Prakash - 03 March 2012 10:42 PM

georgi - 03 March 2012 03:04 PM

MEMORIES ARE BUILD IN THE BRAIN, IT YOU DONT HAVE THE SAME BRAIN- YOU WONT HAVE THE SAME MEMORIES :D

Even though I dont have this brain also I still have some memories.I can prove it.Even your two hemisphears remove also you have some memories left.Because of the conscient entity continuously there.Soul use the brain memory center to store memories.Soul thinks through the mechanisum of brain.But even that memory center replaced also it has some perminent memories in it.

Every one have two types of memories.Perminent memories and temporary memories.Temporary memories will wiped when your brain removed and tranplant some other’s brain.But perminent memories still alive even you remove your two hemisphears also and attach new hemisphear.You wont feel that you are a new person after that also.I will give some examples of these pecular type.Please Give me time.Now I have imporatant exams for my students.I am working on them.I will give you the incidents of them for sure.

this is the biggest nonsense I’ve ever heard :D
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#part2 read and educate yourself
And using split-brain cases to as proof for the existence of soul is like using Holocaust to proof that Nazi Germany loved Jews :D :D Really read before telling such things

And again not onely from biological point of view, but:

Write4U - 29 February 2012 04:05 PM

georgi,

Don’t worry about the details; it’s the fact that the equation exists that matters, not its particular form. It’s the Dirac equation — the two terms on the left are roughly the velocity of the electron and its inertia — coupled to electromagnetism and gravity, the two terms on the right.
If you believe in an immaterial soul that interacts with our bodies, you need to believe that this equation is not right, even at everyday energies. There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn’t exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren’t any soul at all, and then what’s the point?)

From wiki,

In physics, more specifically relativistic quantum mechanics, the Dirac equation is a wave equation, formulated by British physicist Paul Dirac in 1928. It provided a description of elementary spin-½ particles, such as electrons, consistent with both the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity, and was the first theory fully to account for relativity in the context of quantum mechanics

Thus in order to fit the concept of an “immaterial soul” into physics, you need to alter not only the “Dirac equation”, but also “quantum mechanics and “special relativity”? IOW do away with modern physics in order to “believe” in an immaterial soul. I am not opposed to the concept of “metaphysics”, but only if it fits with what we do know.
Therefore the argument for a metaphysical immaterial soul has not been made and we return to “belief without evidence”.

Again wrong.No one cant able to say at the age of 3 how children born and the intercourse process.From where shanti learn how that process happen in detail and convince kedarnath?She convince him in by saying which are not reveal to any one except lugdi her self known.

I knew, I had heard it on the tv when I was young and I was shoked, thats why I remember it. However you will now say: “she didnt have tv then” - yeah its not about tv its about infrormation, you can get such information from 3184737653 places. But eaven thats not the point, because noone ever said that she did that, who said it was that man I guess http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d5AtvjHMmg And yousing such guy as proof is just silly. How old is he 40? He was bon 30 years after her case? Just not reliable.

No where it was told that kedarnath visited delhi 100 times for 4 years.This is just imagination.In no report it was told that she met him 3-4 times.Again that could sound clearly shows that it is your self imagination.(Logical thinking in your words).But to accept Need proofs.Not self imaginations.Do you have any concrete proofs that shanti met him before 3-4 times in the shop in front of her house.No where that proof is there in any report.Dont be over think.You cant prove it.I told its just a critics self imagination.He just think like you as things may not happen like this.But others also fallow that self imagination.But you cant proove that it was just imagination.
So the answer for this also proved wrong.

I gave you information, about him visiting the shop, you are just ignoring it, because it blows apart your idea of the world. Open your mind and think man, think.

Did you get my question?
4.How she narrated number of incidents connected with her life?How she know what type of dresses lugdi wear?

Who siad that, the report doesn’t?! I know that you have white shirt, you have jeans, you have t-shirts. I know what every girl in bulgaria wears: blue/black jeans, white/black sneakers, dress. It is normal to know that, does not proof anything. If one wants to find evidance he can find it in every word, she might guessed just one word, but the family who want their children to be reborn and alive will find it as ultimate truth, then with the years it will be exaggerated, till the point where some strange man use it as “biggest proof ever”

.Why the little girl shanti burust into tears?Did a small girl at her age know that much emotional feelings?

