DWQA Questions › Tag: Dr. Gary Schwartz
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
Successful Hollywood Film Producer Paul Davids and Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona, who has spent much of his career scientifically studying whether human consciousness survives death and if mediumship is authentic, have co-authored a 2016 book entitled An Atheist in Heaven. Paul Davids was good friends with the late Forrest J. Ackerman who is the subject atheist of the book. Forrest was known for saying he did not believe in life after death, but if it turned out he was wrong, he would “drop them a line.” It turns out Forrest (known to his friends as “Forry”) ended up dropping many lines to many people, as the book shares in great detail. One such incident was with a filmmaker from Canada who attended Forry’s memorial service. Afterwards, this filmmaker went to Forry’s crypt and knocked on the marble, saying out loud, “Uncle Forry, hi, it’s us, Michael and Ian, we’ve come to show our movie about you at the tribute for you.” They returned to their hotel room where Mike wanted to update a Facebook blog. This required a CAPTCHA code readable by humans but not computers. To Michael’s astonishment, the code that came up was “Ackerman000.” Michael felt this was a direct response to knocking on Forry’s crypt. A few moments later, Michael’s friend Ian blurted out, “Is he really dead?” The following sentence is verbatim from the book: “At that moment, the second phenomenon occurred, this time from Ian’s computer. A voice blurted out the words, ‘Oh my God, no way!'” Was Forry doing this? Was he in the light at the time, or still in limbo? And how does all this fit within the rules of engagement? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 3 hours ago • 
0 views0 answers0 votes
In 2015, a séance was held in Forry’s former home, affectionately known as the “Ackermansion,” where Forry was a huge collector of Science Fiction memorabilia and essentially ran an informal museum of sorts when he lived there. Forrest Ackerman invented the term “Sci-fi” and was the founder and editor of the famous film genre magazine, Famous Monsters of Filmland, which was a huge favorite with teenagers in the late fifties and sixties. Steven Spielberg is counted among those who thought Forry was “pretty great.” He inspired an entire generation of famous filmmakers, authors, and special effects wizards. In that séance, it was asked what he (Forry) and other spirits were doing with their time. From the book, “What big project are they working on? Well, one must expend much energy to communicate with us (us incarnate humans that is), or to try to make their presence known, although the interest in communicating with us is substantial. So they, on the other side, are actively doing research, looking for ways to make communication between us and them easier and more efficient.” Were all the spirits attending that séance, including Forry Ackerman, still in limbo? For if they were in the light, they would know the rules of engagement, and that direct communication between spirits and humans was something strictly limited as it interferes with free will, and especially the free will of doubters to embrace their disbelief without overwhelming proof forcing the removal of all skepticism. What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 3 hours ago • 
2 views0 answers0 votes
In the book, An Atheist in Heaven, Paul Davids writes about interviewing “arch skeptic” Dr. Michael Shermer, executive director of The Skeptics Society, and founding publisher of Skeptic magazine. Dr. Gary Schwartz, in the same book, characterized Dr. Shermer as a “Type II skeptic.” He writes, “Sadly, there are individuals who claim to be ‘skeptics’ who are not open minded. They do not engage in careful questioning. They are not discerning in their evaluation of evidence. Though they may claim – often insistently – that they are undecided and seek the truth, in practice they are disbelievers or ‘unbelievers.’ They hold strong beliefs about what must be impossible. Furthermore, they often engage in irresponsible and unjustified evaluation of theories, methods, findings, and conclusions which challenge their convictions about what is possible in nature and the cosmos. This is pseudo-skepticism. I call this ‘Type II Skepticism.'” During his interview with Paul Davids, Dr. Michael Shermer certainly came off as a “Type II Skeptic.” However, later in the book, and just before it was published, Dr. Shermer ended up having his own very “mysterious” experience that he confessed “shook his skepticism.” He was getting married and his bride had an old transistor radio that belonged to her deceased grandfather that hadn’t worked in decades. New batteries didn’t help – the radio was dead. On their wedding day, his bride said she wanted to say something to him alone, so they went to the back of the house where they heard music playing in the bedroom. They opened a drawer and found her grandfather’s radio playing a romantic love song. Other family members reported the music started playing just as the wedding was to begin. The next day, the radio went silent and never worked again. Dr. Shermer’s bride was reportedly a skeptic as well, so how could this happen within the rules of engagement, especially since we know the divine realm will go to great lengths to protect the beliefs of skeptics? So much so that just the presence of James Randi, for example, could literally temporarily disable the intuitive abilities of those around him? What can Creator tell us about this radio at the wedding event and how it all fits within the rules of engagement? Was the bride’s grandfather still in limbo?
