Declinare responsabilitate
Părerile exprimate pe acest forum aparțin utilizatorilor acestora și nu pot fi considerate ca fiind informații oficiale sau promovate de acest site/forum.
În conformitate cu prevederile politicii de confidențialitate acceptate la înregistrare, fiecare utilizator este răspunzător de informațiile publicate pe acest site și nu sunt asumate de administratori sau proprietarul acestui forum.
Mai multe despre politicile de confidențialitate, aici...

Autor Subiect: Telekinezie I  (Citit de 104937 ori)

0 Membri şi 1 Vizitator vizualizează acest subiect.

Offline Shadowman

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Mesaje postate: 1,210
  • Gen: Bărbat
  • "Pestii se prind cu undita, iar oamenii cu vorba."
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 0
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #60 : 11 Februarie 2007, 23:28:12 »
 Cum dispar abilitatile paranormale cu...
Cu...? Cu ce...? Nici mai mult ,nici mai putin decit,tineti-va
bine, cu : APA SI SAPUN !!!  :-o :-D
 In caz de "atac paranormal" pistolul cu apa si clabuc va fereste de necazuri ! Folositi apa (calda  :-D) si sapunul de casa...!  :lol: Atenueaza magnetismul uman !  :wink:
 DISPAR SI CU SAMPON ...?  :-D Ramine de vazut ...
 Un foarte interesant articol semnat de "agentul psihotronic " Vasile Rudan !
 http://www.independent-al.ro/content/view/596/50/
" PREA DES NOI NE BUCURAM DE CONFORTUL UNEI OPINII FARA DISCONFORTUL CUGETARII."

                                                                                        JOHN F. KENNEDY

Arckadii

  • Vizitator
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #61 : 12 Februarie 2007, 10:15:44 »
ramasesem impresionat prima oara David Copperfield apoi la David Blaine(daca asa se scrie). Parerea mea e ca Angel Criss(ca sa evit cacofonia:)) ) e mult mai bun, insa tot in aria iluzionismului se incadreaza.
Ark

Offline xennon_2000

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Mesaje postate: 949
  • Gen: Bărbat
  • "universul este mai subtil decat pare"
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #62 : 12 Februarie 2007, 12:27:10 »
Poate-mi explica si mie cineva trb cu cartile de joc....!Sa  fie simple trucuri sau acesti indivizi pot sa provoace iluzii...asta ar insemna sa patrunda in mintea oamneilor!

Arckadii

  • Vizitator
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #63 : 12 Februarie 2007, 16:03:22 »
[***] este id meu.... sunt trucuri. am niste carti in care se explica clar ce si cum. intra pe yahoo da-mi add si cere-mi:)
« Ultima Modificare: 16 Martie 2008, 07:28:42 de Arckadii »

Offline xennon_2000

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Mesaje postate: 949
  • Gen: Bărbat
  • "universul este mai subtil decat pare"
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #64 : 12 Februarie 2007, 19:05:40 »
Ms de adres!....vad ca nu ai nimik de ascuns!...aaa si de carti

Forum RUFOn

Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #64 : 12 Februarie 2007, 19:05:40 »

Offline mistic

  • Cool
  • ***
  • Mesaje postate: 221
  • your sun can shine even when it's cloudy outside
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 7
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #65 : 27 Februarie 2007, 06:44:22 »
ba da subiectu asta nu este vorba de carti joc ci de telekinezie !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :x Oricum faza cu cartile chiar ca e un truc am vazut un filmulet cu dastea! 8-)

Offline mistic

  • Cool
  • ***
  • Mesaje postate: 221
  • your sun can shine even when it's cloudy outside
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 7
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #66 : 27 Februarie 2007, 06:49:43 »
daca vreti dastea cu paranormale :http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/Wingmakers/ si mai sunt si mai multe! am si un doc cu antrenament in KI cine vrea sa ma anunte power.imortal@yahoo.com :-D

Offline xennon_2000

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Mesaje postate: 949
  • Gen: Bărbat
  • "universul este mai subtil decat pare"
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #67 : 27 Februarie 2007, 20:04:31 »
Am citit si eu cateva carti in domeniu si unele faze sunt credibile!
Poate sunt persoane care au puterea de a citi gandurile sau de a provoca iluzii de tot felul (foarte rare - 1 la un milion)

calinahanna

  • Vizitator
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #68 : 22 Martie 2007, 12:47:05 »
@ Elvin

