This paper investigates the claims of a child who remembers a past life as a WW2 soldier, the child makes multiple statements about that soldier that were later verified to be true. This constitutes scientific evidence of reincarnation, since the way in which this case was investigated follows the scientific method. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/04/REI42-Tucker-James-LeiningerPIIS1550830716000331.pdf
>>16978094Yeah, and white shoes are scientific evidence that all ravens are black.This study is playing fast and loose with the scientific method. They worked backwards from what the child was saying and found a guy who kinda closely matched the description. Even what the description was wrong (he wasn't flying a Corsair when he died), they rationalized (but the guy had flown Corsairs before!). This is not how the scientific method typically operates.
>>16978096>white shoes are scientific evidence that all ravens are black.Yes.
>>16978096>>16978096 #>Even what the description was wrong (he wasn't flying a Corsair when he died),One mistake out of multiple verified statements, coming from a 3 year old who just recently began to talk, I would say that's fairly good recollection for a child.>They worked backwards from what the child was saying and found a guy who kinda closely matched the descriptionNot kinda closely, they found the exact guy. What are the chances that a 2 year old child would know the existence of a random WW2 soldier who died 60 years ago, whose identity wasn't document on the internet, a child who's family had no connection to that soldier? And not only know of the existence of, but to make multiple verified statements about that soldier?Just how many James Huston's serving on the Natoma bay with their best friends Jack Larsen were there in the US military during WW2? And how could a child born 60 years later know that specific, identifiable piece of information?You would have to stack coincidences on top of coincidences for any other explanation besides reincarnation to be feasible for this case.
>>16978108>What are the chances that a 2 year old child would know the existence of a random WW2 soldier who died 60 years ago, whose identity wasn't document on the internet, a child who's family had no connection to that soldier? And not only know of the existence of, but to make multiple verified statements about that soldier?Exactly equal to the chances of your researchers tracking down this guy.
>>16978108>One mistake out of multiple verified statementsAnd everything else can ve summarized as "I flew a plane and was shot down by tha Japanese.">What are the chances that a 2 year old child would know the existence of a random WW2 soldier...He didn't. That's the whole point. He made vague claims about being a pilot shot down over the water and sinking to the bottom. Of all the people in WW2 that series of statements could apply to, they found a guy who kinda matched some other data points if you squint hard enough.
>>16978109If you're implying that these researchers made the whole case up, your claim isn't justifiable at all. Jim Tucker, working in the University of Virginia alongside the late Ian Stevenson, have researched children who recall past lives for newrly 50 years, collecting information on 2,500 cases and having published in multiple journals. Ian Stevenson specifically, of all the criticism skeptics have levelled at his work, not once have they ever accused him of fraudlence. If you're not accusing them of fradulence, how would a 2 year old child not being able to read have access to archived documents from ww2?
>>16978112>If you're implying that these researchers made the whole case upI'm implying whoever coached that kid (assuming it's not just made of whole cloth) had as good a chance of finding that supposedly super obscure soldier as the researchers.>newrly 50 years, collecting information on 2,500 casesBullshit artists of the highest order, then.
>>16978110>He made vague claims about being a pilot shot down over the wateHe specifically said that his name used to be James, he was on the Natoma, he had a friend there called Jack Larsen. That was enough to find the James Huston who served and died at Iwo Jima. How could a 2 year old have known that? Neither James Huston or Jack Larsen were mentioned on the internet at the time.
>>16978115>I'm implying whoever coached that kid James parents didn't believe in reincarnation, what reason would they have for making this case up? Money?And the researches, they've never made up cases, on occasions they've interviewed potential cases and dropped them when they detected fraud. If you have any concrete accusations then present them.
>>16978122>James parents didn't believe in reincarnationAnd I didn't believe in aliens until they probed me in the ass and then I just has to call a UFOlogist.
>>16978117>He specifically said that his name used to be JamesBecause that's the kid's real name.>he was on the Natoma, he had a friend there called Jack Larsen.This is pure second-hand from the parents.The most likely explanation is the kid said something kinda close to these things and the parents found a match after the fact.
>>16978128
>>16978129Did I mention or imply fraud in any of my posts? No. No I did not. My argument is that this is a straightforward case of backwards thinking and confirmation bias.
>>16978128.
>>16978130The article addresses potential for the parents to twist the child's statements to fit James Huston's life, but the child made statements that were documented before James Huston's identity was later discovered by the parents, making it harder for them to fit the statements to match the dead soldier's life
>>16978133What about that screenshot do you think actually addresses my point?>>16978134>the child made statements that were documented before James Huston's identity was later discovered by the parentsYes, they worked backwards and rationalized discrepancies. That's my point.
>>16978129its obvious fraud,ffs parents troon out their kids for social media likes. you think they wouldn't make up shit like this and coach their child?
This is definitely paranormal, but it could just as well be a morphogenetic mental event rather than true reincarnation.
>>16978136>its obvious fraud>because it just is o algo
>>16978136If you're interested, the author of the article responds to criticismhttps://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2022/05/Tucker-JSE-Response-to-JL-crit-2487-Article-Text-12829-1-10-20220522-1.pdf
>>16978094I looked into some of this stuff a few years ago and it is fairly compelling. I'm very skeptical of paranormal things too. I don't think it proves anything yet but it is a bit weird.
>>16978108>What are the chances that a 2 year old child would know the existence of a random WW2 soldierVery slim. What are the chances that the pareents know of the existence of a WW2 soldier? Very large.I got a bridge to sell you btw.
>>16978876The timeline of this case makes fraud unlikely. in 2000, a 2 year old James Leininger made statements about having been a soldier with a first name James flying on the Natoma bay with his friend Jack Larsen. Neither of his parents knew who those 2 soldiers were, they didn't know the past life soldier's last name, they didn't know whether his friend Jack Larsen really existed. It was only in 2002 when James' father tracked down the soldier's friend Jack Larsen using links to a Natoma bay reunion, he met the real Jack Larsen, where he learned of the actual existence of the past life soldier James Huston.To recap, the child made documented statements before the identities in the past life were discovered, and only then did his father search for those idenities, with their being witnesses in the reunion organisation of this search happening 2 years AFTER the documented statements were made, not before. The timeline excludes fraud as you're alleging.