What is my question and what you answered?I asked you shanti’s emotional reaction on meeting her previous relatives at her little age.
Again no answer for this question.

Kids are able to feel empathy just as any adult, eaven much more empathy then an adult. When I was little boy I could of cry for a friend who is sick, or for someone in a movie, or for the poor kids in africa. But now I’m not such easy to be moved by such events, you know why? In puberty the testosterone plays role in making the child adult. Having much Testosterone will make you less able to fell empathy [if you dont know what empathy is- read about it, because I think you dont uderstand what it means].
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/02/10/too-much-testosterone-lowers-empathy/23372.html

Dont see a reason to answer?Afride before truth?You need not to make me feel better.I know how kids behave at the age of four years.Shanti was completely different at her child age also.Not like other two more kids in her home.

Because I answered it before: SHE WAS TAKEN To A PSYCHOLOGIST, AND IT WAS PROOVEN THAT SHE HAS THE EGO OF A CHILD. [AGAIN READ ABOUT THE EGO, ‘CAUSE IT SEEMS YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THAT IS]

So it is proven that your answers are wrong not any of my question weak.

NO, IT SEEMS NOT :d READ FRIEND, READ AND LEARN : ]

According to k s rawat report at the age of 6 shanti even gave a detailed account of her death following child birth.They consulted their family physician,who was amazed how a little girl narrated so many details of complecated surgical procedures.how she narrate?btw no report told she met or see kedarnath before at delhi.it is critics negative propagandä.

I gave you information, about him visiting the shop, you are just ignoring it, because it blows apart your idea of the world. Open your mind and think man, think.

The information which u get came from imagination of critics.They used might sound.see nahata comments in 1936.he was not sure about shanti saw him there.he told she might have seen him there.He is not the witness of that.He is just guessing that it could happen like this.So guessing was not true.I am stable.My mind wont blow.Note this is not the only one rebirth story.There are many more legitimate rebirth stories which equal or more evidential than this to support my view.But this rebirth case also one of the best case.Critics imaginary views makes confusion in you.

Prakash - 04 March 2012 10:33 AM

According to k s rawat report at the age of 6 shanti even gave a detailed account of her death following child birth.They consulted their family physician,who was amazed how a little girl narrated so many details of complecated surgical procedures.how she narrate?btw no report told she met or see kedarnath before at delhi.it is critics negative propagandä.

hahaha then why she said that she doesnt know how she died to the cousin? He said that under oath and actually was a believer in the case ;] You see thats why I use the report, you better use it too. There are a lot of people who abuse such cases to sell their books and to make money from people who believe.

How much do we hear and learn from other family members and their conversations during our earliest years? Memories which may come back at a later date and appear as spontaneous recollections of dead uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc.
I remember my dead uncle going to a specific delicatessen store all his life. I never met the man. Later as a teen I did also frequent this deli because my uncle had loved the food there. Am I a reincarnation of my dead uncle?
I also remember clearly my long dead great great grandfather being a fisherman standing on the bow of his fishing boat, looking out at the horizon. I even wrote a story about that. Am I a reincarnation of my great great grandfather? Of course not. I picked up these memories from conversations by my familiy, though I don’t remember these specific conversations, just the content and the names and visuals associated with them.

Dear friend georgie
All your statements are self imaginary,contradictary and wrong.presently I am with my students exams preparation.I will give the correct statements of shanti soon.Be patient.Seems you are greatly effected by the bulgarian article and split brain experiments.I will explain once I got free time after exams.