Citat
Dar si daca vei reusi, o sa te intalnesti cu un yoghin clarvazator care iti va spune "sarmane om, ai pierdut 10 ani sa inveti sa aprinzi un bec prin forta mintii, cand tot ce aveai de facut era sa apesi pe buton"

Eu mai stiu o "telekinezie".. mi s-a intamplat sa ma enerveze ceva/cineva atat de mult, incat m-a facut sa imi doresc sa dispara, sau, sa reusesc cumva sa il/o mut din locul in care era. Si, surpriza! Ori era furat, spart, luat (daca era obiect), ori aparea o ocazie, iar el/ea pleca singur. Nu stiu daca neaparat ca efect al dorintei mele sufletesti si al vointei mele mentale, dar... efectul era cel dorit. Asta ce fel de forta este?
Cred ca am apasat pe buton si .. s-a aprins lumina.  :|

calinahanna

  • Vizitator
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #69 : 22 Martie 2007, 12:48:34 »
@ryn

Citat
Sfatul meu e ca pentru inceput cine se apuca de asa ceva trebuie sa fie destul de tanar. La varste fragede simturile noastre nu sunt alterate ca sa nu mai vorbesc de uzura organismului si a spiritului (cand ai de platit trei milioane la intretinere si copiii te intreba daca in ziua respectiva au sa manance ...   numai de asta iti mai arde!) Ar trebui sa scriu aici tone de pagini ca sa iti descriu ceea ce stiu eu. Nu ca as sti prea multe dar am talent sa lungesc discutia.Tot ceea ce urmeaza este parerea mea personala!!! Deci nu imi infigeti un ac de gamalie in spinare si nu ma catalogati!Incearca sa iti cureti cat mai mult gandirea si trupul. Nu ai nevoie de o carte, de un duhovnic sau de un club de Yoga pentru asa ceva. E simplu: elimina tot ceea ce crezi ca e rau in viata ta.
Incearca sa iti ascuti cat mai mult simturile. Nu iti inchipui ca exista o formula magica si ca o fiertura are sa iti aduca rezultatul sub nas. Auzi bine? Vezi bine? Cauta sa faci natural toate astea! Poti sa urmaresti sunetul produs de un motor de masina pana ajunge la km. distanta? Nu te forta sa faci asta din prima. Treptat  fara sa te fortezi. Metru cu metru.Si pe urma treci la celelalte simturi. Un exercitiu simpatic este sa arunci (fara sa te uiti unde) o moneda in iarba si sa o cauti legat la ochi trecand palma pe deasupra ierbii. Ascutirea simturilor duce la sesizarea consistentei materiei. Sfatul meu e se incepi asa.

Tu, de fapt, ne-ai oferit prima lectie? Sau nu te-au satisfacut raspunsurile de pe topic de nu ai mai continuat?

Offline Nox

  • Consacrat
  • *****
  • Mesaje postate: 1,883
  • Gen: Bărbat
  • Explore. Observe. Be here now.
    • openUFOs.ro
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 356
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #70 : 31 Mai 2007, 02:09:28 »
nu mai stiu de unde am auzit dar mintea omului este o arma puternica. noi folosim doar o parte minca din creier dar daca am folosi tot creierul la maxim cine stie ce am putea face!!! miracole !! sau probabil ni sar arde ,,circuitele"

Asta cu folositul creierului in nu stiu ce proportie mai mica decat 100% e un mit...

SURSA 1: (Mind Hacks By Tom Stafford, Matt Webb -- O'Reilly Media)

Hack 6. Neuropsychology, the 10% Myth, and Why You Use All of Your Brain

Neuropsychology is the study of what different parts of the brain do by studying people who no longer have those parts. As well as being the oldest technique of cognitive neuroscience, it refutes the oft-repeated myth that we only use 10% of our brains.

Of the many unscientific nuggets of wisdom about the brain that many people believe, the most common may be the "fact" that we use only 10% of our brains.

In a recent survey of people in Rio de Janeiro with at least a college education, approximately half stated that the 10% myth was true.1 There is no reason to suppose the results of a similar survey conducted anywhere else in the world would be radically different. It's not surprising that a lot of people believe this myth, given how often it is claimed to be true. Its continued popularity has prompted one author to state that the myth has "a shelf life longer than lacquered Spam".2

Where does this rather popular belief come from?

