Cafe

Buy From Art.com

Around the Web, Around the World

"Why Shamanism Now?" with Christina Pratt

Money, Power, and Shamanism

What is the relationship between our internal richness and monetary wealth? Money gives us a place to project all of our unresolved issues about our own rank, privilege, and power. And money is a power object imbued with power by its user to make change in the world. How does spirit view money? "Money is not the root of all evil," explains host and shaman, Christina Pratt, "People are." Money is a cultural agreement that we can use to help or to harm each other. Seen in this way money is another expression of our energy in the world. Shamanic wisdom from around the globe tells us that money, like all energy, must move to be well. And in that movement we must stay out of the stagnation of greed and scarcity or the agitation of spending more than we have for reasons that do not matter. To remain in right relationship with money we must choose to be accountable for the flow of energy in the interchange of love, knowledge, and work in the physical and nonphysical world with gratitude, responsibility, and reciprocity. In this way we cultivate the internal richness needed to sustain the true power of action in our own lives.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM Pacific

Log on to Listen
Why Shamanism Now? on Co-Creator Network
Questions? Comments? Call: 1-512-772-1938

All episodes are now available in the iTunes Podcast Library.

Awake in the DREAM with Laura Eisenhower and Dr. DREAM

Awake in the DREAM Radio with Craig Campobasso

Awake in the DREAM Radio with Laura Magdalene Eisenhower and Dr. DREAM, this week's guest will be Craig Campobasso.

Tue, April 2, 2013 09:00 pm Eastern

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drdream

Just Energy Radio

Scientific Proof Of ESP & Can Math Explain Paranormal Phenomena?

Russell Targ
Scientific Proof Of ESP
Russell Targ is a physicist and author, a pioneer in the development of the laser and laser applications, and a cofounder of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) investigation of psychic abilities in the 1970s and 1980s. SRI is a research and development think tank in Menlo Park, California. Called remote viewing, his work in the psychic area has been published in Nature, The Proceedings of the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, and the Proceedings of the American Association the Advancement of Science. More ...
www.espresearch.com

Jim Stein
Can Math Explain Paranormal Phenomena?
Jim Stein is the author of more than thirty research articles in mathematics, and has served on several state and national committees on mathematics education. Several years ago, he started writing books on mathematics and science, including How Math Explains the World, How Math Can Save Your Life, The Right Decision, and Cosmic Numbers: The Numbers That Define Our Universe. It was during the writing of How Math Explains the World that he had the idea that led to his writing The Paranormal Equation. More ...

Thursday From 7-9pm CST ~ 04/04/13

http://inceptionradionetwork.com/listen-live/

Awake: Now What?

Don Milton, Growth by Design, EFT, Freedom Coaching, Matrix

Don Milton’s Growth By Design™ delivers Life and Freedom Coaching, Matrix Reimprinting, EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) and a host of other extraordinary processes and resources to empower you. Whether you are struggling with depression, addictions, anxieties, weight challenges, allergies, headaches, PTSD , professional or sports performance issues Growth By Design™ delivers powerful and profound results. Growth By Design™’s coaching has transformed the lives and relationships of hundreds of people just like you. Discover the possibilities. Imagine your life successful, joy filled.

As far as eucatastrophic events go, Don Milton has had more than his fair share. Eucatastrophic is a word coined by J.R.R. Tolkien, refers to “good” catastrophes. These catastrophes or calamities have the power to transform our lives in very positive and powerful ways. Don Milton’s life has been shaped and reshaped by these events. His passion is teaching and coaching others to experience the wisdom and opportunity within each of these challenges. His life long commitment is to empower his clients. He encourages them to live at their highest and best, to open the doors and embrace the unlimited possibilities.

Don’s hallmark is his ability to cut through the emotional clutter to “the heart of the matter,” the core. Using a methodical and deliberate style Don utilizes an extraordinary toolbox of skills, techniques and experience. Don’s clients accelerate through this process moving quickly and efficiently through pain, anxiety, depression, addictions, PTSD and other emotional issues that have stagnated for years. These simple yet profound concepts have changed the lives of hundreds of people and those that love them.

For more information go to http://donmilton.net

Sun, April 7, 2013 06:00 pm Eastern

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/awake

Read More

TED: So Cowardly, So Cultish -- UPDATED

Crossposted from Reflections Journal.

Click to Enlarge

Well. It's official. TED will not be putting anyone forward to debate Rupert Sheldrake or Graham Hancock, despite their generous offers. It does not appear that they told either of them directly. They did not respond on the threads where both of the censored TEDx speakers issued their challenge. They have done so through a spokeswoman when asked by a reporter.

A spokeswoman for TED told Positive News: “TED has opted for an open, online discussion, rather than a specific public debate with Sheldrake, Hancock and the science board. While the videos do not meet the stated TEDx guidelines, they will continue to be displayed on TED’s blog, with a lively ongoing debate.”

What the spokeswoman did not mention is that the "lively" debate will only be "ongoing" for a couple more days, because TED set a time limit of two weeks to allow discussion of the quarantined talks. (See above) So "ongoing" is rather a strong word for the discussion forum TED has provided in its back-pages.

It is also not a substitute for an actual debate between the relevant parties, the censored speakers and those who censored them. It would be an opportunity for TED to lay out its reasons for removing the talks, which they have thus far failed to do.



