he dislikes Sikes and felt very sorry for Nancy.
Speaker 2: He had been very fond of her. He liked music,
Speaker 2: particularly jolly songs and typical Cockney ditties. He agreed to
Speaker 2: have his picture drawn, and on saying good night. A
Speaker 2: whole series of raps were given. At the time of writing,
Speaker 2: this group has only been going on a short while
Speaker 2: and it remains to be seen whether they can continue.
Speaker 2: So you kind of see right here that it's like,
Speaker 2: there's no way that Santa Claus is showing up. There's
Speaker 2: no way that fucking the Artful Dodger is showing up,
Speaker 2: or Lilith or any of these other characters. It is
Speaker 2: seemingly a projection. If it's really happening, which I mean,
Speaker 2: this has happened in the seventies. We for all we
Speaker 2: know they were all tripping on fucking acid, right, But
Speaker 2: if we are to believe the story as it's being told,
Speaker 2: then maybe there was something extra actually going on there.
Speaker 2: And and it seems like it was some kind of
Speaker 2: energetic projection. I don't know.
Speaker 3: It's it's getting more and more interesting the more we read, honestly,
Speaker 3: and I can see how it may all be hoaxism,
Speaker 3: but I could also see that it could be based
Speaker 3: in some reality of things that are happening.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I'm interested to hear more.
Speaker 2: Let me just ask you, like, first of all, do
Speaker 2: you believe in ghosts. So if this were happening in
Speaker 2: front of you and you could definitely say, yes, I
Speaker 2: see it, nobody's flipping this table over, nobody's knocking at
Speaker 2: this table, you were able to confirm it, what would
Speaker 2: be your first assumption as to what it is.
Speaker 4: I don't want to. I don't want to go that
Speaker 4: route just yet.
Speaker 2: I mean, we have enough information on it so far,
Speaker 2: so I think that it's okay to to give a
Speaker 2: supposition on it.
Speaker 3: So I believe that demonic forces are at work at
Speaker 3: all times as much as angelic forces are at work
Speaker 3: at all times. Right that being said, per my own
Speaker 3: beliefs here, you know why they say and by day
Speaker 3: I mean like my religious book says to not deal
Speaker 3: with divination, sorcery uh those a deal in chance i e.
Speaker 3: Taro uh or or seances or trying to communicate with
Speaker 3: the dead.
Speaker 4: It's not that these things aren't real.
Speaker 3: It's that something's going to answer you, although it will
Speaker 3: probably not be what you think it is. Essentially, if
Speaker 3: you know the same reason why you fuck with Luigi Board,
Speaker 3: like something's answering you, you just open the door. Because
Speaker 3: this side is clamoring to get to our realm, So
Speaker 3: if you open the door for them, they will appear.
Speaker 3: So this also kind of leads me to believe, especially
Speaker 3: whenever we're looking at them, these dudes were approaching this
Speaker 3: as a scientific experiment, not as a spiritual encounter. Right
Speaker 3: at least for the first the first experiment for a year,
Speaker 3: they had nothing dead silence, no taps, no wraps, no nothing,
Speaker 3: because they were approaching it from a scientific angle, and
Speaker 3: the spirit realm doesn't give a fuck about science.
Speaker 4: Right. So, and again, if we are to believe that
Speaker 4: everything that they're.
Speaker 3: Seeing, the spoon's bending and the table flipping and all
Speaker 3: these things and do getting thrown off the table, if
Speaker 3: we are assuming that there was no hoaxism going on
Speaker 3: here and that these were in fact, real, credible stories,
Speaker 3: what that tells me is that they figured out eventually
Speaker 3: what the proper chain of events is needed to make
Speaker 3: a response happen, and something was answering them. No, I
Speaker 3: don't believe if again, if this is all true, I
Speaker 3: don't believe it was Philip, and I don't believe it
Speaker 3: was Lilith, and I don't believe it was Santa Claus.
Speaker 3: And I don't believe any of these things I believe
Speaker 3: that something was answering them, and per all of my
Speaker 3: understanding and knowledge based off of spirituality, here, angels or
Speaker 3: things from the good side don't answer in such ways.
Speaker 4: So take that with whatever grain. It's all you would need, so.
Speaker 2: You're less inclined to believe that this could be any
Speaker 2: kind of projection from the individual in the form of psychokinesis,
Speaker 2: of which you know they're inclined to say.
Speaker 4: Uh, just Jacob speaking on behalf of Jacob.
Speaker 2: No interesting, Okay, all right, well let's read a little
Speaker 2: bit more, because I mean, this is fun. You know,
Speaker 2: if you believe it's demonic, or if you think it's
Speaker 2: hoax for or if you believe it's a projection, or
Speaker 2: you believe that they're actual ghosts that are just taking
Speaker 2: the names of whatever is occurring, it's still fun, you know,
Speaker 2: at least not imagination. And I'm not. And that's the
Speaker 2: thing I did.
Speaker 3: I was afraid to even bring it up, like my
Speaker 3: thoughts on this, because I don't want it to seem
Speaker 3: like I'm just trying to shit on the entire thing
Speaker 3: right now, cause I mean I am. So this is
Speaker 3: an opinion of mine, and it is subject to change.
Speaker 4: With new information.
Speaker 3: That being said, I and I mean, we've talked about
Speaker 3: Tulpa's and Edgar Gore's and things like this before. You
Speaker 3: and I have very different opinions on this. I don't
Speaker 3: believe that that's possible. I don't believe that you can
Speaker 3: imagine something into existence if you believe.
Speaker 4: In it hard enough.
Speaker 3: You, on the other hand, believe that if enough people
Speaker 3: believe in the exact same thing, and they believe it
Speaker 3: hard enough with their whole heart of hearts, then very
Speaker 3: wild things can happen.
Speaker 4: And you and you have very different perspectives on this.
Speaker 3: So again, this is just a This is just one
Speaker 3: of those things. So again, I'm not saying that this
Speaker 3: is guaranteed has to be demonic forces at work, Clearly,
Speaker 3: I'm saying that, as of the information, as of this moment,
Speaker 3: that's just what I believe it sounds like. However, if
Speaker 3: if it is possible, if you can get eight people
Speaker 3: sitting around a three legged card table and they believe
Speaker 3: hard enough that some wild, inexplicable shit's able to happen,
Speaker 3: and then they're able to take it on the road
Speaker 3: and it becomes almost like a party trick to people
Speaker 3: that it's you see what I'm saying out loud, like
Speaker 3: that's that's a little bit less of the scientific experiment
Speaker 3: and a little bit more of the party trick variety,
Speaker 3: which does then leave me to believe that it's more
Speaker 3: of the hoax variety and or grifter variety, especially if
Speaker 3: they were charging for it, making a couple dollars along
Speaker 3: the way. But I mean, who's to say. There's people
Speaker 3: that make dollar bills off of absolutely talking and communicating
Speaker 3: with demonic spirits, and they are very open and honest
Speaker 3: about what they're doing and why they're doing it.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, I don't know, so would and
Speaker 2: no judgment here, I mean, it's just interesting to tickle
Speaker 2: your pickle in the homo. But like the idea of
Speaker 2: the idea of the people that go out and do
Speaker 2: the close encounters of the fifth kind whenever they're they're
Speaker 2: all gathered out in the desert and they're all collectively
Speaker 2: meditating on seeing some kind of activity in the sky,
Speaker 2: maybe an orb maybe fucking something inexplicable, inexplicable. Do you
Speaker 2: believe that that would also if it is real, do
Speaker 2: you believe that that would also be a demon?
Speaker 3: Then not necessarily possibly, yes, possibly, but not necessarily right.
Speaker 3: I don't believe that like every single orb in the sky,
Speaker 3: because I believe that UFOs are real. I believe that
Speaker 3: aliens are real. I don't believe those are demons or
Speaker 3: angels for that matter. I believe that both are happening
Speaker 3: independently of each other. Could they be one and the
Speaker 3: same thing, Yes, that's possible. I just don't believe that myself.
Speaker 3: But that to be said, if you get enough people
Speaker 3: out in the desert, meditating hard enough to see something,
Speaker 3: and then all of a sudden they see sothing.
Speaker 2: Just from my.
Speaker 3: Own perspective, that's very much like me when I was
Speaker 3: a kid looking at a monster in my closet that,
Speaker 3: come to find out, was a sweatshirt. But in that moment,
Speaker 3: I believed it was a monster so hard that that
Speaker 3: bitch totally looked at me.
Speaker 4: You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But whenever you get multiple eyes on it, that's
Speaker 2: whenever it's like, Okay, you're not just tripping, you know
Speaker 2: what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: No, No, but especially at night in the dark, when
Speaker 3: you can't see much around you.
Speaker 4: Have you ever been in the woods at night?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, and This is why they do it out
Speaker 2: in the desert, so it's clear and open, so you
Speaker 2: ain't got, you know, any kind of fucking slenderman that's
Speaker 2: gonna creep up on you or something like that, right, right.
Speaker 3: Right, But just saying like you've been have you ever
Speaker 3: been like walking through the woods at night and then
Speaker 3: heard a fucking loud crack that sounds like it's like
Speaker 3: ten feet away from you. In reality, I was probably
Speaker 3: one hundred yards away from you. It was probably you know,
Speaker 3: a squirrel dropped a corn to hit a branch or something,
Speaker 3: and it made a little bit of a rustle. But
Speaker 3: in the night air, it sounds like it's so much more.
Speaker 3: So you take off running because you know you just
Speaker 3: heard that bitch here. It's it's kind of that thing.
Speaker 3: It's because the mind is going to fill in the
Speaker 3: gaps like thunder.
Speaker 2: You know, it travels at the speed of sound, so
Speaker 2: the time you hear it isn't even the time that
Speaker 2: it happened, right, It's a it's a rippling through Well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but my point is at night, whenever it's dark
Speaker 3: and you're you're left with not as much of your
Speaker 3: spatial awareness and not as aware of your surroundings as
Speaker 3: you would be if it was high noon. Your brain
Speaker 3: in your mind, which is the thing that plays tricks
Speaker 3: on us NonStop.
Speaker 4: We've talked about that a million times.
Speaker 3: Is more likely to fill in the gaps with a
Speaker 3: fight or flight scared response more often than not.
Speaker 4: Right, And that's not a negative thing.
Speaker 3: That's that's how humans have survived for so long is
Speaker 3: because our brains do look out for number one when
Speaker 3: all else fails. So if you get enough people even
Speaker 3: and again I'm not equating being scared in the woods
Speaker 3: to meditating in the desert. What I'm saying is if
Speaker 3: you are collectively as a group in the desert and
Speaker 3: you're setting out all these intentions and everybody there where
Speaker 3: it's five people or one hundred people are all there
Speaker 3: to see something like That's the entire reason they've gathered
Speaker 3: out here. And they are aware that it's possible they
Speaker 3: don't see anything, but they are just out there believing
Speaker 3: it that they're gonna see something eventually. Yeah, they'll see something.
Speaker 3: Whether that thing was real or not is beside the point.
Speaker 3: I saw a monster in my closet that was not real,
Speaker 3: but I saw it.
Speaker 2: You see what I'm saying, right, But what happens if
Speaker 2: you know, everybody is out there meditating or whatever they
Speaker 2: do on a CE five kind of experiment. They're out
Speaker 2: there in the desert. It's a clear night sky. You know,
Speaker 2: there's no sounds run of rumbling, thunder or anything like that.
Speaker 2: Let's just paint the picture here. And they're all going
Speaker 2: around and they're thinking, we're going to see an ORB,
Speaker 2: we're going to see an alien, we're going to see
Speaker 2: an et. We're trying to connect with you, you know,
Speaker 2: and whatever your thoughts are towards that, right, And then
Speaker 2: they all open their eyes and they see something out
Speaker 2: there and they're like, holy shit. Now it's one thing
Speaker 2: if one person sees it, it's a it's a raisy coincidence.
Speaker 2: If two people see it. But if you have six
Speaker 2: plus people all out there with witnessing not only just
Speaker 2: an ORB, but they can all describe what color it was,
Speaker 2: how it made them feel, how it levitated in, which
Speaker 2: way did it move, how close, how far away it is? Right,
Speaker 2: and then you have somebody taking pictures of it. Now,
Speaker 2: what happens if you get it on camera? Like, because
Speaker 2: that is something that has been talked about and has
Speaker 2: been documented on CE five things. So and if that
Speaker 2: is true, let's just suppose that this is all you know,
Speaker 2: no bullshit, you know, no hoax. Let's just assume that
Speaker 2: they all sat there, thought about it, opened their eyes
Speaker 2: also the same thing, and a picture was taken. Here's
Speaker 2: the proof. What's your What would you say to that?
Speaker 3: I honestly don't have a clear answer for it. I
Speaker 3: don't believe that's demonic. I absolutely do not believe that's demonic,
Speaker 3: and I don't believe it's spiritual either. It could be
Speaker 3: that it is, in fact in extraterrestrial or an interdimensional
Speaker 3: type of entity, like that's very possible. I'm unfamiliar with
Speaker 3: a case where because there's cases of mass hallucination, it's
Speaker 3: very rare. And by cases, I don't mean like, oh yeah,
Speaker 3: you could just look at it. No, I'm talking to
Speaker 3: like there might have been one case in the last
Speaker 3: one hundred and fifty years where you can actually say this,
Speaker 3: many people saw this thing and then an outsider walked
Speaker 3: up and it's like, what the fuck are you talking about?
Speaker 4: That's not what you're looking at.
Speaker 2: That's what they try to say. The fucking phoenix lights.
Speaker 4: Was okay, but like, that's my point.
Speaker 3: There are some throughout the course of human history, some
Speaker 3: examples of mass hallucination, but especially with the CE five.
Speaker 3: If this is something that's repeatable and enough people are
Speaker 3: able to see it and explain, they're not just the
Speaker 3: way it feels like, I'm sorry, but science doesn't give
Speaker 3: a fuck about feelings, right, So just say that you're
Speaker 3: documenting this. There's picture of evidence, there's video evidence, there's
Speaker 3: radar scans that we're taking, or something along these lines,
Speaker 3: where it's documented that something was here this day, whether
Speaker 3: it made you feel happy or sad or scared, has.
Speaker 2: No amount of fucks given into the equation.
Speaker 4: Right. I love talking about hard and fact.
Speaker 2: Unless, however, that emotion is somehow projected outward and is
Speaker 2: causing the experience to happen in the first place. That's
Speaker 2: why I brought it up was because they seem not
Speaker 2: exactly identical. They're not sitting around a table, but they
Speaker 2: are all sitting around in a circle together. Like both groups,
Speaker 2: both the people that are performing the seance and the
Speaker 2: people that are doing the CE five thing, typically are
Speaker 2: surrounded in a circle. They're sitting down, they're meditating on
Speaker 2: the same thing as these people are, they're all meditating,
Speaker 2: thinking about trying to manifest this thing, whatever term you
Speaker 2: want to use, and something happens. Now, these people didn't
Speaker 2: see something, you know, Remember they said that they couldn't
Speaker 2: get a manifestation of a physical form like a ghost
Speaker 2: or anything like that, but they were able to allegedly
Speaker 2: witness knocks and shifts on the table and table being
Speaker 2: flipped upside down. Not exactly what for what's going on
Speaker 2: out in the C five as far as seeing things,
Speaker 2: but collectively all coming together for one true purpose and
Speaker 2: being able to, I don't know, maybe energize it enough
Speaker 2: to where everybody can see it somehow, you know, would
Speaker 2: you say that those two things are similar or completely different?
Speaker 3: Different personally, I mean, I've I mean not to take
Speaker 3: it to this level, but also like willpower alone is
Speaker 3: not enough to do certain things. Okay, And I understand that, yes,
Speaker 3: the Bible says faith the size of mustard seed. I'm
Speaker 3: I'm talking keep spirituality out of it, Keep religion out
Speaker 3: of the conversation on this one.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: If you've got a kid that's dying of cancer and
Speaker 3: it's got like six months to live, you know, every
Speaker 3: member of this kid's family can believe and just in
Speaker 3: their heart of hearts believe that this kid is going
Speaker 3: to be healed of this inexplicably gonna be healed.
Speaker 2: Yo.
Speaker 3: Their willpower is not going to and make that cancer
Speaker 3: go away.
Speaker 2: Interesting, Well, I mean it's they're not saying that they're
Speaker 2: carrying cancer with this. They're saying a table knock, contrived example.
Speaker 4: I understand that.
Speaker 3: But what I'm saying is willpower and want and belief
Speaker 3: are not going to make physical things change like that.
Speaker 3: That's just not going to happen.
Speaker 2: Interesting. Actually, most people that are into you know, wicca
Speaker 2: and witchcraft and magic would highly disagree with you on that.
Speaker 3: But that and keep in mind, let' say I'm not
Speaker 3: talking about prayer, Okay, I'm not talking about spells. I'm
Speaker 3: talking about just want and hope.
Speaker 2: To actually hope is the worst thing you can do,
Speaker 2: because at least psychologically, I can speak on this that
Speaker 2: whenever you hope for something, you in your mind are
Speaker 2: already like agreeing to the fact that it hasn't happened
Speaker 2: and it won't happen, but you hope that it does.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like a it's like a fart in
Speaker 2: the wind. It's like it's eventually gonna get taken away
Speaker 2: and dissected and all the molecules are gonna float away
Speaker 2: into nothingness. Right Like, it's not a concerted effort. Hope
Speaker 2: alone is not enough. And I mean to put a
Speaker 2: different term on it, not to get religious here, maybe faith.
Speaker 3: Like I said, no, no, no, I'm not saying prayer. I'm
Speaker 3: not talking either to put it to another term, a
Speaker 3: spell or whatever else. I'm not talking about doing any
Speaker 3: because I believe that prayer is action. I don't believe
Speaker 3: that's intention. It's the same with a spell. I don't
Speaker 3: believe that that's you want something hard enough, you know
Speaker 3: you're actually doing something about it, You're actually taking steps
Speaker 3: and putting forth action.
Speaker 4: Okay, So I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: Just mental things and believing that the okay, same thing.
Speaker 2: Belief, not faith, not hope, belief.
Speaker 3: I can blindfold myself and believe that I can walk
Speaker 3: across I ten and.
Speaker 4: Not get hit by a car.
Speaker 3: And I could believe that hardcore believe, and I know
Speaker 3: I'm gonna make it to the other side.
Speaker 2: You know, I probably am not making it to the
Speaker 2: other side, even and still at a subconscious level, belief
Speaker 2: is not full on faith because you're like, I'll give
Speaker 2: you an example. You know your parents exist. You don't
Speaker 2: have to believe that right like you know it.
Speaker 3: And so everybody alive knows they have parents, otherwise they
Speaker 3: wouldn't have been born.
Speaker 2: Right right like. It doesn't take any belief like you
Speaker 2: know it. And so I think that it's kind of
Speaker 2: taken it to that step. And I will say that
Speaker 2: it's not just a matter of believing or you know,
Speaker 2: all your will or anything like that. Most people will
Speaker 2: say that it is like quite literally drawn on your intention,
Speaker 2: like it is emotion. Your powerful will plus intention could
Speaker 2: equal some kind of results like this. This is just
Speaker 2: what I've learned in the past that intention, it plays
Speaker 2: a major part. And so if you think about it,
Speaker 2: all of these people they have the intention that they're
Speaker 2: going to speak to Santa Claus, to the Artful Dodger,
Speaker 2: into you know, all these different characters. They they're intending
Speaker 2: on communicating with this.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'll put it to another example.
Speaker 3: You don't have to tell the kids of America that
Speaker 3: Santa Claus is real for them to believe that he's real. Right,
Speaker 3: they believe they know for a fact that Santa Claus
Speaker 3: is real, but he's not.