It's hard to find out how the myth started. Some people say that something like it was said by Einstein, but there isn't any proof. The idea that we have lots of spare capacity is certainly true and fits with our aspirational culture, as well as with the Freudian notion that the mind is mostly unconscious. Indeed, the myth was being used to peddle self-help literature as early as 1929.3 The neatness and numerological potency of the 10% figure is a further factor in the endurance of the myth.

A.B.

Neuropsychology is the study of patients who have suffered brain damage and the psychological consequences of that brain damage. As well as being a vital source of information about which bits of the brain are involved in doing which things, neuropsychology also provides a neat refutation of the 10% myth: if we use only 10% of our brains, which bits would you be happy to lose? From neuropsychology, we know that losing any bit of the brain causes you to stop being able to do something or being able to do it so well. It's all being used, not just 10% of it.

Admittedly we aren't clear on exactly what each bit of the brain does, but that doesn't mean that you can do without 90% of it.

Neuropsychology has other uses aside from disproving unhelpful but popularly held trivia. By looking at which psychological functions remain after the loss of a certain brain region, we can tell what brain regions are and are not necessary for us to do different things. We can also see how functions group and divide by looking at whether they are always lost together or lost only in dissimilar cases of brain damage. Two of the famous early discoveries of neuropsychology are two distinct language processing regions in the brain. Broca's area (named after the neuropsychologist Paul Broca) is in the frontal lobe and supports understanding and producing structure in language. Those with damage to Broca's area speak in stilted, single words. Wernicke's area (on the junction between the temporal and parietal lobes and named after Carl Wernicke) supports producing and understanding the semantics of language. People with brain damage to Wernicke's area can produce grammatically correct sentences, but often with little or no meaning, an incomprehensible "word salad."

Another line of evidence against the 10% myth is brain imaging research [[Hack#2] through [Hack#4]], which has grown exponentially in the last couple of decades. Such techniques allow the increased blood flow to be measured in certain brain regions during the performance of cognitive tasks. While debate continues about the degree to which it is sensible to infer much about functional localization from imaging studies, one thing they make abundantly clear is that there are no areas of the brain that are "black holes"areas that never "light up" in response to some task or other. Indeed, the neurons that comprise the cortex of the brain are active to some degree all the time, even during sleep.

A third line of argument is that of evolutionary theory. The human brain is a very expensive organ, requiring approximately 20% of blood flow from the heart and a similar amount of available oxygen, despite accounting for only 2% of body weight. The evolutionary argument is straightforward: is it really plausible that such a demanding organ would be so inefficient as to have spare capacity 10 times greater than the areas being usefully employed?

Fourth, developmental studies indicate that neurons that are not employed early in life are likely never to recover and behave normally. For example, if the visual system is not provided with light and stimulation within a fairly narrow developmental window, the neurons atrophy and vision never develops. If the visual system is deprived of a specific kind of stimulation, such as vertical lines, it develops without any sensitivity to that kind of stimulus. Functions in other parts of the brain similarly rely on activation to develop normally. If there really were a large proportion of neurons that were not used but were instead lying in wait, likely they would be useless by puberty.

It can be seen, then, that the 10% myth simply doesn't stand up to critical thinking. Two factors complicate the picture slightly, however; both have been used to muddy the waters around the claim at some stage.

First, people who suffer hydrocephalus in childhood have been seen to have large "holes" in the middle of their brains and yet function normally (the holes are fluid-filled ventricles that are present in every brain but are greatly enlarged in hydrocephalus). This condition has been the focus of sensationalist television documentaries, the thrust of which is that we can get on perfectly well without much of our brains. Such claims are willfully misleadingwhat such examples actually show is the remarkable capacity of the brain to assign functioning to alternative areas if there are problems with the "standard" areas during a specific time-point in development. Such "neuronal plasticity," as it is known, is not seen following brain damage acquired in adulthood. As discussed earlier, development of the brain depends on activitythis same fact explains why hydrocephalitic brains can function normally and makes having an unused 90% extremely unlikely.

Second, there is actually a very disingenuous sense in which we do "use" only 10% of our brains. The glial cells of the brain outnumber the neurons by a factor of roughly 10 to 1. Glial cells play a supporting role to the neurons, which are the cells that carry the electrochemical signals of the brain. It is possible, therefore, to note that only approximately 10% of the cells of the cortex are directly involved in cognition.

This isn't what proponents of the 10% theory are referring to, however. Instead, the myth is almost always a claim about mind, not brain. The claim is analogous to arguing that we operate at only 10% of our potential (although "potential" is so immeasurable a thing, it is misleading from the start to throw precise percentages around).

