According to scientific findings, bilocation is completely impossible and is an absurd belief.
What scientific findings would this be, then?
I really think that "According to scientific findings" is a bizarre attempt to dress up the obvious as more authoritative. It gives the impression that there's been a grand scientific experiment that has determined that one person cannot be in two places at once, and that's just poppycock. You might as well say, according to scientific findings, existence is different than non-existence. Phiwum (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hyperbole. Bitches love hyperbole... but seriously, yes. It's a silly bit of phrasing that doesn't add anything. theist 17:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved from a forum.
I have added a link at:
to a proven case of bilocation.
http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/pedigree_senior.htm#maria— Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs 15:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing at the link to justify adding it to the article. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- The OP feels that a Judge and jury decides what constitutes something haven been "proven" yet what the case in the referenced link proves is that occult-driven people are easily manipulated and duped in to believing things, if a Judge rules that a "bilocation" actually happened and was documented as having happened, all that the judicial finding indicates is that the Judge and/or jury were gullible and issued their findings based upon occult belief.
- As someone else pointed out in the discussion forums, science determines what is real and what is bunkum, so the referenced citation is not evidence for the existence of bilocation, it's evidence of a Judge's superstitions.
- Still, the extant page here needs to be beefed up. Lots of people believe in the alleged phenomena. Damotclese (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)