Speaker 4: He's not.
Speaker 3: And like even if a eggar gore Tulpa kind of thing, fine, cool.
Speaker 3: There is no physical dude on a sleigh that's going
Speaker 3: to fly the skies on Christmas Eve night and deliver
Speaker 3: toys to the kids.
Speaker 2: That's not a real thing.
Speaker 3: No matter how much belief and knowledge these kids have
Speaker 3: the fact that he's real, it doesn't make it real.
Speaker 3: It makes it real to them, but that doesn't make
Speaker 3: it real in physicality in the real world.
Speaker 2: Well, let's take that to another step then, because most
Speaker 2: of the time, literally every moment of your waking life,
Speaker 2: your mind is feeling in the blanks. Like we can
Speaker 2: agree on that, right, sure. And so whenever somebody tells
Speaker 2: you that Santa Claus is coming and is reindeer, and
Speaker 2: you know, if you're still awake, maybe you'll hear the bells,
Speaker 2: and maybe you'll hear them coming down the down the
Speaker 2: chimney into the kitchen to eat the cookies that you
Speaker 2: made for him the night before, and maybe he'll grab
Speaker 2: the carrots for the reindeer meal, drink that whole fucking
Speaker 2: glass of milk that he has to do a couple
Speaker 2: of billion times, which no wonder he's so damn fat.
Speaker 2: But if you think about it, like those kids, they
Speaker 2: they're not awake, so they're kind of just accepting that
Speaker 2: their proof that Santa Claus exists is whenever they wake up,
Speaker 2: those presents are under underneath the tree, you know what
Speaker 2: I mean. Like, so kids don't kids don't need all
Speaker 2: the information in order to believe. They just need a
Speaker 2: tiny little bit that that same kid that whenever they
Speaker 2: lose a tooth they believe in the tooth fairy. They've
Speaker 2: never seen the tooth fairy, but every morning they wake
Speaker 2: up there's a dollar bill underneath their pillow. That's all
Speaker 2: the confirmation that they need, right and so sometimes and
Speaker 2: that's why they say that, Like you know, a lot
Speaker 2: of spiritualities and you know, religious books will say that
Speaker 2: like you need to take on the mind of a child.
Speaker 2: You don't need to know all the details or anything,
Speaker 2: but just to believe it takes you a lot farther
Speaker 2: without needing to know all the nitty gritty about it
Speaker 2: in order to believe. It's like believing and seeing rather
Speaker 2: than seeing to believe.
Speaker 3: No, no again, And I'm not trying to go to
Speaker 3: a religious scale. I'm saying that, like, the kids believe
Speaker 3: and there's even proof, they see the proof and they
Speaker 3: wake up Christmas morning, but it's not real. And they
Speaker 3: could believe it all they want, but it's not real.
Speaker 3: That's my point. So when it comes to the conversation
Speaker 3: of Tulpa's and Eggregre's and all this, yeah, you can
Speaker 3: believe whatever.
Speaker 4: I personally don't believe.
Speaker 3: That that's gonna manifest Santa Claus into existence.
Speaker 2: That's not how Let me give you another example that
Speaker 2: maybe isn't too contrived, because kids are pretty fucking gullible,
Speaker 2: right like, and a lot of times, you know, we
Speaker 2: take advantage of that by saying that, oh, if you
Speaker 2: don't behave then Santa Claus is gonna bring you a
Speaker 2: lump of colt whatever. Right, But let me get heard.
Speaker 3: You even say that Santa Claus is a tulpa or
Speaker 3: you've said this before.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent he's an eggre gore.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but he's not real though, that's my point. No, No,
Speaker 3: it doesn't matter how many kids actually believe this. They're
Speaker 3: not going to make a physical Santa Claus manifest based
Speaker 3: off of their belief.
Speaker 4: That's not how reality works.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but we're talking about the for a lack of
Speaker 2: a better term, the spiritual realm here. This is the
Speaker 2: realm in which you don't necessarily need physical proof. It's like,
Speaker 2: I'll give you another example of an aggregor right, like,
Speaker 2: and this is this is strictly no, no, no. Let
Speaker 2: me take it to even a more contrived example. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's say I don't know, uh, let's say that Christianity
Speaker 2: not to bring religion to just listen, just hear me out.
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm not judging on any of this. This
Speaker 2: is just a fun example. Let's say, for example, that
Speaker 2: Christianity is the only religion that actually has real God,
Speaker 2: a real God, and a real Jesus, and every other
Speaker 2: religion is not real, right, that people kind of just
Speaker 2: made it up, and it's it's not real, right, it's
Speaker 2: not confirmed, you can't confirm it whatever. Let's just suppose
Speaker 2: that for a second. So now you have every other
Speaker 2: religion out there, whether they believe in fucking four in Odin,
Speaker 2: or if they believe in Mohammed, or they believe in
Speaker 2: all these different you know, other kind of savior archetypes
Speaker 2: or whatever, those people still believe it, right, And some
Speaker 2: people even see the manifestation of them, like, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe they'll see a Mohammed Avatar show up somewhere. Maybe
Speaker 2: it's in a dream, or maybe they literally.
Speaker 3: See a uh what do they call those great flying
Speaker 3: spaghetti monster whatever it is, right, And So, what I'm
Speaker 3: saying is is that sometimes belief is.
Speaker 2: Enough for you to see something and like because there
Speaker 2: are you know.
Speaker 3: Yes, there are the monster in my closet conversation. Yes,
Speaker 3: belief was enough for me to see this thing move.
Speaker 2: It didn't actually move right, but you know, I'll give
Speaker 2: you another example. So, can you prove that the emotion
Speaker 2: of love exists?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they scientifically can can track that based off of
Speaker 3: the chemicals that are released in your brain.
Speaker 2: Okay, so why do you feel so.
Speaker 3: In the pheromones and shit, there's there's a lot of
Speaker 3: science that actually goes into it. You can actually like
Speaker 3: mathematically break down what we would call love.
Speaker 2: Okay, Okay, So then you would have to properly describe
Speaker 2: what love is. You know what I'm saying because a
Speaker 2: lot of people have loved many people. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: I have had many of girlfriends in the past that
Speaker 2: I at the time felt like I loved, but I'm
Speaker 2: not with them anymore? So was it really love? Was
Speaker 2: it kind of a confusion kind of thing? Did I
Speaker 2: fall out of love with them? You know? If it's like,
Speaker 2: what is the definition of love?
Speaker 4: If?
Speaker 2: If? If love can be kind of uh, I don't
Speaker 2: know documented right, Like what would the definition of that
Speaker 2: be outside of just chemicals firing off in your brain?
Speaker 4: Short term infatuation?
Speaker 2: And this is where I'm gonna get weird with it.
Speaker 2: So you remember the first time you fell in love, right,
Speaker 2: not even the first time. The first time you fall
Speaker 2: in love with anybody is always awesome, Like it is
Speaker 2: the best feeling. It's a fucking drug.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 2: Like you go around and you're like, oh my god,
Speaker 2: I can't believe this girl is interested in me. Holy shit,
Speaker 2: I have gone above the bar. I don't deserve this.
Speaker 2: She is she she said she likes me. That's crazy, right,
Speaker 2: And now you go to work and everybody, everybody at
Speaker 2: work is like you like them a little bit more now.
Speaker 2: The food that you eat taste a little bit better now,
Speaker 2: you know, Like, uh, it doesn't matter if you're watching
Speaker 2: your favorite sports team. If I'm watching the fucking Steelers,
Speaker 2: knock on wood, if I watch them lose tomorrow against
Speaker 2: the fucking Brownies, which God, God forbid that. But let's
Speaker 2: just say I fall in love.
Speaker 4: What are the chances of that actually happens. I don't
Speaker 4: know football this year.
Speaker 2: I mean, any any given Sunday, you know, but especially
Speaker 2: with the Steelers, you never know. But anyway, let's just
Speaker 2: say I'm in love and the Steelers lose tomorrow. It's
Speaker 2: not going to affect me that much because I'm in love.
Speaker 2: There's nothing that can beat that.
Speaker 3: Right, right, because your chemicals in your brain are released
Speaker 3: to make you happier overall. You got way more serotonin,
Speaker 3: way more dopamine.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, But do you see how that carries on
Speaker 2: you're in the rest of your day or however long
Speaker 2: that feeling, I mean it, it eventually fades away, you
Speaker 2: know that that like exciting kind of feeling.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's love and then there's a real shit when
Speaker 3: rubber meets the road.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, right, But in that moment, nothing can go wrong.
Speaker 2: And what I'm saying is is that you believe that
Speaker 2: all of life is love. Now, that is kind of
Speaker 2: like what you're experiencing, right, And what I'm saying, and
Speaker 2: you believe it because not only you feel it, you
Speaker 2: know it. She's into you, You're into her. You're imagining
Speaker 2: a beautiful future together. Maybe hey, maybe one day we'll
Speaker 2: get married, Maybe one day we'll have kids. I can
Speaker 2: already imagine me proposing to her. Your mind starts getting
Speaker 2: a little crazy. It's just so overfeeling full of love, right,
Speaker 2: that emotion is I think, I don't know how do
Speaker 2: you document that? Could that be? You know, in a sense,
Speaker 2: the emotion that these people are feeling, that is projecting
Speaker 2: outwardly because you got multiple people feeling that enthusiasm that
Speaker 2: wild like bewildering, bewildering belief that somehow it manifests in
Speaker 2: physical form. And what I'm saying is is that I
Speaker 2: believe what is going on here is that emotion sometimes
Speaker 2: manifests itself in some forms. And I think that's what
Speaker 2: they're alluding to.
Speaker 3: I'm not disagreeing that that can happen, yes, but especially
Speaker 3: when it comes to human to human contact. Right, It's
Speaker 3: the same thing whenever, I don't know, you ever work
Speaker 3: with somebody that you can't stand Oh yeah, right, for
Speaker 3: whatever fucking reason. Maybe it was something that was said
Speaker 3: once upon a time, Maybe it's the way this person smells,
Speaker 3: whatever it is. You can't stand this fucking person. And
Speaker 3: you see the schedule and you know that you're gonna
Speaker 3: be working on the same shift and something, you're just like, God,
Speaker 3: fuck this guy. Like you go to work and you're
Speaker 3: already pissed off, right, and then what you know, it's
Speaker 3: just about the worst day at work you had. Even
Speaker 3: if this guy wasn't there, it would have been the
Speaker 3: worst day because everything's fucked, and then this guy's just
Speaker 3: making extra worse by by Yeah, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 3: But at the same time, that guy had no bearing
Speaker 3: on what kind of day at work you had. You
Speaker 3: had the mood that made it what it was, and yeah,
Speaker 3: possibly the day would have been fucked even if this
Speaker 3: guy didn't show up. It's very possible maybe him being
Speaker 3: there made everything fucked. I don't know, it doesn't, but
Speaker 3: it doesn't matter. The reality of the situation is the
Speaker 3: reality of the situation. You can control how you handle it,
Speaker 3: but that's not going to change it one way or another.
Speaker 2: Right. My point is is that that energy somehow projects
Speaker 2: outward and everything about your day. If you're working with
Speaker 2: this dickhead at work, every single thing, every call that
Speaker 2: you get, every action that your boss asked you to take,
Speaker 2: every single little, tiny, little minute thing that you need
Speaker 2: to perform, just sucks that much more. What I'm saying
Speaker 2: is is that there is an emotional override that is
Speaker 2: projecting outward, at least to you. Now you multiply that
Speaker 2: by five, six, seven, eight people, and I don't know,
Speaker 2: maybe that's what they're talking about with this whole psychokinesis thing.
Speaker 2: I'm not even saying that.
Speaker 9: I know.
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to imagine, like what's really going on.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to figure it out too, to be honest
Speaker 3: with you. As we're hearing these stories and reading through this,
Speaker 3: it's getting more and more wild and again I can
Speaker 3: see a possibility that this is hocum, you know, just
Speaker 3: more and more of it. I could see it possibly
Speaker 3: being something of a demonic nature. I could see that too.
Speaker 3: I'm trying here, I'm trying to see the possibility of
Speaker 3: them creating a ghost from scratch and believing in it
Speaker 3: hard enough to where it's moving the table and shit.
Speaker 2: I'm here though. At least that was their goal, right,
Speaker 2: So let's see. Let's continue, because it goes on, We're
Speaker 2: not going to read the whole thing because it's quite long.
Speaker 2: It's like fifty pages long or something like that. I
Speaker 2: just kind of wanted to get a little taste from
Speaker 2: the horse's mouth, right, So it says they feel talking
Speaker 2: about this group, they feel that the experiment is undoubtedly
Speaker 2: a group experience with value in the realms of group therapy.
Speaker 2: They continue to function as a group in their social relationships.
Speaker 2: There is a strong family feeling of affection and friendship,
Speaker 2: and during the Christmas period when they took a break
Speaker 2: from meeting, they felt impelled to keep close in touch,
Speaker 2: and we're obviously very glad to be back together again.
Speaker 2: Quite a degree of telepathy has grown up between some
Speaker 2: of the members. Interesting, I mean, telepathy could be anything,
Speaker 2: you know, like there's been times where I thought about
Speaker 2: you for some reason that is not homosexual, and whoa
Speaker 2: and then hey, all right, right, I'm a straight man, dammit.
Speaker 2: But anyway, let's just say I thought about you. Oh
Speaker 2: that's that reminds me of something that Jacob said. And
Speaker 2: then like, weirdly, you text me, you know, like something
Speaker 2: that most people would probably deem coincidence until you experience it.
Speaker 2: Thirty or forty times and you're like, all right, all right, statistically,
Speaker 2: what are the odds?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 2: So that's kind of like maybe that's what they were
Speaker 2: talking about as far as the telepathy thing goes. So
Speaker 2: it says since the Philip experiment started, the metal bending
Speaker 2: feats of Uri Geller and Matthew Manning, as well as
Speaker 2: many other people, have caused the physicists to look at
Speaker 2: the whole field of psychic energy from a new standpoint.
Speaker 2: The Philip group, while providing only a limited amount of
Speaker 2: that energy, nevertheless can produce phenomena to order, and so
Speaker 2: are ideal sub jects for experiments, and this is why
Speaker 2: they have been invited to take part in experiments at
Speaker 2: Kent State University in nineteen seventy five. From that, from
Speaker 2: the point of view of spiritualist belief, while the group
Speaker 2: still realize that one batch of experiments is entirely inadequate
Speaker 2: to attempt to enter into the question of the validity
Speaker 2: or not of spiritualistic belief, nevertheless they have become more
Speaker 2: and more convinced that in a seance situation, it is
Speaker 2: quite possible that the physical phenomena which often occur and
Speaker 2: are ascribed to the spirits of departed friends could often
Speaker 2: be only the result of the intense desire of the
Speaker 2: part of the members of the circle to hear from
Speaker 2: a particular person in their own mental image of that person,
Speaker 2: basically just a projection they believe, so says. However, one
Speaker 2: is quite aware that there are many instances on record
Speaker 2: which would not be attributable to this theory, and obviously
Speaker 2: many years of research into these areas lie before us. Finally,
Speaker 2: to the members of the Philip group, this remains the
Speaker 2: most exciting parapsychological experiment that they have ever done. It
Speaker 2: continually opens up new ideas and gives rise to continued speculation.
Speaker 2: Especially especially have the group speculated on the relationship of
Speaker 2: the force generated by Philip to faith healing, for instance,
Speaker 2: seeing perhaps a tenuous connection between it and the work
Speaker 2: done by doctor Grad and Sister Justus Smith on the
Speaker 2: alteration of the molecules of enzymes by a faith healer.
Speaker 2: Do advances in the knowledge of healing methods lie with
Speaker 2: the secrets of the PK force? If we could learn
Speaker 2: to control the force, what practical uses could we make
Speaker 2: of it? Could it be the answer to the energy crisis?
Speaker 2: We just don't know. In what direction it could be
Speaker 2: used or if at all, But the finding out is
Speaker 2: exhilarating and challenging. So I think that's probably all we'll
Speaker 2: read from that, and you know what I'll send out.
Speaker 2: I'll have that down in the show notes below if
Speaker 2: anybody else wants to read the entire thing. But man,
Speaker 2: that that is, that's that's a lot to say. And
Speaker 2: they're speaking from at least they're speaking from a point
Speaker 2: of view as if like they full on believe it.
Speaker 2: Whoever's writing this believes it has experienced it, and they
Speaker 2: they have taken, you know, countermeasures to at least try
Speaker 2: to prevent some kind of fuckery by a hoaxter in
Speaker 2: the group, right.
Speaker 3: I mean, they're doing their best here. I get it,
Speaker 3: I see it.
Speaker 2: Right, right, So just wanted to throw that out there.
Speaker 2: There is some other things that I did want to
Speaker 2: share here too, just alluding to all of this, because
Speaker 2: I mean, look, some people would say that it's it's
Speaker 2: this or it's that, and maybe this is just kind
Speaker 2: of like a counter argument. Could it be something that is,
Speaker 2: you know, exerting from the individual rather than the individual
Speaker 2: perceiving something outside of them, right, Like that would be
Speaker 2: what they say is psychokinesis. So then I was like,
Speaker 2: all right, does this connect to Tulpa's. You know, no
Speaker 2: matter what you believe about Tulpa's, a lot of people
Speaker 2: believe this kind of shit. Not everybody. I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: not even saying half of all people believe it, but
Speaker 2: there are a lot of people within this kind of
Speaker 2: community that believes in psychokinesis and levitation and you know,
Speaker 2: the magic of the mind that maybe that's what we're
Speaker 2: talking about here. So I figured maybe we'll give a
Speaker 2: little brief overview as to what tulpas are. We've kind
Speaker 2: of gone over them before in the past. What was that?
Speaker 2: Remember that video that the Spirit animals shared of that
Speaker 2: thing being born out of the egg? That wasn't a tulpa?
Speaker 2: That was what was What was that again?
Speaker 3: You No, that was a camera which, again, for the
Speaker 3: love of God, for people who believe that that's real,
Speaker 3: do like even a quick cursory understanding of how genetics work.
Speaker 3: You can't insert your jiz into the egg of another
Speaker 3: creature and get some sort of a hybrid. That's literally
Speaker 3: not how genetics works. Whatsoever? How many things does dogs hump?
Speaker 3: So you're telling me if a dog humps a cat.
Speaker 3: We're gonna get a cat dog out of it. That's
Speaker 3: not how.
Speaker 2: It actually works, dude, Jacob, have you never seen the cartoon?
Speaker 4: Obviously it works clearly. Nickelodeon was on one.
Speaker 2: You're correct, by bad. I was so in my understanding
Speaker 2: of what this psychokinesis is and what they were saying
Speaker 2: about some kind of group energy projection, I thought that
Speaker 2: kind of sounded very similar to what a tulpa is.
Speaker 2: For those who don't know a tulpa, I have, Marv
Speaker 2: the octopus from Metamisteries Metamistics now is supposed to be
Speaker 2: inside of this crystal that I wear around my neck.
Speaker 2: Sounds crazy, sounds woo woo, whatever, but it was created
Speaker 2: by our boy lord Byron Jester. He believes that that
Speaker 2: energy of that tulpa that we created, of our logo
Speaker 2: is inside of this, and so I wear it every day.
Speaker 2: Who cares if it is it is, if it isn't,
Speaker 2: I mean, it still looks pretty cool. But either way,
Speaker 2: So tulpa's a history and example of living thought forms.
Speaker 2: So we're not gonna read this whole thing, but we're
Speaker 2: gonna see if it rhymes a little bit, right. So
Speaker 2: did anyone ever have an imaginary friend? Jake, have you
Speaker 2: ever had one of those?
