delete

delete

I don't have the time to read Sudduth's critique in detail, nor would I want to, either. He tends to examine elephants under a microscope to prove a point. Why he does that, only he knows. I'm not at all impressed with any of the attempted debunking of this case, personally I accept it as most likely to be a genuine case of reincarnation.

However, it is possible that it isn't, of course. But the evidence for reincarnation is wide and vast and doesn't depend on just this case or any case, it is the totality of it that is so impressive. Thanks for posting it, anyway !

I don't have the time to read Sudduth's critique in detail, nor would I want to, either. He tends to examine elephants under a microscope to prove a point. Why he does that, only he knows. I'm not at all impressed with any of the attempted debunking of this case, personally I accept it as most likely to be a genuine case of reincarnation.

However, it is possible that it isn't, of course. But the evidence for reincarnation is wide and vast and doesn't depend on just this case or any case, it is the totality of it that is so impressive. Thanks for posting it, anyway !

I do plan on reading it...but Sudduth has made a fool of himself enough times, coming off completely unhinged, I'm a bit surprised to see Braude jumping the gun here.

I mean has Tucker even had a chance to respond? Or will that have to wait until the Spring?

I do plan on reading it...but Sudduth has made a fool of himself enough times, coming off completely unhinged, I'm a bit surprised to see Braude jumping the gun here.

I mean has Tucker even had a chance to respond? Or will that have to wait until the Spring?

"I do plan on reading it"

Well if you do, please let us know what you think. I've read the case through in detail several times and I have Leslie Kean's book. I don't just accept her word on it, though, I make up my own mind. 

"but Sudduth has made a fool of himself enough times, coming off completely unhinged"

I get the feeling his ego has got out of control and that he likes himself and values his own jurisdiction a little too much. I'm not sure why he thinks that his opinion is so important and trumps everyone else's? 

I'm not bothered whether he thinks the evidence for survival stands up; I doubt if he has ever spoken to anyone that has died and come back (He'd probably say they didn't actually die). As for reincarnation, I know it's true because I've got the memories myself. However, to academics like Sudduth, that is merely hearsay. 

As to if or when Tucker will respond, I'm not sure, Sci.

I doubt if he has ever spoken to anyone that has died and come back (He'd probably say they didn't actually die). As for reincarnation, I know it's true because I've got the memories myself. However, to academics like Sudduth, that is merely hearsay.

He's a pretty big proponent of Living Agent Psi I believe. He got into it with Titus Rivas and Kastrup (and to an extent Michael Prescott). As Kastrup notes, Sudduth came off like a clown desperate for (social media?) attention. Rivas also wrote about varied errors he felt occurred in Sudduth's writings.

But for the record, here are Sudduth's thoughts on Survival. In short he believes Super Psi is the better explanation.

 As for reincarnation, I know it's true because I've got the memories myself. However, to academics like Sudduth, that is merely hearsay.

Some people have memories that cause them to believe in the Mandela Effect.  Does that mean reality is changing?  I have had an incredible experience that proved to me the Gospel is real, the same Gospel that makes it crystal clear there cannot be any reincarnation.  Your reality and mine conflict and to somebody outside of our realities, there are all sorts of better explanations that don't require supernatural thinking at all.  We can't all be right.

[Ninshub]

 I have had an incredible experience that proved to me the Gospel is real

Would you be interested in sharing that? I'll completely respect if you prefer not to.

Some people have memories that cause them to believe in the Mandela Effect.  Does that mean reality is changing?  I have had an incredible experience that proved to me the Gospel is real, the same Gospel that makes it crystal clear there cannot be any reincarnation.  Your reality and mine conflict and to somebody outside of our realities, there are all sorts of better explanations that don't require supernatural thinking at all.  We can't all be right.

I feel like I am in danger of making enemies every time I answer a post but I have some "hot buttons" that keep getting pressed and it is difficult to avoid adding my two cents (or 2 penneth, to stay faithful to my roots).

When you say "Gospel" - what do you mean? The four canonical gospels that the Catholic church decided upon hundreds of years after the time of Christ? If so, do you accept them in their entirety or just the bits that you can rationalise to your own satisfaction? Do you, for example, accept the Virgin Birth, or the seven loaves and fishes, or the other miracles? 

I asked the same questions of my local vicar when I was about 12 years old. To that point I had been an entusiastic follower of my Sunday School lessons and studied after hours for Scripture Exams. Then the questions started in my own mind so I asked and was told that I don't have enough faith and should just accept. I asked him whether he accepted and he dodged the answer which all but ended my interest in religion for the rest of my life. You see I really liked and respected that vicar. He was a kind and caring man - just as Jesus would have expected of one of his followers. But by the age of 12, blind faith was not enough and never would be again. So to reject evidence such as that for reincarnation because you deem it disagrees with some dogma that you have faith in, just does not make sense to me. Reject that evidence by disproving it if you can but not because it doesn't fit with your faith.

Perhaps you might want to answer in a new thread - sorry for distracting from the OP.

Again without aiming to support or detract from Sudduth's argument I will just say that IF the FACTS are actually such that Table 3 is accurate and Table 2 isn't, then that would seem to be a big problem for interpretations of the Leininger case as paranormal in nature. This is really the only reason I posted this thread. If Sudduth had only made another armchair debunking effort with no on-the-ground work, no new investigations, just strained efforts to explain old facts, I doubt it would've gotten my attention. But the possibility that what have long been said to be important facts about the case aren't actually facts as revealed by further investigation could be a big deal.

Honestly I will probably wait for Tucker's response after skimming the paper.

It *might* be a good enough reason to discount the case, it might not, but Sudduth has been making the rounds against Survival in such an embarrassing manner it makes the regular skeptics seem more reasonable.