Uri Geller makes explicit the "untapped potential" interpretation in the introduction to Uri Geller's Mind-Power Book:

Our minds are capable of remarkable, incredible feats, yet we don't use them to their full capacity. In fact, most of us only use about 10 per cent of our brains, if that. The other 90 per cent is full of untapped potential and undiscovered abilities, which means our minds are only operating in a very limited way instead of at full stretch.

The confusion between brain and mind blurs the issue, while lending the claim an air of scientific credibility because it talks about the physical brain rather than the unknowable mind.

But it's just not true that 90% of the brain's capacity is just sitting there unused. It is true that our brains adjust their function according to experience [Hack #12] good news for the patients studied by neuropsychology. Many of them recover some of the ability they have lost. It is also true that the brain can survive a surprisingly large amount of damage and still sort of work (compare pouring two pints of beer down your throat and two pints of beer into your computer's hard disk drive for an illustration of the brain's superior resistance to insults). But neither of these facts mean that you have exactly 90% of untapped potentialyou need all your brain's plasticity and resistance to insult to keep learning and functioning across your life span.

In summary, the 10% myth isn't true, but it does offer an intuitively seductive promise of the possibility of self-improvement. It has been around for at least 80 years, and despite having no basis in current scientific knowledge and being refuted by at least 150 years of neuropsychology, it is likely to exist for as long as people are keen to aspire to be something more than they are.

1.7.1. End Notes

1. Herculano-Houzel, S. (2002). Do you know your brain? A survey on public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the brain. The Neuroscientist 8, 98-110.

2. Radford, B. (1999). The ten-percent myth. Skeptical Inquirer. March-April (http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html).

3. You can read all about the 10% myth in Beyerstein, B. L. (1999), Whence cometh the myth that we only use 10% of our brains? In Della Sala (ed.), Mind MythsExploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 4-24, at snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm), and in these two online essays by Eric Chudler, "Do We Use Only 10% of Our Brain?" (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html) and "Myths About the Brain: 10 Percent and Counting" (http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-myth).

Andrew Brown


SURSA 2: (http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=1898)

MEDIA CONTACT: Jonathan Sherwood (585) 273-4726

October 6, 2004


Under the Surface, the Brain Seethes With Undiscovered Activity

There’s an old myth that we only use 10 percent of our brains, but researchers at the University of Rochester have found in reality that roughly 80 percent of our cognitive power may be cranking away on tasks completely unknown to us. Curiously, this clandestine activity does not exist in the youngest brains, leading scientists to believe that the mysterious goings-on that absorb the majority of our minds are dedicated to subconsciously reprocessing our initial thoughts and experiences. The research, which has possible profound implications for our very basis of understanding reality, appears in this week’s issue of the journal Nature.

“We found neural activity that frankly surprised us,” says Michael Weliky, associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester. “Adult ferrets had neural patterns in their visual cortex that correlated very well with images they viewed, but that correlation didn’t exist at all in very young ferrets, suggesting the very basis of comprehending vision may be a very different task for young brains versus old brains.”

A second surprise was in store for Weliky. Placing the ferrets in a darkened room revealed that older ferrets’ brains were still humming along at 80 percent as if they were processing visual information. Since this activity was absent in the youngsters, Weliky and his colleagues were left to wonder: What is the visual cortex so busy processing when there’s no image to process?

Initially, Weliky’s research was aimed at studying whether visual processing bore any resemblance to the way real-world images appear. This finding may help lead to a better understanding of how neurons decode our world and how our perception of reality is shaped.

Weliky, in a bit of irony, set 12 ferrets watching the reality-stretching film The Matrix. He recorded how their brains responded to the film, as well as to a null pattern like enlarged television static, and a darkened room. Movies capture the visual elements that are present in the real world. For instance, as Keanu’s hand moves across the screen for a karate chop, the image of the hand and all the lines and color it represents moves across a viewer’s visual realm essentially the same way it would in real life. By contrast, the enlarged static—blocks of random black and white—has no such motion. Weliky was able to graph the movie-motion statistically, showing essentially how objects move in the visual field.

The test was then to see if there was any relationship between the statistical motion of the movie and the way visual neurons in the ferrets fired. Each visual neuron is keyed to respond to certain visual elements, such as a vertical line, that appears in a specific area of the ferret’s vision. A great number of these cells combine to process an image of many lines, colors, etc. By watching the patterns of how these cells fired while watching The Matrix, Weliky could describe the pattern statistically, and match those statistics of how the ferret responded to the film with the statistics of the actual visual aspects of the film.

