Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Would you say that Bates method advocates are...
...more receptive to 'conspiracy theories' than others?

There are many 'conspiracy theories' that can be backed up by overwhelming circumstantial and tangible (or lack of) evidence.
I guess we are more accepting to non-mainstream theories: we are used to thinking that most people are understanding the problem wrong and therefore solving it in a more complicated way than it needs. Wink I'm not sure about conspiracy theories though. Maybe. I don't know; that's an interesting idea!

I've been catching up with a friend I used to chat with online. He used to be going through a major crisis with mental disorders a few years ago. It turns out now that, as he claims, he cured himself and feels tons better from becoming an adherent of raw foodism.

Naturally, just as I was with Bates, I find myself skeptical at first, but I find myself unable to dismiss this claim outright, whereas all my logical faculties scream that it makes no sense. (As an example, if humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then why do we have incisors and K9s?)
Hi Summon. Are you familiar with Operation Northwoods?
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

(Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of simulated or real terrorism and violence on US soil or against US interests, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. As part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative, the plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.)

So, do you still believe that 19 amateur terrorists carried out the 911 attacks? Wink
I MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO 911 VICTIMS. I'm just sharing what I know.

Hi Urban. That's interesting. Regarding your example about humans eating meat, as a Christian I have only this to say:
1Timothy 4:1-3: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Dear Friend,

Yes, I got the majority-opinion "treatment" about Bates. I thought -- Bates can not be THAT BAD.

I resolved to look into EXACTLY what Bates "thought". How he did things, how he convirmed that
the "minus" is always BAD FOR YOU.

Quote:Naturally, just as I was with Bates, I find myself skeptical at first, but I find myself unable to dismiss this claim outright, whereas all my logical faculties scream that it makes no sense. (As an example, if humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then why do we have incisors and K9s?)

I think that NOW you can definitely PROVE that is you place a -3 diopter lens on the fundamental eye -- it
will most certainly CHANGE its refractive state by -2 diopters in less than six months. But that
is a scientific (not medical) fact. Smile

How you judge science and fact is a matter of your judgment. Smile

But rather than calling for exclusively Bates ideas, I would described preventive efforts as the
second-opinion. Smile

Has anyone seen the documentary, Zeitgeist? It's a big conspiracy movie that I highly recommend EVERYONE to watch. It's two hours long, and is available for free (legal, of course) viewing here: It talks about religion (in a way that deeply religious people will not like, but is very informative nonetheless), the 9/11 incident, and the threat of a one world government with devastating consequences.
I am a Christian, so personally I think the part in the documentary about religion is a load of crap. It's not about religion, it's about the Truth, and the Truth is in the Bible. The problem with its discussion about religion is that it generalizes. Like I said, I am a Christian, but I am in no way a brainwashed individual like most Americans, sorry. I am also aware of the 9/11 issue, the evidence of government complicity in the attack is overwhelming. The most recent poll (2006?) showed that 80+ percent of Americans believe that the govt is not telling the truth about 9/11.

Watch "The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw" by Barry Zwicker.
How would you know that the "Truth" is in the Bible? I personally believe that believing in a religion is like believing in any organization, like the government.
How do I know? Have you ever read the Bible? You should. Read it from start to finish then get back to me. FYI the Bible/God hates religion. (I can show you a couple of verses in the Bible that clearly condemns organized religion.) Religion is man-made, and it keeps people away from God. The Truth is the Gospel - we are the sinners, Christ is the Savior. It's really that simple. Like I said before, I am a Christian, but I'm no where near as brainwashed as most Americans, who spit in God's face. Doesn't that tell you something? THAT my friend is the difference between believing the Truth and believing a set of man-made lies and traditions. The Truth in the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If you find that hard to believe, again, read the Bible then get back to me.

You think I'm brainwashed because I believe in God, so can I say you're brainwashed too because you believe everything Max Jordan says without first checking the facts for yourself? (He's the maker of that documentary right?) I hate religion because it is nothing more than a sham, and to that end I agree with you. But please, at least read the Bible for yourself and then decide what is true.

This conversation is finished. Here's a good site with lots of info on 9/11, religion, God, etc. : <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- w -->

Take care of yourself and God Bless you.
Nobody is brainwashed for believing in God as the one central force that is immanent and transcendendal to everything. However, if some one claims that the only way to access this supreme force is only through certain people, certain books, certain way of living, certain places, certain 'godmen' etc and starts 'selling' his concept of God, then that is perhaps a brainwashed idealogy that refuses to look out of its own box. The etenal truth cannot be bound within a certain timeframe through certain people. I have great regard for all scriptures that teach love of humanity and areas of common interest and general welfare of the world but i dont believe in the fairy tale myths of any religion that are against science and common sense.

- Free Eye Chart PDFs

  • 20 ft, 10 ft, and Near Vision Charts
  • Letters Calibrated to Correct Printed Size
Download Now