Animal Communicator?

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8898233]
Once? maybe. But I never said how many I used, now did I? Its been several,.

how do they know certain things that I never brought up?
How did I know things about horses I never met?

They don’t. They just lead you to the belief that they do.

I know that I have experienced it, with out a doubt, but for me its more the journey than “proof”. ITs too valuable of a message to drown in theory, science, and proof.

Lots of folks just KNEW that Blacks were intellectually inferior to whites. That Japanese soldiers were morally superior to all others and could not be defeated. That Jews run the international banking system for their own benefit. That the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Masons secretly rule us all. That there is a God and he’s an aging Jew; or that there is a god and it’s big tree; or that there is no god. Each of the above beliefs has been propagated and become the foundation of public policy with evidence that ranges from non-existent to extremely tenuous. Lots of lives and wealth have been destroyed by public policies based upon highly suspicious circumstances. So I challenge, directly, your assertion.

Its like riding- the more your TRY the worse it goes. Let it happen, relax. Don’t force. I never have been able to make it happen on the flip of a switch. Many times it happens when I am in a very unfocused state like on a walk, not thinking of anything in particular.

This is one view of riding. It’s not the only view of riding. Why it is more correct that all the other views? Upon what do you base your conclusions?

so you see, this is why I am against this negitive talk. It actually prevents people from experiencing this gut feeling for themselves.[/QUOTE]

“Gut feeling” was the basis of Jim Crow and Antisemitism and anti-Islamic feeling. Maybe we should be a bit careful with it?

Sometimes “negative” talk is a Good Thing. It’s a defense against fraud and tyranny.

G.

[ecileh]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8897660]
what? of course ribs can be “out”. there is a place a piece of anatomy should be, if its not there it’s “out”.[/QUOTE]

Seconded.

In humans, anyway.

The ribs are not attached to the sternum or the spine with bone, they are attached with ligaments. If they were attached by bone, your ribcage could not expand when you breathe. Each rib is a joint and it is absolutely possible for them to be both dislocated or “out of whack”–which is not a full dislocation, but rather a slight displacement. Sometimes, that involves a tear or a strain of the soft tissue, sometimes just a stretch.

I have had both happen to me and been treated and diagnosed by medical doctors for them. A dislocated rib is QUITE painful. It sent me to the ER, in fact. A displaced rib is uncomfortable and rather unpleasant, but bearable.

I confess I do not know enough about the anatomy of the equine ribcage to say for sure that it’s possible for the same to happen to a horse–but it sure seems likely to me that their ribs are also attached by ligaments. They need to breathe too, after all.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8898233]
Once? maybe. But I never said how many I used, now did I? Its been several,.

how do they know certain things that I never brought up?
How did I know things about horses I never met?

I know that I have experienced it, with out a doubt, but for me its more the journey than “proof”. ITs too valuable of a message to drown in theory, science, and proof.

Its like riding- the more your TRY the worse it goes. Let it happen, relax. Don’t force. I never have been able to make it happen on the flip of a switch. Many times it happens when I am in a very unfocused state like on a walk, not thinking of anything in particular.

so you see, this is why I am against this negitive talk. It actually prevents people from experiencing this gut feeling for themselves.[/QUOTE]

No one is insisting we should not listen to what some call “gut feelings”, that is where we are receiving random thoughts, that our always busy mind worked out without us being aware of and, when we received them after being filtered into our conscientious thoughts, we weighed them against what we know.

That doesn’t imply there is any supernatural way we “received” messages.
What we think is truly all our construct, if we realize it or not and valid, of course.

Still, that others can reach out, even over distances and “hear” this or that, well, we will have to wait for more to go by than anecdotes.

[LaurieB]

[QUOTE=Bluey;8898193]
You do realize that is the way those card readers work, they ask and ask questions and what you say, how you say it and what you don’t say is all part of how they know what to say?

That some of what they say that doesn’t apply to the client/client’s horse is easily dismissed by the client, or twisted around to make it fit or else.
That what may fit we jump on to declare those people really know, they could not have known that detail, that we picked out of many that don’t?
Laws of average at work there, throw enough at it and some will stick, such is the way those games work.