No one from TED has appeared on the discussion threads they've provided to explain their reasons. Instead we get inanities like this from Chris Anderson, in a response to a content-free eruption from a TED translator:

Krisztian, I understand your frustration with the talk. We've read a lot of such comments. They're what initiated this whole process. But I'd prefer you to make the case in more temperate language. I personally didn't think the talk was 'crap'. I spoke with Rupert Sheldrake a few days ago and I think he genuinely respects scientific thinking. He just disagrees with a lot of it. Some of his questions in the talk I found genuinely interesting. And I do think there's a place on TED to challenge the orthodox. Maybe I'm expecting too much for this forum, but I was hoping scientists who don't buy his ideas could indicate WHY they find them so implausible. [emphasis mine]

Thanks for being a TED Translator. You guys amaze me.

So the curator who made the decision to remove the talks doesn't understand that Sheldrake is a scientist, and not someone who "disagrees" with scientific thinking. And he would like some scientists to explain why they deserved to be pulled. He made the decision but he can't explain it. He refers to a science board who can't or won't show up even anonymously on the provided forum to explain the reasons and now we know for sure that TED won't put any of its brain trust forward to explain their reasoning in a debate.

After making a couple of comments of about that quality, Chris Anderson left the building. He has not been seen on either thread since March 20.

The discussions of both talks are informative and worth reading, just light on reasonable critique of either talk. What valid critiques have been offered have also been well debated by the many people who disagree with TED's decision. Such debate is healthy. I wish there were more of it presented but most of the criticism has come from trolls. And the bottom line for me is that, while I certainly think there are things to disagree with and debate in both talks, disagreement shouldn't lead to censorship or marginalization and that's what's happened.

The idea of actually debating these talks on their merits apparently terrifies TED. They'd rather hide the talks and provide a time limited forum to let Hancock and Sheldrake supporters vent their spleens, while they slink off and wait for the whole thing to die down.

If they did debate Sheldrake, they might have to grapple with the fact that one of the central points of his talk has been validated by two new studies. As discussed, Sheldrake raised a question about anomalous data regarding the speed of light. His statements were misrepresented by Jerry Coyne on his blog, who claimed that Sheldrake "argues that speed of light is dropping." Coyne consulted physicist Sean Carroll to refute Sheldrake's assertion that he never made, and Carroll accidentally confirmed Sheldrake's actual statements. Said Sheldrake in his refutation of TED's criticisms:

In my talk I suggest how a re-examination of existing data could resolve whether large continuing variations in the Universal Gravitational Constant, G, are merely errors, as usually assumed, or whether they show correlations between different labs that might have important scientific implications hitherto ignored. Jerry Coyne and TED’s Scientific Board regard this as an exercise in pseudoscience. I think their attitude reveals a remarkable lack of curiosity.

Now come two new studies showing variations in the speed of light as it moves through a vacuum.

Where did the speed of light in a vacuum come from? Why is it 299,792,458 meters per second and not some other figure?

The simple answer is that, since 1983, science has defined a meter by the speed of light: one meter equals the distance light travels in one 299,792,458th of a second. But that doesn't really answer our question. It's just the physics equivalent of saying, "Because I said so."

Unfortunately, the deeper answer has been equally unsatisfying: The speed of light in a vacuum, according to physics textbooks, just is. It's a constant, one of those numbers that defines the universe. That's the physics equivalent of saying, "Because the cosmos said so."

Or did it? A pair of studies suggest that this universal constant might not be so constant after all. In the first study, Marcel Urban from the University of Paris-Sud and his team found that the speed of light in a vacuum varies ever so slightly.

TEDx Whitechapel has also come out with a full-throated call for the reinstatement of the two talks. They also explained a bit about their thinking and the reasons for inviting Hancock and Sheldrake to speak.

We have been genuinely transformed through many of the inspiring TEDTalks; they have profoundly challenged our perceptions of and assumptions about the world, opening us up to new perspectives outside of the established mainstream thinking. Moreover, we really believe TED to be an ingenious medium to spread ideas across the globe. As such, TED represents the free and open flow and exchange of ideas globally, enriching and empowering an increasingly connected global community.

And it is with this passion that we decided to host a TEDx event with the theme “Visions for Transition: Challenging Existing Paradigms and Redefining Values (for a more beautiful world)’. We believe that in order to deal with the diverse and complex crises converging on our planet, we need to challenge the dominant thought paradigms and radically reassess the values which govern our world. In line with Einsteins wisdom “problems cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that created them” we saw TED as a truly special platform.

You can understand therefore, how shocked and saddened we were when we were alerted to the news that you had decided to remove Graham and Rupert’s talk from the TEDx Youtube channel and furthermore the disrespectful way in which they were treated publicly on the TED blog where you moved them.

I can't speak to what may or may not be going on behind the scenes, but in public, where this was posted -- it was also posted on both of the TED discussion threads -- there has been no response from the parent organization.

Sadly, I think TEDx Whitechapel has been dissed. I say that, in part, because TEDx West Hollywood was just dissed. This time it was pre-emptive.

TED, the parent organization, is removing the license of TEDxWestHollywood only a couple of weeks before their planned event “Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm?” after they had spent more than a year preparing.  Tickets are already on sale. After summarily dismissing the program with no recompense at all for monies that had been expended, they amended their stance to offer a fraction of the operating costs in compensation and all because they deem the program to be . . . wait for it . . . unscientific.  Does this sound familiar?  It does indeed.  This is the same charge that was leveled at Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock when TED first pulled their videos.

. . .

