Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.io.com!news.io.com!not-for-mail From: "Robert Theron Brockman II" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 03:50:13 -0600 Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-01-002.houston.io.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 I've heard much talk about people having OOBEs, but little about ways to isolate and scientifically study the phenomenon. I propose the following simple experiment to decisively demonstrate the existence and potential of OOBEs. If successful and repeatable, this experiment would allow the phenomenon to break into the scientific mainstream, where Really Hard Core Scientists can apply High Tech Expensive Gadgets to the study of OOBEs. Here it is: I will write down a five digit number, randomly determined, on a big piece of posterboard in my house. Someone with experience in OOBEs should try to reach my house in the OOBE state, read the number, and e-mail it to me. Its that simple. Ok, the universe is a big place, so naturally I would provide physical coordinates and directions to guide any participants in this experiment. Given the complex and interesting accounts describing vivid OOBE experiences I've read, reading the number and remembering it when one returns to the physical should be no problem; guiding the second body to the house with the posterboard could be trickier. People should try this experiment at shorter ranges first, i.e., reading a number written by a friend on a piece of paper in the next room. Successful completion and repetition of this experiment should convince even James Randi (who is offering a 1.2M$ prize for demonstrating paranormal phenomenon) that OOBEs are real. I await your response. ###### From: msieweke@nospam.ix.netcom.com (Mike Sieweke) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:56:55 -0500 Organization: Netcom Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: atl-ga12-16.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Mar 16 8:57:41 AM CST 1998 X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.3.5 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news.vt.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!newsrelay.netins.net!nntp.kreonet.re.kr!news-stock.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!msieweke "Robert Theron Brockman II" wrote: > I will write down a five digit number, randomly determined, on a big piece > of posterboard in my house. Someone with experience in OOBEs should try to > reach my house in the OOBE state, read the number, and e-mail it to me. It has been done. The "scientific" community's response was that it was not statistically significant. In the case of your test, the response will be that it was not adequately controlled. Because it's not. This test may "prove" the fact of OBEs to you, but it will not prove it to anyone else. It certainly won't prove it to James Randi. Randi's response would be (as it has been in the past) "Since the test could have been compromised, therefore it _must_have_ been compromised." Those of us already having OBEs are having too much fun to waste precious OB time on experiments that have no chance of proving anything to anyone. -- Mike Sieweke - msieweke@ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~msieweke ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!209.89.75.15!News.Toronto.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!news.on.rogers.wave.ca!not-for-mail From: "Anthony Marotta" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:18:10 -0500 Organization: Rogers WAVE Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc-8651.on.rogers.wave.ca X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 I agree that proving the existence of OBE's to people wanting proof, is probably not as important to most of us as experiencing and exploring them is. Proving them is not the issue though. We already know they exist. The real issue is getting others involved. It puzzles me why there isn't more widespread study of this topic and related topics in the scientific community. Or maybe there is and I just don't know about it. It might be a good idea to try different things such as this, even though it's not new, in the hopes of getting others involved in this topic. I don't think we should be shutting out ideas such as this, because we're too busy exploring and having fun on our own. It should not be some kind of closed environment or exclusive club. The more people involved the better. Greater awarness will create a greater understanding. The outcome of these experiments are not as important as the intent given and awarness created by performing them. (did that make any sense? oh well) Anyway, regardless of what the response is, I would be interested in helping out in anyway I can. ###### From: rick Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:12:42 -0500 Organization: college sabbatical Lines: 42 Message-ID: <350E0649.A55@st321.ac.edu> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> Reply-To: rick@st321.ac.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: ags-5200-1-p25.groupz.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!208.138.66.3!news.groupz.net!news Robert Theron Brockman II wrote: > > I've heard much talk about people having OOBEs, but little about ways to > isolate and scientifically study the phenomenon. I propose the following > simple experiment to decisively demonstrate the existence and potential of > OOBEs. If successful and repeatable, this experiment would allow the > phenomenon to break into the scientific mainstream, where Really Hard Core > Scientists can apply High Tech Expensive Gadgets to the study of OOBEs. > > Here it is: > > I will write down a five digit number, randomly determined, on a big piece > of posterboard in my house. Someone with experience in OOBEs should try to > reach my house in the OOBE state, read the number, and e-mail it to me. > > Its that simple. Ok, the universe is a big place, so naturally I would > provide physical coordinates and directions to guide any participants in > this experiment. Given the complex and interesting accounts describing > vivid OOBE experiences I've read, reading the number and remembering it when > one returns to the physical should be no problem; guiding