Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Joe McMoneagle

I usually don't look at this blog's stats, but today I glanced at them and noticed that most readers were going to only two posts: one that I wrote a while back on the so-called "Psychic Twins," and another one on Joe McMoneagle.

While McMoneagle's book "The Ultimate Time Machine" is distinguished from other prediction books not necessarily by being mostly correct, but by being mostly not wrong, McMoneagle did make some uncannily accurate near-term predictions. However, I have stumbled upon an interesting piece of McMoneagle stuff on scribd.com: "Looking Into Higher Dimensions." In this study, McMoneagle remote-views several targets, including a couple of sub-atomic particles. Researcher Ronald Bryan (admittedly biased in favor of McMoneagle) is a physicist who thinks that McMoneagle's viewings were accurate.

What I thought was interesting was that this session (and indeed all remote viewing sessions) is an illustration in what Seth called the use of the "inner senses." According to Seth, our physical senses are camouflage instruments that can observe only camouflage data. In other words, they can't perceive the "true nature" of any event or object. All of our scientific instruments are likewise composed of camouflage matter and cannot measure anything that is not part of the camouflage reality. According to Seth, this will, over time, cause our measurements to become less coherent, as the instruments become more sophisticated. (This might explain the trouble that physicists are having in explaining the phenomenon of "dark matter.")

So what should we do? Use our "inner senses." How? Seth never really explains how. But I think remote viewing may be one way to do this. A number of remote viewers have made some surprisingly accurate observations, but no one has bothered to raise the fundamental question of how it is possible to "observe" *anything* without using our physical senses. If, in fact, we can perceive reality (both material and non-material) with something other than our physical senses, what is the sense that is doing the perceiving?

No comments:

Post a Comment