So what is the fuss all about? (here is her lineup of speakers.) Although TED refused to “name names” in their dismissal, whereby an argument could be made, it surely has to do with three of the speakers who are scientists, about whom they earlier had raised eyebrows asking for justification for their place on the program with the caution that if they weren’t pleased with the end results they would not post the talks on their YouTube page. Pulling the program was never brought up. The three are: Russell Targ, who will talk on the reality of ESP and Larry Dossey, who will talk on the revolution in consciousness and Marilyn Schlitz, who is a social anthropologist and psi researcher, speaking on “How do we shift our paradigm.” All three have the proper credentials along with ability to speak to the evidence and present their views using credible science. They, more than the other speakers, represent the real threat to the Materialists/skeptics at TED. However, in addition, TED also had objections to Marianne Williamson and Paul Nugent although neither was giving a science talk. This is the pertinent email to Suzanne Taylor:

We will be especially interested to hear about the ideas that Marianne Williamson, Russell Targ, Larry Dossey, Paul Nugent, and Marilyn Schlitz will be presenting.We feel that the pseudoscience struggle is an important one. TED and TEDx cannot be platforms that give undo legitimacy to false evidence and selective logic — regardless of brilliant packaging.

I'm sorry... the "pseudoscience struggle?" It's a struggle now? The phrasing is just so... odd. Wait. I had no idea Marianne Williamson had ever pretended to be a scientist. Oh, right. She didn't. Of course, neither did Graham Hancock. Has it ever been more plain that TED is way out of its depth on this issue? They seem to be badly parroting criticisms from their shadowy science board that they don't even understand. They appear to have been hijacked by militant atheists. I really wonder if something like this would make the cut in the current environment, and Jill Bolte Taylor gave one of their most popular talks, ever.

I will say this, though. I'm pretty sure TEDx Peachtree is safe. I say that because Al Meyers is a real team player. I mentioned Mr. Meyers, TEDx co-organizer and all-around TED sycophant, here. Meyers dropped by the Sheldrake and Hancock discussion threads long enough to drop the phrase "TED brand" ten or twenty times. He got really wrapped around the axle when he learned that Sheldrake had briefly mentioned his book at the beginning of his talk. So I learned something new about TED of which I was previously unaware. As a TED speaker you cannot self-promote at all. This is addressed in the, I kid you not, TED Commandments. There are ten of them. The sixth commandment reads:

No selling from the stage! Unless we have specifically asked you to, do not talk about your company or organization. And don’t even think about pitching your products or services or asking for funding from stage.

I didn't think there was anything pitchy at all in Sheldrake's talk. He referenced the book to provide a little context. It would seem the Whitechapel folks didn't see a problem either. But Meyer, who still hasn't watched the lectures, was very distressed that a book was mentioned at all.

If Sheldrake did, in fact, open his talk by promoting his book, then the talk should have never been uploaded because it is ABSOLUTELY a violation of the TEDx rules. That puts the TEDx organizer in a difficult spot - if they had seen an advance copy of his slides and this was an "ad lib" addition by Sheldrake, then that is pretty sleezy but as an organizer, nothing you can do about it.

Whitechapel may have been asleep at switch if Sheldrake didn't know his TED Commandments and it all reflects badly on the brand.

Every TEDx speaker is given the rules on how to give a TED Talk. If they did not receive them, then the TEDx organizer did not do his/her job. Anyone who knows about TED knows that you NEVER self-promote on the stage. The "TED Commandments" are all over the web. So if Sheldrake used the stage to plug his book, that is a huge red flag and should have been edited from the version uploaded to the web. Steve, if you don't like the rules, you are under no obligation to participate in the TED community. My TEDx event has declined to invite speakers who do not respect the brand.

In retrospect, Meyers felt bad about calling Sheldrake "sleazy." But he's very much on his guard about hucksters pitching their wares at TED conferences.

Last night I used an inappropriate word ("sleazy") to describe Sheldrake pitching his book in one part of his talk, which I deeply regret. It is unfortunate that using this word has riled up this already "spirited" group, including that of an alleged "TED Fellow," on here, and that someone would flag that comment as inappropriate. While I believe that folks are a bit "insensitive" in their responses to using that word, I apologize for using it.

I didn't have to read the deluge of comments I received when I woke up this morning to realize that there are some folks who believe VERY STRONGLY that TED has "wronged" these two presenters. What I can tell you is this:
1. It appears that a vast majority (not all) of the talks that TED has "flagged" in the past are related to a speaker who has a book published. When last year's talk by Nick Hanauer caused a stir for crossing the political line, his PR agent caused a stir. When these things happen, as a TEDx organizer, I have found that a speaker's true motives for taking the TED stage come out. I question those motives to some degree here. I don't need the "marketers" who responded to my comment to chime in. TED is NOT a trade conference, so speakers who are doing this or business development reasons should rethink their approach for this type of forum.
2. TED's guidelines are VERY specific about what speakers can/can't do onstage. A speaker can talk about the substance and not even mention the book onstage.
3. I suspect that TED will work with its staff and TEDx organizers to improve its curation practices and how it can prevent this situation from repeating itself. TEDx organizers had been issued rules about pseudoscience and must share the responsibility in how they select speakers. They are stewards of the brand, and they must do better in this area, or else the TEDx program could be at risk. [All emphases mine]

Hanauer was discussed here. I don't think it was about selling the book he didn't mention in the talk. That's chump change to a billionaire, venture capitalist. He probably paid more to his flacks to get the talk reinstated than he could ever hope to make in whatever book sales might have been generated. His talk was in many ways working against his own economic self-interest. He wants his own taxes to go up, so...

I can absolutely understand why TED wants to keep its conferences focused on ideas rather than pitching products. It could get very obnoxious if they didn't have some rules where that's concerned. But as Meyers lays it out here, it seems a little extreme. For one thing, books and other accomplishments speak to a speaker's credentials. I'd want to know. But what really disturbs me is this idea that speakers can't be there to promote their own careers at all. They can't have "a brand." They are enlisted only to support the "TED brand."