the second body to > the house with the posterboard could be trickier. People should try this > experiment at shorter ranges first, i.e., reading a number written by a > friend on a piece of paper in the next room. > > Successful completion and repetition of this experiment should convince even > James Randi (who is offering a 1.2M$ prize for demonstrating paranormal > phenomenon) that OOBEs are real. > > I await your response. > i've read that David Lane has also proposed this experiment to "Eckankar" disciples and nothing has (to my knowledge) resulted from it but unproductive arguments. some people just live to argue about one thing or another, the word "polemic" comes to mind. maybe someone will actually participate in your experiment ?!? rick ... ###### From: "Robert Theron Brockman II" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 01:40:17 -0600 Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 70 Message-ID: <6em2jd$lr2$1@nntp-3.io.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.170.92.4 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!news.idt.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.io.com!news.io.com!not-for-mail Alexa James wrote in message <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com>... >It doesn't work that way. Perceptions in an OBE state aren't the same >as in a physical state. Reading numbers, etc. is almost impossible. .... >However, there have been lots of good tests done with more generally >circumstances, like describing the number of people in a room and >their relative positions. This sort of spatial perception works well >in an OBE state. Hmm. When describing the number of people in a and their relative positions, is it necessary for them to be actual people or just human-sized objects? Is there something special about humans/animals that makes them easier to detect in the OOBE state? >> >>Successful completion and repetition of this experiment should convince even >>James Randi (who is offering a 1.2M$ prize for demonstrating paranormal >>phenomenon) that OOBEs are real. >> >>I await your response. > >I hope this post was offered in a genuine spirit of exploration! It most certainly was. Certainly there should be many practical uses of OOBEs/remote viewing/etc. but just as in space exploration, the primary justification for visiting a strange new place is BECAUSE ITS THERE. This being said, the 1.2M$ bounty should help anyone who can demonstrate these abilities spend more time exploring them and less time working at any boring mundane job they may have. >Once you've experienced the OBE >sensation, finding proof for those who haven't doesn't seem quite as >important anymore! This is unfortunate. It is much more difficult to attempt an activity if one is not relatively certain the activity is real and works. If OOBEs are real, not attempting to demonstrate their reality to others does science and humanity a great disservice. Consider the fact that most reputable scientists consider these phenomenon to be utter bullshit. If they are wrong, SOMEONE SHOULD TELL THEM. Of course, the more hard-headed ones will be difficult to convince, but true scientists seek to understand the world as it really is, not as they wish it to be. Also note that every liar and charlatan makes uncovering any really interesting paranormal phenomenon that much more difficult. >What you're talking about in more like remote viewing, which was the >topic of the day last week! If you want more details, I can give you >a link on this. Hmm. Perhaps I am confused. Please correct the following definitions: OOBE: One's consiousness leaves one's physical body and travels about this universe, including possibly previously unperceived dimensions, observes/interacts with people and things at locations possibly far away from one's physical body, then returns to the physical body and is able to tell others of the experience. Remote viewing: The ability to "scan" a far-away location with one's mind and learn information not availible through the normal five senses and without using technology. ###### From: "Robert Theron Brockman II" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:01:59 -0600 Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 48 Message-ID: <6em2jt$lr2$2@nntp-3.io.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.170.92.4 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.io.com!news.io.com!not-for-mail Mike Sieweke wrote in message ... >"Robert Theron Brockman II" wrote: > >> I will write down a five digit number, randomly determined, on a big piece >> of posterboard in my house. Someone with experience in OOBEs should try to >> reach my house in the OOBE state, read the number, and e-mail it to me. > >It has been done. The "scientific" community's response was that it was >not statistically significant. In the case of your test, the response >will be that it was not adequately controlled. Because it's not. > Who has done it? I want to see the paper they published (or tried to). What can be done to improve the controls? Well, improving the security of the room with the number would would help. Having Randi think up the number and write in on a poster at JREF would be sufficiently controlled to net someone a cool 1.2M$ IF that someone could read the number on the first attempt. >This test may "prove" the fact of OBEs to you, but it will not prove it >to anyone else. It certainly won't prove it to James Randi. Randi's >response would be (as it has been in the past) "Since the test could >have been compromised, therefore it _must_have_ been compromised." > In most cases Randi has been able to detect HOW the test was compromised. My impression is that most of the people who apply for the prize haven't done a double-blind experiment on their own first. >Those of us already having OBEs are having too much fun to waste precious >OB time on experiments that have no chance of proving anything to anyone. Hey, I've stated the conditions necessary to prove the phenomenon to ME, and if anyone can read the number in my apartment without peeking in the window, I will be convinced. If anyone can read the number off the blackboard in Dr. Lorin L. Vant-Hull's office at the UH Physics department without picking the lock on the door, then Dr. Vant-Hull will be