If you have a spare half hour, come here and listen to what the establishment don't want you to know.. proof that death is not the end.

[ShinyHappyPeopleGoingNuts]

You need to go to this page and scroll down to the four You Tube boxes showing a man called Michael Roll, and listen to them/watch them one after the other. Listen to it all.. it's seriously food for though even for the biggest sceptic. And if you are a sceptic, ask yourself why you are.

seminars.torontoghosts.org/blog/index.php/2007/05/

Not putting this in the reliogion/spiritual section because it has little to do with religion (the conditional belief in life after death). The is about proven facts. And the establishment have apparently been trying to prevent this being common knowledge for a great many year because it turns science on its head.. and that would cost money.

Have a listen. Would be interested in your views.

It backs up a LOT of what I have read in the past.

Make sure you look at the right bit.. it says... 05/28/07
12:48:06 am, by Sue , 130 words
Categories: Ghosts & Hauntings
The Scientific and Rationalist Case for Life After Death... at the top and then four You Tube Windows.

Message withdrawn

I don't know about all this stuff, I'm open minded, but clearly the person exists a bit after death because people have been 'dead' and revived. dead for 4 minutes before shocked back to life, dead for 20 minutes in freezing water... etc etc, so many times people have been resussitated (sp) so something remains immediatly after death, in order to 'come back', iyswim.

However, after some minutes, gone is gone. So you can't (at our current level of technology) reunite the body with the soul indefinatly. But is that because the soul has moved on to the next stage, or is that because once the neurons or whatever, that fire the brain (you know what I mean!) break down and the - I really don't know the terms, but I hope you get the gist - connections are severed, they can't be reconnected?

Oh, I don't know and it's far too complicated for my tiny mind .

One thing though, I am suspicious of anyone who begins their speech with sentences like "What They don't want you to know" or "The Governments are making sure You, the People, don't get this information" I don't know, it's just all too often speeches that begin this way end with "So give me £10,000 and I'll put you in a freezer and you'll be revived when the aliens come"

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I've never been a believer in an afterlife and, sorry, but this does nothing to change my mind. I was interested during part one, raised an eyebrow in part two when he referred to playing sport in the afterlife and completely lost interest in part three when he started to sound like Doris Stokes. His whole argument is based on the fact that we have a 'wavelength' type form as well as a physical body but then he contradicts that entirely by talking about being able to change body in the afterlife and everyone will be '25, at their physical peak'. Too idealistic. Too much the perfect idea of what everyone wants the afterlife to be. If part of our make-up is some kind of energy that exists after our physical body dies, then that kind of existence would be beyond our comprehension in our current state. Sorry, not for me!

You do not subscribe to the idea that there different wavelengths/dimensions then Mummydoit? How does you tv work?

I'm happy to subscribe to that part, Shiny. Just not that we can all form our wavelengths into 25 year olds happily playing cricket together once we die.

It's a surprising concept I have to say.. but only because of what we have be taught to beleive as we grow up. I think we may be in for a lot of suprises.

I'll be bloody surprised if I have to spend the rest of eternity playing cricket.

It's not all about sound and light though.. they are just the beginning; the frequencies that we all know about understand about.

I'm not stupid or naive Sobernow don't worry. I laugh aloud and some theories. But I am open minded. I would hate not to be.

I'll be bloody annoyed if I have to spend eternity playing cricket!

Sorry, Shiny, I don't mean to be disrespectful. If you do believe this then that's great for you but I continue to be sceptical about anything that promises paradise.

I can't find the bit you're supposed to listen to.

I've found Michael Roll, but it's written stuff.

Sobernow I didn't mena to imply that you had a closed mind at all.

Wulfric that is your happy perogative.

Bellatrix, you need to scroll right down to the three You Tube windows showing a bloke sitting talking. And listen/watch one at a time.

I've not listened to the first link yet as not enough time, but did skim read the info southeastsatra posted. I was really interested in the quote below about research which can or not be carried in universities on this subject.

'The physics students are powerless. They would not get their degrees if they told the truth.'

I studied Psychology and had first hand experience of this. We carried out a study to test a prevailing theory of a leading psychologist which was taken as gospel within the field. Our tutor told us that the theory was inaccurate however, when we had conducted the relevant research and got the results, not to completely rubbish her theory just say we agreed but with minor adjustments. He said if we didn't do this, we would receive a very bad mark for our paper Also that this happened all the time, affected funding etc. This still shocks me 13 years later and makes me very wary of all research or anything which doesn't sit with the norm. Point being that if proof was found of life after death, universities wouldn't be able to show their proof or proper results as it wouldn't be in their interests to do so.

Very interesting and worrying post gegs!

The idea that it is or was against the law to go on telly with arguments in suport of mediums and suchlike is a little less plausible than self-pleasuring with a garlic press, isn't it?

Ok that thread was a joke. And this thread is more of a debate. And your point is, 6kofc?