TED speakers aren't paid. They just get to rub shoulders with wealthy benefactors but they receive strict guidelines which are transparently to ensure the comfort of those wealthy benefactors. Eddie Huang's deeply disturbing story of cultish weirdness describes an organization requiring total fealty from its presenters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you're doing a TED Talk, you are their product.


UPDATE: The disaffiliated TEDx West Hollywood will be presenting on its own and is calling for help in getting its message out.  The Live Stream of the event can be viewed on April 14 here.

I also just noticed this comment from the organizer on how TED addressed its concerns before it formally pulled the plug.

They want to cancel my program. Reason: “We are not comfortable with it.” I kid you not. That’s all. Repeated over and over on the phone as to why. No more, except there are objections to some speakers, but, “We’re not naming names.” I must be joking, right?

Once again, I think TED would be a lot more credible if it had some idea as to why it's making these decisions.

Read More

A West Memphis Courtroom and a Wild Story

Crossposted from Reflections Journal.

Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, & Christopher Byers

Pam Hicks (formerly Hobbs) would like to see the evidence pertaining to her son Stevie Branch's murder.

Pam Hicks, the mother of Stevie Branch, wants to examine some of the items that belonged to her son and were found at the murder scene.

Hicks previously told us, “I do want to know that it has not been contaminated if they need it, if something [were] to come out of this,” said Hicks. “I definitely don’t want to touch it. I just want to have a peace of mind and ease of knowing that they still have it.”

Police Chief Donald Oakes says they still have it, all of it, and most of it is sealed.

Hicks's attorney Ken Swindle put forward four new possible suspects in the murders for which the West Memphis Three spent their youths in an Arkansas prison. Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley were released in August of 2011 on an Alford Plea but are still considered convicted murderers by the state of Arkansas.

Two of the suspects have been discussed previously due to hairs consistent with their DNA being found at the crime scene: Terry Hobbs and his friend David Jacoby. Inconsistencies in Hobbs's story have also raised enough concern that even his former wife, Hicks, has previously raised suspicions.



The two additional suspects are Buddy Lucas and L.G. Hollingsworth and this is where the story starts to become surreal. According to sworn affidavits from Bennie Guy and Billy Stewart, Lucas confessed to them that he and the other three men murdered Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, and Michael Moore. Lucas and Hollingsworth were teens at the time and involved in a drug-fueled, homoerotic escapade with the older men when they noticed the three children observing them.

According to Guy, he convinced Hollingsworth to admit his guilt and share details. Guy said that Hollingsworth told him that he and Lucas had been walking in Lakeshore Trailer Park when Hobbs and Jacoby drove up, asking where to buy marijuana.

Lucas and Hollingsworth directed them to Stewart, then went along for the ride. At that point, Stewart tells a similar story, but says that when they drove up to buy weed, he saw Hobbs kiss Jacoby. Stewart added that his son also saw them kissing on a later occasion. He said that a few days after the murders, he also delivered pot, cocaine and crystal meth to Hobbs at a Memphis gay bar called J-Wags.

. . .

According to the affidavits, Lucas said that the quartet drank whiskey, smoked pot and drove around, eventually ending up in the wooded area where the murders took place. Lucas told Stewart that Hobbs and Jacoby made the two teenagers wrestle after they got to the woods.

At that point, both Guy and Stewart say that the boys surprised them by riding up on their bikes. Hobbs ordered them to chase down the boys. Lucas then told Stewart that he and Hollingsworth were forced to hold the boys while Jacoby and Hobbs beat them. They then stripped the bodies, dumped them in the water and hid the bicycles. The bodies were found the next day.

Hollingsworth died in a car accident in 2001 and Lucas has been described as "slow" which might make all of that a little hard to prove.

Judge Victor Hill says he will deliver a verdict on the availability of the evidence on Monday.

Read More

Galaxy Quest Through the Wormhole

Crossposted from Reflections Journal.

In keeping with my new hobby -- identifying obscure archetypes and esoterica in pop culture -- I noticed a sequence in Galaxy Quest the other day depicting wormhole travel. It's really intriguing. Galaxy Quest is a riot, and an old favorite, but I've never really thought of it as a metaphysical film. The relevance of the scene clicked for me, though, when I was listening to William Henry's most recent edition of Revelations.

At about the 19 minute mark Robert Perala relays a life altering experience he'd had that involved contact with some sort of alien or other-dimensional beings. He describes being pulled through a wormhole and finding himself covered with some sort of sticky, oily substance. He was left shaken and nauseated by the experience.

Henry has been talking and writing about this "oil" for some time and theorizes that it's a kind "cosmic condom" that protects the body during stargate travel. He provides references to Enoch being taken up by the Archangel Michael and Jesus who had his feet anointed by Mary previous to his resurrection.

It occurs to me that this is pretty much exactly what happens in Galaxy Quest when Tim Allen, and later the rest of the cast, are transported by aliens to and from their space dock. It's shown in painful detail when a very hungover Jason Nesmith (Allen) -- a William Shatneresque star of an historic sci-fi series and frequent convention guest -- tries to return home from what he thinks is a guest appearance with hard-core fans. Having slept through his limousine-like spaceship ride, and having no idea he's  in outer space, he's shown to a platform to wait for his limo. Instead, he is covered in an unctuous substance -- which first anoints his feet. A portal opens onto the vastness of space and he is shot through a wormhole, and deposited next to his swimming pool. He stands for several moments trembling with shock.

It's a very funny scene in a very funny, quirky, little movie, but there are nods to something much deeper. It's well-shot and it's the little details that cinch it. Below are some stills, showing the sequence of events.