convinced. I know several physicists and a genetic engineer who would COME ALL OVER THEMSELVES if they could demonstrate experimentally that the experiences discussed on this newsgroup relate to physical reality and are not just wishful thinking; at the VERY LEAST someone should get a nobel prize over this sort of thing. If OBEs are real, the public should be informed. All we need is someone who can successfully perform the experiment I described or some variant of it. ###### From: "Robert Theron Brockman II" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:12:40 -0600 Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 30 Message-ID: <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.170.92.4 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.io.com!news.io.com!not-for-mail Anthony Marotta wrote in message <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on>... > >I don't think we should be shutting out ideas such as this, because we're >too busy exploring and having fun on our own. It should not be some kind of >closed environment or exclusive club. The more people involved the better. >Greater awarness will create a greater understanding. > >The outcome of these experiments are not as important as the intent given >and awarness created by performing them. (did that make any sense? oh well) > For sure. Having preconceived notions about the outcome of an experiment can distort the results. >Anyway, regardless of what the response is, I would be interested in helping >out in anyway I can. > Find someone who has a great deal of control over the OOBE state and is honest, sane, and stable. (If Monroe hadn't bought it, we'd go dredge him up) First, we would want to perform the simple number test I described, then we'd want to explore the limitations of this ability such as range, lighting conditions, size of the target object, ability to communicate with sentient observers at the remote location, etc. The trick is to find someone who is CAPABLE and WILLING to participate in CONTROLLED experiments. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!coop.net!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail From: Ken Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:18:18 -0700 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 16 Message-ID: <350E3FDA.62B9@soundsculpture.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp14.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) > I hope this post was offered in a genuine spirit of exploration! I've > done my best to explain why it wouldn't (and hasn't worked). I > understand wanting to prove OBEs, but you have to realize that for > most people on this NG, myself included, the experience itself proves > the phenomen to some extent. Once you've experienced the OBE > sensation, finding proof for those who haven't doesn't seem quite as > important anymore! > > Alexa > > Excellent post Alexa. Couldn't agree more. Ken ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!nntp.flash.net!excalibur.flash.net!not-for-mail From: "Evelyn" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: 17 Mar 1998 06:19:04 GMT Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Lines: 62 Message-ID: <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> NNTP-Posting-Host: lash15-177.flash.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Anthony Marotta wrote in article <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on>... > I agree that proving the existence of OBE's to people wanting proof, is > probably not as important to most of us as experiencing and exploring them > is. Proving them is not the issue though. We already know they exist. The > real issue is getting others involved. > > It puzzles me why there isn't more widespread study of this topic and > related topics in the scientific community. Or maybe there is and I just > don't know about it. It might be a good idea to try different things such > as this, even though it's not new, in the hopes of getting others involved > in this topic. > Many great leaps of knowledge were laughed at in the beginning. Science prefers to work in small steps. Also, I imagine scientists are not motivated to study something that would prove a jillion (yes folks, that is my official count of how many) current theories invalid or compromised. Why is it that western medicine refuses to deal with acupuncture as a pain killer? I have difficulty grasping it!!! Here is something this is replicable at will every time. You don't need a bunch of chemicals (I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies love that!). Nobody goes under anethesia too far and dies. Nobody barfs after waking up as a side effect. Nobody has deadly allergic reactions. You're awake, so you can tell someone if it starts to hurt even a little (have you heard those cases of people not far enough under who felt the entire pain of the operation!). Is it because the doctors don't want to face the fact that they don't know something? Do the drug companies have that much power? You would think that they would be all over the thing, studying the pants off of it! But instead, you get a few little studies giving positive results and going mostly ignored. Answer this question and maybe you will have an idea of what it will take to get OBEs noticed. > I don't think we should be shutting out ideas such as this, because we're > too busy exploring and having fun on our own. It should not be some kind of > closed environment or exclusive club. The more people involved the better. > Greater awarness will create a greater understanding. > The outcome of these experiments are not as important as the intent given > and awarness created by performing them. (did that make any sense? oh well) > Despite my pessimism, I do agree. We should try at least. > Anyway, regardless of what the response is, I would be interested in helping > out in anyway I can. If I ever get some kind of piddly control over the trips, I will be happy to volunteer. But for now, I can't even figure out where I do go! -Evelyn ###### From: alexa.james@nashville.com (Alexa James) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:53:01 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 64 Message-ID: <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> Reply-To: alexa.james@nashville.