Speaker 3: I can't say that I have. I mean not in
Speaker 3: the way I guess. So at one point in time,
Speaker 3: you ever seen the old show Foster's Home.
Speaker 4: For Imaginary Friends.
Speaker 2: It sounds familiar.
Speaker 4: It's a cartoon from back in the day.
Speaker 3: Anyway, inspired me to like create one, But I think
Speaker 3: it I created it and then forgot about it, like
Speaker 3: within a couple of days, because I had like actual
Speaker 3: friends to go hang with.
Speaker 2: Well I and I could be wrong, but if I'm
Speaker 2: not mistaken, this is also similar to whenever children give
Speaker 2: imaginations to their toys. So like Barbie, you know, this
Speaker 2: is her favorite food and this is her favorite place
Speaker 2: to go, Like it almost takes on a little personality, right,
Speaker 2: And I don't know if that's exactly tulpa, like Tulpa
Speaker 2: mancy or whatever, but Tulpa mancy is that the word
Speaker 2: for it. That's what you know, if you're trying to
Speaker 2: create a Tulpa. Yeah, be considered Taupa mancy.
Speaker 4: Gotcha?
Speaker 2: Okay, So because and the only reason I thought about
Speaker 2: that is because back in the day I used to
Speaker 2: have one of those. My buddy Dolls. If anybody any
Speaker 2: of the nineties babies out there, you remember my buddy Dolls.
Speaker 2: And I used to chase my friends around the neighborhood
Speaker 2: with it because they thought it looked so much like Chucky, right,
Speaker 2: because it was like the nice version of Chucky. It
Speaker 2: looked like it was just this little, this little blonde,
Speaker 2: white baby doll looking thing that had overalls and a
Speaker 2: hat and very friendly. My buddy, My my buddy. However,
Speaker 2: the fucking song went, and and that was I carried
Speaker 2: that thing with me everywhere, and I gave him a
Speaker 2: little personality, and this is what he likes, this is
Speaker 2: what he doesn't like. And so I wonder if that's
Speaker 2: kind of like maybe the beginning of a tulpa being created.
Speaker 3: But that was all in a physical thing, right, That
Speaker 3: wasn't like you created in your mind. You gave this
Speaker 3: ananim an objective personality.
Speaker 2: Fuck.
Speaker 3: I played with g I, Joe's and yeah, I gave
Speaker 3: them like little personalities and all of these things, for sure,
Speaker 3: But that's not me creating a tulpa. That was me
Speaker 3: having a vivid imagination, because fuck, every time we'd play,
Speaker 3: there may be different personalities associated with each of these things.
Speaker 3: Maybe it'd be the same one, it'd be a continuation
Speaker 3: of the last toy that we got together and play.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, if that's the case, then you could say
Speaker 2: that everybody that believes in a tulpa is really just
Speaker 2: a believing in an imaginary kind of made up thing, right, which, yeah,
Speaker 2: let's read a little bit about it, because I don't know.
Speaker 2: So someone or something that you played with and told
Speaker 2: all of your secrets talking about your imaginary friend, a
Speaker 2: friend that you were so sure could be real if
Speaker 2: you only believed hard enough. What if all of your
Speaker 2: beliefs and intentions actually made them real. Some believe that
Speaker 2: this is really possible, that if you put enough careful
Speaker 2: thought and intention into an imaginary being, you can will
Speaker 2: it into existence. Once created, this being is essentially a
Speaker 2: living thought form called a tulpa. So what is a tulpa?
Speaker 2: By most definitions, a tulpa is a being or object
Speaker 2: created of an out of intense spiritual concentration. Typically, these
Speaker 2: beings are created for a specific purpose or to help
Speaker 2: their creators accomplish a specific goal. The idea of a
Speaker 2: tulpa was first introduced to me in what I now
Speaker 2: realized was a little known Disney Channel show called So Weird.
Speaker 2: In this show, I don't know if I've ever seen
Speaker 2: that one.
Speaker 3: Oh dude, wait that one and don't look under the bed.
Speaker 3: That was the other one, whereas like the Boogeyman was
Speaker 3: actually her imaginary friend come to life whenever she stopped
Speaker 3: believing in him too early and all this shit, which
Speaker 3: is also really fucked up for kids to watch. That
Speaker 3: was way too scary for five year olds to be watched.
Speaker 3: And let's be real. Yeah, but uh yeah, So Weird
Speaker 3: was uh it was kind of like a paranormal esque show.
Speaker 3: You remember, Brink, Yeah, okay, we're on So Weird. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I think that I remember it now? Is that the one?
Speaker 2: Like the logo was like this big smiley face or
Speaker 2: something like that.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, the logo is like these kids looking
Speaker 3: scared as fuck at the camera with a UFO behind them.
Speaker 4: So here's here's the backstory to that one.
Speaker 3: So uh, I forget the other dude's name, but two
Speaker 3: of the dudes that played him Brink Old Peter, the
Speaker 3: one that finally pulled off the inverted five forty at
Speaker 3: the end. He and Brink were the older brother and
Speaker 3: the cousin of the main character chick in it, the
Speaker 3: mom from the Basketball movie who as a matter of fact,
Speaker 3: weirdly enough, you ever heard of the band The Mamas
Speaker 3: and the Papas.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, this.
Speaker 2: Band had a weird Oh god, that's a whole conversation
Speaker 2: now remember this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, so the mom from so Weird. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: there's the two dudes so Ericvon didn't and then your
Speaker 3: boy Peter that pulled off the five forty. Yeah, the
Speaker 3: mom standing next to the chick there that is the
Speaker 3: daughter of two of the people from The Mamas and
Speaker 3: the Papas.
Speaker 4: That was like a swinger vibe thing.
Speaker 3: She was really fucked up for the longest time, but
Speaker 3: then she broke out into acting and Disney gave her
Speaker 3: a couple roles as a mom. So yeah, the show
Speaker 3: was actually not a bad show. Gonna be completely honest
Speaker 3: with you. It was kind of like a kid's version
Speaker 3: of like a paranormal esque show.
Speaker 2: It was supposed to be like.
Speaker 3: Super creepy vibes, but like, yeah, that's the logo that
Speaker 3: I remember.
Speaker 4: Seeing so many times.
Speaker 2: Wow, damn, what a dude. Talk about a flash to
Speaker 2: the past.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a deep cut look at the Disney logo
Speaker 3: at the bottom right. You want to talk about a
Speaker 3: deep fucking cut that used to that was the thing?
Speaker 7: Uh huh?
Speaker 2: Like that went away in the late nineties. I know.
Speaker 3: Man, Oh I miss old school Disney. This is back
Speaker 3: when it was like Imagine or that and all that
Speaker 3: crazy shit. Yeah, good old ep Cot was like the
Speaker 3: newest thing that Disney had as an attraction.
Speaker 4: It was like it was wild things.
Speaker 2: Good old days.
Speaker 4: Dude.
Speaker 2: But anyhow, by that.
Speaker 3: Logic is speaking on Disney here, does that make Woody
Speaker 3: a tulpa for Andy?
Speaker 2: Because the cowboy asque vibe of whatever.
Speaker 3: That's one thing, but he gave what the personality to
Speaker 3: make him all these things?
Speaker 2: Right. I'm if if we are to believe that tulpas
Speaker 2: are a thing, then it would fit the bill.
Speaker 3: I think so if you believe hard enough, your toys
Speaker 3: can't come to life when you're not around and have
Speaker 3: entire story arcs in and of themselves.
Speaker 2: Dude. I used to believe that whenever I was younger,
Speaker 2: especially after watching Toy Story. Yeah, but you know, a
Speaker 2: Toy Story came out and I was like four or
Speaker 2: five when that came out.
Speaker 3: You know, every kid, every single kid alive. Like, we
Speaker 3: go to school and think, like, bro, what if toy
Speaker 3: stories reals and my kids are or what if toy
Speaker 3: story is real and my toys are playing around in
Speaker 3: my room right now without me. Every kid has had
Speaker 3: that daydream.
Speaker 2: And every time you'd come home hoping that your favorite
Speaker 2: toy was in a different place. Yeah yeah, oh shit,
Speaker 2: yeah yeah, just to prove it. Uh right, So anyway, yeah,
Speaker 2: they bring up so weird. In this show, the main character,
Speaker 2: who is a girl who encounters the paranormal on a
Speaker 2: regular basis, meets a young boy who created an imaginary
Speaker 2: friend as a way of coping with bullies. The imaginary
Speaker 2: friend became real a tulpa, and had the ability to
Speaker 2: move things and affect the world around it. It also
Speaker 2: had a mind of its own and became very overprotective
Speaker 2: of its creator. In the episode, the young boy eventually
Speaker 2: had to stand up to his tulpa and banish it. Wow,
Speaker 2: I don't remember that part. I remember being fascinated by
Speaker 2: this concept that we imagine that what we imagine could
Speaker 2: somehow take on a life of its own. So how
Speaker 2: and why would someone create a tulpa? This is where
Speaker 2: it's gonna get pretty weird, okay. So tulpa's are typically
Speaker 2: created on purpose to fulfill some sort of need. Today,
Speaker 2: there are certain magic practitioners that incorporate tulpa's into their practice.
Speaker 2: Only they may be only They may be called servitor,
Speaker 2: which is technically what my necklace is called. These servitors
Speaker 2: are created to perform a task, whether it is to
Speaker 2: whether it be to protect their creator or their home,
Speaker 2: or to go out into the world and bring things
Speaker 2: into the life of the creator such as love or money.
Speaker 2: There are a number of uses for these beings, and
Speaker 2: one practitioner may create multiple servitors for different purposes. Tulpas
Speaker 2: or servitors basically the same thing are typically created through
Speaker 2: intense concentration. As mentioned previously, a person may write down
Speaker 2: the purpose of their tulpa and list out the characteristics
Speaker 2: that it needs to have to accomplish their purpose. The
Speaker 2: creator may even draw an image of what it should
Speaker 2: look like. For example, if a tulpa was being created
Speaker 2: to protect someone's home, the creator may imagine a very
Speaker 2: large being with strong arms, perhaps even armor or sharp
Speaker 2: teeth or whatever the creator feels is a protective feature.
Speaker 2: They would then focus all intent and belief on this
Speaker 2: image or whatever they had written, perhaps even entering a
Speaker 2: meditative state to bring the creature into existence. So you
Speaker 2: see how it's kind of similar to the imagination of
Speaker 2: a child, which is why I think they kind of
Speaker 2: bring the imagination of the toys and shit like that
Speaker 2: into it. Right, So all right, this is where I
Speaker 2: thought it was gonna get awesome. Okay. So the word
Speaker 2: tulpa originated from the Tibetan sproll pa, which means to
Speaker 2: let emanations go forth? Could that be if we are
Speaker 2: to believe the Tulpas and the Tibetans obviously believed it,
Speaker 2: that they created a term for it. That Could that
Speaker 2: be that that's what they were experiencing whenever they created
Speaker 2: this fictional character as the ghost. It's kind of what
Speaker 2: I'm trying to build here. So in nineteen twenty nine,
Speaker 2: the word was used by Alexandra David Neil to describe
Speaker 2: a practice that she discovered when traveling and learning about
Speaker 2: the Tibetan culture. In her book called Magic and Mystery
Speaker 2: in Tibet, David Neil explains that she met that she
Speaker 2: met the Dali Lama in nineteen twelve, and he explained
Speaker 2: that in a state of perfect concentration, he could create
Speaker 2: many phantoms otherwise known as tulpa's of himself in any
Speaker 2: form that he chose, So Dhali Lama believed it. It
Speaker 2: says the limitless power of creation of the of the
Speaker 2: Dali Lama was attributed to spiritual status. However, she also
Speaker 2: references tolkus tolka's to tolkus whatever, which we're described as
Speaker 2: a shorter lasting manifestation that any human had the power
Speaker 2: to create. It seems that the strength of the tulpa
Speaker 2: depends on the strength or level of concentration. A similar
Speaker 2: being in Jewish folklore is called a gollum.
Speaker 4: That's right, How is that similar?
Speaker 3: Gollum is a clay creature that you carve a certain
Speaker 3: word into the forehead and then speak a spellover.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the idea is is that you sit there,
Speaker 2: you think about it, you concentrate on it, maybe you
Speaker 2: man meditate on it while you're also doing those other things.
Speaker 2: It's not just the physical steps that you got to take.
Speaker 2: That you almost have to apply your intention and your
Speaker 2: imagination to it at the same time, I think, is
Speaker 2: what they're referring to.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's completely different than a tulpa, which doesn't
Speaker 3: have any physicality.
Speaker 2: This you have to physically carve it yourself. I think
Speaker 2: gallums take it a step farther in creating the actual
Speaker 2: physical form of it. But as far as the for
Speaker 2: a lack of a better term, the consciousness of that
Speaker 2: gollum would have been created through intense concentration and whatnot,
Speaker 2: I think is what they're trying to talk about here. So,
Speaker 2: according to Miriam Webster, the term gllum originally meant shapeless mass.
Speaker 2: Gollums are creatures created from inanimate matter such as mud
Speaker 2: or clay, and brought to life to serve their creator
Speaker 2: using a charm or sacred word. The main difference here
Speaker 2: is that gollums are actually created from matter, where a
Speaker 2: tulpa is created purely from intention, although if strong enough,
Speaker 2: they may have a physical appearance. So I'm not trying
Speaker 2: to get too far into the weeds on that, but
Speaker 2: basically my point was, you know, them communicating with this
Speaker 2: other thing that is going on on may very well
Speaker 2: be what the Dalai Lama would call a tolka a
Speaker 2: sproll paw, which just really means to let emanations go forth,
Speaker 2: essentially saying that there is something that is coming out
Speaker 2: of you. Your belief, your intention, your imagination, all of
Speaker 2: that is charged up and somehow, I don't know, coming
Speaker 2: out of you in one way or another, emanating right,
Speaker 2: like the sun emanates onto the flowers right in that
Speaker 2: same way, a light emanating onto your table right now, right,
Speaker 2: and like it is coming out so projected outward is
Speaker 2: what the Tibetans believed and ultimately what the Dalai Lama believes.
Speaker 2: Not saying that anybody any of this is real or false,
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to say, you know, I'm trying to
Speaker 2: come up with, like what's the explanation? How is this possible? Right?
Speaker 2: So then there's the history of Taupa mancy, which we
Speaker 2: don't need to get into. That just kind of wanted
Speaker 2: to bring that up here. So I don't know if
Speaker 2: we even need to talk about this. But how to Yeah,
Speaker 2: this is a conspiracy show. I'm not going to say
Speaker 2: how to conduct a seance.
Speaker 3: I mean I'm curious, like how much of the movies
Speaker 3: have you know, how much of that spot on or not?
Speaker 3: Because these people that were conducting this experiment were performing
Speaker 3: seances correct, Yes, yes, they were performing seances with the
Speaker 3: intention of making contact with a fictitious character that they
Speaker 3: created completely from their own imagination.
Speaker 2: M h, I mean out loud.
Speaker 3: That would be like saying that I am going to
Speaker 3: go and start this car that I'm making up in
Speaker 3: my mind, completely fictitious. I'm going to go outside with
Speaker 3: this key and eventually one day I'm going to turn
Speaker 3: the ignition on a car that I've made up in
Speaker 3: my mind. It's not even a car that really exists,
Speaker 3: Like where it's from is a place.
Speaker 4: The name of the the manufacturer is a thing.
Speaker 3: Uh, you know this car has always had an engine
Speaker 3: knock problem, you know, coming up with a whole backstory
Speaker 3: for it whatever, and then one day going outside and
Speaker 3: sticking the key into an ignition and like it starts,
Speaker 3: and you're like, whoa, I made this happen. It took
Speaker 3: a year of figuring it out, but like I got it.
Speaker 3: Like that's that's insanity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But there's also there also seems to be limitations
Speaker 2: to this. So like they they could get all the knocks,
Speaker 2: they can get the table moving around, but they couldn't
Speaker 2: get any kind of physical emanation of it, right, Like,
Speaker 2: so there seemed to be that there were definitely limitations.
Speaker 2: Otherwise they would have done other things rather than just
Speaker 2: proving that this thing is knocking at this table. Right.
Speaker 2: So so anyway, and it's it's actually not a long article,
Speaker 2: so we can we can kind of just burn through it.
Speaker 2: So why not? And this is from liveabout dot com,
Speaker 2: the article that was talking about the Phillipic experiment earlier.
Speaker 2: But so it says throughout the Victorian age, parties that
Speaker 2: featured a seance were all the rage hosts would gather
Speaker 2: together to contact the dead. In recent years, there have
Speaker 2: been increased skepticism towards seances. However, a lot of people
Speaker 2: continue to believe that making contact with the dead is possible.
Speaker 2: So as far as the supplies you'll need, it says,
Speaker 2: if you're planning to hold a seance in your own home,
Speaker 2: you need a few like minded people and a few
Speaker 2: vital supplies. By the way, I just want to put
Speaker 2: this out there. If you are a devout religious person,
Speaker 2: maybe just skip ahead a couple of minutes. Okay, this
Speaker 2: is getting into performing seances and toulpla mancy and only
Speaker 2: I only decided to even bring this one up because
Speaker 2: I saw it earlier and I was like, ah, fuck, it.
Speaker 2: It's Halloween. It's Halloween season, so let's get spooky, right sure.
Speaker 3: Sure, this is not an instruction guide that we want
Speaker 3: cult members to follow, right, Like, if you do this,
Speaker 3: you know, if you feel like you want to, but
Speaker 3: it is not us telling you to do this. As
Speaker 3: the resident Christian, I need to at least make that
Speaker 3: statement known. We're not sharing this information hoping that all
Speaker 3: of our cult members are going to start going out
Speaker 3: there and performing salance.
Speaker 4: Is that they're kitchen table.
Speaker 3: As a matter of fact, I don't want any of
Speaker 3: you to do this specifically because the Bible, in the
Speaker 3: Old and New Testament said don't fucking do this.
Speaker 2: So just so we're clear, but moving on, and as
Speaker 2: a self proclaimed mystic and philosopher and wonderer of all things,
Speaker 2: if you do happen to dabble in these directions, reach
Speaker 2: out to me at metamistics at yahoo dot com. Okay,
Speaker 2: just let me know what your experience was. I want
Speaker 2: to hear about it. I'm into all the weird, I'm
Speaker 2: into all the wu wuo, I'm into all the fucking
Speaker 2: unexplainable shit, So reach out to me. So that is
Speaker 2: kind of funny though about how we both kind of
Speaker 2: have very separate ideas on that. But no, I believe
Speaker 2: this shit's real.
Speaker 3: Like I mean, I'm I'm not saying that even this
Speaker 3: article is going to actually tell you how to do
Speaker 3: it correctly. If very well may it very well may,
Speaker 3: And it's one on the money, It's very possible that
Speaker 3: this is like one person's interpretation of some stuff that
Speaker 3: they found once upon a time. I don't know, but
Speaker 3: like the Book of Deuteronomy is very clear on these
Speaker 3: types of things. And then in the New Testament, Jesus
Speaker 3: and his disciples reference the Torah, which is where deuterontomy
Speaker 3: is saying that this is truth. So like, just don't
Speaker 3: it's telling you that, like this is real, Like Katie
Speaker 3: with the Dead is a thing that you can physically do,
Speaker 3: it tells you not to do it specifically.
Speaker 4: So yeah, like that's that's where I'm at with it.
Speaker 3: You on the other hand, But that's the other thing, right,
Speaker 3: unless you acknowledge the book to be truth, then like
Speaker 3: it wouldn't matter to.
Speaker 2: You, which is why it does.
Speaker 4: So I mean, I get that.