As a scientist, you keep insisting you are one and that gives you a hands up on being more discerning in this topic than the rest of us mere mortals may, I would say that would be one of the easiest places to come from to see that, when something doesn’t make sense, it probably is not as is represented.
As someone already mentioned, there is a million out there for anyone that can demonstrate any such works.
Surely whoever is so sure they are real communicators would have easily claimed that by now, proving it without question?
All we get is excuse why they don’t.;)[/QUOTE]

The first time I used an AC with my riding horse (not the racehorse I spoke about earlier) the AC asked me 4 questions ahead of time. What is the horse’s name? What color is she? What discipline does she do? Where does she live? [The AC and I were speaking over the phone. Feel free to go ahead and laugh.] Those were the only things the AC knew about me and my horse.

I had the misguided idea that I would be able to “ask” questions of my mare. My barn had recently moved and merged with another and I wanted to ease the transition. (The AC did not know this.) But as soon as the connection was established my mare began to “speak”. The first thing she wanted to know was why I had switched the kind of apples I was bringing her. (Because the new batch of apples was on sale–but seriously why were we talking about apples? Neither the AC nor I cared about that.) Then the mare said that she used to have 2 water buckets and now she only had 1 and she wanted 2 again. Another small fact of the mare’s life that was–once again–true but which nobody but her was thinking about.

The conversation continued in that vein and ended with me asking the AC to try and find out if there was a particular horse my mare wanted to be turned out with now that all the pasture groups were being reconfigured after the barn-merge. The AC described a particular bay mare in great detail but it wasn’t a mare I recognized.

The next day my skeptical trainer was having a great laugh about my AC experience until we came to the part about the bay mare. Since I wasn’t familiar with all the horses in the barn we were merging with, I figured that she must be part of that other group. But when I described the bay mare, my trainer got very quiet. Finally she said, “Your mare described her mother.”

So yeah. The whole AC thing worked for me.

[Lady_Eboshi]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8898221]
I’m a graduate of the Naval Aviation Safety School in Monterrey, CA. Part of our course was training to interview witnesses to mishaps. We all got the chance to practice and we all made a common mistake: we “lead” the witness. It was not intentional, but we did it by unintentionally formulating questions and interpreting answers in ways that altered the information given. It was actually quite a shock for most of us just how badly we did the first one. The moral was to be very careful NOT to prejudge things and let the witness tell the story.

I’m also a SERE Grad. (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). There we were exposed to the various forms of propaganda that are used to influence both large numbers of people and discrete individuals. Again, the class was very surprised at how sophisticated people can be in presenting information that is either totally false (sometimes called "The Big Lie Theory) or, more commonly, partially true (the “Half Truth Theory”).

These two experiences are sort of a Yin-Yang thing in that they represent two sides of presentation of information. It also shows that not everyone who advocates a falsehood is morally or ethically flawed. Some who present information that is highly suspect are not trying to do a Wrong; sometimes they actually believe they are doing a Right. But an OBJECTIVE analysis demonstrates falsehood, or at least a very low probability of correctness.

Your assertions require that a person who would agree accept the idea of non-sensory communication between strangers over long distances. And not only strangers in that they’ve never met but completely different species. Lacking any objective proof of such things it’s quite rational to reject this base premise.

Your second paragraph describes exactly what a person who wishes to “lead” a witness does. If the person is good at what they do you will never know you’ve been “lead” to a conclusion.

Your experience appears to be common but that can be proof of one of two possibilities: first, that the base concept of non-sense based communication is real; second, that you’ve been had by a very skilled charlatan.

G.[/QUOTE]

Precisely, and well said!^

Paraphrased from Scott Adams’ (of Dilbert fame) blog today:

If you and your friend are in a room, and he says he sees a pink elephant there and you don’t, which one of you is hallucinating? Answer: He is.

Let’s say he says you both were abducted by aliens last night–he remembers the experience, you do not. Which one of you is hallucinating: He is.

So now you come upon a crowd of people all staring at a stain on the wall. The crowd claims it’s in the shape of God and it’s talking to them. You look at the same thing and see only a stain. Who’s hallucinating? THEY are, and group hallucinations are more common than you think.

