|
Alysia
Ex Member
|
: Yeah I know, that's why I found it a little bit bizarre to consider her reading so successful.
: Even John Edwards (from crossing over), who is VERY talented, achieved a % in the 80s. And that info was VERY accurate.
: Now I never said Linn was a good psychic, I'm just saying the "contact" isn't worth anything in my point of view.
_________
my comment below:
you're entitled to your opinion of course but thought I'd put in maybe 3 cents...worth...ha ha! personally I think Linn is the genuine article and could move up next to Edwards, if she wanted to. but there's a lot of pychics don't care for the kind of reception they get being in the limelight so they work in a smaller fashion, no less important. negative energy is affecting of sensitives.
I made a study for awhile of remote viewing and found surprisingly I got a clear hit or two, so clear, there was no mistake I had received a detailed image by just concentrating on a single number of 100's of images that you would go to after you had gotten your image. I was doing it with a bunch of others on the internet. everybody was posting about their hits and their mis hits. we couldn't figure out why you didn't always get a hit, other times it was like wham! right on! every body was excited about the study though. what I found out there was the top remote viewers never had 100% accuracy either, it was between 70 to 90% for the best ones, the rest of us might come in at 40 to 50%, but when we got something it was always right on.
then to back up my non-skeptic attitude I have it on good word that this field we explore here is rather in it's infancy, and so of course, there's always that margin of error to deal with in any new field of exploration. it can only get better from here on out, I mean as an entire society, not just a minority of us.
love, alysia
|
Home
Pages: 