Prakash - 04 March 2012 09:19 PM

Dear friend georgie
All your statements are self imaginary,contradictary and wrong.presently I am with my students exams preparation.I will give the correct statements of shanti soon.Be patient.Seems you are greatly effected by the bulgarian article and split brain phenominon.I will explain once I got free time after exams.

hahahah :D Man you should go see a doctor, you might have delusional disorder. Rejecting every statmant, that pople here have, no metter how hard it is supported with evidances is not a helthy behaviour, I’ serious. Like rejecting Dirac equation… rejecting the report and using words from people 30 years after the case, rejecting neuroscience…. I’ve never met such a person before
Unless you start using you brian, I dont see a reason to argue with you, because you dont listen. This has nothing to do with some articals in bulgarian, because you quoted it in english 36173216 times, and split brain is not phenomenon its a condition and there is nothing unexplained with it. And the difference between you and the other users here is that you don’t use sources. I’ve used source for every argument I had.
You have to show me first: that dirac equation is wrong
Second: You have to read a lot about the brain and have to understand it, then we can speak
Third: you have to use the official report of the investigators, not words by some 50 years old man, who wasnt even born when this case was happening
Forth: You have to apply critical thinking on the case, and to find it’s storngest points, that cannot be logicaly explained
Fifth: You have be able to face the possibility that all you though about the world is big fat lie, and that you are just a inteligent monkey [just like every human]

I myself have no problem with the idea of having soul, but it is just rejected by science, and every day there are more evidance that there is no such thing. If it is impossible from scientific point of view - then there is a logical explanation, thats why I use what you call “imagenary” facts, but when I use them- I aplly evidance that is suporting the possibility
There is nothing wrong with my statmants, in fact they are unbeatable [unless you are smarter than Paul Dirac, but I find it hard to believe].

georgi - 05 March 2012 08:00 AM

hahahah :D Man you should go see a doctor, you might have delusional disorder.

hahaha, you two should get a room. 

Edit to add smiley (since culturally, this might be a confusing statement.)

Dear georgei
It is absolutely wrong to say that kedarnath visited a sweet shop in front of shanti devi’s house.No report said this.There were three reports in early stages.Gandhi appointed committee report, nahata report and Dr.Indra sen report.I studied stevenson books and rawat and many others who studied this case and interviewed shanti and her relitives.No where it was stated.stevenson mention all negative comments of critics also.You wrote nahata told it.You have to show the proof where nahata told it in his report.You failed to show it.It clearly shows he never said it.But after 60-70 years critics without study the case rise their imaginary views that kedarnath could visit a sweet shop infront of her house?These critics even did nt born at that time.How these know it?So you have no proof to prove it except critics imaginary views.And its just the pure imagination of critics to make their point valid.They failed to show proof just like you in any report of early stages.Shanti is not a tricky or clever girl.If shanti saw kedarnath before then she would definitely tell that she already met him in delhi.She never told it any where.That clearly shows she never met kedarnath before.And she refuse to eat chicken when her parents serve her to it.(proof:I have lived before book Page no:11)She wants to eat satvik food.How she get that trait to forbid flesh?Definitely her before birth traits.Because she was a brahmin woman in her previous birth.Truth never dies even how much you want to suppress it also.

  And yes nahata a rationalist and staunch disbeliever published report in the form of a small booklet that in his brief report he told “Whatever material that has come before us, does not warrant us to conclude that Shanti Devi has ‘former life recollections”.But Dr. Indra Sen (1938), an eminent philosopher, soon wrote a complete article in response to this book. In this, he wrote, “It is strange to note that on such small material thus gathered he has confidently written the report and drawn the conclusion and published them in the form of a book.” Dr. Indra Sen had also made a close study of the case. He took Shanti Devi to Mathura and Brindaban and “tested her memories on new points.”  without knowing to media.So there is no group of people that time.Even then shanti convince him.In April 1939 he secured the cooperation of a hypnotist and, “attempted to get her recollection of her former life in a hypnotic state.” Dr. Sen wrote, “I am confident that Shanti has certain memories which are not of ‘here and now’.”So he was confident that she has certain memories which are not here and now.That clearly shows she had taken rebirth.And also nahata’s view is wrong with new points.And it was known that nahata did nt gathered information on reality grounds.Beause he did nt go though all these facts she told.He told what ever material that has come he does nt convince.That clearly shows he dont want to accept it even what ever information came which clearly show he dont want to accept the truth.And main draw back in his report was with very little information he collected and he draw that view which is not acceptable.

