Re: David Thompson - Personal Message

by Lis Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:41 am

ADMIN Notice: It would appear that any further discussion regarding the investigation into the mediumship of Kai Muegge should take place under the new thread set up for that purpose. Thanks.

by mac Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:32 am

eternaltruths wrote:
COSC2014 wrote:

In relation to your comments on Kai, instead of commenting on something where all the evidence has not been seen...

David Thompson

http://www.academia.edu/7593753/Investigations_of_the_Felix_Experimental_Group_2010-2013

(read it online by refusing the download and no log in is needed)

et

PS: This is Dr.Braudes paper, Dr.Nahms paper will follow soon as I was told.

Member Waller Joel has posted a .pdf document attachment on PM4U which avoids needing to log in to the website or viewing online.

by Admin Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:18 am

True Mac but it's a breach of the writers trust and potential copyright. Funny I remember Lars doing that numerous times.

by eternaltruths Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:41 am

Lis wrote:ADMIN Notice: It would appear that any further discussion regarding the investigation into the mediumship of Kai Muegge should take place under the new thread set up for that purpose. Thanks.

Thanks Lis. I will do so.
But since Thompson mentioned Kai Muegge I thought the reports would fit here quite good, especially for Mr.Thompson who says the evidence have not been seen.

So far Dr.Nahms papers (which are stronger tobacco) will be linked in the new thread as soon as I have a link.

et

by eternaltruths Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:36 am

mac wrote:

Member Waller Joel has posted a .pdf document attachment on PM4U which avoids needing to log in to the website or viewing online.

Which document? The Braude report or the Nahm report?

by Lis Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:27 am

eternaltruths wrote:
Lis wrote:ADMIN Notice: It would appear that any further discussion regarding the investigation into the mediumship of Kai Muegge should take place under the new thread set up for that purpose. Thanks.

Thanks Lis. I will do so.
But since Thompson mentioned Kai Muegge I thought the reports would fit here quite good, especially for Mr.Thompson who says the evidence have not been seen.

So far Dr.Nahms papers (which are stronger tobacco) will be linked in the new thread as soon as I have a link.

et

Hi eternaltruth,

I quite understand why it seemed appropriate to have put your post on this thread, but in order to broaden the opportunities for discussion it seems good also to create a new thread.

I agree, Dr. Nahm's paper is definitely "stronger tobacco" and one that I think does need to be seen. As it happens, I have a copy of that paper but, due to not wishing to abuse copyright issues (unlike, it seems Waller is content to do), I will not post it on this forum, but may shortly make some comments on that paper quoting what seem to be the most pertinent remarks.

Lis

by mac Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:32 pm

eternaltruths wrote:
mac wrote:

Member Waller Joel has posted a .pdf document attachment on PM4U which avoids needing to log in to the website or viewing online.

Which document? The Braude report or the Nahm report?

Braude report

by mac Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:29 pm

I thought it quite a coincidence that the link to Braude's work appeared here and on PM4U in short succession - unless eternaltruth and WJ are/is the same individual???

by eternaltruths Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:51 am

mac wrote:I thought it quite a coincidence that the link to Braude's work appeared here and on PM4U in short succession - unless eternaltruth and WJ are/is the same individual???

Mac you could not be wronger Smile

To clear that. I was at pm4u for a few postings on the Felix Circle and the reports. Then Waller entered the scene and attacked me very rude.
He started a one side battle I did not join.

My last message on pm4u was that I will post the links on the Braude report as well as the Nahm Report when they are online so anyone can get an own impression.

One day later I was suspended from the Fo(Y)rum and all was erased there. This was not only very interesting but also helpful for my understanding concerning pm4u and the things I heard from other people who said "dont ask questions there..."

What confuses me is he attacked me for talking about the reports as if they were rubbish, discrediting the work of the two researchers but then he puts the files up by himself. Very mysterious.

By the way. I sent Lis and Jim my real name so they know who I am am. And who not.

Thanks for sharing your doubts Mac. I understand you are cautious on all that.

I am as well after my experiences the last years.

et

by Lis Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:58 am

I can certainly confirm that eternaltruth is not Waller, Mac!

by mac Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:07 am

eternaltruths wrote:
mac wrote:I thought it quite a coincidence that the link to Braude's work appeared here and on PM4U in short succession - unless eternaltruth and WJ are/is the same individual???

Mac you could not be wronger

To clear that. I was at pm4u for a few postings on the Felix Circle and the reports. Then Waller entered the scene and attacked me very rude.
He started a one side battle I did not join.

My last message on pm4u was that I will post the links on the Braude report as well as the Nahm Report when they are online so anyone can get an own impression.

One day later I was suspended from the Fo(Y)rum and all was erased there. This was not only very interesting but also helpful for my understanding concerning pm4u and the things I heard from other people who said "dont ask questions there..."