Weliky found two surprises. First, while the neurons of adult ferrets statistically seemed to respond similarly to the statistics of the film itself, younger ferrets had almost no relationship. This suggests that though the young ferrets are taking in and processing visual stimuli, they’re not processing the stimuli in a way that reflects reality.

“You might think of this as a sort of dyslexia,” explains Weliky. “It may be that in very young brains, the processing takes place in a way that’s not necessarily disordered, but not analogous to how we understand reality to be. It’s thought that dyslexia works somewhat like this—that some parts of the brain process written words in an unusual way and seem to make beginnings of words appear at their ends and vice versa. Infant brains may see the entire world the same way, as a mass of disparate scenes and sounds.” Weliky is quick to point out that whatever way infant brains may interpret the world, just because they’re different from an adult pattern of perception does not mean the infants have the wrong perception. After all, an adult interpreted the visual aspects of the film with our adult brains, so it shouldn’t be such a surprise that other adult brains simply interpret the visual aspects the same way. If an infant drew up the statistics, it might very well match the neural patterns of other infants.

The second, and more surprising, result of the study came directly from the fact that Weliky’s research is one of the first to test these visual neurons while the subject is awake and watching something. In the past, researchers would perhaps shine a light at an unconscious ferret and note which areas of the brain responded, but while that method narrowed the focus to how a single cell responds, it eliminated the chance to understand how the neural network of a conscious animal would respond. Accepting all the neural traffic of a conscious brain as part of the equation let Weliky get a better idea of the actual processing going on. As it turned out, one of his control tests yielded insight into neural activity no one expected.

When the ferrets were in a darkened room, Weliky expected their visual neurons to lack any kind of activity that correlated with visual reality. Neurologists have long known that there is substantial activity in the brain, even in darkness, but the pattern of that activity had never been investigated. Weliky discovered that while young ferrets displayed almost no patterns that correlated with visual reality, the adult ferrets’ brains were humming along, producing the patterns even though there was nothing to see. When watching the film, the adult ferrets’ neurons increased their patterned activity by about 20 percent.

“This means that in adults, there is a tremendous amount of real-world processing going on—80 percent—when there is nothing to process,” says Weliky. “We think that if you’ve got your eyes closed, your visual processing is pretty much at zero, and that when you open them, you’re running at 100 percent. This suggests that with your eyes closed, your visual processing is already running at 80 percent, and that opening your eyes only adds the last 20 percent. The big question here is what is the brain doing when it’s idling, because it’s obviously doing something important.

Since the young ferrets do not display similar patterns, the “idling” isn’t necessary for life or consciousness, but since it’s present in the adults even without stimulus, Weliky suggests it may be in a sense what gives the ferret its understanding of reality. The eye takes in an image and the brain processes the image, but 80 percent of the activity may be a representation of the world replicated inside the ferret’s brain.

“The basic findings are exciting enough, but you can’t help but speculate on what they might mean in a deeper context,” says Weliky. “It’s one thing to say a ferret’s understanding of reality is being reproduced inside his brain, but there’s nothing to say that our understanding of the world is accurate. In a way, our neural structure imposes a certain structure on the outside world, and all we know is that at least one other mammalian brain seems to impose the same structure. Either that or The Matrix freaked out the ferrets the way it did everyone else.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

P.S. A nu se confunda creierul cu mintea--sunt 2 notiuni diferite. Si intr'adevar mintea nu prea este folosita de unii.
« Ultima Modificare: 31 Mai 2007, 02:14:24 de bluemoon8520 »
Nu tot ce zboară şi este necunoscut este extraterestru.
All warfare is based on deception. -- Sun Tzu, 600 BC

All types of knowledge, ultimately mean self knowledge. -- Bruce Lee

tigre_01123

  • Vizitator
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #71 : 15 Martie 2008, 17:35:50 »
Buna !

ma poate ajuta si pe mine cineva cu niste exercitzi pt psihokinezie ... de control ce stitzi voi de psihokinezie va rog ... !  :cry: eu am primit de la o cunsotintza tot de pe acest forum sa cer ajutor la temele voastre si mam gandit sa va cer ajutorul am o destul de mare nevoie . si vreau sa va zic un lucru : psihokinezia nu inseamna doar miscarea unor obiecte ci are o legatura stransa cu celelante capacitazti , exista persoane psihokinetice cu alte capacitatzi nu doar de a deplasa lucruri . si va zic din propria experienta pt ca eu sunt o persoana psihokinetica care are capacitati din aproape toate domenile si am trecut prea repede la faza superioara si nu ma pot controla pur si simplu scap totul . deci va rog eu mult sa ma ajutatzi si pe mine cu niste exercitzi pt psihokinezie si de control.