Dear georgi

Dirac originally thought his equation applied to every particle of mass m, and hence that all massive particles must have “spin 1/2”. This is indeed the case for the particles that were known in 1928, namely electrons, protons, and neutrons, but other kinds of particles (including photons) are known to have spins different from h-bar/2.
It’s not a complete description; that equation haven’t included the weak nuclear force or some other particles(Massless particles) and also less than zero mass particles(Comparatively) like Tachyons.
  Soul is an entity which has less than zero mass(comparatively).so the above dirac equation is not applied to soul the spiritual energy as he clearly stated that in the above equation.The physical laws can not applied to the spiritual entity soul.Because less than zero mass entity is not measure by physical laws.But it is there.Soul is meta physical.Its speed is faster than light when it is free of body.
Gravitation, friction, forces of Nature also cannot affect the incorporeal soul.

Dirac clearly mentioned that his equation only applied to the particles which has certain mass m,but soul is less than zero mass entity.So its not applied to the soul the spiritual entity.
when the mass of particle decreases then its speed increases square times.The mass of light particle photon is taken as zero as it is fastest in the physical world.We know that light travels at a speed of 3 lakh kms per second.Because it is massless or zero mass particle(All most zero).But souls can move faster than light thats why comparatives it has taken as less than zero mass.Tachyons are the particles which can move faster than light.So they are called comparatives less mass than light particles.As light particles taken as zero mass particles so tachyons are comparatively taken as less than zero mass particles as they move faster than light.Because to increase speed mass should be decrease.As photons mass is taken as zero comparatively tachyons mass is taken as less than zero.For which dirac equation is not applicable.

Before you say any thing first check the limitations of that equation.
It was clearly mentioned in the limitations of that equation.

“Fighting on the internet is like the special olympics, even if you win, you’re still retarded” once a guy told me that joke, and I thought it was sooo bad to be said, but I finaly met someone who prooves it… and now I find it funny too ... :D

Dear Georgi

By what you published here it was clearly known that the sweetmeat shop was not in front of shanti devi’s house.No where it was stated that the sweetmeat shop was in front of shanti’s house.It was your addition to this story.Come from early comments.First one was from nahata in the year 1936.
See what he told.Nahata had been told choubay some times went to sweetmeats shop in delhi,perhaps yes because he was fond of sweets,(never told it was in front of shanti’s house)and shanti as a child might have seen him there.But see he never told that sweetmeats shop was in front of her house.And that might sound clearly shows that nahata had no clue about meeting him there.He was just guessing that she might have seen him in sweet shop.Later critics got this point and added that sweet meats shop was near shanti’s house.But they deliberately missed that nahata was guessing and that guessing was not an evidence.And also they(critics) added that sweetmeat shop was within yards of shanti’s house which nahata never told.These critics guessing of early stages makes confusion about truth in later stages as time passes.Clear evidence of his guessing is he used might sound for that.So the others who read his comments in later stages told she already saw him there.But truth is otherwise.

And yes stevenson wrote that kedarnath often traveled to delhi to buy cloth for his shop.And he told that while in Delhi he used to frequent a favorite sweetmeat shop which was located within a few yards only of Shanti Devi’s home.And yes he also mentioned that shanti saw him oneday while she was passing her way home from school.But is these comments reliable?definetely not.why because he started investigation in 1961.And these things happen in 1930’s.So he is not the witness of shanti saw kedarnath oneday while she was passing her way home from school.He compile all negative and positive comments of the case.These may be the comments of some critic which he compile later.Those days in 1936 some critics are there like nahata.Any of them may told that who read nahata’s imaginary comments.And stevenson wrote that in his book.But please note he is not the witness of that.If shanti saw kedarnath any where she would definetely tell that she already saw him before.She did not mention it any where.So all the negative comments of critics comes to an end and all negative comments proved wrong and imaginary

good work by georgi

its easy to debunk in a minute 100 billion lived in earth from human race evoluted out of chimpances . no one who have recarniated memories had memories out of borders of countries or atleast states most of them in nearby towns villages same religion , no one has proved recarniation out of borders , religion , language no indian could be a parsian in previous life or remembering parsian language. everything out of cryptomenesia.

hi georgi good work
  we can debunk this case instarting itself there is no recorded or documented dialogues between cousin and shanti , u have posted one conversation whats the source for that im eager to know that thank u

Hey Georgie, I came across your arguments against the case and they interested me a lot. I don’t know if your still active on this thread, however if you
are then i’m very interested in debating this with you.