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 24780@207.65.180.33 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail Hi Robert! >I've heard much talk about people having OOBEs, but little about ways to >isolate and scientifically study the phenomenon. I propose the following >simple experiment to decisively demonstrate the existence and potential of >OOBEs. If successful and repeatable, this experiment would allow the >phenomenon to break into the scientific mainstream, where Really Hard Core >Scientists can apply High Tech Expensive Gadgets to the study of OOBEs. > Good idea, but there are some problems... >Here it is: > >I will write down a five digit number, randomly determined, on a big piece >of posterboard in my house. Someone with experience in OOBEs should try to >reach my house in the OOBE state, read the number, and e-mail it to me. > It doesn't work that way. Perceptions in an OBE state aren't the same as in a physical state. Reading numbers, etc. is almost impossible. This doesn't mean OBEs aren't real, just that our abilities and perceptions during them aren't the same. Example: When we're underwater, sound carries differently and we hear things in a way we wouldn't normally. This doesn't mean being underwater isn't a real experience, just that the environment limits our sensory abilities. OBEs seem to be the same, which is why tests like yours fail. However, there have been lots of good tests done with more generally circumstances, like describing the number of people in a room and their relative positions. This sort of spatial perception works well in an OBE state. >Its that simple. Ok, the universe is a big place, so naturally I would >provide physical coordinates and directions to guide any participants in >this experiment. Given the complex and interesting accounts describing >vivid OOBE experiences I've read, reading the number and remembering it when >one returns to the physical should be no problem; guiding the second body to >the house with the posterboard could be trickier. People should try this >experiment at shorter ranges first, i.e., reading a number written by a >friend on a piece of paper in the next room. What you're talking about in more like remote viewing, which was the topic of the day last week! If you want more details, I can give you a link on this. > >Successful completion and repetition of this experiment should convince even >James Randi (who is offering a 1.2M$ prize for demonstrating paranormal >phenomenon) that OOBEs are real. > >I await your response. I hope this post was offered in a genuine spirit of exploration! I've done my best to explain why it wouldn't (and hasn't worked). I understand wanting to prove OBEs, but you have to realize that for most people on this NG, myself included, the experience itself proves the phenomen to some extent. Once you've experienced the OBE sensation, finding proof for those who haven't doesn't seem quite as important anymore! Alexa > > ###### From: Gail Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:06:47 -0800 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 24 Message-ID: <350F5667.94095C19@cidcorp.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> <350F8A70.4701@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 22112@206.42.106.175 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail Jeff and Evelyn: I totally agree with you. In the past 150 years (and undoubtedly more) big business, in one form or another, has taken over all health care. Money is the only criteria. If you jeopardize someone's profit, they'll just try to take you over, the way drug companies and the FDA are now doing with supplement and herbs. How in the world do we fight back? Gail. student@lib.siu.edu wrote: > > Evelyn wrote: > > > > Why is it that western medicine refuses to deal with acupuncture as a pain > > killer? Do the drug companies have that much power? > > Evelyn, I think you hit it right on the head! What is western medicine > really all about anyway? Drugs, surgery, genetic engineering. Since > the overhead for acupuncture is just the cost of the needles and office > space--How can you milk billions out of that?! Finding simple ways of > healing the body is bad for business. > > --Jeff ###### From: Gail Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:11:28 -0800 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: <350F5780.C54F5C20@cidcorp.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 22112@206.42.106.175 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail Robert, Anthony et al: This experiement is really worthwhile, although I think that even if we could prove it without a doubt, someone who's power and profit were threatened would find a way to discredit the experiment and the personal reputations of everyone involved. It does not serve the purpose of the powerful to acknowledge the power of the people. And who has the expertise along with the will to take the risk to participate in these experiements? Gail Robert Theron Brockman II wrote: > > Anthony Marotta wrote in message <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on>... > > > >I don't think we should be shutting out ideas such as this, because we're > >too busy exploring and having fun on our own. It should not be some kind > of > >closed environment or exclusive club. The more people involved the better. > >Greater awarness will create a greater understanding. > > > >The outcome of these experiments are not as important as the intent given > >and awarness created by performing them. (did that make any sense? oh > well) > > > For sure. Having preconceived notions about the outcome of an experiment > can distort the results. > >Anyway, regardless of what the response is, I would be interested in > helping > >out in anyway I can. > > > Find someone who has a great deal of control over the OOBE state and is > honest, sane, and stable. (If Monroe hadn't bought it, we'd go dredge him > up) First, we would want to perform the simple number test I described, > then we'd want to explore the limitations of this ability such as range, > lighting conditions, size of the target object, ability to communicate with > sentient observers at the remote location, etc. > The trick is to find someone who is CAPABLE and WILLING to participate in > CONTROLLED experiments. ###### From: "Robert Theron Brockman II" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:32:48 -0600 Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 30 Message-ID: <6enpsd$qld$1@nntp-3.io.