What confuses me is he attacked me for talking about the reports as if they were rubbish, discrediting the work of the two researchers but then he puts the files up by himself. Very mysterious.

By the way. I sent Lis and Jim my real name so they know who I am am. And who not.

Thanks for sharing your doubts Mac. I understand you are cautious on all that.

I am as well after my experiences the last years.

et

I didn't really think that you and WJ actually were the same individual. Smile

The differences are very easy to see - you are a far more knowledgeable and serious individual, something obvious in how you write.

I'm pretty confident I now know for certain who the individual posting under that username actually is and I expect he knows that I know - that's another part of his m.o. The thing that puzzled you (as you refer above) is yet another regular aspect of his trolling behaviour.

As with most trolls, isolating them by ignoring them is probably the best policy.

by eternaltruths Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:25 am

yes, I agree. I will keep my eyes, ears and mouth shut if the words "arise" from the wrong direction. Thanks, good idea.

by mac Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:26 am

Lis wrote:I can certainly confirm that eternaltruth is not Waller, Mac!

There's a world of difference between them, Lis.... Wink

by COSC2014 Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:44 am

eternaltruths wrote:
Lis wrote:ADMIN Notice: It would appear that any further discussion regarding the investigation into the mediumship of Kai Muegge should take place under the new thread set up for that purpose. Thanks.

Thanks Lis. I will do so.
But since Thompson mentioned Kai Muegge I thought the reports would fit here quite good, especially for Mr.Thompson who says the evidence have not been seen.

So far Dr.Nahms papers (which are stronger tobacco) will be linked in the new thread as soon as I have a link.

et

Hi "Eternaltruths"

Actually, you miss interrupted my words!! I stated "ALL" the evidence has not yet been seen, as you said Dr. Nahms papers have not yet been published for public scrutiny, so I would suggest until all information is open to the public, then Kai Muegge should most definitely be given the benefit of the doubt, otherwise the person, no matter who they are has been judged unfairly and without full facts.

Oh! by the way, please feel free to address me by my name David, after all "Thompson" or "Mr Thompson" is far to formal.

Thanks

David

by obiwan Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:21 am

COSC2014 wrote:
eternaltruths wrote:
Lis wrote:ADMIN Notice: It would appear that any further discussion regarding the investigation into the mediumship of Kai Muegge should take place under the new thread set up for that purpose. Thanks.

Thanks Lis. I will do so.
But since Thompson mentioned Kai Muegge I thought the reports would fit here quite good, especially for Mr.Thompson who says the evidence have not been seen.

So far Dr.Nahms papers (which are stronger tobacco) will be linked in the new thread as soon as I have a link.

et

Hi "Eternaltruths"

Actually, you miss interrupted my words!! I stated "ALL" the evidence has not yet been seen, as you said Dr. Nahms papers have not yet been published for public scrutiny, so I would suggest until all information is open to the public, then Kai Muegge should most definitely be given the benefit of the doubt, otherwise the person, no matter who they are has been judged unfairly and without full facts.

Oh! by the way, please feel free to address me by my name David, after all "Thompson" or "Mr Thompson" is far to formal.

Thanks

David

Quite. Using just the surname seems a bit rude. I think Braude's report is sufficient to cast doubt personally. What KM ought to consider is how to respond to it, that would be quite important really.

by Lis Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:32 am

David wrote:

Hi "Eternaltruths"

Actually, you miss interrupted my words!! I stated "ALL" the evidence has not yet been seen, as you said Dr. Nahms papers have not yet been published for public scrutiny, so I would suggest until all information is open to the public, then Kai Muegge should most definitely be given the benefit of the doubt, otherwise the person, no matter who they are has been judged unfairly and without full facts.

Oh! by the way, please feel free to address me by my name David, after all "Thompson" or "Mr Thompson" is far to formal.

Thanks

David[/quote]

Hi David,

I think if you read my review of the main points of Dr. Nahm's article on the Kai Muegge thread you will see that there is significant evidence.

Of course, the full article gives much detail about the reasons for the points that I have summarised (the article is 55 pages long!) and on anyone reading it I am sure that there will be little doubt as the fairness and thoroughness of Nahm's conclusions.

Just the issue of the purchase of artificial cobweb (and there is no doubt whatsoever that he did, from whom, and when) is of sufficient concern, but that added to the thread seen attached to the alleged ectoplasmic hand, the 'spirit light' device, the evidence found in the photographs, and Kai's conduct in response to these matters, is more than enough to justify Dr. Nahm's analysis.

Lis

by mac Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:33 am

obiwan wrote:
COSC2014 wrote:
eternaltruths wrote:
Lis wrote:ADMIN Notice: It would appear that any further discussion regarding the investigation into the mediumship of Kai Muegge should take place under the new thread set up for that purpose. Thanks.