I don’t think ‘Prakash’ gave a very reasonable argument against your claims at all. Just stating ‘Where’s your proof?’ one claims from both sides are on the basis of anecdotes and not on a scientific basis. In other words he was being slightly immature.

I have to give you appraisal for doing thorough research on the story, although I do have a few counterpoints to your contradictory claims - In my case arguing that reincarnation is certainly a genuine possibility in this case.

First of all you started off with holding great significance upon the extremely incidental fact that Lugdi Devi’s (Who the girl claimed to be in her supposed previous life) husband used to visit a sweet shop only a few yards away from the girls house. You picked at the fact that the girl never mentioned any names until she happened to see ‘Kedarnath’ whilst he was at this sweet shop one day and overheard vital information about his life making Shanti somehow concoct a false story in her sub-conscious mind along with Cryptomnesia making her identify with a woman who deceased one year prior to her birth.

You argued that when Shanti was a young girl she must have seen Kedarnath ‘more than once’ and slowly over time picked up remnants of information up about him.

My Counter Argument:

Shanti Devi began making statements of a supposed ‘Previous Life’ at the age of four her first statements were how she had a ‘Son & Husband which she longed to see’. She also at four years of age called herself ‘Chauban’ (Kedarnath’s full name was Kedarnath Chaubhe) -

You argued that she ‘Only stated the name of Kedarnath after a particular day of seeing him on the way back from school’ - When clearly a few years before she mentioned at the age of 4 she was a ‘Chauban’ as in member of the Chaubhe family’ - Among all the surnames in Northern India ‘Chaubhe’ is certainly not anywhere near
the most commonly used in the latter such as the all too familiar with anyone from an Indian background or someone who knows many from Indian backgrounds such as ‘Sharma’ or ‘Shah’ or ‘Gupta’ you get the picture. It’s not a common name in the sense that it’s unusual and not a name one could generally guess.

Which in retrospect undermines your perspective on ‘She began stating the name of Kedarnath only after seeing him outside the sweet shop one day and perhaps most likely overhearing him relating some things about his life to a shopkeeper or maybe someone else’ as she clearly had mentioned Kedarnath’s Surname some years before this incident, only not his first name. Taken into account that although unfamiliar to the West it was customary for women in the North of India to never mentioned the name of their husband as it was considered disrespectful.

These days all Indian Women in the northern regions from the ages of 55 or older never say their husband’s name. It’s mostly often ‘Jiju’ which a direct English translation would mean ‘Master’.

Now to my next point a printed ‘critical analysis’  you gave of the Shanti Devi Case:

The Skeptical Analysis of the case here seems to be flawed in various parts in my opinion. For example it states at one point in the article or book: ‘It is also difficult to ascertain just what information could have been picked up from Kedarnath’s Cousin, Sri Lal, during his first visit to her home - Lal’s visit was not an accident. Shanti’s Grand Uncle had written to Mathura to see if he could locate someone there matching Lugdi’s Description’.

It is evident to me that the writer has told a ‘little lie’ here. But that’s the problem with even the smallest of lies in a case where everything is on the basis of anecdotes and verification from 3rd parties. Everything said has to be in line with the original version of events otherwise someone distorting the nature of the events can make it turn into a whole new direction just over a slight apprehension or refusal to put down certain claims which they deem unnecessary.

The writer says that Shanti’s Grand Uncle (His name was Bishan Chand) had written to Mathura to try and locate someone fitting Lugdi’s description. This statement is a problem in itself. How could Bishan Chand have written to Mathura? - I could only presume the writer meant Bishan wrote to someone in Mathura to follow up claims. The writer then goes on to say that Kedarnath Chaube had heard about these inquiries and had deliberately sent ‘Sri Lal’ (Who I initially presumed is meant to be Lala Kishan Chand) who also lived in Delhi, to visit Shanti and ask her about the claims regarding her supposed previous life.

The writer further goes on to claim that ‘There is reason to suspect that he fed all sorts of information to the girl about his cousin and deceased wife. They spoke after all, at some length.’