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com> <6em2jd$lr2$1@nntp-3.io.com> <350fe837.24765627@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.170.92.4 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!xfer.kren.ne.kr!xfer.kren.nm.kr!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.texas.net!news.io.com!news.io.com!not-for-mail Alexa James wrote in message <350fe837.24765627@news.nashville.com>... >I would suggest perhaps a leap of faith? You obviously believe it's >possible or you wouldn't be reading this newsgroup. Why not give it a >try yourself and see what you think then? Maybe you could be your own >best subject! I will certainly make some attempts to achieve the OOBE state. My current skill in this area is zero. If everyone else who claims to have OOBE experiences is confused, hallucinating, or lying, my skill will probably remain at zero. It is very helpful to have lots of evidence that something works before trying it (not that this will stop me). An example of this is the use of the highly oxygenated liquid used for some deep-sea diving. Breathing a liquid is so unnatural that, from what I hear, divers are given a demonstration before their first use of the liquid in which a lab rat is "drowned" in the liquid. Apparently the rat usually thinks it really is drowning and stuggles and won't breathe the liquid until it actually passes out. Then it unconsciously starts breathing the oxygenated liquid, wakes up, and starts swimming around. This demonstration is apparently quite helpful psychologically to the divers when it comes time for them to use the liquid. It would help me a great deal in my personal experiences if I knew there was a high probability that I was not just wasting my time. Also, knowing who could perform simple experiments in OOBEs would help me differentiate the professionals from the charlatans, of whom I am sure there are many. ###### From: student@lib.siu.edu Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:48:48 -0800 Organization: Southern Illinois University Lines: 12 Message-ID: <350F8A70.4701@hotmail.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pub86.lib.siu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Win16; I) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!saluki-news.it.siu.edu!usenet Evelyn wrote: > > Why is it that western medicine refuses to deal with acupuncture as a pain > killer? Do the drug companies have that much power? Evelyn, I think you hit it right on the head! What is western medicine really all about anyway? Drugs, surgery, genetic engineering. Since the overhead for acupuncture is just the cost of the needles and office space--How can you milk billions out of that?! Finding simple ways of healing the body is bad for business. --Jeff ###### From: "Robert Theron Brockman II" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:07:14 -0600 Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 20 Message-ID: <6enrsv$qq0$1@nntp-3.io.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> <350F327E.794B@bmis.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.170.92.4 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.io.com!news.io.com!not-for-mail Keith, >OBEs, RV etc are not the province of the non scientist. You will find >personal experiences by scientists. I have attached a URL of a physicist >with a wealth of data. > >If you want an expert on Remote Viewing you may not be able to go past >Joe McMoneagle, contactable in Faber, Virginia. Joe is author of "Mind >Trek" & has a 50% success rate under controlled conditions. > Thanks for the reconnaisance data. I'll go check it out. >PS: Your definition of remote viewing needs to be expanded so that it >doesn't just mean current time & space. Ok, although controlling experiments across time as well as space is a bit trickier, though not impossible ###### From: "Robert Theron Brockman II" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:07:21 -0600 Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 35 Message-ID: <6eqptk$s2u$1@nntp-2.io.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> <350F5780.C54F5C20@cidcorp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-01-003.houston.io.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.231.236.10!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.io.com!news.io.com!not-for-mail Gail wrote in message <350F5780.C54F5C20@cidcorp.com>... >Robert, Anthony et al: > >This experiement is really worthwhile, although I think that even if we >could prove it without a doubt, someone who's power and profit were >threatened would find a way to discredit the experiment and the personal >reputations of everyone involved. > Truth about reality can be suppressed for a long time, but not forever. Attempts by the Catholic Church to shut Gailileo up worked during his lifetime, but the facts he discovered remained for the curious to find later. Coverups of isolated political incidents are hard enough to do, supression of a scientific discovery only works until an independent researcher finds the evidence again. Sooner or later, if OOBEs really do exist and people can gather enough evidence, the scientific community will accept the idea. Scientists in this century have demonstrated acceptance of sufficiently weird ideas (a expanding universe, time dilation, atomic energy, quantum mechanics, etc.) for me to make this statement. >It does not serve the purpose of the powerful to acknowledge the power >of the people. Are all powerful people purely self-serving and/or evil? Some are, but many are willing to accept the "double win," where they gain power as a result of, rather than at the expense of, the power of the masses. >And who has the expertise along with the will to take the risk to >participate in these experiements? That is the $1,200,000 question. ###### From: "Evelyn" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: 18 Mar 1998 04:30:17 GMT Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Lines: 77 Message-ID: <01bd5227$ae2b08e0$104f1ed1@logmein.flash.net> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6em2jt$lr2$2@nntp-3.io.