Read More

Cafe

Buy From Art.com

Around the Web, Around the World

"Why Shamanism Now?" with Christina Pratt

The Return to the Earth's Primordial Wisdom with John-Luke Edwards

The ancient stories of myth and religion speak of a time on earth when the land, the plants, animals, birds, bugs, and humans all communicated together, clearly and simply. Then the humans did something-something that is no longer quite clear-and we lost our ability to communicate directly. We wandered off, distracted by sparkly things, instant gratification, and grew addicted to the stimulus of life disconnected from all that we were originally one with. Humans forgot the paths to return home. What if we could remember the path back to the forest? Join us this week and host and shaman, Christina Pratt, explores the possibility of returning home to the forest with Rev. shaman John-Luke Edwards of the Wolven Path Tradition, a shamanic tradition rebirthed from nomadic shamanic traditions of northern Europe. With our reconnection to "The Forest" we can reconnect with our knowing that all life communicates. And together with all life humans can innovate and successfully navigate a sustainable path forward that reconciles the dynamics of our shared global crisis. Return to the Forest this May at the 5th Residential BC Shamanic Conference Gathering for all who want to create a way to live in Oneness with all living things.

This week's guest:
John-Luke Edwards

Reverend Shaman John-Luke Edwards, MA, PhD is an ordained shaman of The Wolven Path, which is a rebirth of an ancient Celtic/Druidic form of shamanism. Reverend Shaman is a title of, both, self reverence; related to the sacrifice of continuous and selfless journey, of learning and shamanic service to the Sacred Earth and Her Children; and of a focused visible reverence for the Sacred Journey of all our relations no matter how they or their journeys manifest. Shamanic Clergy illuminate the path for others by setting their own hearts and souls aflame; they are light bearers and song carriers. Shamanic Clergy learn in order to share and teach; to proclaim the Shamanic Way of living; to be principal agents of the aims and mission of The Society and it ministerial work and officiate at public ceremony.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 11:00 AM Pacific

Log on to Listen
Why Shamanism Now? on Co-Creator Network
Questions? Comments? Call: 1-512-772-1938

All episodes are now available in the iTunes Podcast Library.

Awake in the DREAM with Laura Eisenhower and Dr. DREAM

Based on My Experiences ~ Lessons from the Frontlines

Laura Eisenhower and Dr. DREAM are pleased to bring YOU; Awake in the DREAM Radio, our next guests are Barbara Lamb & Nora Herold.

We will be having more broadcasts with two or more guests as we expand our offerings. We love the concept of cutting right to the Heart of matters and asking the key question; "Based on your experiences, what are the most valuable lessons You have learned?"

Both of our next guests will have lots to choose from as far as what they will be sharing!

BARBARA LAMB is a Master of Science, Licensed Psychotherapist, Certified Hypnotherapist and Regression Therapist. She specializes in Regression Therapy with people who experience various kinds of encounters with extraterrestrial and interdimensional beings.

She has lectured on the extraterrestrial subject and the Crop Circle subject in numerous conferences and forums across the U.S. and other countries, and has been interviewed on many television and film specials and radio shows. She is teaching a course on “Varieties of Extraterrestrial Encounters” for the online International Metaphysical University. Find more on Barbara at http://www.BarbaraLambMFT.com

NORA HEROLD has been has been channeling, lecturing, and doing healing work for over 20 years. She channels a multitude of high frequency beings, including Yeshua, The 9th Dimensional Pleiadian Collective, The Lyrans, The Faeries, The Angelics, & Enara. She has appeared on radio & tv and has channeled for people all around the world. Currently you can see her in the "Illumination Matrix" DVD series. Find more on Nora at http://www.NoraHerold.com

Tue, March 26, 2013 09:00 pm Eastern

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drdream

Just Energy Radio

GMO's: The Hidden Dangers In Your Foods & The Moses Mystery

Jeffrey M. Smith
GMO's: The Hidden Dangers In Your Foods
The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices, Jeffrey M. Smith, is the director of the new blockbuster documentary film, Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives, and author of the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on the health dangers genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk, and the environment in peril. More ...
www.GeneticRouletteMovie.com
www.SeedsofDeception.com

Gary Greenburg
The Moses Mystery
A New York City criminal defense attorney and President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York, Greenberg has long been interested in the intersection between ancient myth and ancient history, especially as it applies to Egyptian influences on the writing of the bible. The problem, he says, is figuring out how to separate the myth from the history. He served as a consultant to National Geographic Television's Science of the Bible series. He has also lectured frequently on ancient history, mythology, and biblical studies at conferences concerned with Egyptian and/or biblical affairs.
ggreenberg.tripod.com

Thursday From 7-9pm CST ~ 03/28/13

http://inceptionradionetwork.com/listen-live/

Awake: Now What?

David Bedrick Juris Doctor, Diplomate of Process Work

David Bedrick, J.D., Dipl. PW, is an educator, counselor, attorney, organizational consultant, and writer. His broad range of knowledge is apparent in the scope of topics he taught while on the faculty of the University of Phoenix, including courses on philosophy (critical thinking and ethics) and psychology (addictions and dependencies, negotiation and mediation, clinical interviewing, cultural diversity, ethics in human services, and group work), as well as employment law and conflict management in the MBA program. His love of diverse audiences is apparent in the variety of venues where he has taught, such as the U.S. Navy, 3M, the American Society of Training and Development, the Process Work Institute, psychological associations, and small groups focusing on personal growth. In 2005, he received the Teacher of the Year Award in Human Services from the University of Phoenix.

As a practitioner of process-oriented psychology, he has worked with groups, couples, and individuals for nearly twenty years. His graduate work in psychology provided the basis for the “love-based psychology” he advocates in this book.