Now one after reading this may think the case is solved and there is no question about the reality regarding it. However is the writer with their vague description of the events wholly telling the full version of the said events? Judging by the looks of it and other versions of the events from more reliable and detailed resources, it seems quite the contrary. Here I can outline the flaws of the writer’s discrepancies. 

According to this article from 1937 which gives a detailed description of the events it mentions more, a whole lot more:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19371212&id=CG9IAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7100,2534256

This is what the article states ‘One Day about half a year ago, Mr Bishan Chand, A Teacher of Ramjas School No.1 Darya Ganj, Delhi who is a Grand Uncle of the girl, called on her, and wanted her to tell him of the name of her husband from a previous life assuring that if she did he would take her to Mathura. She then whispered the name of ‘PT Kedarnath Chaubey’ (Note this was the first person she told her supposed previous life husband’s full name to already mentioning his surname a few years earlier).

It then goes on to say that she often asked about his inquiries but ‘He along with the parents put off the matter, as they did not intend to trace the whereabouts in her previous life’  this excerpt here shows that Kedarnath didn’t ever send out inquiries, despite his initial interest. And how on the yearly ‘Dushera Festival’ the girls Grand Uncle related the bizarre incident to a retired school Principal whose named was ‘Lala Kishan Chand’ who immediately took interest and expressed a desire to meet Shanti Devi.

The meeting was eventually arranged between Lala Kishan Chand and Shanti Devi. Now this is where the news article get’s very interesting. Shanti Devi actually as it is said in the article gave the address and description of the house to Lala Kishan Chand. How could one merely ‘guess’ the specific address of a house in a city with a big sized population which is around four hours by journey? An actual House Address especially in a country with such a high population like India how could one by any means randomly state the specifics of the location?  She also mentioned that the house was near ‘Dwarkadhish Temple’ which is a well known temple in Mathura but not in the rest of North India generally so to speak, as said before Mathura is around 4 hours away by journey from Delhi.

It seems more probable that it is something much more beyond imagination. Article Excerpt:

‘The meeting was arranged, and she gave out the address of ‘‘Kedar Nath’‘, and the description of his house. Lala Kishan Chand took down the address, and dropped a letter to Pt. Kedar Nath.

To the surprise of Lala Kishan Chand and others, the letter fetched a reply from Chaubey Kedar Nath who wrote back that the facts were substantially correct.’  It then goes on to say this ‘Pt. Kedar Nath further suggested in the course of his letter that a relation of his, named Pt. Kanji Mal, who was working on the firm of Messrs Bhana Mal Gulzari of Delhi, may be allowed to have an interview with the girl’.

Write so to give a reiteration of the 1937 Milwaukee News Article’s Versions of the event in comparison to the argument the skeptic writer had wrote,

The writer had said that the girl’s Grand Uncle ‘Bishan Chand’ had written to Mathura to see if he could locate someone matching Lugdi’s Description:

This is an untrue statement. According to the 1937 Newspaper despite his initial interest he never followed up on the actual claims, and had never written to Mathura - It was either something he was procrastinating or something he felt there was no truth in so he felt there was no need to encourage it. This also totally undermines the whole ‘Kedarnath’ heard about the case through the inquiries as there were no initial inquiries from Bishan Chand, Shanti Devi’s Grand Uncle.

The writer claimed that Kedarnath Chaubey upon hearing about the inquiries deliberately sent someone called ‘Sri Lal’ who was his cousin to obtain information from the girl:

This has already been alluded to being untrue in regards to the previous mention that ‘Bishan Chand’ had never actually inquired anything to Mathura. He related the situation to a friend of his called ‘Lala Kishan Chand’ (The retired principle who the skeptical writer absolutely failed to mention in the article or book provided of theirs). Eventually from Shanti he got the address of Kedarnath’s House and wrote and got a reply.

The cousin, unlike how the article tries to fit it all together to easily come up with a rational explanation of the events comes in the picture after. Kedarnath in his reply states that he has a cousin who lives in Delhi named Pt. Kanji Mal, an interview thereafter was held with Kanji Mal the cousin of Kedarnath & Shanti Devi.

So overall this goes to show this obscure article is heavily unreliable based on the conclusion that the writer had not told the truth. Whether intentionally or unintentionally we can never know nonetheless, despite having a seemingly compelling argument initially they have been hoisted by their own petard. Just as they wrote ‘It falls apart when critically examined’ - It actually on the contrary seems to be the other way round.

