Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proof of Reincarnation

  1. Apr 17, 2003 #1

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Proof Abraham Lincoln reincarnated as JFK:

    Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
    John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
    Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
    John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
    Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
    Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
    Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
    Both Presidents were shot in the head.

    Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
    Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.
    Both were assassinated by Southerners.
    Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

    Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
    Lyndon B. Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

    John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
    Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
    Both assassins were known by their three names.
    Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

    Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford'.
    Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln' made by 'Ford'.

    Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

    And here's the kicker..........

    A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland.
    A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.

    If that isn't proof, I don't know what is.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 17, 2003 #2
    If Lincoln reincarnated as JFK ... it shows that he learned his lesson ... that for sure.: Not a second time Monroe, Maryland ... but Marilyn Monroe!


  4. Apr 17, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    extremely interesting LW...it's these "weird" things that because science cannot explain is considered psuedo science...but is our known science everything?
  5. Apr 17, 2003 #4
    Reincarnation has a serious role in a lot of religions.
    Of course in India and Tibet.
    The selection system of the Daia Lama is based on it.
    In India there are several real "Proofs" (girl remember all family in other province + showed where money was hidden).
    In Libanon there is a whole community with experience too.
    But also fe. In Indonesia (based on reincarnation in the own family).

    The strange thing with Lincoln and JFK is however the repeating factor. That is not really the "common" in reincarnation. Reincarnation is normally seen as conscious transfert, not identical life-steps.
  6. Apr 17, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Kerrie, there are PLENTY of things that science can't explain that are science, not pseudo-science. Science is the APPROACH to the explanation (the scientific method), not the explanation itself.

    Also, there are other choices - philosophy and religion for example aren't science or pseudo-science.

    I think we had a thread before on "what is pseudo-science?" Basically, pseudo-science is non-science masquerading as science.
  7. Apr 18, 2003 #6

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think Kerrie's point is that science may be too quick to label something it can't explain as "pseudo-science," and what they really mean is that it's nonsense.

    The Kennedy/Lincoln coincidences were sent to me by a friend who wanted to make that joke at the end about Marilyn Monroe. I don't think it proves anything about reincarnation, but I do think coincidence is not always a fluke.

    Astrology is a good example of co-incidence between personality traits and the shape of heavenly bodies when one is born. I have seen numerous scientists "dismiss" that coincidence out of hand without ever taking the time to investigate. Actually, with the growing belief that we are nothing but a product of physical processes, it seems to me that materialist types would consider the possibility that the physical shape of the universe when we physically come in to being might add some sort of structure to one's perspective.

    I am not really into astrology, so I can't defend or explain that. But I do know of another sort of co-incident operation that I have been impressed with, and that is the I Ching. Some of my friends are suprised that I read it because they know how deadset against supernaturalism I am.

    I first started reading it 25 years ago without doing the divination part just to familarize myself with Chinese philosophy (the "divination" part" is that to decide what to read you throw coins or sticks and read the section they indicate). I was impressed with the wisdom in it, and found myself going back to it to read specific sections that applied to what was going on in my life.

    But then I thought, "what the heck, I might as well throw the coins," so I started to do that. Now, after reading it ofter since then, I can report the co-incidence between what the coins indicate I should read and what is going on in my life seems far beyond mere accident.

    Now what significance can we assign to consistant coincidence if there is no way to investigate its causes? What I mean is, does consistant coincidence over time give us reason to take note of it, and even rely on it, even if we can't explain why it's so?.

    If the strange, counter-intuitive circumstances of relativity can be accepted as true, then what else that seems contrary to what we believe might also be waiting to be discovered? That's not to say one shouldn't remain unconvinced about claims that are utterly unsupported or contradicted by evidence, but it might indicate it is profitable to stay open to unconventional sorts of evidence (e.g., such as consistent co-incidence).
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2003
  8. Apr 18, 2003 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    LW, there is an astrology thread here somewhere. Astrology is pseudo-science because it isn't approached scientifically. The reason it isn't approached scientifically is because it is not science. If you try to approach it scientifically (people have every now and then and it is middle school science project simple) you find it has no validity whatsoever. To me it rises to the level of fraud. So many people spending so much money on lies.