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lash16-16.flash.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!nntp.flash.net!excalibur.flash.net!not-for-mail I think one of the big probs here is finding someone with enough control to get where they want to go when out of body. I don't think many here have that control. If you want to compare my out of body abilities to those of the physical body, I am at about the 6 month old baby stage. I can lift my head and make a few tiny crawling movements. I certainly cannot run down to the corner store and buy a diet coke! You may want to enquire over at the Monroe institute. Maybe if you can convince them that you have the connections and are genuinely interested, they would find it worthwhile to run some experiments with you. Of course, I have no idea what their policy is on these kinds of things. -Evelyn Robert Theron Brockman II wrote in article <6em2jt$lr2$2@nntp-3.io.com>... > > Mike Sieweke wrote in message ... > >"Robert Theron Brockman II" wrote: > > > >> I will write down a five digit number, randomly determined, on a big > piece > >> of posterboard in my house. Someone with experience in OOBEs should try > to > >> reach my house in the OOBE state, read the number, and e-mail it to me. > > > >It has been done. The "scientific" community's response was that it was > >not statistically significant. In the case of your test, the response > >will be that it was not adequately controlled. Because it's not. > > > Who has done it? I want to see the paper they published (or tried to). > What can be done to improve the controls? Well, improving the security of > the room with the number would would help. Having Randi think up the number > and write in on a poster at JREF would be sufficiently controlled to net > someone a cool 1.2M$ IF that someone could read the number on the first > attempt. > > >This test may "prove" the fact of OBEs to you, but it will not prove it > >to anyone else. It certainly won't prove it to James Randi. Randi's > >response would be (as it has been in the past) "Since the test could > >have been compromised, therefore it _must_have_ been compromised." > > > In most cases Randi has been able to detect HOW the test was compromised. > My impression is that most of the people who apply for the prize haven't > done a double-blind experiment on their own first. > > >Those of us already having OBEs are having too much fun to waste precious > >OB time on experiments that have no chance of proving anything to anyone. > > Hey, I've stated the conditions necessary to prove the phenomenon to ME, and > if anyone can read the number in my apartment without peeking in the window, > I will be convinced. If anyone can read the number off the blackboard in > Dr. Lorin L. Vant-Hull's office at the UH Physics department without picking > the lock on the door, then Dr. Vant-Hull will be convinced. I know several > physicists and a genetic engineer who would COME ALL OVER THEMSELVES if they > could demonstrate experimentally that the experiences discussed on this > newsgroup relate to physical reality and are not just wishful thinking; at > the VERY LEAST someone should get a nobel prize over this sort of thing. > > If OBEs are real, the public should be informed. All we need is someone who > can successfully perform the experiment I described or some variant of it. > > > > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!193.226.220.4!news.euroweb.hu!not-for-mail From: Lajos Kelemen Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:26:40 +0100 Organization: EuroWeb Hungary Lines: 18 Message-ID: <350F9350.D25FD7C0@intersoft.hu> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.226.198.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) > Anthony Marotta wrote in article > <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on>... > I agree that proving the existence of OBE's to people wanting proof, is > probably not as important to most of us as experiencing and exploring > them is. Proving them is not the issue though. We already know they exist. Hi ! Dreams and hallucinations _exist_ too but we don't say they are real word experiences. The proof of OBE is important if you want to be sure that OBE is not your mind's "movie" only. (If you feel something real it doesn't mean it's real.) So I would be very pleased if I could read many OBE experiences in this newsgroup which later proved to be true. Best regards L.K. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!193.226.220.4!news.euroweb.hu!not-for-mail From: Lajos Kelemen Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:29:03 +0100 Organization: EuroWeb Hungary Lines: 18 Message-ID: <350F93DF.E21B621F@intersoft.hu> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.226.198.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) > Anthony Marotta wrote in article > <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on>... > I agree that proving the existence of OBE's to people wanting proof, is > probably not as important to most of us as experiencing and exploring > them is. Proving them is not the issue though. We already know they exist. Hi ! Dreams and hallucinations _exist_ too but we don't say they are real word experiences. The proof of OBE is important if you want to be sure that OBE is not your mind's "movie" only. (If you feel something real it doesn't mean it's real.) So I would be very pleased if I could read many OBE experiences in this newsgroup which later proved to be true. Best regards L.K. ###### Message-ID: <350F327E.794B@bmis.com.au> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:33:34 +0800 From: Keith Alderslade Organization: Business Management Information Systems (BMIS) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; AIX 2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------15FB59E21CFB" NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.135.120.34 X-Trace: 18 Mar 1998 02:32:24 GMT, 202.135.120.34 Lines: 128 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: or otherwise violate the IBM.NET Terms of Service X-Notice: should be forwarded in their entirety to postmaster@ibm.net Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!202.135.120.34 