Now someone may say ‘Because we are looking at anecdotes and writings as evidence who’s to say which source is more reliable’?  Well let’s look into the facts here. What would be a more reliable source of information describing terms of events. A thoroughly written newspaper article which gives the version of events, names, occurrences in a good amount of detail and clearly well thought out and careful.

Or a poorly written - (Various spelling mistakes one example is when ‘accident’ is spelled with three C’s instead of two ie: ‘Acccident’ - Where the writer has failed to mention the terms of events properly, has either deliberately lied or hasn’t looked into the facts well enough, and even confusing names (The mentioned cousin who they called ‘Sri Lal’ isn’t mentioned at all in any of the other accounts of the claims, the cousin of Kedarnath who went to see Shanti Devi was PT. Kanji Mal or Pandit Kanji Mal there was no connection to the name ‘Lal’ the only person out of the initial men who contacted her who that sounds similar to is the first name of ‘Lala Kishan Chand’ the man who ironically the writer had decided not to mention or had supposedly forgotten to mention, incredulously so to speak. There is a lot more to be continued on this matter from my side regardless of a reply if someone is convinced by the

(Continued) skeptical arguments.

Now to my next point. I have showed that the skeptical report here:

has clearly had falsified information in regards to the events with comparison to more reliable resources such as the Milwaukee Newspaper Article or Dr KS Rawat who had actually met Shanti Devi in the Mid 80’s (She was an old Woman by then although still had a clear memory of the events), and therefore can be disregarded in ‘dissecting’ the case into a more easily rational explanation.

So now in regards to Kedernath visiting Delhi on occasion sometimes near Shanti’s home (He wouldn’t have visited extremely often it would have been perhaps once a month considering the distance between Mathura and Delhi is around 4 to 5 hours - He was a cloth merchant and used to buy stock in Delhi and also used to visit this Sweet Shop) you argued that Shanti may have possibly overheard the following statements from neighbors regarding the Kedarnath’s Story and i’ll address these separately,

‘Wow that woman passed away one year before Shanti was born, she might be a reincarnation of her’:

This statement is very far fetched. Why would someone randomly state that this little girl who has no connection as far as yet to the man in question to be an incarnation of a woman she hasn’t yet made statements about? There are hundreds of little girls and this man lived four hours away and was certainly not well known to the neighborhood if this was the case others around the vicinity would have later mentioned this, which they never did.

‘This Little Girl claims she is a grown woman and remembers her past life, what if she is the woman from the story?’ and ‘She may have heard the story of the stranger who buys sweets for his children and has no mother’:

Again you have failed to take into account that Shanti Devi as reported began making statements as soon as she could speak at the age of four. She mentioned specific details regarding Lugdi Devi’s Life such as stating she was a ‘Chauban’ (The surname of Kadernath) and stated her husband was a cloth merchant (Kadernath’s Profession was as a Cloth Merchant). She had already mentioned the physical appearance of her husband (Fair Skinned, Had a big wart and had worn reading glasses) - She also mentioned that her husband’s shop was located near ‘Dwarkadhish temple’ - Dwarkadhish temple is indeed a temple well known among the residents of Mathura although not all over the North of India (As I have mentioned Delhi & Mathura are not very close to each other at all).

Going on further here you then argue about her age ‘If she started school at the age of six, she must have seen him between the ages of six and nine - Which means there was a period of two or three years where she could have seen him and then related the incident to the teacher’. But then how could Shanti have mentioned Lugdi’s Surname (Chaube)? How could she have specifically made reference to his physical appearance? How could she have known that Kedarnath had a clothes shop and that was his business? How did she know that they had a young son? Or knowing that her previous home’s vicinity and her husband’s shop was located near Dwarkadish temple? 

