Mod+ 239. DR. JIM TUCKER COMPILES DATABASE OF PAST LIFE MEMORIES

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Andrew Paquette, Mar 15, 2014.

  1. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    I think that might be the case.
    IMDB is similar to how a wiki works. You can register as a "contributor" and create actor pages or contribute to existing one. I don't have such an account on IMDB and there is no public history of the creation/edit dates like on Wikipedia. Maybe the data is available to contributors?

    @Ian Gordon being quite a cinephile, do you by chance have an account on IMDB? If so could you investigate? :)

    ETA: I've logged in using a facebook account and I was able to access the "Contributor" section but there is no history or timestamps regarding the creation of the page and the edits.

    I've shot an email to Dr.Tucker. If he's not too busy maybe I'll get a reply. We'll see...
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2015
    Typoz likes this.
  2. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    Okay, so Dr. Tucker reply was super fast! :)
    I asked the following:

    In the recent NBC feature of Ryan's case I was impressed to hear that the death certificate was wrong, thus confirming the age of 61 claimed by the child.
    I don't think I've read this information in "Return to Life" so I guess it must have been a recent development? Am I wrong?

    Also, checking the IMDB website I noticed that it provides many details of Martyn's life just like those found in your book and including the correct year of birth, 1903 instead of 1905.

    Discussing this case on the Skeptiko forum (by Alex Tsakiris, where I heard your interview) a question was raised about the timing in which this web page was created and/or edited.
    Is it possible that Ryan or his family had access to this data? As far as I can see there's no information about when the page was created.
    This is the answer:

    No, Martyn’s page has been updated. I had correspondence in January 2014 with a fellow named Miles, who had done genealogy work on Marty Martyn after reading about the case in my book. Martyn’s bio was submitted by a “Miles-10” who must be the same fellow. At the time of our correspondence, his DOB was listed as 1905, and his IMDb page only included Night After Night and his dates of birth (which was incorrect) and death.

    One more correct data point from Ryan. Pretty strong case, I'd say.
     
    Roberta, tim, Trancestate and 3 others like this.
  3. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Bucky, thanks for your efforts. And thanks to Dr Tucker for his work and response.

    Edit: see also waybackmachine dated 13 December 2013 which confirms Dr Tucker's statements:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20131213040359/http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0554421/?

    Edit2
    : there's also a discussion about the case on the message board where Miles-10 gives the same version of events.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2015
  4. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Thanks for that, Bucky. Good to know (and to have it posted publicly here).​
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2015
  5. Dr. Savant

    Dr. Savant New

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    22
    Hi,

    interesting discussion! I am now reading "Return to life" and I am quite impressed by the James Leininger's case. In a sense, it is not in the strongest category since Dr. Tucker got to investigate the case as post-hoc. Nevertheless, he was able to verify a fair amount of detailed statements. After reading the story I asked myself: How would this case stand against a skeptic's debunking efforts? Well, I did not have to look for long: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html (perhaps someone has already pointed to this link here?). The skeptic "debunks" the case with such an ease :). Seriously speaking, the skeptic is quite good at what he (or she?) does. However, it seems to me that he is not aware all the facts which need to be explained away if one wants to keep the standard "there is nothing there" paradigm. The bottom line in the skeptic's approach is the same as always: if one can find theoretically possible - no matter how far-fetched - natural interpretations of the facts, it must be the best (i.e., the most parsimonious) explanation. It resembles a fundamentalistic point of view.
     
  6. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    I don't think "best" in the way you refer to it corresponds with "most parsimonious". Usually pretty much the opposite. I think it might be more realistic to translate "best" in this context as "tolerable".
     
  7. Dr. Savant

    Dr. Savant New

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    22
    Typoz,

    I agree. I meant to say that in the skeptic's paradigm, even a far-fetched natural explanation is the most parsimonious explanation in a sense that there is no need to postulate consciousness without a brain.
     
    Roberta and Typoz like this.
  8. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    Yes. It is pretty fun to watch hardcore skeptics contort into convoluted conspiracy theories with a straight face :)
     
    tim likes this.
  9. Yes, to the materialist, an infinite number of universes, including an infinite number of universes where Carl Sagan had two heads, is more parsimonious than one universe and one God and one Earth where religion is closer to the truth about consciousness than materialism and neuroscience.
     
    Roberta likes this.
  10. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    I understand, I don't want to labour the point unnecessarily since essentially we are in agreement. It's just that the proffered explanation does require the postulation of multiple other factors for which there is no evidence. In that respect it doesn't fit the term 'parsimonious'.
     
  11. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    Parsimonious because the two-headed Sagan in Universe #780014432 was created by pure chance and he's a "biological robot", deluded by his own sense of consciousness ;)
     
    Ian Gordon likes this.
  12. Trancestate

    Trancestate Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Robert McLuhan has posted an article about 5-year old twin boys in India claiming to have been cousins who drowned together in 2010:

    http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2016/10/reborn-as-twins.html

    The case is very recent, according to this report from the Times of India:

    Shahjahanpur family believes 5-year-old twins are reincarnated cousins

    Given this is a case about twins recalling previous lives, McLuhan also recalls the famous Pollock twins case from the 1950s, with a curious fact about their father that some readers might have been previously unaware of (as I was).

    Doug
     

Share This Page