Speaker 2: And also I come from the understanding all two that
Speaker 2: you know, one person's grimoire is not everybody's grim war,
Speaker 2: you know, just want to throw that out there, so
Speaker 2: you know, it could be somebody looks up a spell
Speaker 2: or a magic potion or something from a grimoire and
Speaker 2: maybe it works for some people, maybe it doesn't work
Speaker 2: for you. Everybody's different. So anyway, outside of that, it says,
Speaker 2: so if you're planning to hold a seance in your
Speaker 2: own home, you need a few like minded people and
Speaker 2: a few vital supplies. When choosing participants, select people who
Speaker 2: believe in the possibility of communicating with the dead. Skeptics
Speaker 2: can harm the seances chances of success. And I will
Speaker 2: say that's not the first time something like that has
Speaker 2: been mentioned, right, Like I talked about the time that
Speaker 2: I was out, you know, camping with the kids. We
Speaker 2: saw a bunch of for a lack of a better term,
Speaker 2: orbs up in the sky. Maybe they were fucking, I
Speaker 2: don't know whatever, they were right, And I told my sister, hey,
Speaker 2: come out and look at this. She said no. Eventually
Speaker 2: she ended up going out to her car to go
Speaker 2: charge her phone. She and whenever she came out because
Speaker 2: she didn't believe. She said, I don't believe in that stuff.
Speaker 2: I'm not even gonna look up because she didn't believe.
Speaker 2: Whenever she was out there, nothing appeared. Whenever she went
Speaker 2: back in the tent, they started appearing again. So there's
Speaker 2: something really strange about everybody needing to be on board.
Speaker 2: I mean, skeptical, fine, but absolute disbelief. It's not going
Speaker 2: to work for one reason or another. Interesting And and also
Speaker 2: Chris Bledsoe says this as well. So for anybody that
Speaker 2: goes out there and does the sky watches with them,
Speaker 2: if they have a night that they're not seeing something,
Speaker 2: they're like, all right, who's the disbeliever? They just assume
Speaker 2: that that's what it is. So anyway, so it says,
Speaker 2: and because the experience can be intense, it is usually
Speaker 2: best to keep young children out of the circle for
Speaker 2: obvious reasons. Otherwise, all you need concerning supplies is a
Speaker 2: round or oval table, a candle, and some food. Both
Speaker 2: the candles and food are believed to attract spirits who
Speaker 2: are looking for worms and sustenance.
Speaker 4: So wait, what the fuck?
Speaker 2: Okay, sure worms is in like the heat from the candle.
Speaker 4: I guess not that. What the fuck is a ghost
Speaker 4: he gonna do with food?
Speaker 2: Can't take it with them? I don't know. Maybe it's
Speaker 2: an offering.
Speaker 4: Like that's why I stop myself. It's like, never mind.
Speaker 3: If they say it's what you need to do, then fine,
Speaker 3: I just I don't understand the reason, but I ain't
Speaker 3: got to.
Speaker 2: So I mean, hey, Santa needs his cookies. You know
Speaker 2: what I'm saying. It's an offering.
Speaker 4: You ever present Tulpa of Santa Claus?
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, buddy. So it says how to hold a sayance.
Speaker 2: So once you got all that doesn't require much. Couple
Speaker 2: of like minded believers, a candle, a table, some food,
Speaker 2: you got it, that's all you need, right, It says,
Speaker 2: so to hold a seance and increase the chances of
Speaker 2: contacting a spirit, follow these steps and there's only fourteen
Speaker 2: of them. So only fourteen but there they seem pretty easy.
Speaker 3: So I mean, to be fair, it could be like
Speaker 3: a one hundred page step by step guide. It's, you know,
Speaker 3: fourteen steps releasing that bad in the grand scheme of shit.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've I've carried through with a thousand steps
Speaker 2: to build a fucking ikea chair before, right, Like fourteen
Speaker 2: steps to contact the other side. All right, So number
Speaker 2: one you need to assemble the participants gather the people
Speaker 2: who will participate. Some say the number of participants must
Speaker 2: be divisible by three, but this does not seem to
Speaker 2: be an absolute role. No fewer than three people should
Speaker 2: attempt a seance, So you need at least three, is
Speaker 2: what they're saying, as it can be emotionally and physically
Speaker 2: exhausting on a small group.
Speaker 3: Interesting, I've heard stories of two being able to make
Speaker 3: things happen.
Speaker 2: I don't know that for a fact, but okay, for
Speaker 2: a seance, I gyeah.
Speaker 3: I mean yeah, they always say that like the more
Speaker 3: the merrier when it comes to this kind of thing,
Speaker 3: the more people around, the stronger it is, and all
Speaker 3: these things. But like I sure was under the impression that, hell,
Speaker 3: I thought you could do this solo.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean what it That would probably just be
Speaker 2: like a meditation or a spell at that point.
Speaker 3: And no, if you're communicating with the dead but you're alone,
Speaker 3: I figured that, like, that's like our boy who does
Speaker 3: the sacrifices to the demons and shit, to my understanding,
Speaker 3: he does this alone.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, this is just this
Speaker 2: is what it is, So I don't know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not trying to argue with you on this.
Speaker 3: It's just all right like that. Maybe I've never heard
Speaker 3: that there was a number associated with this kind of thing.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's called something else. If there's only one or
Speaker 2: two people, and whenever you get three or more, it's
Speaker 2: called a seance. Maybe it's something like that. Okay, So
Speaker 2: then you would want to choose a medium, it says,
Speaker 2: you might want to choose a medium among the participants.
Speaker 2: This could be a person who has had experience with
Speaker 2: seances or someone who has displayed that they've got psychicability.
Speaker 2: So you need you know somebody who is who you
Speaker 2: believe is the most capable of hearing messages or whatever. Right,
Speaker 2: it says, then you would use a round or an
Speaker 2: oval table. This helps create the symbolic circle believed necessary
Speaker 2: for the ritual. A square or rectangle table would make
Speaker 2: it more difficult to join hands, so that's why you
Speaker 2: would need an oval or round table. Then you would
Speaker 2: set the table in the center of the table, place
Speaker 2: some simple and naturally aromaic or aromatic food such as
Speaker 2: bread or soup. This is believed to help attract the
Speaker 2: spirit who still seek physical nourishment. Oh interesting, Why would
Speaker 2: a spirit that is detached from the physical realm. Okay, yep,
Speaker 2: because the article here kind of like what I was
Speaker 2: saying earlier, that these could be ghosts that like they
Speaker 2: haven't given up on being physical. Maybe they got their
Speaker 2: life taken away too soon and they don't even know
Speaker 2: that they're dead or something like that. That's actually what I've
Speaker 2: heard in the past is that typically some people don't
Speaker 2: want to quote unquote crossover to the other side, right,
Speaker 2: And so that's how you get ghosts, because you know
Speaker 2: people who were addicted to drugs or alcohol or sex
Speaker 2: or food or whatever physical things, right, And that's why
Speaker 2: you would have spirits that don't want to cross over,
Speaker 2: because they're still attached to those things allegedly. Okay, So
Speaker 2: it says, then you would want to light the candles.
Speaker 2: So also in the center of the table, place no
Speaker 2: fewer than three candles, or a number divisible by three
Speaker 2: lit candles. The more candles, the better. Spirits still seek
Speaker 2: warmth and light, all right, So that's how you're gonna,
Speaker 2: I guess attract them in. So it says, then you
Speaker 2: want to create some atmosphere, dim the lights and eliminate
Speaker 2: any distractions, turn off all music, and quiet the television.
Speaker 2: Then you'd want to join hands, So seated around the table,
Speaker 2: the participants must all join hands in a circle. Then
Speaker 2: to some of the spirit, so the participants must speak
Speaker 2: these words together, are beloved. Whatever the name of the
Speaker 2: spirit is, we bring you gifts from life into death.
Speaker 2: Commune with us name of the spirit, and move among us.
Speaker 4: Oh spooky yeah.
Speaker 2: Then you would. Then you would wait for a response.
Speaker 2: If no response comes, repeat the chant until the spirit responds.
Speaker 2: Then communicate. It says. If and when the spirit responds,
Speaker 2: either by rapping or some other means through or through
Speaker 2: the medium, ask your questions. So it doesn't have to
Speaker 2: necessarily respond by a rapping. It could almost I don't
Speaker 2: want to say channeling, but maybe that person would be
Speaker 2: able to speak on behalf of the spirit. Whatever it
Speaker 2: is what they're saying here. So then you would communicate.
Speaker 2: And then you begin so ask the spirit yes or
Speaker 2: no questions. At first, ask the spirit for one rap
Speaker 2: to communicate no, and two raps to communicate yes. For example,
Speaker 2: it says, if a spirit chooses to speak through the medium,
Speaker 2: you may ask any kind of question. It says, if
Speaker 2: the seance seems to be getting out of hand, end
Speaker 2: the seance by breaking the circle of hands, extinguishing the candles,
Speaker 2: and turning on the lights. And if you want to
Speaker 2: end the seance, it says, when you're done with your
Speaker 2: line of questioning, thank the spirit for joining you and
Speaker 2: tell them to go in peace, break the circle of hands,
Speaker 2: and extinguish the candles. So it says hosting a seance
Speaker 2: can be an emotional yet satisfying experience when you're hosting
Speaker 2: your meeting. When hosting your meeting, proceed with caution and
Speaker 2: patience to get the best results. Damn, Jake, you want.
Speaker 7: To try it?
Speaker 10: Dude?
Speaker 4: No, I really don't. I could I do?
Speaker 3: You only like quote the verse to tell you not
Speaker 3: to do this shit? Nah, just anybody wants.
Speaker 4: To look it up.
Speaker 2: Rules are for squares, Jacob, I disagree, respectfully. It's the
Speaker 2: cult of fucking conspiracy. Baby.
Speaker 3: We literally just read a list of rules on a seance.
Speaker 3: Rules are for squares, this fucking guy. I mean the
Speaker 3: rules are only for squares if you don't like them.
Speaker 2: I mean some rules, I like, you know, some rules
Speaker 2: are Okay. I'm not a complete renegade over here, So
Speaker 2: all right, now we get to the craziness by Northrop
Speaker 2: Grumming Okay, So if anybody is out there, you're saying,
Speaker 2: there's no way a seance could be real. There's no
Speaker 2: way of tulpa or you know, a thought form or
Speaker 2: projected andation of myself or a ghost or anything exists.
Speaker 2: I don't believe in that. Shit. Will fret not because
Speaker 2: Northrop Grumming of the UH military Industrial Complex is here
Speaker 2: to serve you. So it says, what is the difference
Speaker 2: between psychokinesis and telekinesis? Just listen to this shit, okay, right,
Speaker 2: So it is hitting on some things, but you're gonna
Speaker 2: see how they try and persuade you at the end.
Speaker 2: So it says the key takeaways, which we're not gonna
Speaker 2: read that because we want to actually read the whole
Speaker 2: thing and not just read the spark notes of it.
Speaker 2: So it says, our psychic ability is the next step
Speaker 2: on humans evolutionary path. Brain research says that this is
Speaker 2: an unlikely outcome. Oh no shit coming from the military
Speaker 2: industrial complex. The wants to be able to provide fucking
Speaker 2: technology for you to be able to achieve that. But
Speaker 2: it says, but it's all it's not all bad news.
Speaker 2: Emerging technologies may pave the way for human telekinetic abilities,
Speaker 2: which risingly are different than their close cousins psychokinetic powers.
Speaker 2: Here's a look at how these two techniques differ, what
Speaker 2: parapsychology has to say about human potential, and how tech
Speaker 2: could make these powers possible. Okay, yeah, buddy, relying on
Speaker 2: our tech overlords.
Speaker 4: Obviously, that's obvious.
Speaker 3: We need to We need more AI in our lives, clearly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, who needs the hold a seance?
Speaker 2: Just give me that brain chip, you know what I mean, like,
Speaker 2: give me, give me a little bit. Pretty much the
Speaker 2: same goddamn thing.
Speaker 3: Interchangeable dialogue At this point I was also I misspoke
Speaker 3: a moment.
Speaker 4: It goes Deuteronomy eighteen. Anyway, moving on.
Speaker 2: Moving on, So what is the difference between psychokinesis and telekinesis?
Speaker 2: For starters, both rely on the power of your mind
Speaker 2: to control the world around you. Where they differ, however,
Speaker 2: is in what exactly your controlling Put simply, in the
Speaker 2: case for psychokinesis, your powers influenced someone's mind to take action.
Speaker 2: With telekinesis, you have the ability to manipulate objects directly.
Speaker 2: Here's an example to highlight the difference. It's been a
Speaker 2: long day, and you finally sit down on the couch
Speaker 2: to relax with your partner and watch some TV. The
Speaker 2: show you're watching ends, but you don't want to watch
Speaker 2: what's showing next, And wouldn't you know it, the remote
Speaker 2: is out of reach on the far side of your
Speaker 2: coffee table. Sure, you could get up, walk all the
Speaker 2: way over there, get the remote, and walk back, or
Speaker 2: you could use your powers. If you've got psychokinesis, you
Speaker 2: introduce a small suggestion into your partner's mind they should
Speaker 2: get the remote, and while they're at it, they may
Speaker 2: as well grab a snack. Yes, so hey, if you've
Speaker 2: got telekinesis, your power lets you directly manipulate the remote,
Speaker 2: levitating it off the table and into your hand. Then
Speaker 2: you open the cupboard, bring out a bowl, fill it
Speaker 2: with snacks, and gently float it over to the couch.
Speaker 2: In both cases, the outcome is the same, but the
Speaker 2: mental mechanism differs. That's kind of a crazy example, bud Well.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean no, but that's what telekinesis is.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 4: It's like Matilda shit, yeah exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So a parapsychology primer, so it says
Speaker 2: parapsychology is the study of psychic powers and other extrasensory phenomena.
Speaker 2: According to Psychology Today, efforts to scientifically assess the human
Speaker 2: capacity for psychic powers began in the nineteen thirties at
Speaker 2: Duke University with Joseph Banks Rhine. Along with his colleagues,
Speaker 2: Ryan conducted experiments why with card guessing and dice rolling
Speaker 2: to see if it was possible for people to predict
Speaker 2: outcomes in advance. Common areas of areas of study of
Speaker 2: para psycho psychologists sorry include precognition other like seeing the future,
Speaker 2: telepathy which is communicating mind to mind, and clairvoyance, which
Speaker 2: is the ability to perceive things happening in distant locations,
Speaker 2: along with telekinesis and psychokinesis. Despite nearly a century of study, however,
Speaker 2: parapsychologists remain largely empty handed when it comes to evidence.
Speaker 2: According to Psychology Today, some studies, such as Daryl Bem's
Speaker 2: ex expeeriments with word recall, suggests that people could feel
Speaker 2: the future, but subsequent research could not replicate the results.
Speaker 2: This is a consistent problem for the discipline. Although one
Speaker 2: off experiments often show promising data, repeated trials under the
Speaker 2: same conditions don't produce the same outcomes. Work on both
Speaker 2: telekinesis and psychokinesis has delivered similarly underwhelming results. While body
Speaker 2: language and emotional intelligence can help humans influence the minds
Speaker 2: of other humans nearby, this fits firmly into regular psychology
Speaker 2: rather than parapsychology when it comes to moving objects with
Speaker 2: our minds. Meanwhile, supposed magicians such as Uri Geller spent
Speaker 2: decades trying to convince audiences that he could bend spoons
Speaker 2: with his mind. Spoiler alert, he could not, so, he says,
Speaker 2: so they say. A piece from Medium points out that
Speaker 2: our thoughts themselves can be considered telekinetic, and that the
Speaker 2: activation of neurons causes them to move. Since these neurons
Speaker 2: have mass, they affect other pieces of matter in your brain,
Speaker 2: meaning you've effectively moved something within in your mind. Okay,
Speaker 2: but you see how like we just gave a huge example,
Speaker 2: whether you believe it or not, and this you can
Speaker 2: kind of tell where this is starting to go, right,
Speaker 2: Like the idea is we want to diminish the idea
Speaker 2: that you can achieve this on your own so much
Speaker 2: so that we can sell you on you know, kind
Speaker 2: of like turning you into some kind of robot with
Speaker 2: some kind of technology that you can you know, that
Speaker 2: you can wear or put inside your body. Like this
Speaker 2: is how you sell something, right, Like the idea is
Speaker 2: is that, hey, you know what, I see that you
Speaker 2: got a I don't know, maybe I'm a car salesman, right,
Speaker 2: Like you come over and yeah, I see that you
Speaker 2: want that Honda Cord. But have you checked out this
Speaker 2: fucking Lambeau? I mean, how many RPMs you think that
Speaker 2: Honda Core can get up? How fast? In zero to
Speaker 2: sixty do you think that Honda Core can get up? Oh?
Speaker 2: It can? It can? It can reach sixty miles an
Speaker 2: hour and six seconds. That's cute. This Lambeau can do
Speaker 2: it in two and a half or something like that. Right,
Speaker 2: It's like it's diminishing the other side to help prop
Speaker 2: up what they have is what I think is going
Speaker 2: on here. So oh, here we go. So telekinesis goes
Speaker 2: tech It says, while there's no evidence for parapowered telekinesis,
Speaker 2: technology offers a way to make the dream of moving
Speaker 2: things with our minds a reality, known as brain computer interfaces.
Speaker 2: BCI's Baby Scientific American explains that this tech relies on
Speaker 2: grids of electrodes implanted into the brains cortex. More chips
Speaker 2: going in ready.
Speaker 5: To your head.
Speaker 2: Terrifying, But okay, I mean this is fucking Elon. Well,
Speaker 2: Elon produces something similar, at least I'm a fan of it.
Speaker 2: Me neither, I would never get that shit. So these
Speaker 2: electrodes record the behavior of neurons as they fire, and
Speaker 2: then translate this neuron behavior into thoughts and actions. And
Speaker 2: this isn't just speculation. Bcies allow patients to interact with
Speaker 2: software applications or move prosthetic devices. New research from Caltech
Speaker 2: shows that advanced bcies can predict a patient's inner internal monologue.
Speaker 2: It can predict the internal monologue. Holy shit. So you
Speaker 2: have sixty thousand thoughts in a day, brother, this shit
Speaker 2: can read every single one.
Speaker 6: Of them.
Speaker 3: And predict you, predict what you're about to think before
Speaker 3: you think it.
Speaker 2: I mean, you no longer have any sovereignty anymore. There's
Speaker 2: no more free will of anything you're now being. You're
Speaker 2: a controlled, fucking robotic puppet.
Speaker 4: Man.
Speaker 3: This is some black mirrorshit. This is black mirrate is,
Speaker 3: in my opinion, black magic shit.
Speaker 2: But yeah, yeah, for I mean, I would say even worse.
Speaker 2: I mean, you ain't got to rely on a wish
Speaker 2: and a hope and a dream and a faith. I
Speaker 2: mean they got the fucking device. It's working every time, baby.
Speaker 2: So yeah. It says that bcies can predict a patient's
Speaker 2: internal monologue, the things that we think but don't say,
Speaker 2: with a high degree of accuracy, which could help develop
Speaker 2: devices that let non vocal patients speak. Oh see, this
Speaker 2: is what they always do. They make it like.
Speaker 3: See.
Speaker 2: It helped this paralyzed person. It helped a deaf person. Here,
Speaker 2: it helped the blind person. See right, It helped this
Speaker 2: person with no leg have a legged walk. Let them
Speaker 2: feel normal. This is they pull out your heart strings, right.
Speaker 2: This how they pass it at first. So moving on,
Speaker 2: It's worth noting that BCIs are a work in progress.
Speaker 2: Consider that currently accurate BCI readings rely on cutting a
Speaker 2: portion of the skull to implant electrodes. Efforts are underway, however,
Speaker 2: to produce non invasive alternative alternatives capable of collecting brain
Speaker 2: data through layered materials such as skin or hair. There
Speaker 2: are also concerns about the impact of BCI development on
Speaker 2: human behind at scale. Oh my god, they want to
Speaker 2: do it to everybody. Yep, fuck yes, this.