One of a severely skeptical nature may dismiss all these as being mere ‘coincidences’ - As is stated on the more reliable resources she made these statements at the age of four. Now is such a coincidence possible where a girl could merely imagine or guess names, locations, professions among other personal details only for it to actually fit with the story of a man who also supposedly coincidentally happens to fit all the details from where he lives, his offspring, his profession, his surname? I think not - Children’s imaginations may be colorful and perhaps one vague description wouldn’t pass off as a feasible argument such as the mention of the ‘Yellow House’ but delving into statements which are far more accurate than a vague description like specific buildings located near the vicinity in question (In this case Dwarkadish Temple in Mathura where Shanti Devi had never visited and the surname of her supposed previous life ‘Chaube’) - It is an unreasonable argument to state that an imagination could go to the extent of being validated as factually correct, only still to be considered a coincidence and a story concocted in the girl’s mind.

Furthermore there are other significant flaws in your analysis of the case. Here in regards to your claim about Shanti Devi’s statements regarding what was in her ‘Mathura house when she was supposedly Lugdi Devi’ - Where she mentioned there was a well in her house. You argued that ‘All houses in India had wells back then’ when in reality this couldn’t be further from the truth. India is a country you most likely aren’t familiar with at all. You aren’t familiar at all with the various cultural customs, attire, housing within the nation. In this statement you have just made your own assumption that ‘Most Indian houses had wells back then’ without looking into the details regarding the subject.

Coming from an ‘Indian’ background myself from abroad and having lived in India for a year and having traveled the North of India extensively in the past from Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and having questioned those who grew up in houses built in that era or in neighborhoods of houses built from before the 1940’s I can assure you that hand drawn wells were most certainly never common in the households of India. Especially in towns or cities.

If they were ever used it was mostly only in villages around the country and even then not every house necessarily had one. You also used Wikipedia as a resource which is perhaps one of the most unreliable and unsophisticated ‘source of information’ out there. And even with the Wikipedia article in regards to wells it states this:

‘The life-style in villages takes advantage of the warm weather. Families bathe outdoors in rivers and ponds. Most of the day is spent outdoors around or near the house. Cooking is conducted outdoors in earthen stoves powered by organic fuels or in modern kerosene stoves. Water is obtained from hand-drawn wells.’ - Which just states the same as I had said initially, wells were and still are only generally so to speak used in the villages of India and more specifically hand drawn wells such as this one:

which were used for the whole village not the individual house holder.

What were more common however were ‘Hand Pump Wells’ which are still often seen in India today:

Although people in India never referred to these as ‘Wells’ but as just ‘hand pumps’ as the actual water well underneath was not visible, the hand pump is placed over the well extracting water from beneath in these type of ‘Deep Well Hand Pumps’:

Hand Pump Wells are used for drinking water and cleans pots & pans as well.

 

No one in this case lived or came from a village. Shanti Devi was from ‘Chirawala Mohulla’ which was a small locality in Delhi, one of the many neighborhoods in one of the largest cities in the world. Kedarnath’s House (Which Shanti Devi claimed was her house from a previous incarnation as Lugdi Devi) was located in Mathura. Mathura is certainly not a ‘village’ either it isn’t even considered a town but a certified city with a decent sized population:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369320/Mathura

Now to go on further and that I have explained how having a well in one’s house in early 1900’s India was only often seen in villages and not towns or cities - Both Kedarnath & Shanti Devi came from a city, as I said before. Although it was not at all common and most houses didn’t have wells in the cities or towns of India this didn’t mean that some houses were prone to exception. Lugdi Devi & Kedernath Chaube’s house was one of these exceptions. And the fact that Shanti Devi mentioned the well and even the location of it, verifies this as a factual statement made by her. Here is the version of events as stated by Dr Ks Rawat:

‘One of the committee members, Pandit Neki Rama Sharma, asked her about the well of which she had talked in Delhi. She ran in one direction; but, not finding a well there, she was confused. Even then she said with some conviction that there was a well there. Kedarnath removed a stone at that spot and, Sure enough, They found a well.’

So taking into account how unlike in your presumption wells were certainly not common in India - Only often seen in villages and not in a city like Mathura. And how she went to the specific location within the house of Kedarnath and stated that the well was there, and for Kedarnath to have removed a stone for a well to be in that spot is clearly nothing short of amazing. It is very unlikely for her to have guessed only for it turn out into another factual statement or a coincidence it’s clearly very suggestive that it’s going into something more profound.

The rest of this counter argument is going to be continued.