Any time you’re dealing with someone ADDING to ordinary observed objective reality, the probability is immense that THE PHENOMENON IS NOT REAL as long as even ONE person cannot see/detect/experience it.

Experienced persuaders (hypnotists, illusionists, politicians, salesmen) however are VERY ADEPT at getting people to see Pink Elephants that are not really there, but people will swear they “saw” it.

Which about covers G’s charlatans above.

[BatCoach]

[QUOTE=Twisting;8897875]
You were likely riding better, thinking your horse was feeling better. And pushing and prodding is massage, of a sort. It’s not a traditional massage, and likely had no effect on your horse’s actual movement, but probably felt good. Anecdotes are meaningless. The human brain is shockingly horrible at objectively measuring things like improvement in performance.

I’ll point you at a study from England, (which has been on COTH before) about headshaking, where the objective measurements of the individuals conducting the study found no difference in headshaking between horses on the real supplements, and those on placebos. The subjective forms filled out by the owners, however, reported an improvement in headshaking symptoms, and many said they would keep buying the ineffective supplement even after researchers told them it did absolutely nothing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994634

Your belief may be strong, but it’s not actually doing anything for your horse. If you can afford it, and it makes you feel better, by all means keep doing it. I am sure your horse will let you know if it has any actual problems that require actual treatment.[/QUOTE]

I’ll see your study and raise you one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2746/042516408X250292/abstract;jsessionid=54F7748B151D6CA31BB94B82A4053450.f03t01

Its clear there are two sides of thought on this and that is ok.

[Gestalt]

[QUOTE=BatCoach;8898625]
I’ll see your study and raise you one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2746/042516408X250292/abstract;jsessionid=54F7748B151D6CA31BB94B82A4053450.f03t01

Its clear there are two sides of thought on this and that is ok.[/QUOTE]

It seems the disbelievers can’t let others have their experiences. I don’t care what someone else thinks, it worked for me twice with Hiby and it didn’t with the other ac. It is an amazing process though when the light bulb goes off as they are telling you what your horse is feeling!

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Gestalt;8898655]
It seems the disbelievers can’t let others have their experiences. I don’t care what someone else thinks, it worked for me twice with Hiby and it didn’t with the other ac. It is an amazing process though when the light bulb goes off as they are telling you what your horse is feeling![/QUOTE]

You’re welcome to your experiences. When you tell me how real and accurate they are you’re also welcome to my observations. That’s what conversations are about. If you don’t want that “response” thing then don’t start the conversation.

G.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Gestalt;8898655]
It seems the disbelievers can’t let others have their experiences. I don’t care what someone else thinks, it worked for me twice with Hiby and it didn’t with the other ac. It is an amazing process though when the light bulb goes off as they are telling you what your horse is feeling![/QUOTE]

Who is “not letting others have their experience” here?

Do you want people just to agree with you how great those anecdotes are, when they don’t agree that those are but fabrications, in the world as we know and can measure today?

What we are discussing is not that you should or not have your experience, but in general, how valuable and true those readings are in the world as we know today to be.

When you are in a church service, you don’t stand up and tell them they are all crazy for believing in such nonsense, of course.

When you are where you are discussing the merits of religion, then you may explain why you have questions about imaginary beings as religions paint them.

Here, I thought, we were discussing animal communication, from all angles.

Boy, that took lots of editing not to offend someone, hopefully it came across clear enough not to do that.

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=walktrot;8892000]
There was an AC at Equine Affaire in Mass. several years ago. She had us give a photo of our horse to a stranger - no friends allowed - and we spent several minutes holding the photo and concentrating on it. Mine went to a couple from Rhode Island. I have a sabino Paint gelding known around the barn as Speckles (Mr Eternal Fun) partly because I saw it twice in his pedigree and he really is speckled. So the couple tells me he doesn’t think his barn name is dignified. He also complained about not having any friends. He’s the alpha gelding so it’s no wonder. They saw red close to him, and I was using a red saddle pad. I don’t remember the 4th thing. But we still call him Speckles regardless of what he thinks. He’s a great horse, has done everything from therapy lessons to beach rides and everybody loves him. He seems a little friendlier to some of his pasture mates, now that he’s getting older. It was a little too weird for comfort. I think it’s mostly bushwah, but it was fun, and the price was right.[/QUOTE]

Horses are unable to perceive the color red.