Speaker 3: Is this is this is the future that they want
Speaker 3: for you. This is the transhumanism that they're after. And no,
Speaker 3: we don't mean trans is in like trannies. They mean
Speaker 3: trans is in. Like, oh, well, you got a little
Speaker 3: bit of robot in you, a little bit of human
Speaker 3: in you, and we could upload your consciousness into the
Speaker 3: Internet and you'll live forever. Fuck all of that, dude,
Speaker 3: I'm out, count me out. Fuck living forever too, Like
Speaker 3: this body wasn't meant to last forever. This thing has
Speaker 3: a heartbeat. Like I was having this conversation with my
Speaker 3: son the other day, like, your heart is only good
Speaker 3: for so many beats. Yeah, okay, it's like a motor
Speaker 3: is only good for so many miles. Sure you could
Speaker 3: do a whole engine swap at some point, but that
Speaker 3: then you have to start swapping other components to match
Speaker 3: the new motor. And it's just look, everything is going
Speaker 3: to die eventually. That's how this whole thing is built.
Speaker 3: That's the whole purpose.
Speaker 2: And if you're lucky enough, you do get every beat
Speaker 2: out of that heart, right, Like that's that's the ultimate goal,
Speaker 2: is to to die of old age or maybe in
Speaker 2: your sleep or of natural causes. Right, But what this
Speaker 2: is saying, Well, it's not saying that you can live forever.
Speaker 2: It's not saying that rate on this article, but it
Speaker 2: is definitely alluding to potential moving forward.
Speaker 4: Right yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So it says while existing frameworks are highly specialized
Speaker 2: and training out and training algorithm models take years, mass
Speaker 2: produced alternatives can could make limited telekinesis an option for
Speaker 2: almost anyone. Tell a fucking kinesis with a brain chip
Speaker 2: in your skull or on your hair or on your skin,
Speaker 2: to where now you can send a thought. I could
Speaker 2: send a thought without having to speak to.
Speaker 3: You, So like I could send you a text message
Speaker 3: by thinking it.
Speaker 2: And sending it. You don't even need to send a
Speaker 2: text message. You send whatever you would send in a
Speaker 2: text message via thought, and I receive it via thought.
Speaker 2: That's telekinesis.
Speaker 4: Well, they're they're saying limited, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: So I don't know if they're saying, like, Okay, this
Speaker 3: chip in your brain will be uh, let's see compatible
Speaker 3: with all Apple iOS devices and maybe you know Samsung
Speaker 3: and Amazon and shit too, maybe to where it would
Speaker 3: be a thought to text conversion or something along these
Speaker 3: lines because not everybody's gonna get the chip, and maybe
Speaker 3: you want to send a grocery list to your wife
Speaker 3: at the store, or she wants to send it to
Speaker 3: you while you're at the store, and she's thinking of damn,
Speaker 3: we forgot to get toilet paper. Next thing you know,
Speaker 3: you're getting a little on your phone grab toilet paper.
Speaker 3: It's like, oh shit, okay, I forgot all about that.
Speaker 3: And then she's like, oh, I didn't even text you that. No,
Speaker 3: but your neurallink sent me the message. Oh that's cool.
Speaker 3: Like I could see them trying to make it seem
Speaker 3: like it's convenience.
Speaker 2: Oh, one hundred people fall for convenience every time, every time.
Speaker 2: We are suckers for convenience.
Speaker 3: Humans are lazy creatures by nature, you know, I get it.
Speaker 2: We would rather do nothing, absolutely absolutely, Yeah, dude, So
Speaker 2: it's going to get crazier. Let's read on. In an
Speaker 2: article for The Conversation, which I guess is a newspaper
Speaker 2: or something like that, philosophers John Kendall Hawkins and Sandy
Speaker 2: bouchet Or Butcher of the University of New England discussed
Speaker 2: the emergence of the list wait for it technological singularity,
Speaker 2: which sees AI technology and humans irrevocably intertwined.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I bet they do.
Speaker 2: They contend that BCIs could be the first step on
Speaker 2: the road to this singularity, in that there's no going back.
Speaker 3: I agree. I agree with that second part of that sentence.
Speaker 3: But you know, we could in fact, just like not
Speaker 3: fucking do this and then we don't.
Speaker 4: Have to worry about it. It's totally an option too.
Speaker 2: I agree to see. Wouldn't you rather just people do
Speaker 2: fucking spells and seances rather than this fucking advanced bullshit
Speaker 2: in which they entrap and train everybody?
Speaker 4: Do I have to choose between one of these two
Speaker 4: fucking options?
Speaker 2: Just be normal people, just saying if you had to pick,
Speaker 2: you'd pick not the latter, right, I.
Speaker 3: Wouldn't pick the seance option, But I also wouldn't pick
Speaker 3: this option.
Speaker 2: Fuck.
Speaker 3: I honestly didn't know that this would be my only
Speaker 3: two options moving forward.
Speaker 2: Hey, at least the people that are performing seances are
Speaker 2: not government controlled robotic puppets.
Speaker 4: I mean that's fair.
Speaker 3: At least the lily talking with evil demonic forces and things,
Speaker 3: and that's not good.
Speaker 2: Well, you can't say absolutely.
Speaker 4: I mean, for my beliefs, for your beliefs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so anyway, it says, to sum up, while there's
Speaker 2: no evidence for latent psychic abilities that empower psycho or telekinesis,
Speaker 2: new technologies may offer a way for human minds to
Speaker 2: connect with and control the world around us. Doesn't that
Speaker 2: sound nice? You know, A big shout out to orthrope grumming,
Speaker 2: big shout out to the military industrial fucking complex. They
Speaker 2: only want what's best for you, Jacob.
Speaker 3: Okay, it sounds the most dystopic, like, holy fuck, No,
Speaker 3: big brother, doesn't you have to watch you anymore.
Speaker 4: Big Brother knows what you're about to think before you
Speaker 4: even think it.
Speaker 2: Big Brother gave you that thought.
Speaker 3: Broh, What the fuck are we talking about right now?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, and let me tell you a little something extra.
Speaker 2: I think that you don't even need a chip in
Speaker 2: your brain for them to be able to control or
Speaker 2: at least send you some thoughts if you really look
Speaker 2: into you know, some of the beliefs behind the five
Speaker 2: G or the coming six G towers. I mean, you're
Speaker 2: talking about sending short wave I don't even know what
Speaker 2: they're called, short wave little energy forms or something like that,
Speaker 2: literally to everybody, and they're they're very disruptive to the
Speaker 2: the energy and the physical body of the human right.
Speaker 2: This is why people talk about like, oh, they're they're
Speaker 2: sending me thoughts and I'm having thoughts I don't want
Speaker 2: to have, or I'm feeling this way. I didn't even
Speaker 2: need anything bad or you know what I mean, like
Speaker 2: weird shit. And and those people that are saying that
Speaker 2: sound crazy right now, they do. They do sound crazy
Speaker 2: right now. Wait till it's happening on mass then who's
Speaker 2: gonna be crazy?
Speaker 6: You know?
Speaker 2: So, I don't know. It could be a hair bang conspiracy.
Speaker 2: But what I am saying is is that big tech
Speaker 2: absolutely is looking to enslave humanity through the use of convenience,
Speaker 2: through the use of AI exactly.
Speaker 3: So for everybody who thinks that AI is not a threat, yeah,
Speaker 3: it may not be a threat right now as of
Speaker 3: October of twenty twenty five, give it another six months,
Speaker 3: year five ten, it's not going to get.
Speaker 2: Better, oh one hundred percent. Yeah, Like, and I use
Speaker 2: AI like.
Speaker 3: I know it fucking kills me, Jonathan, and the way
Speaker 3: that I'm mean it might end up killing you other
Speaker 3: what we're talking.
Speaker 2: Don't get too crazy. The aim that's what we just
Speaker 2: talked about. There are various forms of AI, just like
Speaker 2: there's various forms of fire. You can light a lighter,
Speaker 2: you can light a match, or you can fucking you know, uh,
Speaker 2: I don't know, fucking bomb an entire country with fire,
Speaker 2: right Like, there's different levels to this ship and the
Speaker 2: way that most people are communicating and you know, using AI.
Speaker 2: It is not to the level of which the military
Speaker 2: industrial complex and the powers that be are going to
Speaker 2: use it. However, Yeah, there's a big However. The however
Speaker 2: is is that I know without a shadow of a
Speaker 2: doubt that they are absolutely collecting data on all of it.
Speaker 2: There's they would be dumb if they're not. Right, there
Speaker 2: are huge data farms that are that are in Texas
Speaker 2: right now as we speak. Right, you know, we talked
Speaker 2: about uh what was it called Oracle, right, the the
Speaker 2: one that that's the one that's in uh in Texas,
Speaker 2: the one that is running your algorithms for TikTok and
Speaker 2: Facebook and in and everything like that. So that now
Speaker 2: the United States is in control of the algorithm that
Speaker 2: you get. And so if you're wondering, man, why is
Speaker 2: TikTok so whack today? Why is Instagram suggesting this. Why
Speaker 2: is YouTube, you know, trying to show me things that
Speaker 2: I've never even thought about? Right, what's the algorithm that
Speaker 2: is being literally created by our government? This is the
Speaker 2: plain Larry Ellison, fucking Larry Ellison.
Speaker 3: Yes, God, my TikTok scrolling is just ass today, thanks
Speaker 3: a lot, Ellison.
Speaker 2: Basically yeah, yeah, and some people have tried to figure
Speaker 2: a workaround around that. I don't think there is one.
Speaker 4: There isn't.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, it's not just TikTok, it's all of them.
Speaker 2: I mean, whatever you are looking at on your phone,
Speaker 2: they are collecting data off of It doesn't even need
Speaker 2: to be Chat, GBT or grock or any of that.
Speaker 2: These are all different companies that are collecting your data.
Speaker 2: They are data collection fucking centers, right, just like just
Speaker 2: like Safari Not Safari, but just like Duck Duck Go,
Speaker 2: and just like Google and if ask Jeeves is still
Speaker 2: around whatever, right, like they're all in SuPAR. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: it's all data farming, is my point.
Speaker 4: That's my point.
Speaker 5: Though.
Speaker 3: You're saying that this isn't to the level that we're
Speaker 3: talking about with the military industrial complex and all these
Speaker 3: things yet, but it will be and so many people
Speaker 3: have lost the sense of how to do research on
Speaker 3: their own or how to find information now on their own.
Speaker 3: It's like even even if you look in college these days,
Speaker 3: it used to be that you would copy and paste
Speaker 3: someone else's work and change a couple of words here
Speaker 3: and there and plagarize it that way. Kids these days
Speaker 3: are just doing AI prompts and that's how they're writing
Speaker 3: their essays and shit. And it's like they're not even now,
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that every single essay is going to
Speaker 3: be critical to their education and all that. Most of
Speaker 3: these kids are getting degrees and shit that they're not
Speaker 3: even gonna use like let's let's just be real here,
Speaker 3: and I get that, but now take that to the macro. Right,
Speaker 3: They're gonna have doctors eventually, real shit, who actually didn't
Speaker 3: retain any knowledge from their medical school. It's just okay,
Speaker 3: you're gonna come in with a list of symptoms and
Speaker 3: this happened. They're gonna plug it into an AI prompt
Speaker 3: and the AI prompts gonna tell them what to do.
Speaker 2: Dude, I don't know who you like, let me tell
Speaker 2: you something. They're already doing that without AI, Like every
Speaker 2: time I've gone to the doctor, which I have not
Speaker 2: gone very often over the last ten years because I
Speaker 2: refuse to get any kind of insurance outside of car
Speaker 2: insurance only because I have to. But every time I've
Speaker 2: gone to the doctor and they're looking up a symptom
Speaker 2: for this, or why is it like this? Dude, they
Speaker 2: go on their fucking computer and google it. Like them
Speaker 2: inserting it into AI is just an advanced form of
Speaker 2: what they're already doing, most of them, but most of
Speaker 2: them are. It's too much information for them to remember everything.
Speaker 2: It's not like Gray's an atom or or your fucking
Speaker 2: doctor house, Oh you have this kind of itch? Did
Speaker 2: you drink that? Or did you come in contact? Like
Speaker 2: not everybody's a fucking genius, so they got to look
Speaker 2: it all up, right.
Speaker 3: And what I'm standing is to be if anybody is
Speaker 3: gonna be the genius, I needed to be the doctors.
Speaker 3: But no, I'm not against them doing online research for
Speaker 3: so especially obscure shit that you know you may only
Speaker 3: see three of these cases in your entire medical career.
Speaker 4: You know, I get that.
Speaker 3: And again, AI, as of this moment that we're having
Speaker 3: this conversation isn't a threat, but what's it going to
Speaker 3: be in ten years. Whenever the AI is giving them
Speaker 3: prompts to kill the person.
Speaker 2: I mean, hopefully they will not abide. I mean literally,
Speaker 2: it's it's within like you know, do thou shall not
Speaker 2: fucking hurt or whatever the fuck the Oh they're hippocratic oath.
Speaker 2: Hippocratic oath.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, because yeah, that's a thing.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, already the leading reason for most deaths
Speaker 2: in America is medical malpractice.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, but I mean we have other governments that
Speaker 3: are currently right now helping people commit suicide, like real shit,
Speaker 3: And you could go to an AI prompt then it
Speaker 3: will just show you how to do it and give
Speaker 3: you options on how to do it and.
Speaker 4: Not like this is this is the way that they
Speaker 4: wanted to go down.
Speaker 2: Hey, look, just to give you my perception of AI,
Speaker 2: AI is advanced Internet. That's all it is.
Speaker 3: Bro hold on, we were just talking about the dangers
Speaker 3: of AI with the military natural complex, and now you're
Speaker 3: defending it.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, you won't have your cake and eat
Speaker 2: it too. What I'm saying it is the natural evolution
Speaker 2: of the Internet.
Speaker 4: I disagree.
Speaker 2: AI couldn't have been created without the Internet, not without
Speaker 2: all the collection that it datted via that it that
Speaker 2: it gathered via the internet, like it it takes the
Speaker 2: Internet to do these things.
Speaker 3: Once again, the Terminator Movies were talking about this quite
Speaker 3: a while back.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously that's the worst possible case, right Like.
Speaker 4: I see it as an inevitability at this point.
Speaker 2: It's very possible. I'm not even sitting here trying to
Speaker 2: defend AI. I don't need to defend it or you know,
Speaker 2: be on its side or you know, or anything like that.
Speaker 2: I think that what's going to come is going to
Speaker 2: be inevitable, and it doesn't regardless of what I believe
Speaker 2: it's going to be. All I'm saying is is that,
Speaker 2: I mean, hey, I is doing decent. It's not doing
Speaker 2: terribly horrific things just yet. But I will also say,
Speaker 2: maybe we just are not privy to everything that it
Speaker 2: is doing yet. And eventually it will come out as
Speaker 2: to what they're even using. Even the baby form of
Speaker 2: what it is right now, compare it to what is
Speaker 2: going on five years from now, people will look back
Speaker 2: and say, man, that's probably a fire we should have
Speaker 2: never lit. Most people will will say that, and I
Speaker 2: will agree with that. But right now and it's infant stages.
Speaker 2: I'm having fun with it. People are creating like funny
Speaker 2: videos with it. Shout out to the Big Grimbowski. He
Speaker 2: made a video I don't know with some other famous person.
Speaker 2: He's smoking a bong with some famous person. It's hilarious
Speaker 2: videos right now. But that's how they fucking pull you
Speaker 2: in anyway.
Speaker 4: Right there, Baby agreed.
Speaker 2: It's always fun, it's always convenience, it's always something to
Speaker 2: pull you in. I'm not even saying and that it's
Speaker 2: entirely good or entirely bad. I'm just saying that there's
Speaker 2: multiple roads of which it could go. But when we're
Speaker 2: looking at our government, they always want to use it militaristically.
Speaker 2: And if there's anything that we have learned throughout the
Speaker 2: damn near nine hundred and twenty some odd episodes that
Speaker 2: we've done, is that the government is not on your side,
Speaker 2: right and if they can find a way to militarize something,
Speaker 2: they fucking.
Speaker 3: Will, I'm gonna stick with my I'm trademarking this shit
Speaker 3: New Ajamish. You know, I believe the Internet is where
Speaker 3: we should stop our technology. Anything beyond the Internet is
Speaker 3: probably just to our own demise.
Speaker 4: Honestly, so very well.
Speaker 3: Look, I do want to watch the video, and we
Speaker 3: have a video of the sale list or that we're
Speaker 3: going on with the experiments. It's not a long video,
Speaker 3: but I do want to watch it so I could
Speaker 3: see for myself because I'm still on the fence here
Speaker 3: whether this is just in my opinion based off of
Speaker 3: what we have heard thus far, and if it is
Speaker 3: real and it wasn't just you know, for the showmanship
Speaker 3: of it, it sounds like it could.
Speaker 2: Be Dark Forces slash hokum.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure which one yet, and there may be
Speaker 3: a third option that I'm just not considering.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: You brought up Tolpa's and egger Gore's and I mean,
Speaker 3: I broke down my opinion on these things, so I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm kind of pretty stalwarts in that one.
Speaker 4: But I am interested to.
Speaker 3: See the actual video evidence that they have of this. However,
Speaker 3: like we read earlier, there is no video evidence of
Speaker 3: the knocking or the table flipping or any of these things.
Speaker 3: So I'm curious what this has on it.
Speaker 2: You know, it is interesting to see the different perspectives
Speaker 2: here because I'm looking at it as wow, holy shit,
Speaker 2: like humans can can do this. This is crazy, like
Speaker 2: because I personally don't believe in ghosts either. It's very
Speaker 2: interesting how we have these two different opposing kind of
Speaker 2: views where one is looked at as either obviously either
Speaker 2: a hoax or demonic, and whereas the other view is
Speaker 2: looking at it as holy shit. It the America. The
Speaker 2: the human mind is capable of so much, right mm,
Speaker 2: which I agree with that for the record.
Speaker 3: The human mind is is capable of doing incredible and
Speaker 3: terrible things.
Speaker 4: Both can be true at the same time.
Speaker 2: No doubt. So let's let's uh, god, damn, I'm getting
Speaker 2: choked up over here, dude, what did you do? You
Speaker 2: swallowed spit down the wrong hole or something? No, just
Speaker 2: out of nowhere? Then help me, baby, it's gotta be
Speaker 2: so yeah, let's check it out real quick.
Speaker 5: An unusual experiment is about to be filmed in the
Speaker 5: studios of City TV in Toronto. At the stars of
Speaker 5: this show are eight people sitting around a table. Off
Speaker 5: to the side, on a raised bench are three men
Speaker 5: observing the experiment, Reverend Lindsay Kate, psychologist Joe Elwigen, and
Speaker 5: the doctor George Owen, scientific director for the Toronto Society
Speaker 5: of psychical research. The studio director gives the signal that
Speaker 5: the experiment may begin. The participants lay their hands flat
Speaker 5: on the table and begin calling out a name. Soon,
Speaker 5: the table begins to rise as if it had a
Speaker 5: life of its own, to the surprise of the participants.
Speaker 5: Shortly afterwards, it seems that Philip no longer wishes to
Speaker 5: remain in the middle of the room. As he heads
Speaker 5: toward Reverend King, the table moves with him, and the
Speaker 5: eight mediums have a hard time keeping their hands in place.
Speaker 5: Once the table stops, one of the participants suggests to
Speaker 5: the clergyman, did he say hello to Philip?
Speaker 2: Hello Philip?