Offline mistic

  • Cool
  • ***
  • Mesaje postate: 221
  • your sun can shine even when it's cloudy outside
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 7
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #72 : 17 Martie 2008, 17:53:07 »
Astea le-am dat si p subiectu al 3-lea ochi le dau si aici , ar fi bine si sa meditezi asupra unui obiect.
exercitiul1   vizualizeaza un lac de energie in cap si unu la picioare. Vizulaizeaza cum energia din cap curge in lacul din picioare, prin centrul corpului. Fa asta timp de 5 min apoi schimba sensul, energia din picioare in lacul din cap(tot 5 min). apoi energia din cap curge in lacul din picioare prin partea stanga a corpului si urca inapoi in cap pe partea dreapta. fa asta timp de 5 min si apoi schimba sensul. exerseaza acest exercitiu tmp de 2 saptamani si treci la urmatorul.
exercitiul2   vizualizeaza cum energia din lacul din cap si cea din lacul din picioare se aduna in stomac sub forma unei bile. timp 5 min.
exercitiu 3   fa exercitiu 2  apoi apropie palmele si tinele ca si cum ai tine o bila in mana si adu energia intre palme sub forma unei bile. Fi atent la bila nu iti pierde concentrarea dar nu te fortza.

Offline adipop

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Mesaje postate: 532
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #73 : 17 Martie 2008, 18:08:23 »
Buna !

ma poate ajuta si pe mine cineva cu niste exercitzi pt psihokinezie ... de control ce stitzi voi de psihokinezie va rog ... !  :cry: eu am primit de la o cunsotintza tot de pe acest forum sa cer ajutor la temele voastre si mam gandit sa va cer ajutorul am o destul de mare nevoie . si vreau sa va zic un lucru : psihokinezia nu inseamna doar miscarea unor obiecte ci are o legatura stransa cu celelante capacitazti , exista persoane psihokinetice cu alte capacitatzi nu doar de a deplasa lucruri . si va zic din propria experienta pt ca eu sunt o persoana psihokinetica care are capacitati din aproape toate domenile si am trecut prea repede la faza superioara si nu ma pot controla pur si simplu scap totul . deci va rog eu mult sa ma ajutatzi si pe mine cu niste exercitzi pt psihokinezie si de control.

De ce vrei sa faci asa ceva ?
adi

tigre_01123

  • Vizitator
Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #74 : 19 Martie 2008, 02:56:47 »
vreau sa fac asta adi deoarece am un flux prea mare de energie si scapa si am nevoie de exerciti de control sau exerciti pt psihokinezie ... fac multe lucrui fara sa imi dau seama . mistic ms mult pt exercitiu :).

Mia zis cineva ca persoanele psihokinetice pot deschide portale prin care emotile lor ajung la alcineva.E adevarat ? ... pt ca eu am visat o data ca un amic de al meu a avut accident cu masina si a doua zi mama tot gandit ca sa nu se intample si a 3 zi a facut accident-ul ... iar masina era lovita exact cum am visat.

Forum RUFOn

Raspuns: Telekinezie I
« Răspuns #74 : 19 Martie 2008, 02:56:47 »
Declinare responsabilitate
Părerile exprimate pe acest forum aparțin utilizatorilor acestora și nu pot fi considerate ca fiind informații oficiale sau promovate de acest site/forum.
În conformitate cu prevederile politicii de confidențialitate acceptate la înregistrare, fiecare utilizator este răspunzător de informațiile publicate pe acest site și nu sunt asumate de administratori sau proprietarul acestui forum.
Mai multe despre politicile de confidențialitate, aici...

 

Declinare responsabilitate
Părerile exprimate pe acest forum aparțin utilizatorilor acestora și nu pot fi considerate ca fiind informații oficiale sau promovate de acest site/forum.
În conformitate cu prevederile politicii de confidențialitate acceptate la înregistrare, fiecare utilizator este răspunzător de informațiile publicate pe acest site și nu sunt asumate de administratori sau proprietarul acestui forum.
Mai multe despre politicile de confidențialitate, aici...