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8893210]
Honey is regarded as a homeopathic cure…

and yet…

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20080922/humble-honey-kills-bacteria

Western medical science gets it wrong sometimes. And it is always changing its views on things. Recall it once rejected the mind/body connection that today is “all the rage” in Western medicine.[/QUOTE]

You are not referencing a homeopathic use of honey.

[SendenHorse]

they are not “fabrications”- they really happened. Its a fact. i am not lying about the evidence. Of course, this veers off into the “I hate saddle comapny X because my saddle was crap”. Or “avoid trainer XYZ”. We can’t prove it, but in the context of a BB, this is the best we can get for “proof”…

Believe me if you want, it’s exactly what happened. I get things. I don’t know why, but I know they are not “from me”. Its cool you should try it sometime

[Sunflower]

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;8898946]
Horses are unable to perceive the color red.[/QUOTE]

They may not perceive it the same way that the human eye does, but perceive it they do. My horse who loves apples zeros in on anything red or orange as potentially an apple-- including my bright orange sports watch and his orange curry comb and my high vis red shirt. He has tried to take a bite out of my watch, his curry comb and was eyeing up me in my shirt, but he does not have the same reaction to non apple colored watches, shirts or curry combs.

He may not see the orange and red as I do, but he does see them as something, and something that ought to be edible.

[Sunflower]

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;8898950]
You are not referencing a homeopathic use of honey.[/QUOTE]
Quite.

That was rather my point.

[MistyBlue]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8899051]
They may not perceive it the same way that the human eye does, but perceive it they do. My horse who loves apples zeros in on anything red or orange as potentially an apple-- including my bright orange sports watch and his orange curry comb and my high vis red shirt. He has tried to take a bite out of my watch, his curry comb and was eyeing up me in my shirt, but he does not have the same reaction to non apple colored watches, shirts or curry combs.

He may not see the orange and red as I do, but he does see them as something, and something that ought to be edible.[/QUOTE]
The horse sees the shape and size of an item and can smell it.
Rods and cones in an eye determine colors that can be seen. Nature gives animals the rods and cones needed for natural survival. Reds, pinks and oranges are seen as various shades of grey or green by many mammals, horses included.
They are 100% incapable of seeing those colors or any shade of those colors. A red saddle pad is a grey saddle pad to a horse.
Bulls don’t charge red capes, they charge the movement of the grey cape they see.
Deer, rabbits, etc don’t see hunters wearing blaze orange. Hunters could be wearing pink camo and be just as invisible to them and your horse. it’s the broken pattern of the camo that makes them less visible.
So nope, a horse (or cow or deer or dog) has absolutely no conception of the color red or any red-related color. They can see apples just fine, those apples are just never red to them.
Carrots aren’t orange to them, either. :).
They lack the proper rods and cones to translate the color red no matter how vivid it might be. It’s a physical impossibility.
They can see blues, greens and yellows though.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8899051]
He may not see the orange and red as I do, but he does see them as something, and something that ought to be edible.[/QUOTE]

Sure, he sees something. But it’s not red as we see it. How does a horse who can’t see red communicate the color red to humans, rather than communicating the actual shade he sees?

This is a human color blindness example, but it’ll work for theoretical purposes: link

If you were a protanope or a Deuteranope and you happened to like the shade/hue of Russia and Australia in the images you could see, how would you tell someone that you liked something that was “red” rather than “green”?

It’s not like every color is a different shade and you just have to match them up. You can’t distinguish them. You’re just guessing at what others see.

(My father was color blind. I have some sort of color perception issue, but not color blindness. It’s incredibly difficult to communicate colors you can’t/have difficulty seeing even when you know what your perception issues are relative to the rest of the world and are talking to people who also know about your limitations. I am wrong over half the time in the part of the spectrum where I have difficulty. It’s very frustrating. And I’m speaking the same language as the people I’m communicating with.)