Speaker 5: The table rises in response. The only problem is that
Speaker 5: the Philip doesn't exist. Never did Philip Page hold on.
Speaker 5: This kind of seems like a reenactment, doesn't it.
Speaker 3: I'm glad that you said it on me, because I
Speaker 3: was about to sound like a real dickhead over here,
Speaker 3: because we heard earlier there was no video evidence of
Speaker 3: any of the wild shit happening. Yet they just said
Speaker 3: that in this experiment there was cameras rolling when the
Speaker 3: reverend was there. Now, obviously this is a reenactment. If not,
Speaker 3: then if you believe this is a real thing that
Speaker 3: just took place. I hate to tell you, but Santa
Speaker 3: Claus is in fact not real. Like we need to
Speaker 3: have more conversations here obviously, but uh yeah, so were
Speaker 3: the camera's rolling when wild shit happened or not? Because
Speaker 3: the article that we read from their own admission said.
Speaker 2: No, okay, yeah, because if it's this well, let's see
Speaker 2: hold on, let's uh, let's listen.
Speaker 7: George Owen George Owen was a mathematician and geneticist. He
Speaker 7: studied at Cambridge University in England.
Speaker 11: At Cambridge, he also had an interest in poltergeist or
Speaker 11: cut portageist.
Speaker 5: With the assistance of three men and five women who
Speaker 5: had no particular gift for communicating with the spirit world,
Speaker 5: doctor Owen conducted one of the most significant experiments in
Speaker 5: the field of parapsychology in the twentieth century. They created
Speaker 5: Philip the Imaginary Ghost.
Speaker 12: So the Imaginary Ghost was at an attempt by the
Speaker 12: Toronto Society for Psychical Research to prove that paranormal events
Speaker 12: could be created without the help of spirits.
Speaker 4: From another plane.
Speaker 9: Is a persic or instead of assuming that all physical
Speaker 9: manifestations were caused by the spirits of the deceased. A
Speaker 9: spiritualist claimed lispirites cursus.
Speaker 7: Ready, doctor Owen saw a more natural explanation, Pluto opte
Speaker 7: pour later pratsion. He wanted to show that living beings,
Speaker 7: through some mechanism that has yet to be explained.
Speaker 11: Could project their energy onto material objects.
Speaker 5: Doctor Owen asked the group of eight as they were called,
Speaker 5: to imagine the fictitious character with a name, age, gender
Speaker 5: and nationality. They came up with Philip, a thirty year
Speaker 5: old aristocratic Englishman living in the seventeenth century at Diddington
Speaker 5: Manner in Warwickshire, England. Believe then they invented Philip's life story.
Speaker 5: He had a wife, Dorothea, who was cold and frigid.
Speaker 5: He fell in love with Margo, a beautiful young gypsy.
Speaker 5: Dorothea discovered her husband's in fidelity and accused Margot of witchcraft.
Speaker 5: Margot was condemned and burned at the stake.
Speaker 2: Okay, obviously a reenactment, right, because this is all anyway,
Speaker 2: Just want to clarify, all right, all right?
Speaker 5: Heartbroken, Philip took his own life jumping off the battlements
Speaker 5: of Diddington Manor. He was only thirty years old. Of
Speaker 5: all these biographical tidbits. Diddington manner was the only element
Speaker 5: that was real, and of course it had never had
Speaker 5: an occupant resembling Philip.
Speaker 12: We took them several months before they had worked out
Speaker 12: the details of the character they were going to create,
Speaker 12: so it was nineteen seventy three, I think between eight
Speaker 12: and nine months later that the experiments actually began.
Speaker 6: They met on a weekly basis in a designated area
Speaker 6: of the society headquarters which we call the Philip Room,
Speaker 6: and this room was not used for any other purpose,
Speaker 6: had a card table with eight metal chairs around it,
Speaker 6: and they met once a week for a period of
Speaker 6: well over ten years. The group sat around in a
Speaker 6: circle with a picture of Philip in sort of a
Speaker 6: meditative state, trying to produce an apparition. And after a
Speaker 6: year nothing happened, no phenomenon, no apparition film.
Speaker 2: We're looking for you, Philip, give us a sign please.
Speaker 8: At first, the members just developed a friendship with each other,
Speaker 8: so they spent months together with no occurrences of a
Speaker 8: psychokinetic or telekinetic nature.
Speaker 11: Then at some point they changed their strategy and suddenly they.
Speaker 10: Began to see results like raps on the table or
Speaker 10: under it, and the table began to shake and move.
Speaker 4: These were physical things that could be recorded.
Speaker 8: Give us a sign, Philip, Philip, are you there, Philip.
Speaker 6: Within a month or two of talking to this imaginary
Speaker 6: ghost Philip, people started to get raps on the table.
Speaker 6: In turn, each person would say something like good evening, Philip, up,
Speaker 6: Hello Philip, and there would be wraps underneath their fingertips,
Speaker 6: Or if a visitor came in and identified himself and
Speaker 6: said hello Philip, there'd be a rap underneath the visitor's hand.
Speaker 6: These wraps were audible, were tape recorded, and had a
Speaker 6: characteristic sound envelope, and we've published the results of that
Speaker 6: auditory study.
Speaker 12: The tapping eventually led to the table being shaken, shaken,
Speaker 12: eventually moving, and eventually actually turning right on its side.
Speaker 12: Those were really the proofs that they had in fact
Speaker 12: accomplished their experiment.
Speaker 5: The Phillip's manifestations were far from what they had hoped for,
Speaker 5: but still the group of ask a question and Philip
Speaker 5: would answer. Surprisingly enough, the answers always corresponded to his
Speaker 5: alleged biography. As the seances progressed, Philip became more enterprising.
Speaker 5: After a few wraps on the table, he would raise
Speaker 5: it off the ground and make it dance on two
Speaker 5: or three legs.
Speaker 6: We were very careful to try and avoid hoaxes. On
Speaker 6: several occasions we had what are called Doyley nights where
Speaker 6: we would put Doyley's paper doilies under the hands of
Speaker 6: the members, and if they tried pushing the table, the
Speaker 6: doilies would simply slide across the table. So clearly the
Speaker 6: table movements were not caused by anyone pushing it. And
Speaker 6: the cameras when we had those opportunities to videotape it,
Speaker 6: it was clear that, say, two people sitting on opposite
Speaker 6: sides of the table, if they both lifted their knees,
Speaker 6: might lift the table up. It was clear that that
Speaker 6: was not happening either.
Speaker 3: Philip, Are you there? Philip?
Speaker 5: Encouraged by the astounding results, other groups around the world
Speaker 5: tried the same experiment with other imaginary characters. The results
Speaker 5: were all basically the same.
Speaker 10: They told themselves they had found the magic formula La strategy,
Speaker 10: a mix of spontaneity combined with weekly meetings and an experimental.
Speaker 4: Framework a or.
Speaker 5: Experience.
Speaker 10: They thought this was the secret to being able to
Speaker 10: produce this kind of phenomenon.
Speaker 7: It will, but they realized that this strategy alone.
Speaker 4: Was not enough.
Speaker 2: Strategy.
Speaker 11: It also took a lot of tenacity on the part
Speaker 11: of the members.
Speaker 5: It would appear that the hereafter is not the only
Speaker 5: explanation for manifestations of so called spirits. However, it's been
Speaker 5: nearly thirty years since the original Philip experiment, and parapsychologists
Speaker 5: are still just as puzzled now as they were back
Speaker 5: then as to what was producing these manifestations.
Speaker 12: It is interesting that the scientific community has never followed
Speaker 12: the Philip experiment or in the many other experiments of
Speaker 12: a similar nature.
Speaker 6: Why I can't answer.
Speaker 12: I myself am fully convinced that there is a level
Speaker 12: of psychic ability that is obtainable bias if we knew
Speaker 12: how to reach it. Also, let's face it, the scientific
Speaker 12: community is always a little behind the human experience, and
Speaker 12: I think the I don't think it's any more profound
Speaker 12: than that.
Speaker 11: Really, because that's what whether you approached this from the
Speaker 11: spiritualist angle or the parapsychological.
Speaker 9: Angle, it's impossible to come up with scientific proof because
Speaker 9: that proof requires that you not only be able to
Speaker 9: observe the phenomena and reproduce them. It will you must
Speaker 9: also come up with a theory to explain the phenomena.
Speaker 4: And predict when they will occur.
Speaker 11: So since that was impossible in this case, the matter
Speaker 11: is still not settled.
Speaker 2: Let's go dude, all right.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's interesting.
Speaker 2: There's got to be something to it, unless all of
Speaker 2: these people were absolutely hoaxes. I mean, at which you
Speaker 2: can't count out of course. I mean you're talking about,
Speaker 2: you know, experiments that were held back in the seventies.
Speaker 2: You know, people got a little crazy back then, But
Speaker 2: then again, so did the fucking CIA, right, So it's
Speaker 2: like people were interested in this kind of stuff, and
Speaker 2: it is interesting about you know how he was saying that,
Speaker 2: you know, science and governments never really seemingly tried to
Speaker 2: take this information and push forward with it. So either
Speaker 2: A they debunked it or B they're carrying on with
Speaker 2: it and not letting anybody know, which I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 2: You know, you look at all the crazy experiments that
Speaker 2: the CIA and the government we're doing back then, especially
Speaker 2: even now, you know you got Project Artichoke and mk
Speaker 2: Ultra and you know, the remote viewing programs, and you know,
Speaker 2: they were interested in it for a reason. And you
Speaker 2: could say, well, that's just because the Germans were interested
Speaker 2: in it, and that's you know, that's the Germans were
Speaker 2: so interested in it, and they must have been on
Speaker 2: one and so they brought over a bunch of you know,
Speaker 2: a bunch of Nazis, Operation paper Clip, and they continued
Speaker 2: the process. Here's my thing. I don't think, I don't
Speaker 2: think that there's nothing to it that I mean, of course,
Speaker 2: that that's what I would say. I mean, obviously I'm
Speaker 2: the I'm the the woo woo guy here, but I
Speaker 2: just I personally believe that the human mind is capable
Speaker 2: of a lot more than we've been led onto. And
Speaker 2: most of the time they'll have you believe that it
Speaker 2: is demons, it is you know, disembodied spirits and disembodied ghosts.
Speaker 2: But what if it really is us? Like what if?
Speaker 2: What if all that really is coming from us? Like
Speaker 2: what And and obviously, like you think about the governments,
Speaker 2: you know, they want to poison you. They want to
Speaker 2: they want to poison your food and your air and
Speaker 2: your water, and you know, all your media and everything
Speaker 2: that you watch, and they want to dilute you in
Speaker 2: every single way. And it makes you wonder, you know,
Speaker 2: what kind of human would we be if we weren't
Speaker 2: diluted and we could actually achieve everything that, like the
Speaker 2: the the untouched human could achieve, makes you wonder, That's
Speaker 2: all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: So all right, And granted, yes, we just saw some
Speaker 3: very poor recreations of the alleged events.
Speaker 2: That took place with these experiments, right, remaking do what?
Speaker 2: It was a nineties remaking of the thing.
Speaker 3: They for sure, for sure, but even remakes aside, And
Speaker 3: let's just assume that, And for the conversation here, let's
Speaker 3: assume that all of the claims that were made and
Speaker 3: the recreations, let's say it was even close to that, right,
Speaker 3: because the people that conducted those experiments are still alive
Speaker 3: when this recreation was made, so they'd be able to say, no,
Speaker 3: it happened just like that, or they'd be like, ah,
Speaker 3: that's a bit much, dude, it wasn't that crazy.
Speaker 2: Well, two of the guys, we were the ones that
Speaker 2: were speaking, right exactly, that's a point.
Speaker 3: Right, So assuming that they are being forthright and that
Speaker 3: this wasn't a hoax, I'm gonna just take it that
Speaker 3: way so I could understand what the doctor doctor Owens's
Speaker 3: theory was on this. He's basically saying that the human
Speaker 3: mind is way more powerful than we give it credit for.
Speaker 3: So powerful in fact, that even if you were to
Speaker 3: create a make believe ghost story, that you can in
Speaker 3: fact make some ghost like paranormal experiences happen when there
Speaker 3: is no ghost present, because this there is.
Speaker 4: You didn't believe in ghosts. They made this thing up.
Speaker 3: Nothing about the story was real, but the people believed
Speaker 3: it strong enough to where things started to take place. Okay,
Speaker 3: but they heard the knocking, they asked it, questions, all
Speaker 3: these things, so their belief was strong enough.
Speaker 4: And they met for over a year.
Speaker 3: Right, They said, they conducted these experiments for ten years,
Speaker 3: at least once a week. They got together for ten
Speaker 3: years to conduct these experiments. And I'm gonna I'm not
Speaker 3: gonna call them fake seances. I'm gonna call them real seances.
Speaker 3: Although I saw no candles I saw in the reenactment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you probably wouldn't.
Speaker 3: No, even in the video like they had cameras and stuff.
Speaker 3: You think they have done this the right way. They
Speaker 3: said they didn't use wegi boards. We saw no weigi boards.
Speaker 3: They said they use the paper doilies to make sure
Speaker 3: nobody's hands are doing shit. We saw the paper doilies,
Speaker 3: saw no candles. But that was the point. He is
Speaker 3: saying that you don't need this because he believed that
Speaker 3: this wasn't a spiritual encounter. He believed that this was
Speaker 3: the human mind making things that weren't really there but
Speaker 3: they are there now kind of thing.
Speaker 2: For the record, I will say that most people who
Speaker 2: are into this, magic practitioners or what have you, will
Speaker 2: say that every single one of those physical items that
Speaker 2: you're using are really just tools for your mind anyway.
Speaker 2: So if you know that's not true, if you have
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, what, dude, I've I've read a lot
Speaker 2: of books on this. I've read a lot of articles
Speaker 2: on this. I've had conversations with magicians. These are all
Speaker 2: these people, and especially even the the Magickian book also
Speaker 2: alludes to that. By the way, that was Philip Cooper, who,
Speaker 2: like you know, studied deeply. He wasn't even a studier,
Speaker 2: he was a practitioner of the craft itself. And most
Speaker 2: of them will say that if you get comfortable enough,
Speaker 2: you don't need the chalice anymore. You don't need the
Speaker 2: wand anymore. You don't need the fucking all these different
Speaker 2: tools because they're tools of the mind. What they believe,
Speaker 2: and this is actually what I've grown to believe, is
Speaker 2: that we're capable of projecting these things and the tools
Speaker 2: that you use are literally just symbols for your mind
Speaker 2: to accept.
Speaker 3: And it's then why does the sacrificer need to physically
Speaker 3: draw out the pentagram and physically kill an animal and
Speaker 3: use the blood If it's all just things of the mind.
Speaker 2: There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Speaker 4: Not according to the dude who does it professionally.
Speaker 2: I mean, look what he was saying, that's not exactly
Speaker 2: what he said. What he was saying is is if
Speaker 2: you want to guarantee it to happen, because the mind
Speaker 2: is a fickle thing. You know, maybe you're having an
Speaker 2: off day, maybe there's something in the back of your
Speaker 2: mind that you just can't let go and it's not
Speaker 2: allowing you to connect with whatever you're trying to connect
Speaker 2: with fully, and so then maybe you, I don't know,
Speaker 2: you do something extra. But what I'm saying is, and
Speaker 2: you can't say it's not true. I mean, you can
Speaker 2: say I don't believe that, but to say it's not true.
Speaker 2: Is that's a misnomer. Like there's no way of you
Speaker 2: knowing that it's not true, is what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 3: And there's no way of me knowing that the sun's
Speaker 3: coming up tomorrow morning with Okay, are we just conflating
Speaker 3: things here?
Speaker 2: You're conflicting belief with possibility. And your belief is you
Speaker 2: believe in stuff that you've never actually tried yet you
Speaker 2: have a belief toward it. What I'm saying is is
Speaker 2: that I've tried, and I've talked to other people that
Speaker 2: have tried and succeeded in what I'm saying. What I'm sing,
Speaker 2: I'm speaking from experience and speaking to those who have experienced.
Speaker 2: Whereas you know, you're kind of just kind of looking
Speaker 2: at it from the outside. And that's what I'm trying
Speaker 2: to say, is is that you know, as far as
Speaker 2: the colt and magic and witchcraft and all that kind
Speaker 2: of stuff, people can say that, oh, you're messing around
Speaker 2: with fire, You're you're playing with demons, you're playing with
Speaker 2: the devil, you're playing with the gin. Whatever your beliefs are, right,
Speaker 2: But like if you don't try to understand what the
Speaker 2: enemy is doing. You're never going to understand whenever they
Speaker 2: are doing something to you.
Speaker 3: It's kind of like you want to understand. You should
Speaker 3: understand what they're doing. But that doesn't mean you have
Speaker 3: to delve into it to understand it.
Speaker 2: Well, sometimes you need to experience something rather than just
Speaker 2: watching somebody do it.
Speaker 4: I respectfully disagree, So.
Speaker 2: I mean, would you disagree? Like for me, I'm more
Speaker 2: of a hands on kind of guy. I can't just
Speaker 2: watch somebody change oil. If I've never changed oil, I
Speaker 2: got to put my hands on it.
Speaker 3: And so that's kind of like we're talking about, is like, Okay,
Speaker 3: let's say that the enemy is changing oil and it's
Speaker 3: it's telling like I don't need to change oil to
Speaker 3: learn how the enemy is doing it.
Speaker 4: If that, oh, but like this the enemy is making IEDs.
Speaker 3: I don't need to make an IED to learn what
Speaker 3: to look for to tell if something might be an
Speaker 3: ID or not right.
Speaker 2: But what if you had to learn how to make
Speaker 2: an IED? I mean would you? I mean why why?
Speaker 6: What?
Speaker 4: Why would I need to learn that?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, look looking for the principle of spirituality. Yeah,
Speaker 2: if the.
Speaker 3: Enemy is playing with sorcery and divination and all this,
Speaker 3: Why would I need to learn sorcery and divination.
Speaker 2: I'll give you an example. I played football for a
Speaker 2: long time, and you know, every so often, well every week,
Speaker 2: what we would do is Monday was always film day.
Speaker 2: We always watched the film the day after the game.
Speaker 2: Where did we fuck up? Where could we get better?
Speaker 2: How could we sharpen ourselves? And and and also you
Speaker 2: know the next day was also all right, now we're
Speaker 2: going to watch film on the team that we're facing
Speaker 2: this week, so it'd be back to back film days.
Speaker 2: You still need to practice, like you can't. I just
Speaker 2: watched the film. You need to practice, and you need
Speaker 2: to have that scout team, that Scout team defense going
Speaker 2: up against your offense. That Scout team defense needs to
Speaker 2: represent the defense that you're going to be going up
Speaker 2: against next week. Otherwise, if you're just watching it on film, Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's a facet of it, you know, that's that's a
Speaker 2: part of it. But you need to get an actual
Speaker 2: physical look at it. And I'm not saying that somebody
Speaker 2: needs to do a you know, needs to create a
Speaker 2: tulpa in order to know that it's real, or needs
Speaker 2: to do a seance in order to know it's real.
Speaker 2: You can look at it from the outside with and
Speaker 2: make your judgments. But unless, but unless you actually do it,
Speaker 2: you won't know exec necessarily to the extent of what
Speaker 2: it is and what it's doing. Is kind of like,
Speaker 2: because I think that a lot of people look at
Speaker 2: this kind of stuff and you'll say, yeah, I believe
Speaker 2: you know the Bible said, Hey, Bible said it's it's
Speaker 2: a real thing, right, But unless you do it, you're
Speaker 2: not going to understand the process in which it works.