Thanks Lis. I will do so.
But since Thompson mentioned Kai Muegge I thought the reports would fit here quite good, especially for Mr.Thompson who says the evidence have not been seen.

So far Dr.Nahms papers (which are stronger tobacco) will be linked in the new thread as soon as I have a link.

et

Hi "Eternaltruths"

Actually, you miss interrupted my words!! I stated "ALL" the evidence has not yet been seen, as you said Dr. Nahms papers have not yet been published for public scrutiny, so I would suggest until all information is open to the public, then Kai Muegge should most definitely be given the benefit of the doubt, otherwise the person, no matter who they are has been judged unfairly and without full facts.

Oh! by the way, please feel free to address me by my name David, after all "Thompson" or "Mr Thompson" is far to formal.

Thanks

David

Quite. Using just the surname seems a bit rude. I think Braude's report is sufficient to cast doubt personally. What KM ought to consider is how to respond to it, that would be quite important really.

For consisitency, then, one should also say 'Stephen Braude' and 'Kai Muegge'..... Wink

by Lis Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:54 am

Indeed, Mac,

So we must discuss the issues using Stephen Braude, Michael Nahm, Kai Muegge, David Thompson, etc., in order to be courteous.

I apologise for using just "Nahm", it unfortunately comes from writing so much academic stuff where the surname only is usually used in articles. Smile

by eternaltruths Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:50 am

@ David Thompson
I understand what you mean. Maybe I was not precise enough in my words: the reports WERE both available for already 4 weeks but only if you subscribe as member of the JSE.
Besides many people started talking on the reports just a few really read it. That for sure was not ideal. It is a good decission from the publishers finally putting the reports online where everyone can read them without any hassle of registration, memberships etc...

My newest information is Dr.Nahms report will go online for all, free and everywhere start of august.

I can only encourage everyone reading those reports then as you get enormous insights. Until then Lis' great summary delivers straight insights on the content.

Kind regards.

PS: I use the forum names usually for the standard communication. For people of public interest like you I prefer using full names so those who follow always have in mind it is David Thompson we are talking with. This also eases goole search.

by obiwan Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:21 pm

mac wrote:
obiwan wrote:
COSC2014 wrote:
eternaltruths wrote:
Lis wrote:ADMIN Notice: It would appear that any further discussion regarding the investigation into the mediumship of Kai Muegge should take place under the new thread set up for that purpose. Thanks.

Thanks Lis. I will do so.
But since Thompson mentioned Kai Muegge I thought the reports would fit here quite good, especially for Mr.Thompson who says the evidence have not been seen.

So far Dr.Nahms papers (which are stronger tobacco) will be linked in the new thread as soon as I have a link.

et

Hi "Eternaltruths"

Actually, you miss interrupted my words!! I stated "ALL" the evidence has not yet been seen, as you said Dr. Nahms papers have not yet been published for public scrutiny, so I would suggest until all information is open to the public, then Kai Muegge should most definitely be given the benefit of the doubt, otherwise the person, no matter who they are has been judged unfairly and without full facts.

Oh! by the way, please feel free to address me by my name David, after all "Thompson" or "Mr Thompson" is far to formal.

Thanks

David

Quite. Using just the surname seems a bit rude. I think Braude's report is sufficient to cast doubt personally. What KM ought to consider is how to respond to it, that would be quite important really.

For consisitency, then, one should also say 'Stephen Braude' and 'Kai Muegge'.....

I don't think so as David is in this conversation and Braude, Muegge and Nahm are not rabbit

When referring to scientific papers the convention appears to be to use the surname.

If Stephen Braude joined the conversation I wouldn't dream of referring to him as 'Braude'.

by mac Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:31 pm

fair point

by mac Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:43 am

Didn't take long for this thread to run out of steam! Laughing

By chance (?) I recently found myself looking back at a piece from the days of 'Spirit of PN' in which there was a reference to DT making statements but subsequently refusing to deal with questions.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.....

by obiwan Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:04 am

mac wrote:Didn't take long for this thread to run out of steam!

By chance (?) I recently found myself looking back at a piece from the days of 'Spirit of PN' in which there was a reference to DT making statements but subsequently refusing to deal with questions.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.....

Hi Mac - which ones weren't answered?

by eternaltruths Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:08 pm

http://www.paranormalreview.com/index.php/david-thompson-replies-then-refuses-to-give-answers/

All questions. Thompson for sure did not like the way Stenman approached him. The best of the article sadly has vanished (as the site broke down someday), the many comments from people who seemingly sat with Thompson and had a lot to tell about their experiences...

et

by mac Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:10 pm

The ones from Roy Stemman.

by Sponsored content