DWQA QuestionsCategory: Non-Local ConsciousnessWhen reading material written by skeptics denying the existence of an afterlife, spirits, etc., their biggest agenda seems to be, “Do whatever it takes to avoid having to settle on a paranormal explanation for ANYTHING.” Why do these people have such a deep-seated aversion to the very notion of the paranormal? It’s almost as if the paranormal traumatizes them. Is that a valid insight? Could these people actually benefit from Deep Subconscious Trauma Resolution?
Nicola Staff asked 2 months ago

For the most part, this is the intransigence of fixed ideas, hardened beliefs within the mind of the skeptics themselves among the scientific community, and many who pursue scientific subjects as writers to help transfer the knowledge to the laymen, so to speak. Because they are programmed to disbelieve such things, they feel duty-bound by their own beliefs to find fault with any reports of the paranormal and will seek avidly to find a way to dismiss such observations as artifactual, mistaken, or, in isolated instances, fabricated for the occasion. So their outlook at the outset is the expectation of disproving rather than proving the phenomena are real, and going from there, as an open-minded, uncorrupted scientist would do, seeking deeper truth and probing ever deeper to unearth it. This leads to all kinds of misconceptions, missed opportunities, and faulty science, because even when observations occur that are clearly outside the norm and far from trivial, because the chance of them occurring through a random event of some kind is remote in the extreme, it will not register, they will simply assume there is a technical problem and will ignore the observations.

So what you are seeing is selective data, and picked-over observations, and their associated conclusions that fit prior conception as much as the data themselves and, of course, what one expects to find predetermines to a large extent how one goes about it. So, often the dice are loaded against finding the unusual because it seems like a waste of time to be too open-ended with respect to the possibilities. So work of this kind tends to be very narrow, very finely focused on the minutia, because it is readily observable and may be reproducible and lend itself to mathematical analysis, and so on. But that biases things from the outset and precludes making genuine breakthroughs in many settings, so it is a foregone conclusion, in the very planning stage, what the outcome will be. This is most unfortunate because there is a wide universe of fascinating phenomena in the arena of consciousness, awaiting science to awaken from its slumber under a heavy fog of mind control manipulation to stifle curiosity and limit thinking about the possibilities. Both the outside influences and the inner corruption conspire together to thwart true progress from happening most of the time.