In 1982, he cofounded the organizational consulting firm Applied Personnel Technologies, Inc. (APT). In 1986, he won the American Society of Training and Developments’ Professional Excellence Award for Technological Innovation in employee development.

Currently, he maintains a practice as a counselor and coach for individuals and groups, and speaks on various topics .

David works with individuals by phone, Skype, or in person. For further information about David’s workshops, speaking engagements, and one-on-one coaching, contact him by phone at (505) 819-7993 or by e-mail at dbedrickspeak@mac.com.

Websites: http://davidbedrick.com/, David Bedrick, J.D., Dipl. PW, is an educator, counselor, attorney, organizational consultant, and writer. His broad range of knowledge is apparent in the scope of topics he taught while on the faculty of the University of Phoenix, including courses on philosophy (critical thinking and ethics) and psychology (addictions and dependencies, negotiation and mediation, clinical interviewing, cultural diversity, ethics in human services, and group work), as well as employment law and conflict management in the MBA program. His love of diverse audiences is apparent in the variety of venues where he has taught, such as the U.S. Navy, 3M, the American Society of Training and Development, the Process Work Institute, psychological associations, and small groups focusing on personal growth. In 2005, he received the Teacher of the Year Award in Human Services from the University of Phoenix.

As a practitioner of process-oriented psychology, he has worked with groups, couples, and individuals for nearly twenty years. His graduate work in psychology provided the basis for the “love-based psychology” he advocates in this book.

In 1982, he cofounded the organizational consulting firm Applied Personnel Technologies, Inc. (APT). In 1986, he won the American Society of Training and Developments’ Professional Excellence Award for Technological Innovation in employee development.

Currently, he maintains a practice as a counselor and coach for individuals and groups, and speaks on various topics .

David works with individuals by phone, Skype, or in person. For further information about David’s workshops, speaking engagements, and one-on-one coaching, contact him by phone at (505) 819-7993 or by e-mail at dbedrickspeak@mac.com.

Websites: http://davidbedrick.com/, http://dreambodyreadings.com/, http://talkingbacktodrphil.com/, http://dietproject.org/, http://talkingbacktodrphil.com/, http://dietproject.org/

Sun, March 31, 2013 06:00 pm Eastern

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/awake

Read More

The Taybor and the Rainbow Body

Crossposted from Reflections Journal.

Padmasabhava

I've been rewatching Space 1999, mostly as an exercise in nostalgia and to amuse my inner child. My inner child loves her some Space 1999. It's not a terribly deep or esoteric show, particularly by the second season. But every so often it wanders into an intriguing archetype.

The other night I was watching "The Taybor." Taybor is "an inter-galactic merchant [who] arrives from hyper-space on his ship the 'Emporium.'" He is a silly character and the episode is largely quite silly but I was taken with their depiction of the hyper-drive that allowed him to move anywhere in space.

The drive itself is an oculus, aka., circumpunct, aka., stargate:

But where it really gets interesting is when the ship begins to shift into hyper-space:

What immediately came to mind for me was some of the Tibetan art showing the rainbow body as explained by William Henry here.

A few key images illustrate my thinking. First is the Tibetan image of the Rainbow Body. In the Tibetan Great Perfection tradition, the mortal coil  can be spun into a higher frequency, ultimately dissolving and manifesting as five colored rainbow light. The resulting ‘Rainbow Body’ is considered the highest form of human spiritual attainment. 

Padmasambhava

Read More

Will the DeleTED Debate TED?

Crossposted from Reflections Journal.

The offer's on the table. Both Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock have very publicly challenged TED to debates.

Said Sheldrake:

I appreciate the fact that TED published my response to the accusations levelled against me by their Scientific Board, and also crossed out the Board’s statement on the “Open for discussion” blog. http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

There are no longer any specific points to answer. I am all in favour of debate, but it is not possible to make much progress through short responses to nebulous questions like “Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation?”

I would be happy to take part in a public debate with a scientist who disagrees with the issues I raise in my talk. This could take place online, or on Skype. My only condition is that it be conducted fairly, with equal time for both sides to present their arguments, and with an impartial moderator, agreed by both parties.

Therefore I ask Chris Anderson to invite a scientist from TED’s Scientific Board or TED’s Brain Trust to have a real debate with me about my talk, or if none will agree to take part, to do so himself.

Said Hancock:

I previously commented that I would not post further on this Blog page because it is so clearly designed to distract public attention from the disastrous way TED have handled their attempt to censor my “War on Consciousness” talk and Rupert Sheldrake’s “Science Delusion” talk. That in my view is the important point, for it bears on the future of TED itself as a viable platform for “ideas worth spreading”. I am heartened that so many of the 400-plus concerned people who have now posted here (and the 1000-plus who posted on the original Blog page) have refused to fall for TED’s sleight of hand and continued to press the organization to rethink its policy.

Since TED have retracted and struck out all their justifications for the original deletion of my talk from the TEDx Youtube channel (http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/ ) and since they have published my rebuttal, and done the same re Rupert Sheldrake’s talk, I agree with Rupert on a new post he has made on this page (http://www.ted.com/conversations/17189/the_debate_about_rupert_sheldr.html). There are no more specific points surrounding TED’s misguided decision that he and I need to answer. Nor is it possible to make much progress through short responses to nebulous questions like “Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation?”

But I now make this one further post, simply to add my voice to Rupert’s and to put on record that I, too, would be happy to take part in a public debate with a scientist who disagrees with the issues I raise in my talk. My only condition is that it be conducted fairly, with equal time for both sides to present their arguments, and with an impartial moderator, agreed by both parties.