ClosedNicola asked 3 hours ago • 
3 views0 answers0 votes
Dr. Gary Schwarz reported in the book, An Atheist in Heaven, that even after decades of research and seven books he wrote on the topic, he still struggled believing it all! He wrote, “In my case, being a well-trained skeptical thinker and well-educated disbeliever in the possibility of an afterlife, I had this strong, uncontrollable emotional reactive habit of automatically assuming that anyone who believed in life after death was naive, ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, prejudiced, delusional and/or crazy. This emotional reaction was clearly inconsistent with the emerging theory … and research. I experienced increasing conflict between what the emerging theory and research were teaching me versus my growing fear that if I accepted the theory and research, that maybe I was becoming ‘brainwashed’ by the theory and evidence, and I was even ‘losing my mind.’ I came to realize that I was like one of Pavlov’s classically conditioned dogs who automatically salivated to the sound of a bell. Dogs do not automatically salivate when they hear a bell ringing, and neither do we.” This confession by Dr. Schwartz is both revealing and disturbing. How could it possibly be that decades of research and validation could not successfully alter his emotions? How could he still harbor fear? Is all Type II Skepticism ultimately a FEAR reaction? Was the origin of Dr. Schwartz’s inexplicable emotions, even after decades, wholly originating with his deep subconscious? If so, it certainly reinforces Creator’s assertions that there is little short of divine intervention, via the Lightworker Healing Protocol and Deep Subconscious Mind Reset, that we can do to alter beliefs in the deep subconscious. What can Creator tell us about Dr. Schwartz’s struggle, and what lessons can we draw from it?
ClosedNicola asked 3 hours ago • 
2 views0 answers0 votes
Dr. Gary Schwartz provided another deeply mysterious observation about himself in the book. He wrote, “It is now Alice in Wonderland time. For many people, it is having … direct personal experiences which leads us to change our minds. However, if a phenomenon is novel, challenging, and especially if it is ‘seemingly unbelievable,’ then having a direct personal experience with the phenomenon is often essential. And for certain phenomena, there is no substitute for experiencing it ourselves. … What I have discovered is that the more unbelievable events are replicated, the greater the level of disbelief one may experience. Often the so-called boggle factor does not decrease with replication, it actually increases. This increased disbelief is not rational; it is emotional. Replication and validation are cornerstones of the scientific method. On the one hand, with each replication we are more convinced that the phenomenon is real, and yet simultaneously the phenomenon feels more unbelievable and seemingly impossible. If any single ‘formally physical person’ illustrates this emotional boggle factor, it is Forry. As the empirical evidence accumulated, the case for Forry being alive and well became stronger and stronger, and yet simultaneously the evidence became more and more difficult to believe.” What is Creator’s perspective on this dilemma and conundrum?
ClosedNicola asked 4 hours ago • 
2 views0 answers0 votes
The rules of engagement are certainly there for a reason. But also, arguably, they can be one of the biggest obstacles there is for creating critically needed change in this world. As Creator has said repeatedly, saving humanity is a “Divine Level Problem.” Can Creator tell us how Empowered Prayer, the Lightworker Healing Protocol, Deep Subconscious Mind Reset, and Divine Life Support are the tools we need to both work within the rules of engagement but also overcome the obstacles they represent at the same time?
ClosedNicola asked 4 hours ago • 
2 views0 answers0 votes
At the time of the war in heaven, is it safe to say that every participant that was expelled, knew at the time about life force energy, knew about karma, and knew about the divine realm’s rules, etc? In their current extremely depraved condition, do they still retain memory and understanding of these realities? Dr. Gary Schwartz in his book, The G.O.D. Experiments, recounts what a dear friend once said to him, “When I dislike something, it stops me from understanding it.” Is it true that the fallen angelics are so full of dislike for the light that they have essentially lost all understanding of it?