    And I have no idea what I Ching is, so I can't comment on it.
  9. Apr 19, 2003 #8

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You did not address the concept of "consistant coincidence."

    [Edit] Personally I don't believe there were any proper studies to get at what might really be true about it. Studies done by sceptics tend to look for the nonsense, and can lack the proper rigor needed for a thorough investigation. You can't treat all the occult claims the same as the underlying observation by a great many that certain personality traits show up more often at certain times of the year.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2003
  10. Apr 19, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Erm... Randi's experiments based on giving the same astrological forecast to a large group of people, comparisons of horoscopes made by different newspapers for the same zodiac group, and asigning horoscopes by a simple random number generator may be a beginning.

    The major objections are:

    1. Ambiguity in predictions.
    2. Bias from willingness of reader to accept prediction.
    3. Lack of theoretical backing.
    4. Low rate of success on objective statistical studies.

    On the other hand, researchers in the field of neurotheology, studying the effects of magnetic field on the brain, may provide an answer to number 3. Different planetary formations may produce a weak magnetic field through the earth, and hence influence brain patterns and behaviour routines.
  11. Apr 19, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    although astrology is one of my favorite subjects to discuss, this thread was intended to be about uncanny coincidences...

    here is the link for the astrology topic, in which i go into great detail about why i feel it has validity...


    i think the most important thing to remember about SOME psuedo science is that there is no proof or conclusive evidence that suggests it is false...and this is the situation with astrology...
  12. Apr 19, 2003 #11
    Astrology and resonance.

    I put on my website an animated gif-image (which I made for another website): http://hollywood.org/cosmology/astrology.html

    This is the text that goes with it:

    Astrology. What can be a possible explanation?

    Since the HUBBLE telescope we know that our Universe is GIANT! Behind each spot there are thousands of stars, thus photons, neutrino's and also radiation is sent to us. A planet is a just a moving spot. It has it's own structure (cfr. Jupiter is only gas).

    A possible explanation for Astrology can be that each planet acts as a lens (focusing the energies it receives) or as a blocking structure (dispensing/spreading) for these energy bombardments.

    In this animated image I made a green square and a white square with in each some galaxies. These may have each billions of light years in distance between them, so they may send other types of radiation. The green and white spot on the trajectory of Mars will be -at a specific moment - covered by Mars and at that moment Mars might "re-transmit" these energies, colored by it's own structural composition.

    A transit over such spots might influence the concept of embryo's during specific growing phases (think about the basic start of the eyes in week X, nerves in week Z, synapses in week Y, ... ).

    The fast planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars and Moon) pass such different areas every day. Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, Neptune and Pluto do it slowly.


    I believe it is intellectual weakness to deny a number of phenomena.
    We must say: IF it would be real HOW would it work?
  13. Apr 19, 2003 #12

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Astrology and resonance.

    An interesting hypothesis. I like it, again, because you attempt to find logical reasons why there seems to be a correspondence between birth dates and certain personality traits.

    It's useful to analyze why devoted empiricists reject astrology out of hand. Aside from the daily newpaper stuff, I think it's because in the past astrology has been used so extensively in occult practices. So it is guilt by association. But the same could be said of science, where pseudo-scientists incorrectly apply correct principles to support their theories.
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2003
  14. Apr 20, 2003 #13
    Thanks LW

    In fact every second we receive billions of cosmic impacts from fixed areas from the whole hemisphere. But the planets are the only progressing parameters (different from the earth caused rotation of those fixed stars) . They only are thus the potential intervening factor, except accidental events such as changing conditions is those fixed stars and galaxies (such as supernovas, etc.... )
  15. Feb 6, 2008 #14
    That isn't proof of reincarnation.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Proof of Reincarnation