Therefore I join Rupert in asking Chris Anderson to invite a scientist from TED’s Scientific Board or TED’s Brain Trust to have a real debate with me about my talk, or if none will agree to take part, to do so himself. 

Said TED:

Well... so far... crickets.

So will TED put anyone forward to articulate and defend their reasons for deleting these talks from their main platform and putting them in quarantine? Their options for doing so are fairly limited. Chris Anderson is obviously ill-equipped to defend his decision as he doesn't appear to understand it. The only time he even attempted to lay out reasons for TED's decision, he made such a pudding of it he had to cross the whole thing out.

Putting forward someone from their Science Board is even trickier because TED refuses to reveal their super-secret identities. But they do have options as one Lewis Smart suggested:

Hell, let one of the anonymous science board members speak from behind a screen, with his voice vocoded to retain anonymity. It would be hilarious.

It would! And I like a bit of cabaret. It couldn't possibly be more farcical than TED's attempts to justify itself thus far.

The other problem for TED is that scientists who've attempted to debate Sheldrake in the past haven't fared well. He has many critics in the science world -- particularly of the New Atheist variety. They love to call him a "crackpot" but few of them would argue that he isn't wicked smart. When they take him on directly, he tends to pants them.

A comment posted by one Sebastian Penraeth brought up a very interesting discussion and analysis of how Sheldrake has been treated by the "scientific community" -- although, it's kind of hard to call them "scientific" after reading a record of their behavior. Community, yes. Scientific, no. What was revealed in a dissertation by Philip Stevens is something more like an entrenched group-mind -- high on knee-jerk rejection, low on dispassionate analysis. An interview with Stevens can be found here and the entire dissertation can be downloaded from that page.

It speaks badly of the state of modern science that the editor of the prestigious journal Nature joked about book burning. But John Maddox's review of Sheldrake's A New Science of Life was entitled "A Book for Burning?" He did not actually call for the book to be burned -- just ridiculed and marginalized with other "literature of intellectual aberrations."

Maddox clarified his thinking some years later.

Without any sense of irony, Maddox compared the condemnation of Dr Sheldrake by the scientific community to that of the Catholic Church’s criticism of Galileo, saying “[Sheldrake’s theory] can be condemned in exactly the language that the Popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy.”

When editors of prominent science journals start throwing around ideas like "book burning" and "heresy," even in jest, we should become very concerned that the institutions of science look far more like arbiters of a religious orthodoxy.

But the other thing indicated by this ridiculing and ostracizing of Sheldrake by establishment scientists is that they're panicked. Maybe they should be, because Sheldrake is questioning some of the fundamental assumptions on which many people are basing their careers. And he does it well.

As per Stevens, there have only been a handful of debates between Sheldrake and his critics. Other such debates have been pointedly avoided and in one notable instance a debate with a certain very prominent atheist reportedly occurred and then slipped down the memory hole.

In 2007, Dr Sheldrake was contacted by Channel 4 who asked if he would be willing to take part in an interview for a television programme presented by Richard Dawkins. The programme was called ‘Enemies of Reason’ (although Dr Sheldrake claims he wasn’t told that when he agreed to take part).

According to Dr Sheldrake, in the subsequent debate (which was not included in the resulting series) Prof. Dawkins accused Sheldrake of “trying to turn the tables on him” and refused to discuss any research on telepathy, instead saying that Sheldrake was “prepared to believe almost anything”. Dr Sheldrake claims he accused Prof. Dawkins of being dogmatic and attempting a ‘low grade debunking exercise’. To which Prof. Dawkins reportedly said “It’s not a low grade debunking exercise; it’s a high grade debunking exercise”. Prof. Dawkins has never publicly talked about the interview.

It seems Dawkins, like many of those who've gone up against Sheldrake, had not felt it necessary to familiarize himself with his work. This leaves them at something of a disadvantage in their attempts to discredit it.

Lewis Wolpert, Professor of Biology at University College London, apparently lobbed ad hominem attacks and disparaged the subject matter for 15 minutes of his allotted 30, and gave up the rest of his time. “The blunt fact is that there's no persuasive evidence for [telepathy],” Wolpert summed up. Then he sat, looking bored, tapping a pencil, and pointedly ignoring Sheldrake who methodically laid out his evidence for telepathy.

Such self-satisfaction may play well to other self-satisfied skeptics but it didn't play well to audience members whose reaction was described in Nature: “Many in the audience... variously accused Wolpert of not knowing the evidence and being unscientific.”

Other debates have gone similarly. Of a debate with Jan Willem Nienhuys, botanist Richard Hardwick said:

[Sheldrake] comes well prepared, and he speaks fluently and clearly, as if he really wants to communicate. He marshals his arguments with precision, he provides (so far as I can judge) evidence for his statements, and he brings his nul hypotheses out into the open, ready to be shot down by the force of disproof.

. . .

In my judgement, Nienhuys’ counterattack failed... it seems Dr Nienhuys had not done his homework. He did not have any data or analysis to hand, and his attack fizzled out.

In a debate with Peter Atkins, Sheldrake asked him pointedly if he'd read the research he was dismissing.

Sheldrake: Well I’d like to ask him if he’s actually read the evidence? May I ask you Professor Atkins if you’ve actually studied any of this evidence or any other evidence?

Atkins: No, but I would be very suspicious of it.

Sheldrake: Of course, being suspicious of it in advance of seeing it is normally called prejudice.

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, who was caught giving critiques of  Sheldrake's work without reading it, agreed to debate Sheldrake... if only he could find the time.

In March 2003, Dr Sheldrake challenged Shermer to a debate, which he accepted, and several times and venues were suggested, but all were rejected by Shermer. As of 2009, the debate has still not taken place.