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------15FB59E21CFB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert, There is no disrespect to you intended in this post. In fact thank you for wanting to get some scientific conclusions out to the world - but research under controlled conditions has been done many, many times, and certainly by renowned organisations. The results are there. A search on the WWW will find you stacks of research data. OBEs, RV etc are not the province of the non scientist. You will find personal experiences by scientists. I have attached a URL of a physicist with a wealth of data. If you want an expert on Remote Viewing you may not be able to go past Joe McMoneagle, contactable in Faber, Virginia. Joe is author of "Mind Trek" & has a 50% success rate under controlled conditions. I tell you though, your toughest task may be convincing your colleagues of OBE reality after you experience it yourself. An equally tough task will be making *scientific* sense of your experience. Keith PS: Your definition of remote viewing needs to be expanded so that it doesn't just mean current time & space. --------------15FB59E21CFB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="~sbonham" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="~sbonham" WELCOME! You are about to meet someone who enjoys to explore and [front-page figure] to learn. However, only if it's pleasurable. [Image] Hi! I am Sirley Marques-Bonham, a PhD physicist, who lives in Austin, Texas (USA). I also develop statistical modeling in neuroscience. Otherwise, I have been mainly a housewife and mother. My husband is Charles E. Bonham, and I have a daughter, Carolina. But this is not all of my family, which includes two dogs, two cats, and two hedgehogs. [Brazilian flag] If you wish, you may see this home-page in Portuguese. [Image] Make your choice: The person: * My happy picture (1986) * 11 years later! * My hobbies Exploring... * The physicist * The neuroscientist * The explorer of the Mind * The writer * The dreamer... [Image] Acknowledgements: * Many of the pictures from this site have been scanned by Joe Don, who kindly had the patience to receive me in my many visits for this specific purpose. [Image]Thank you J.D.! [Image]He runs a very interesting site, where he defends his Lakota origin: Wonded Knee and the Medals of (dis)Honor. * The above graphic drawing was done by Sirley Marques-Bonham (1975). However it would not have looked nice wasn't for help from Mike Krone. Mike is an excellent Graphic Artist from Austin (TX), and he can be reached at (512)-473-8531. * The paintings reproduction I use in my home-page came from IsabelDeco Gallery. * The painting in My Hobbies section is a work by Christopher John Bashford, a friend I met on PowWow. He lives in London, England. You can check some more of his nice water-colors in his home-page. * The icons I have obtained from various sites in the internet. Unhappily, I have lacked the presence of mind to take note of all of them. Therefore, I promise I will acknowledge those sites, as soon as I figure out "where" they are. Meanwhile, here is my * Thanks! * to all of them. [Image] This page is always under construction. [Image] Copyright © 1996 Sirley Marques-Bonham Last updated August 6th, 1997 For more information contact: sbonham@io.com --------------15FB59E21CFB-- ###### From: student@lib.siu.edu Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:46:45 -0800 Organization: Southern Illinois University Lines: 32 Message-ID: <351040C5.3BB0@lib.siu.edu> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> <350F8A70.4701@hotmail.com> <350F5667.94095C19@cidcorp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pub80.lib.siu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; I) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.webspan.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!128.174.5.49!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!saluki-news.it.siu.edu!usenet Gail wrote: > > Jeff and Evelyn: > > I totally agree with you. In the past 150 years (and undoubtedly more) > big business, in one form or another, has taken over all health care. > Money is the only criteria. If you jeopardize someone's profit, they'll > just try to take you over, the way drug companies and the FDA are now > doing with supplement and herbs. How in the world do we fight back? > > Gail. > Gail, Please, don't get me started about the supplements! Why would people need to take supplements in the first place?! Is there something wrong with our food supply?! Actually...YES there is! I've been hearing more and more about how, because of decades of intensive farming, our vegetables have lost a significant amount of vitamins and minerals. Having grown up on a farm, I've seen how many chemicals (ie,synthetic fertilizers, pesticides) are dumped onto the soil. Eventually, something has to give. So, I do believe that our food is lacking in nutrients, but conversely, I'm certainly not pushing supplements, because that's not how the body was meant to get its nurishment. Besides, I suspect they just go through the body anyway. We're caught in a catch-22. The best thing would be to have your own organic "Victory garden", in the backyard. Unfortunately, living in an apartment complex, I don't have a backyard. How did I get so far off the original topic? --jeff ###### From: alexa.james@nashville.com (Alexa James) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:34:34 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 82 Message-ID: <350fe837.24765627@news.nashville.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com> <6em2jd$lr2$1@nntp-3.io.com> Reply-To: alexa.james@nashville.