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
401 views0 answers0 votes
Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona has spent much of his career exploring paranormal phenomena shunned by the vast majority of his colleagues. He is the author of numerous books on paranormal topics and has conducted a number of high-profile experiments with astonishing results. It’s almost a miracle in its own right that he has avoided scandal and has managed to retain his employment as a tenured faculty member. Were his career and the careers of his close compatriots protected and facilitated by the divine realm? Why are there so few like Gary Schwartz as such open-minded academic scholars appear to be even rarer than the mediums he’s studied? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
331 views0 answers0 votes
Dr. Schwartz and colleagues conducted a number of experiments with high profile mediums in the late nineties that resulted in both a book, The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death, and an HBO special entitled “Life Afterlife.” The experiments were conducted in such a way, that no truly objective mind could dismiss the findings as essentially proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that these mediums were legitimately able to see, hear and communicate readily with the dead. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
346 views0 answers0 votes
The HBO special “Life Afterlife” was another story, however. Dr. Schwartz wrote: “HBO had made a beautiful, inspiring show. But the science was sandwiched in the middle and lost nearly all its impact. We had expected that the show would leave the audience feeling ‘Science can be brought to bear on these issues,’ and ‘Wow, those mediums were tested by science and actually were found to be doing what they claimed.’ Instead, the show was good entertainment but little more. We had thought HBO really cared about the science, but discovered what the producers most wanted was to see how many people were crying when the lights went up. After all, HBO didn’t really care about making a scientific statement.” In fact, HBO had given almost as much air time to skeptics, as they did Dr. Schwartz’s experiments. The producers apparently believed they were being “professional and fair” giving equal time to skeptics and therefore creating a “balanced” presentation. But in this case, it seems a “balanced” presentation is simply sinister. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
380 views0 answers0 votes
During the experiments, at one point Dr. Schwartz’s own mother was trying to come through and was overpowering the other dead people who were scheduled to make an appearance. This seemed to convey how little actual “control” the medium had over the channels of communication. It seemed the dead were more successful at establishing and controlling the boundaries of communication than the medium himself. Is this one of the reasons why divine partnership is so critical when one works with non-local consciousness?
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
345 views0 answers0 votes
Also, during the experiments, there were a few occasions where one medium or another simply could not communicate with the dead people associated with a particular sitter. They simply got “nothing” the way most people would. Yet, a different medium would have no trouble with that sitter at all. It was summed up as the particular medium simply “wasn’t right” for that particular sitter. Yet that medium would have profound success with other sitters. Can Creator explain why this “all or nothing” anomaly occurred?
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
342 views0 answers0 votes
One thing notably absent from the experiments was the entire notion of reincarnation. Nor was there any distinction made, or awareness of different states or conditions the dead might be communicating from. We know that one of three who die end up in limbo. Yet all the dead communicating appeared to be doing so from the same “place.” What was the reality of the dead in that set of experiments? Were all in the light? If so, were rescues performed for some prior to the experiments, and if so, by whom? Did the experiment itself act as a kind of “rescue entreaty” that enabled the divine to step in and “set the table” ahead of time? Or, indeed, were some in the light and some in limbo, even though there was no indication of such status during the experiments? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
357 views0 answers0 votes
The question of corruption is a compelling one. The mediumship on display and being tested in the experiments was “garden variety” in the sense it was focused on family and personal relationship issues more than anything, and therefore presumably of little interest to the interlopers. However, if the experiment had attempted to explore more expansive issues, such as GetWisdom explores, would extraterrestrial psychics have “jumped in” and taken over the channel much like Dr. Schwartz’s own mother did?
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
369 views0 answers0 votes
Dr. Schwartz wrote about what he called “skeptomania” and “voodoo skepticism.” He wrote, “It’s one thing to be skeptical – open to alternative hypotheses. It’s another to be devoutly skeptical – always ‘knowing’ that cheating, lying, fraud, and deception are the explanations for any not-yet-explainable phenomena.” Can Creator share with us how Empowered Prayer and the Lightworker Healing Protocol can help reduce the ranks of the “devoutly skeptical?”
ClosedNicola asked 4 years ago • 
335 views0 answers0 votes
Ask Question