Speaker 3: And that that was kind of my heroine will ruin
Speaker 3: my life. I don't need to explore it to know
Speaker 3: that it will ruin my life. Sure, yeah, that's fine,
Speaker 3: but I look at it from the outside end. I
Speaker 3: can take other people's word for it and just take
Speaker 3: it on good faith.
Speaker 2: Sure, but this is not the heroine of conspiracy. It's
Speaker 2: the cult of conspiracy. So I want to know what
Speaker 2: it's all about. So therefore I want to take it
Speaker 2: to the extent of trying it. Now, Am I going
Speaker 2: to sacrifice a fucking animal? Now I'm gonna take his
Speaker 2: word for it?
Speaker 7: Right? No?
Speaker 2: No, But like you said, you bring in people and
Speaker 2: interview them.
Speaker 3: And talk to people who have done it so that
Speaker 3: you don't have to same thing with heroin. You could
Speaker 3: talk to a former junkie and a former addict. You
Speaker 3: don't have to go and live on skid road to
Speaker 3: learn how that will ruin your life.
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah, but it's not because I don't have to.
Speaker 2: I never said that. It's so that I can get multiple,
Speaker 2: multiple different understandings of how it works from different angles.
Speaker 2: And obviously you're gonna learn different you know, modalities, and
Speaker 2: different techniques and different thoughts on the whole thing, and
Speaker 2: you learn. You know, that's just something that I'm interested.
Speaker 2: I'm not scared of the occult. I'm not sired of seances.
Speaker 2: I'm not scared of of doing a fucking magic spell like.
Speaker 3: That, nor am I. Nobody should be scared of these things.
Speaker 3: And I'm not trying to call you out in particular.
Speaker 3: I'm saying to any person person a speaking on behalf
Speaker 3: of person a, they can just kind of look at
Speaker 3: these things and be like, hey, probably shouldn't fuck with that,
Speaker 3: and they don't have to like get their hands dirty
Speaker 3: to learn. Hey, wait a minute, that's why I shouldn't
Speaker 3: fuck with it.
Speaker 4: You can just like make a judgment call.
Speaker 2: Yes, but why you don't fuck with it is because
Speaker 2: of your prior beliefs. I don't have those, so therefore
Speaker 2: I don't have that wall up that says, hey, I
Speaker 2: probably shouldn't do it. That's where we're different.
Speaker 4: At Is it true?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so now it's a preconceived notion of which I
Speaker 2: don't have.
Speaker 4: It's not as preconceived Okay, yeah, yeah it is.
Speaker 2: It absolutely is, because it's not your thought that says
Speaker 2: that that's something that you learned, that you believed to
Speaker 2: where now it's what you think.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I mean because it's out of truth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean according to believers, for sure, but it's
Speaker 2: not I mean, it's not what everybody believes. It's not
Speaker 2: what I believe.
Speaker 4: And it's the same thing with like heroin.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know, you could take prescribed medication myth you
Speaker 3: could take adderall and have no negative side effects for
Speaker 3: years and years and years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's different modalities to that.
Speaker 3: But you also don't have to like explore meth to
Speaker 3: learn like, hey, that could fuck your whole world up.
Speaker 2: It may not.
Speaker 4: It very well may not what it could, So like,
Speaker 4: why tempt it?
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say that people that are have different spiritual practices.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't compare them to heroin and meth addicts though, No, I.
Speaker 3: Would to people that are delving in dark arts for sure,
Speaker 3: different spiritual practices, different religions.
Speaker 4: I'm not comparing that to this.
Speaker 3: I'm saying that, like diving into specifically left handed path
Speaker 3: and delving into the dark side, knowing that that is
Speaker 3: the dark side, Yeah, I would.
Speaker 4: I would make that comparison, sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean to each their own. I'm not trying
Speaker 2: to convince anybody that they should be doing this. I'm
Speaker 2: just showing why I don't believe that it's necessarily dark
Speaker 2: for you to create a fucking ghost and try and
Speaker 2: connect with it. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: No, no, And so getting back to that though, did
Speaker 3: these people in fact create a imaginary ghost and get
Speaker 3: these experiences out of it? Still kind of torn on
Speaker 3: my answer on that, to be honest with you, I don't.
Speaker 4: I'm still let's assume that it's not a hoax.
Speaker 3: There is at least that small chance that everybody was
Speaker 3: in on it, the documentary crew and all these things,
Speaker 3: because then they started traveling and made a couple of
Speaker 3: dollars to do these things.
Speaker 2: Similar dollars for it that was never documented.
Speaker 3: I mean, what they just they were traveling out of
Speaker 3: their own back pockets to do these things for people.
Speaker 4: I have a hard time believing that.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I'm not saying that they absolutely did
Speaker 2: or didn't. I'm just saying that it's I would say
Speaker 2: that it's probably wrong to instantly assume that.
Speaker 3: But even still, it's a same way that having a
Speaker 3: gypsy lady come to your party anywhere from eighteen forty
Speaker 3: tonight eighteen twenty to perform a seance is like a
Speaker 3: party trick to your people, right, or some of those grifters,
Speaker 3: sure were some of them actually doing real divination in
Speaker 3: front of these people also, sure?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: So I'm even if you are getting paid for your time,
Speaker 3: your boy that does the demonic sacrifices, I'm not calling
Speaker 3: him a grifter. He's getting paid for his time and
Speaker 3: his services, but I do believe that he is physically
Speaker 3: doing things and speaking to demonic entities like one hundred percent,
Speaker 3: just because money's being exchanged does not make it instantaneously fake.
Speaker 3: So before I even say that I'm not saying this,
Speaker 3: let's assume that they are not hoaxing. And again, yes,
Speaker 3: there's that small possibility of it, But just I don't
Speaker 3: necessarily believe that the fact that they went on for
Speaker 3: a year and saw nothing got no response. And I'm
Speaker 3: sure they didn't do the exact same thing every single day, right,
Speaker 3: because again, these were academic types. They're gonna try different things,
Speaker 3: They're gonna see if they should sit in this kind
Speaker 3: of configuration, Should we put our hands this far away?
Speaker 2: Should we do so?
Speaker 3: For them to do the experimentation and over the course
Speaker 3: of a year, And I do not know how much
Speaker 3: research Owens did into seances, right, Like, for instance, according
Speaker 3: to the video we just watched, there was no candle present.
Speaker 3: Was there a candle present in real life? I don't know,
Speaker 3: but at least in what we just saw there wasn't.
Speaker 3: And I don't remember hearing about any of the articles
Speaker 3: that we read, Okay, So just throwing this out. So
Speaker 3: did they maybe try a candle for the first three
Speaker 3: months and then they swapped up to something else, and
Speaker 3: then they swapped up to this other thing after that
Speaker 3: didn't work.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: But just assuming that it was blind trial and error, right,
Speaker 3: which is fair. It's fair, especially if you're an academic type.
Speaker 3: That is making an imaginary ghost. There's gonna be some
Speaker 3: trial and error, bumping around in the dark until you
Speaker 3: can figure out something that works for you. So that
Speaker 3: makes sense that over the course of a year, once
Speaker 3: a week at least, these people are getting together and
Speaker 3: they're doing these things.
Speaker 2: So is it possible that it took them.
Speaker 3: Over a year to finally figure out the right configurations
Speaker 3: and things to get a response.
Speaker 2: I could see that as a possibility, sure, which is
Speaker 2: what they say.
Speaker 3: So I don't believe as of this moment that they
Speaker 3: created a topal or eggregre or anything like that to
Speaker 3: make a physical thing happen in the real world. Just
Speaker 3: from what I heard and what we read here today,
Speaker 3: is it possible that they were accidentally channeling or speaking
Speaker 3: to a demonic entity?
Speaker 4: And because these things are deceivers?
Speaker 3: So like, is Philip here and like, sure, my name's Philip,
Speaker 3: totally bitch, Like it could that be because that's what
Speaker 3: demons do, They lie and shit, Yeah, I could see
Speaker 3: that as a possibility as well, but it just yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't know, I don't know how to call this one, brother.
Speaker 2: I mean, I respect that from your point of view.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's what you know, most probably most religious
Speaker 2: people with a stupid beliefs would tend to believe. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't come from that, So I kind of just
Speaker 2: look at it for what it is, without any predisposed
Speaker 2: suppositions or whatever. Right, Like, I'm looking at it for
Speaker 2: what it is, not what somebody told me what it is,
Speaker 2: you know, Like, all right, here's what actually happened. Can
Speaker 2: we assume that it's a ghost, No, you can't assume
Speaker 2: that it's a ghost. Can you assume that it's a
Speaker 2: disembodied spirit, No, you can't. You can't prove that, right.
Speaker 2: Can you prove that it's a demon. You can't prove
Speaker 2: that either, right, But what you can potentially prove is
Speaker 2: is what they were trying to prove is that they
Speaker 2: painted a picture of a character. They built a whole past,
Speaker 2: they built a whole history. They got the name, they
Speaker 2: got all the attributes of this character, and every single
Speaker 2: question that they asked it were all the things that
Speaker 2: they built to that character. So to say that what
Speaker 2: they were experiencing was nothing more than an emanation of
Speaker 2: the projection of their imagination infused with belief and intention,
Speaker 2: that's what I think is actually going on. And that's
Speaker 2: what I think is actually going on. Whenever people go
Speaker 2: ghost hunting. I think that's probably what's going on. Whenever
Speaker 2: people are talking to spirits and angels and deities and all.
Speaker 2: I think that that's all that it is. And now
Speaker 2: that's not to you know, diminish people's beliefs. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm only one person. That's my belief right, right. That's
Speaker 2: not to say that what you're communicating with on the
Speaker 2: other side, whatever it is, maybe you think it's an
Speaker 2: ancest or whatever. It's not to say that like you're
Speaker 2: silly for believing that, because obviously there's something that is
Speaker 2: going on, Like there's something that's happening, and multiple people
Speaker 2: can sit there and see it and document it and
Speaker 2: feel it, and they know that it's real somehow, some way.
Speaker 2: So that's what you gotta take, right, Like, if you
Speaker 2: just take it for what it is, for what they said,
Speaker 2: for what they were aiming to do, you have to
Speaker 2: boil it down to this was something that was emanating
Speaker 2: from their own imagination somehow physically, and so that's all
Speaker 2: it is.
Speaker 3: But you also keep in mind the same a clause example,
Speaker 3: these eight people like truly believing that Philip was going
Speaker 3: to come there and do something I would. I would
Speaker 3: wager that out of the millions of children every Christmas
Speaker 3: Eve night that believe that Santa is gonna be real
Speaker 3: and they don't get real Santa responses, I feel like
Speaker 3: their belief is a little more powerful than eight grown
Speaker 3: ups who are doing this knowing that it's imaginary. So
Speaker 3: if one's gonna create a tulpa and one's not, I
Speaker 3: feel like the kids have a way better shot of
Speaker 3: creating a real life Santa Claus than these adults do
Speaker 3: a flipping a table.
Speaker 2: Have you never felt this Christmas spirit?
Speaker 3: That's not physically manifesting Santa Claus. That's not at all
Speaker 3: what that is.
Speaker 2: But have you ever felt the Christmas spirit?
Speaker 4: That's not the same thing.
Speaker 2: No, have you ever felt the Christmas?
Speaker 4: Yes? What's your point?
Speaker 2: My point is is that the Tulpa doesn't need to
Speaker 2: show up in any kind of physical emanation. Sometimes it
Speaker 2: just shows up as a fucking energetic thing.
Speaker 3: But they're saying that it showed up and knocked the
Speaker 3: table and flip didn't things that's physical things.
Speaker 2: They also called upon Santa Claus, and Santa Claus did
Speaker 2: the same thing.
Speaker 4: My point is didn't.
Speaker 2: That's what they said. We read it.
Speaker 4: No, Santa Claus doesn't physically do things.
Speaker 2: He's not real In the document that we were reading,
Speaker 2: they called upon Santa Claus. They asked it questions, it
Speaker 2: was responding. I'm not saying it was fucking Santa Claus.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is is that they named something that
Speaker 2: they thought that they were communicating with out of fun,
Speaker 2: and it responded, was it Santa Claus. No way of
Speaker 2: proving that most likely wasn't. Not even saying that it
Speaker 2: was the egregor of Santa Claus. What I'm saying is
Speaker 2: is that because they believed it was in that moment
Speaker 2: as a group, that somehow that energy emanated from them
Speaker 2: and caused some kind of physical manifestation. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Okay, I feel like you're missing my point. I feel
Speaker 3: like I'm missing yours. I'm gonna be honest with you.
Speaker 3: If they were calling upon a thing they made up
Speaker 3: and they got responses, there are millions of children that
Speaker 3: call upon something made up and get no response, And
Speaker 3: I feel like the millions of children have way more
Speaker 3: belief than these eight adults.
Speaker 2: So if of the two, I feel like the children.
Speaker 3: Would be more likely to get a real Santa Claus
Speaker 3: experience than these adults did with flipping a table.
Speaker 2: Sure, sure, I mean how many people. I mean, if
Speaker 2: we're gonna take it there, how many people you know
Speaker 2: they they got hands on them.
Speaker 4: By I'll say it's going religious, I'll bet you.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, if we're gonna call one thing dumb
Speaker 2: and regarded, we're gonna call something else dumb and regarded
Speaker 2: to you know what I'm saying, we're talking about made
Speaker 2: up things only here we're not talking about religious experiences.
Speaker 3: This is where you get to the insulting side of things.
Speaker 3: We're keeping it to imaginary things. Santa Claus imaginary.
Speaker 2: It's how I'm the only one that can insult. That's
Speaker 2: that's crazy to me.
Speaker 3: No, No, you insulting an entire religion is different than
Speaker 3: me saying Santa Claus is a real dog. I'm talking
Speaker 3: about Santa Claus and Philip. You said something about laying hands,
Speaker 3: and that was about to ask you were you about
Speaker 3: to go to religious and you know you were, you
Speaker 3: know you were.
Speaker 2: Let's say, fucking I don't know the name any other
Speaker 2: sect of group that what that claims that if you
Speaker 2: put hands on somebody and you say a prayer and
Speaker 2: you get healed. What is that If it's not a religion,
Speaker 2: If it's not a religion that you agree on, and
Speaker 2: you're not going to agree with this all, I'm just
Speaker 2: making a point. What my belief is is that that
Speaker 2: power is that is coursing through one's vadan's whenever they
Speaker 2: lay hands on somebody to heal them, not even saying
Speaker 2: any specific religion, because they probably all talk about it, right,
Speaker 2: certain medicine men and medicine women of old, right like
Speaker 2: they all talk about it some kind of fucking human
Speaker 2: to human healing or just human healing. Right. I believe
Speaker 2: this is my own personal belief. I believe that that
Speaker 2: power is coming from the individual. It's not being called
Speaker 2: upon a spirit, it's not being helped by an entity
Speaker 2: it is. It's not aliens, it's not ancestors, it's not
Speaker 2: fucking cats a quattle, you know what I'm saying. Like
Speaker 2: I'm not, I don't believe that. I believe that every
Speaker 2: single thing that we're talking about is capable within us,
Speaker 2: and I believe just personally outside looking in this might
Speaker 2: be an oostic point of view, I believe that this
Speaker 2: is what Jesus was talking about whenever he said that
Speaker 2: you'll be able to do all these things and more.
Speaker 2: Just my personal take on it. I'm allowed to have
Speaker 2: a take on Jesus.
Speaker 3: You are you are, which that's your That is your opinion,
Speaker 3: and you have a right to have that, for sure.
Speaker 2: I see.
Speaker 3: I think this is where you and I differ in
Speaker 3: a lot of ways as far as humanity is concerned.
Speaker 3: You think that the human being is way stronger and
Speaker 3: way more powerful than what we previously have thought. And
Speaker 3: I can agree with that to a certain extent. But
Speaker 3: I also believe that humans have certain limitations. Believe that
Speaker 3: this flesh suit that we currently are living within is
Speaker 3: very weak and it's gonna.
Speaker 4: Die and it's going to go back to the earth.
Speaker 3: And I believe that our soul, while it is inside
Speaker 3: of our body, is disconnected from our body.
Speaker 4: Right, we are souls having a human experience.
Speaker 2: No, I actually I don't agree with that. I'm not
Speaker 2: even saying that the human can do it. I'm saying
Speaker 2: that the soul in the human has those capabilities. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that a fucking meat suit can do this.
Speaker 2: I'm saying the magic that is attached to the meat
Speaker 2: suit can do it.
Speaker 3: But we're talking about the laying of physical human hands, right,
Speaker 3: That's this is flesh suit hands touching on flesh suit
Speaker 3: body to heal the flesh suit body.
Speaker 2: The energy courses through. This is what fucking they talk
Speaker 2: about with chi right, like it's prana, it's fucking it's
Speaker 2: you can't scoff on it. I mean thousands of years
Speaker 2: of privacy people doing that.
Speaker 3: No, No, I know, I've been talking about I have
Speaker 3: been harnessing my chia lately, and I do have a
Speaker 3: video that I'm gonna shoot here soon. But that's that's
Speaker 3: a conversation for another day. But anyway, anyway, but yeah,
Speaker 3: there's I'm not saying that the soul is not way
Speaker 3: more powerful or even the human body, even this flesh
Speaker 3: suit is way stronger than what we think realistically.
Speaker 2: Whenever, and there's so many experiments that have.
Speaker 3: Been done on this, Right, whenever you're running and you've
Speaker 3: been running and running running, and you feel like I'm done,
Speaker 3: my muscles are going out, I can't breathe whatever.
Speaker 2: In reality, you're.
Speaker 3: Only about sixty percent of the way maybe to what
Speaker 3: your body's physically capable of accomplishing your mind is going
Speaker 3: to tell you to stop will before your body is
Speaker 3: actually going to quit on you. That's That's an example
Speaker 3: of how this flesh suit is way stronger than what
Speaker 3: your mind allows you to believe about it.
Speaker 2: It depends on the individual, because there are individual individuals
Speaker 2: that push it even past the limits. Like look at
Speaker 2: Dale jargons right, like you can, like you, your mind
Speaker 2: even beyond your mind, the thing that is observing, the
Speaker 2: thing that is controlling your mind, which is not your mind,
Speaker 2: the you that is you that always has been right
Speaker 2: before and after human fucking incarnation, whatever you want to
Speaker 2: call it, whatever that is is capable of having a
Speaker 2: will and a spirit to push and exceed whatever your
Speaker 2: human fleshoot is capable of. Like for sure, that's you
Speaker 2: would agree with that, right, Yeah, for sure. What I'm
Speaker 2: saying is is that that power, that energy, that fucking spark,
Speaker 2: whatever it is within you, has the ability to do
Speaker 2: these things. I'm not saying that the human can. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that somebody without any No. It has to
Speaker 2: be guided, it has to be intended, it has to
Speaker 2: be practiced. It has to be like something that you harness.
Speaker 2: You know, you can't just wake up one day and say, oh,
Speaker 2: I have chi stright here in my hands. No, it's
Speaker 2: something that you got to like meditate on. You gotta
Speaker 2: you know, eat healthy and all the whatever you gotta
Speaker 2: do to attain fucking chi or whatever that is. Like,
Speaker 2: what I'm saying is is that it's beyond what the
Speaker 2: human is. We are beyond what the human is, and
Speaker 2: whatever that is, I think is what makes these fucking
Speaker 2: emanations happen. That's what that's my suggestion to this. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying it's demonic. I think that people and this
Speaker 2: is where we differ is that, you know, most people
Speaker 2: will say, oh, we're just people, we're just humans, We're
Speaker 2: not capable of these kinds of things. I disagree. I
Speaker 2: take it a step farther and say, well, I think
Speaker 2: that these things can be achieved by somebody who practices,
Speaker 2: by somebody who continues, by somebody who is constantly trying
Speaker 2: to you know, build the best version of themselves, and
Speaker 2: you know, the whole spiritual practice whatever it is, sure right,
Speaker 2: sure withholding seed and whatnot, right like all those things.
