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

Sure, but it's just idle speculation, One might equally write, the dates on the IMDB page may be based upon Jim Tucker's research. One's as fair as the other, but neither helps us to reach clarity over what actually occurred.
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:
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.
 
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/?
Marty Martyn was born on May 19, 1905. He was an actor, known for Night After Night (1932). He died on December 25, 1964 in Beverly Hills, California, USA. See full bio »
Born:
May 19, 1905
Died:
December 25, 1964 (age 59) in Beverly Hills, California, USA

Edit2
: there's also a discussion about the case on the message board where Miles-10 gives the same version of events.
Jim B. Tucker has recently published "Return to Life" which recounts not only the case of Marty Martyn but of James Huston, the WWII Navy aviator who went down during the Iwo Jima operation (though in a raid more than 100 miles from Iwo that was nevertheless part of the overall op).

Tucker interviewed Martyn's daughter. I have put some of the details she told him on IMDb. While psychic info should be regarded skeptically, any info Tucker got from Martyn's daughter definitely belongs on IMDb--not that people's memories of real life are always accurate.

Martyn apparently was successful as a talent agent. One of his clients was Glenn Ford.
 
Last edited:
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.
Thanks for that, Bucky. Good to know (and to have it posted publicly here).​
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Hi,
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.
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".
 
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.
 
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.
Yes. It is pretty fun to watch hardcore skeptics contort into convoluted conspiracy theories with a straight face :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Dr. Savant wrote:
...
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.

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.
 
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.
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'.
 
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.
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 ;)
 
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
 
Sadly, Dr Tucker has succumbed to wokeness. Questioning the status quo is no longer allowed at UVA. Pretty sad coming from a researcher who had been previously willing to question accepted scientific wisdom on topics such as consciousness and reiencarnation.

 
Sadly, Dr Tucker has succumbed to wokeness. Questioning the status quo is no longer allowed at UVA. Pretty sad coming from a researcher who had been previously willing to question accepted scientific wisdom on topics such as consciousness and reiencarnation.

I don't understand - what had that to do with Tucker? (I didn't listen to the end).

David
 
Let's say Stevenson & Tucker et al are simply "right". Then, why jump to the conclusion that ALL people reincarnate? After all, most people don't have any past life memories. And if we all did, how would we know it would happen again? Doesn't even eastern religion teach us to break free?

We should stop hinting that reincarnation is proven, therefore we will all reincarnate. That doesn't even seem likely, based on the data.
What "data" do you mean? As far as I know, there is no data to back up the idea that "not all people reincarnate" or its corollary, "not all living people have had a past life or will have a future life". What you referred to is an absence of evidence and that isn't evidence of absence.
 
I don't understand - what had that to do with Tucker? (I didn't listen to the end).

David
He was the prof who required the student who questioned critical race theory to attend counseling, suggesting that anyone who questions authority is mentally ill.
 
He was the prof who required the student who questioned critical race theory to attend counseling, suggesting that anyone who questions authority is mentally ill.
I guess I missed that bit - the video rambled on a bit and I only watched part of it.

That is bad - this lunacy must surely stop soon!

David
 
Back
Top