What Stevens found in researching Sheldrake's relationship to the scientific community is that they badly depart from the rules and norms of science in their dealings with him. They dismiss his research without reading it. They make demonstrably false claims about the results and methodology. In one case, a colleague of Sheldrake's replicated his research but, shall we say, selectively reported his own results.

Sheldrake had set an experiment into pet-owner telepathy, finding that even with controls for any possible cuing and patterns, the dog in the study went to the window more than 3 times more often when her owner was headed home.

Jaytee spent 18% of the time at the window before Smart was told to return home, 33% of the time when she had been told to go home but had not yet started off in the car, and 65% of the time when she was travelling home.

His colleague Richard Wiseman replicated the study and pronounced it a failure. He got much press for disproving pet-owner telepathy. But when Sheldrake requested the data from the study, he found that, in fact, Wiseman's results were much like Sheldrake's, with the dog going to the window substantially more often when the owner was headed home. This, Wiseman did not bother to report in his research paper.

In 2007, nine years after the original paper was published and over eleven years after the completion of the research, during an interview with Alex Tsakiris on Skeptiko, Richard Wiseman said “I don't think there’s any debate that the patterning in my studies is the same as the patterning in Rupert’s studies...it’s how it’s interpreted.

Well, no, it isn't. Hiding data is hiding data, and data can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Who's to say that his interpretation of that data is correct and Sheldrake's isn't?

It's very easy to dismiss as "pseudoscience" research into things classified as "paranormal." Many people won't even question that assessment. But one hopes that establishment scientists wouldn't approach the subject matter in a manner so sloppy, so lazy, and even misleading, that it borders on misconduct.

The problem for establishment sciences is that some of the results in this outre research are very compelling. It's marginalized by applying very different standards of evidence for status quo science and that which challenges it.

I have long hated the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I reads to me like an admission of bias. Just what constitutes "extraordinary" is extremely subjective. Stevens provides a little history of this now well-worn phrase.

The French mathematician and astronomer, Pierre-Simon Laplace said that “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.”⁹ This idea was later expanded upon by the sociologist Marcello Truzzi who said “In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded... and when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalisations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof.”¹⁰ This was later popularised by Carl Sagan who created the phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

This would seem to fly in the face of science as a dispassionate practice, and as Stevens explains, pretty much throws the Mertonian norms out the window.

Stevens quotes Wiseman in another context as saying:

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do... Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions.

Again, it's a clear admission of bias. Screw any concept of equity and dispassionate, results-based science -- and torture the English language in the process.

The talk by Sheldrake that was deleted by TED didn't get into any of his research into telepathy or other phenomena. If anything, it was more threatening to the status quo. It was on philosophy of science and questioned the willingness of establishment scientists to challenge the assumptions of materialist science.

Thus far, TED has been unable to explain its specific problems with the speech. As stated, what reasons it initially laid out were thoroughly refuted, and had to be crossed out. One hopes that if they are sticking by their decision to hide his and Hancock's lectures in increasingly obscure locations, they could at least put someone forward in a debate to explain it. And one hopes they would do a better job of it than their efforts so far.

In their original criticism of Sheldrake's talk -- that would be the crossed out part -- they took issue with his statements about natural constants. They referred the reader to a "careful rebuttal" of his statements by physicist Sean Carroll, as quoted by Jerry Coyne. But even though that rebuttal included a table omitting the data from the time period Sheldrake referred to, it not only didn't disprove his statements. It validated them. Carroll's other table showed exactly what Sheldrake claimed.

In my talk I said that the published values of the speed of light dropped by about 20 km/sec between 1928 and 1945. Carroll’s “careful rebuttal” consisted of a table copied from Wikipedia showing the speed of light at different dates, with a gap between 1926 and 1950, omitting the very period I referred to. His other reference (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html) does indeed give two values for the speed of light in this period, in 1928 and 1932-35, and sure enough, they were 20 and 24km/sec lower than the previous value, and 14 and 18 km/sec lower than the value from 1947 onwards.

Coyne's post is premised on a straw man -- that Sheldrake claimed the speed of light was dropping. His point of course was that the recorded speed varied for a period time and that this anomaly might merit further investigation. And as one Conor O' Higgins points out, in the discussion thread, Carroll also restated another of Sheldrake's more eyebrow-raising claims.

Seán Carroll also backed up Sheldrake's claim about the speed of light being fixed by convention rather than empirical measurement:

Rupert Sheldrake: "How can we be so sure it's not going on today and that the present values are not produced by intellectual phase-locking? He said, 'We know that's not the case'. I said, 'How do we know?' He said, 'Well,' he said, 'We've solved the problem.' I said, 'How?' He said 'We fixed the speed of light by definition in 1972.' " (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEo2hChKeMs&t=12m15s)

Seán Carroll: "Indeed, today the speed of light is fixed by definition, not by measurement." (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/tedx-talks-completely-discredited-rupert-sheldrake-speaks-argues-that-speed-of-light-is-dropping/)

So, if say, Sean Carroll is put forward by TED to debate Sheldrake, he might want to stop agreeing with him so much.

I will actually be pleasantly surprised if TED accepts the challenge by their censored speakers to debate. I expect they will demur. They will either continue to ignore the offers or beg off with some excuse for not putting anyone forward. They'll say they want their Science Board to remain anonymous and reject the suggestion of putting them behind a screen -- which is too bad because that's my favorite suggestion thus far. They'll pull a Michael Shermer and agree to a debate but refuse to schedule a time for years on end. Or they'll go for the tried and true method. They'll say it would be terribly bad science to give these ideas even a modicum of respectability by debating them. But I doubt they'll go through with a debate. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Read More