Speaker 3: That shit kills me, dude, which like I can understand
Speaker 3: what they mean by it. And I'm not disagreeing with it,
Speaker 3: but some of them people take it away too far,
Speaker 3: and you'll get these guys like, yeah, I withhold seed
Speaker 3: and that's why when I walk in a room, women
Speaker 3: notice and it's.
Speaker 4: Like, yeah, that's why that's no.
Speaker 2: There absolutely, there, absolutely is something to like the whole
Speaker 2: idea of no November, right, Like that's that's probably founded
Speaker 2: on people who said, wow, I like, man, look at
Speaker 2: the rest of this world. Whenever I'm not constantly thinking
Speaker 2: about fucking something like no, yeah, that's there's something to that, sure,
Speaker 2: And I think that that's why probably kids are you know,
Speaker 2: a little bit more powerful whenever it comes to like
Speaker 2: this kind of shit in a sense, like their imagination
Speaker 2: is a little bit more because they're not they're not
Speaker 2: concerned with what adults are concerned with, right, they don't
Speaker 2: have those limitations, like the the imagination is limitless, which
Speaker 2: you know, if you say that there's a fucking Santa
Speaker 2: Claus that is flying with flying reindeer and he's delivering
Speaker 2: you know, to billions of homes in one night, they
Speaker 2: don't need proof. They just fucking believe it because there's
Speaker 2: not borders on their imagination and that's I don't know,
Speaker 2: I'm not trying.
Speaker 3: To get that's also sometimes to their detriment. Right, there's
Speaker 3: examples of people using children in their naivety toward to
Speaker 3: for the adults means, for example, shit viet non war
Speaker 3: or Afghanistan. You give a kid a hand grenade and
Speaker 3: tell them, hey, go in that tent and pull this pin,
Speaker 3: and uh, it's gonna give you candy.
Speaker 2: Sure, And I'm not saying that you shouldn't have some
Speaker 2: kind of growdedness, But what I am saying is is
Speaker 2: that sometimes the walls that people build in their own
Speaker 2: mind are to their own detriment as well. Would you
Speaker 2: disagree with that?
Speaker 4: What do you mean?
Speaker 2: So most of the time when people have anxiety, that
Speaker 2: shit that they built up on the inside, like that
Speaker 2: is a that is a thing that you built up
Speaker 2: anxiety All all an anxiety actually is if you really
Speaker 2: think about it, and this is something that I've heard
Speaker 2: from Saguru. Whatever you think about them, but it makes
Speaker 2: sense to me. All anxiety is is a fucking worry
Speaker 2: of the future of something that hasn't happened yet. And
Speaker 2: and like all a depression, whenever you feel depressed, all
Speaker 2: it is is you are trying to bring the past
Speaker 2: to the present. And that's technically what people are doing
Speaker 2: whenever they're depressed, is that they're they're focusing on a
Speaker 2: past event, of which makes them sad and it makes
Speaker 2: them feel that in this moment didn't even happen right now,
Speaker 2: happened a long time ago, maybe it happened a week ago,
Speaker 2: a year ago, ten years ago, whatever. You're essentially fucking
Speaker 2: time traveling that energy to this current moment right now.
Speaker 2: That's the idea between depression and anxiety, which are the
Speaker 2: walls that we build up in our own dan minds
Speaker 2: to prevent us from becoming maybe what we're meant to become.
Speaker 3: I think there's something to be set for that for sure.
Speaker 3: So I mean inzach Guru, you've even talked shit on
Speaker 3: him before. I mean, he wants to reduce the world's
Speaker 3: population and he's been like very open about that, and
Speaker 3: the dude's a fucking nut job in so many regards.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I'm not even saying that. Like dude, I
Speaker 2: mean he's Hindu. I like some Hindu beliefs, just like
Speaker 2: I like some Christian beliefs. I like some Buddhist beliefs.
Speaker 2: I like some fucking daois. I like I pick and
Speaker 2: choose a little bit from all of them. That's the
Speaker 2: idea of you know, like my philosophy, you know.
Speaker 3: Like they're very eclectic, that's for sure. The coexist sticker
Speaker 3: is really where I like to go.
Speaker 2: So so anyway, yeah, I don't know where I was
Speaker 2: going with that, but I don't know. All I'm saying
Speaker 2: is is that it doesn't always have to be evil,
Speaker 2: you know, because most of the time evil is just
Speaker 2: what you don't understand.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, and to that point, this is where
Speaker 3: you would usually go to the whole test, the spirit conversation,
Speaker 3: but with this one, they pretty much had no spirit
Speaker 3: associated with it.
Speaker 4: That that was the whole point, was to keep it
Speaker 4: as neutral on.
Speaker 3: The spirituality side of things, on even the real life
Speaker 3: ghost side of things. It was an imaginary ghost start
Speaker 3: to finish, right, So the experiences that they did have,
Speaker 3: and assuming that it's not a hoax, right, assuming that
Speaker 3: these things physically did happen as they say that they did,
Speaker 3: I would say, well, if we are in a binary
Speaker 3: world and there is only black and white, and there's
Speaker 3: a good and a bad, and all these things, and
Speaker 3: even if it was human interaction whatever. So did this
Speaker 3: thing which side of the conversation did this thing further?
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
Speaker 3: So, did this experiment make people double down on their
Speaker 3: beliefs or did it make them start questioning their beliefs?
Speaker 4: Did it start?
Speaker 11: Uh?
Speaker 2: Well, it depends on what their preconceived notions were and
Speaker 2: if it aligned or didn't align. And so if something
Speaker 2: aligns with what you believe, then you're more inclined to
Speaker 2: believe it. If something doesn't align with what you believe,
Speaker 2: then either a the thing that you're questioning is wrong
Speaker 2: or you think there's something to it, and now it's
Speaker 2: battling up against what your beliefs are. So that's kind
Speaker 2: of like the mentality around it is what preconceived notions
Speaker 2: are you taking in there with it? If you're looking
Speaker 2: at it as if this is real, it is demonic,
Speaker 2: then of course whenever you go in quote unquote test
Speaker 2: the spirit, it's going to feel demonic because that's your
Speaker 2: preconceived notion. Whereas if you look at it from an
Speaker 2: open minded point of view, I'm not making any preconceived notions.
Speaker 2: I'm accepting it for the data that is being collected
Speaker 2: then now looking at it for what it is, a
Speaker 2: table knock? Is that scared? Is it demonic? Does it
Speaker 2: instantly assume that there's monsters in some kind of ethereal
Speaker 2: realm that are only out to, you know, harvest your
Speaker 2: fucking loosh. That's a that's that's that's a lot of
Speaker 2: fucking assuming. That's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 3: The whole lush energy thing also kills me, but that's
Speaker 3: a conversation for another day. But yeah, I guess what
Speaker 3: I should think is did this make anybody want to
Speaker 3: get closer to God or further away from God? That's
Speaker 3: what I mean by testing the spirit?
Speaker 2: Well, it depends on what your belief of God is,
Speaker 2: because there's there's multiple Like, my belief of God is
Speaker 2: not your belief of God.
Speaker 4: Right, you don't necessarily believe in him?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I don't believe that God is a
Speaker 2: hymn or her personally.
Speaker 3: Okay, you focused on the hymn moniker of that rather
Speaker 3: than that you don't necessarily believe part.
Speaker 2: Well, No, I believe in God, but I also don't
Speaker 2: believe that God is separate from me. You do, and
Speaker 2: nothing nothing against you. It's just you know, most religious
Speaker 2: people believe that God is outside of them.
Speaker 4: This is true.
Speaker 2: I believe. I believe that we all kind of have,
Speaker 2: you know, essences of God personally. That's just my belief.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to shit on anybody else's belief No, No,
Speaker 2: the love of God, don't fry me. I'm an individual.
Speaker 2: I'm allowed to have my own opinion on things. No,
Speaker 2: you absolutely are you absolutely?
Speaker 4: I didn't take it as like you insulting on that one.
Speaker 2: What it means I know, but some people would.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I don't know. Is it possible they were
Speaker 3: talking to a demon?
Speaker 6: Maybe?
Speaker 4: Is it possible it was all a hoax? Also?
Speaker 3: Maybe is it possible that they imagine something into existence
Speaker 3: and that's what was doing the things and stuff? From
Speaker 3: my vantage point, no, but I could also understand, especially
Speaker 3: from somebody like you that does believe in Tulpa's and
Speaker 3: eggregres and things like this, you might take it more
Speaker 3: into that conversation. So I get it, And honestly, I
Speaker 3: don't know what to call on this one.
Speaker 4: Dude.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, hey, that's why I wanted to bring
Speaker 2: it up. I thought, Hey, you know what, we're in
Speaker 2: spooky season. Let's get a little spooky. Let's get a
Speaker 2: little weird. You know, a lot of people were, you know,
Speaker 2: probably watching a little bit of Halloween Town, if that's
Speaker 2: still a popular fun thing.
Speaker 3: I tried watching people watched one, two, and three this week.
Speaker 2: I tried watching it with the kids. They thought it
Speaker 2: was boring. I was like, damn, this shit was awesome
Speaker 2: in my time. Halloween Toime was the shit while I
Speaker 2: was growing up.
Speaker 4: Fucking right, it is, dude, get down on that shit.
Speaker 2: Just earlier today, I was watching the new well, the
Speaker 2: newer hocus Pocus, and I still believe that it's better
Speaker 2: than the first one. That's just my personal belief. But
Speaker 2: you are crazy for that, I know. And normally I
Speaker 2: do like the original more like Toy Story one is
Speaker 2: always going to be the best toy story in my opinion.
Speaker 2: And I've to be honest, I haven't. I haven't even
Speaker 2: seen the I don't know the last two or three
Speaker 2: of them. I've only ever watched the first and second one.
Speaker 2: I'll say this is far the Toy Story thing is concerned.
Speaker 3: It stayed to the original character arcs very well, and
Speaker 3: like each newer edition plays off of the last one
Speaker 3: very well. There's not one that goes way off the rails.
Speaker 3: So it's like, wait a minute, what, what the fuck
Speaker 3: are you talking about? Not a single one. They've all
Speaker 3: done very well in keeping with the line of the
Speaker 3: story arcs.
Speaker 2: Except which the newest Buzz Lightyear movie, who are they
Speaker 2: just had to make I haven't seen it? Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: they made him gay, which is.
Speaker 3: Weird, which is crazy because he's all into Jesse, like
Speaker 3: he's trying to get some cowboy cowgirl ass over here, So.
Speaker 2: Like, why why would they? I haven't seen it, which
Speaker 2: is kind of funny because they he's a Buzz like
Speaker 2: your space ranger. I mean, if he was gay, you'd
Speaker 2: think navy right, clearly, clearly right.
Speaker 3: But no, he's over here. He sees them red the
Speaker 3: redhead with the freckles. He's doing backflips and ship He's like,
Speaker 3: whoa like that, that's what he's into.
Speaker 2: Buzz is a freak, but not that kind of freak.
Speaker 2: But I, you know, gotta hold things for the time anyway,
Speaker 2: good could members let us know what you think about
Speaker 2: all this. I honestly can't believe that we even went
Speaker 2: as far as we did. I wasn't expecting it to
Speaker 2: go this far. But to be honest, I'm actually happy
Speaker 2: that it did because maybe hopefully people are able to
Speaker 2: look at this in a different lights, maybe even look
Speaker 2: at me in a different light. For the people that
Speaker 2: think that I'm out here playing with demons, maybe this
Speaker 2: episode proved to you that I love demons. I don't
Speaker 2: know in that case, you know, smoke methan in hell Satan,
Speaker 2: but in any other case, But in any other case,
Speaker 2: I do not worship the dark Lord. I do not
Speaker 2: care about the dark Lord. Just because I don't believe
Speaker 2: what you believe does not mean that I'm automatically playing
Speaker 2: with the enemy. Okay, it's okay to you know, not
Speaker 2: necessarily look at everything as if it's black and white,
Speaker 2: because nothing in life is black and white. It's all
Speaker 2: shades of gray, right, Like that's that's my personal opinion.
Speaker 2: Like I don't know anyway, Good Cold members. As we said,
Speaker 2: the best way to be able to support the show
Speaker 2: is come over to Patreon dot com slash Cult of
Speaker 2: Conspiracy Podcasts that links down the show notes below. But
Speaker 2: if you thought this episode absolutely fucked, then you might
Speaker 2: want to go and check out Adam and Eve dot com.
Speaker 2: Use the promo code Cult and you'll be able to
Speaker 2: get fifty percent off of your entire order, free shipping,
Speaker 2: ten freak goodies, discreet shipping, or whatever the hell you want.
Speaker 2: Your neighbor's never gonna find out, eh. And you know,
Speaker 2: maybe maybe your wife or your husband finds it because
Speaker 2: they're sneaking through your panty drawer. I don't know what
Speaker 2: their problem is, but it's up to you wherever you
Speaker 2: want to hide it. Maybe it's not something that you
Speaker 2: even need to hide. Maybe it's something that you share together.
Speaker 2: They have those things too, Okay. Most of these things
Speaker 2: are things that you can include into your love life,
Speaker 2: and maybe you want to spice it up a little bit.
Speaker 2: Maybe you need a little uh tingling gel to make
Speaker 2: things last longer, or to make things last not as long.
Speaker 2: They have all of those things. Go and check it out.
Speaker 2: Use the promo code. Cult. We appreciate all of good
Speaker 2: Cult members who have done that and supported us in
Speaker 2: that way.
Speaker 3: Indeed, while we're talking about the tinglings and things, listen,
Speaker 3: if you would like to experience the tingling healing frequencies
Speaker 3: that come off of the Rife machine, and you've got
Speaker 3: something that's ailing you that you would like healed, then
Speaker 3: go to Real Rife Technologies linking the description below and
Speaker 3: use the promo code cult At checkout to get ten
Speaker 3: percent off of your order in free shipping to your door. Listen,
Speaker 3: this to tech achnology was developed under Royal Raymond Rife,
Speaker 3: his great nephew Matthew Rife, not the comedian who owns
Speaker 3: the Annabel Doll Matt Rife. We're talking about our homeboy.
Speaker 3: Matthew Rife has reinvigorated this technology and it is available
Speaker 3: for purchase. Go to the Lincoln the description below and
Speaker 3: experience these healing frequencies yourself once again cult At checkout
Speaker 3: for ten percent off and free shipping to your door.
Speaker 3: And also, while we're talking about the savings on these things, listen,
Speaker 3: if you would like to save a little bit of
Speaker 3: your financial future, because we know that our economic system
Speaker 3: is going to collapse, that's just the mathematical facts of it.
Speaker 2: And if you would like to.
Speaker 3: Have a little something stowed away for when that time comes,
Speaker 3: you're gonna want some precious metals. Silver and gold have
Speaker 3: always been the way that the royals and the elites
Speaker 3: have stored away their money because they know that there
Speaker 3: is intrinsic value in it and if you would like
Speaker 3: to get some silver and gold coins buoyan minted materials,
Speaker 3: then you need to go to the Lincoln the description
Speaker 3: to cocsilver dot com. When you fill out your information,
Speaker 3: our homeboy Wayne Clark is going to be the one
Speaker 3: to reach out to you and get you squared away.
Speaker 3: You want to buy a little bit, you want to
Speaker 3: buy a lot of bit. You want to make a
Speaker 3: monthly purchase. Listen, talk to your financial advisor, talk to
Speaker 3: your CPA, talk to your account and ask them what
Speaker 3: they think about investing in silver and gold. And I
Speaker 3: promise you they're gonna tell you that they you everybody
Speaker 3: should have at least a portion of your retirement nest
Speaker 3: egg invested in precious metals. Gold is way over three
Speaker 3: thousand dollars an ounce now unless you just got stacks
Speaker 3: on stacks, You're not buying a brick of gold anytime soon.
Speaker 2: Silver is a little bit over forty dollars an ounce
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 3: So this baby that I am holding in my hand
Speaker 3: right now will be mailed to your door if you
Speaker 3: go to the link of the description and buy it
Speaker 3: and have it shipped to your house.
Speaker 4: We're not talking.
Speaker 3: About investing in the stock of gold or investing in
Speaker 3: the overall price of silver. We're talking about getting real
Speaker 3: gold and silver mailed to your door.
Speaker 4: Do what you want with it.
Speaker 3: You want to keep it in this hermetically sealed case
Speaker 3: and let it just sit there and grow in value,
Speaker 3: go for it. You want to take it and smelt
Speaker 3: it down and make some silver jewelry.
Speaker 2: Listen.
Speaker 4: And I'm not gonna tell you how to do things.
Speaker 3: I'm not your dad, but you know I'm just saying
Speaker 3: if you want to get your hands on some silver
Speaker 3: and gold, then go to the link of the description
Speaker 3: se us dot com.
Speaker 2: But we want to know what you think about this episode.
Speaker 2: Is Jonathan on one? Am I on one? Are we
Speaker 2: both completely off base? Are we both correct? We want
Speaker 2: to hear from you, good cult members, and the best
Speaker 2: way to do that would be too.
Speaker 3: Please hit the five stars at the Shares of Life
Speaker 3: describes comments the will postly review shares at the Friends
Speaker 3: and Family Shareship.
Speaker 2: We're here's the deal.
Speaker 3: The more activity the algorithms across all of our listening platforms,
Speaker 3: the more we get promoted, more potential.
Speaker 2: Listeners who could become pidential cult members.
Speaker 9: Talk there.
Speaker 2: Steve Fite ladies and gentlemen, why are you already Go
Speaker 2: check off.
Speaker 3: Menimistics, Jonathan's other show and getting the same liver respect
Speaker 3: over there at the five star of using the positivity
Speaker 3: in the comments. Come check out the Catch and Nike
Speaker 3: and come join each of us for our individual patrons
Speaker 3: that we host every Wednesday night at i PM Central.
Speaker 3: Links to those are in the description as well, and
Speaker 3: we thank you everybody's already done so.
Speaker 2: And with that being said, this was another beautiful episode
Speaker 2: of the Cult of Conspiracy. And my name is Jonathan
Speaker 2: from Jake and there's one very import extremely vital piece
Speaker 2: of information we needed to learn just as soon to
Speaker 2: ask human possible.
Speaker 6: Up.
Speaker 3: Hey cult members, Jacob here, just want to ask who
Speaker 3: wants better sex? The best way to get started is
Speaker 3: to go to Adam and Eve dot com right now.
Speaker 3: Amaieve is offering fifty percent off just about any item,
Speaker 3: but that's not all. When you get one item, they
Speaker 3: will also send three bonus sexy items and six free movies.
Speaker 3: They offered a screet shipping as your privacy is a priority.
Speaker 3: Plus free shipping on your entire order doesn't matter how
Speaker 3: much you spend or what you buy. All we packaged
Speaker 3: and sent discreetly for free. That's fifty percent off one
Speaker 3: item and ten free gifts to boot bring more pleasure
Speaker 3: and satisfaction into your bedroom. Just go to Adam and
Speaker 3: Eve dot com and select any one item. It could
Speaker 3: be an adventurous new toy or anything you desire. Just
Speaker 3: enter the offer code cult at checkout and you'll get
Speaker 3: fifty percent off almost any item, plus ten free gifts,
Speaker 3: three bonus items, six free movies, and free shipping. Use
Speaker 3: the offer code cult that cult at Adam and Eve
Speaker 3: dot com. Now, this is an exclusive offer specific to
Speaker 3: this podcast, so be sure to use this code to
Speaker 3: get you not just the discount and the free goodies,
Speaker 3: but also the one hundred percent free shipping with the
Speaker 3: code cult