[Sunflower]

And yet. The reaction of not only my horse but all horses to my bright orange sports watch is to want to eat it, and to be baffled when that turns out to not be an option. No horse has tried to eat my purple or any other color of sports watch. But the bright orange-- oh yes. My horse will try to eat anything that is red/orange/pink. I had to fish his pink hoofpick out of his mouth, as he appeared to be about to swallow it whole. He does not do it with other colors of hoofpicks. (and yes, I have a different not pink/orange/red hoofpick now!)

So… my horse for instance eyes up my watch as he does his treats, and is very baffled and irritated when its not edible. And, I do not usually wear ticking treats on my wrist… there are many things about the watch that ought to indicate its not edible. But he is not convinced-- if not the color that is making him want to eat it, what is cuing him that its edible? And the orange curry comb? And me in a high vis red shirt? Only this color range brings this reaction-- and it is a very consisent reaction, not a one-off.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8899732]
My horse will try to eat anything that is red/orange/pink.[/QUOTE]

Sure. He likes whatever shade he sees. It isn’t red/orange/pink as we see it. But he sees some sort of color and he likes it.

And if he were going to communicate to you that he liked that color, he would be sending the color he sees and likes. Not the one we see and like and he can’t even perceive.

It would be a color. But it wouldn’t be what you know of as red.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8899732]
And yet. The reaction of not only my horse but all horses to my bright orange sports watch is to want to eat it, and to be baffled when that turns out to not be an option. No horse has tried to eat my purple or any other color of sports watch. But the bright orange-- oh yes. My horse will try to eat anything that is red/orange/pink. I had to fish his pink hoofpick out of his mouth, as he appeared to be about to swallow it whole. He does not do it with other colors of hoofpicks. (and yes, I have a different not pink/orange/red hoofpick now!)

Do they see it as an “apple” or “something to be explored”? IIRC horses “mouth” things as part of their learning experience. So while they might connect the watch to a known food item they also might be just exploring a new, possible foot item.

So… my horse for instance eyes up my watch as he does his treats, and is very baffled and irritated when its not edible. And, I do not usually wear ticking treats on my wrist… there are many things about the watch that ought to indicate its not edible. But he is not convinced-- if not the color that is making him want to eat it, what is cuing him that its edible? And the orange curry comb? And me in a high vis red shirt? Only this color range brings this reaction-- and it is a very consisent reaction, not a one-off.[/QUOTE]

Horses can get confused like any other living thing. In his experience that thing on your wrist ought to be edible based upon some instinct or memory that he has. It isn’t. He knows it isn’t. But he doesn’t know what to make of the discovery. So he knows what it isn’t but not yet what it is. From his point of view it’s rational to continue the exploration until he gets an answer. Or until he gets tired of the whole thing and starts to ignore it.

As an interesting experiment don’t wear the watch for a few times and see what happens.

Then wear something else prominently on your wrist (so the horse can clearly see it’s there) but in a neutral color (a simple, small block of wood might work). Note the result.

Misty is quite correct about the physiological description of a horse’s eye. We humans, except those with a disability, see color. It’s unlikely that a color blind person could effectively translate color into shades of gray (according to my retired Flight Surgeon wife ). Color blind people can get a driver’s license if they can distinguish red, green, and yellow. They can even get a Third Class Medical Certificate from the FAA and hold a Private Pilot’s licence. Depending on the type of color blindness they might be limited to day only operation.

G.

[no.stirrups]

I’m kind of amused, in a head-shaking sort of way, at the ridiculous attempts to rationalize and oversimplify everything by the skeptics. As if it is feasible that we humans have an understanding and explanation of everything that happens in the universe. Scientists can’t even explain gravity yet, for Pete’s sake! Shall we debate whether it exists?

Or really, we could just allow the thread to stick with it’s original message, which is an opportunity for people to share their EXPERIENCES with animal communicators. Not their skepticism, or why they won’t ever have an experience to share. Just show enough respect for the OP to either answer the question, or move on.

I know, very wishful thinking.