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 17499@207.65.139.4 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail Hi Robert! > >Hmm. When describing the number of people in a and their relative >positions, is it necessary for them to be actual people or just human-sized >objects? Is there something special about humans/animals that makes them >easier to detect in the OOBE state? It's possible that there is something special about humans - maybe it's an electromagnetic thing or just heat. It's also possible that we have simply been conditioned to notice humans/animals more than objects and so when someone is OBE that's what they pay attention to. The people to read on this are Charles Tart and Keith Hararay, who did many ,many successful OBE experiments. When I say successful, I don't mean that Harary was able to project everytime. What I mean is that when he confirmed that he had been projecting, he came up with consistent, repeatable, accurate data. > > >It most certainly was. Certainly there should be many practical uses of >OOBEs/remote viewing/etc. but just as in space exploration, the primary >justification for visiting a strange new place is BECAUSE ITS THERE. Good for you! I agree that curiosity is an excellent reason for science - up to a point. There are some things that would be wonderful to know but are not worth the price of finding them out (cloning, for example). > >>Once you've experienced the OBE >>sensation, finding proof for those who haven't doesn't seem quite as >>important anymore! > >This is unfortunate. It is much more difficult to attempt an activity if >one is not relatively certain the activity is real and works. If OOBEs are >real, not attempting to demonstrate their reality to others does science and >humanity a great disservice. Consider the fact that most reputable >scientists consider these phenomenon to be utter bullshit. If they are >wrong, SOMEONE SHOULD TELL THEM. Of course, the more hard-headed ones will >be difficult to convince, but true scientists seek to understand the world >as it really is, not as they wish it to be. Also note that every liar and >charlatan makes uncovering any really interesting paranormal phenomenon that >much more difficult. I would suggest perhaps a leap of faith? You obviously believe it's possible or you wouldn't be reading this newsgroup. Why not give it a try yourself and see what you think then? Maybe you could be your own best subject! > >>What you're talking about in more like remote viewing, which was the >>topic of the day last week! If you want more details, I can give you >>a link on this. > >Hmm. Perhaps I am confused. Please correct the following definitions: > >OOBE: One's consiousness leaves one's physical body and travels about this >universe, including possibly previously unperceived dimensions, >observes/interacts with people and things at locations possibly far away >from one's physical body, then returns to the physical body and is able to >tell others of the experience. > >Remote viewing: The ability to "scan" a far-away location with one's mind >and learn information not availible through the normal five senses and >without using technology. Yeah, that's right. See the difference? OBEs involve (in classic theory - there are many who would disagree and say that OBEs are just LDs, but that's another debate) actual physical separation of your consciousness from your physical body, ie part of you actually travels to the location in question. In remote viewing, your consciousness doesn't leave your body or the room - it just learns to focus on impressions of the site. Remote viewing is much more like telepathy or clairvoyance than like OBEs. > > Hope this helped! Alexa ###### Message-ID: <350F7CCC.6201@bmis.com.au> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:50:36 +0800 From: Keith Alderslade Organization: Business Management Information Systems (BMIS) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; AIX 2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com> <6em2jd$lr2$1@nntp-3.io.com> <350fe837.24765627@news.nashville.com> <6enpsd$qld$1@nntp-3.io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.135.120.34 X-Trace: 18 Mar 1998 07:49:30 GMT, 202.135.120.34 Lines: 19 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: or otherwise violate the IBM.NET Terms of Service X-Notice: should be forwarded in their entirety to postmaster@ibm.net Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!202.135.120.34 Robert Theron Brockman II wrote: > > > It would help me a great deal in my personal experiences if I knew there was > a high probability that I was not just wasting my time. Also, knowing who > could perform simple experiments in OOBEs would help me differentiate the > professionals from the charlatans, of whom I am sure there are many. Robert, I had a great big post ready for sending when my machine crashed. But to help you, try this url . Sirley is a physicist with a good amount of data & some experience. Also search the WWW under the topics. There are stacks of research. And if you want a good remote viewer, try Joe McMoneagle of Faber, Virginia, author of "Mind Trek". Joe has about 50% accuracy under proper scientific protocols. Keith ###### From: alexa.james@nashville.com (Alexa James) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:03:39 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <35100c61.33986271@news.nashville.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> <350F8A70.4701@hotmail.com> <350F5667.94095C19@cidcorp.com> Reply-To: alexa.james@nashville.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 25680@207.65.180.69 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:06:47 -0800, Gail wrote: >Jeff and Evelyn: > >I totally agree with you. In the past 150 years (and undoubtedly more) >big business, in one form or another, has taken over all health care. >Money is the only criteria. If you jeopardize someone's profit, they'll >just try to take you over, the way drug companies and the FDA are now >doing with supplement and herbs. How in the world do we fight back? > >Gail. Well, luckily the feds can't really stop people from growing herbs, much though I'm sure they'd like to! Alexa ###### From: alexa.james@nashville.com (Alexa James) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:05:20 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 13 Message-ID: <35100cad.34062288@news.nashville.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> <350F327E.794B@bmis.com.au> Reply-To: alexa.james@nashville.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 25680@207.65.180.69 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail > >I tell you though, your toughest task may be convincing your colleagues >of OBE reality after you experience it yourself. An equally tough task >will be making *scientific* sense of your experience. > >Keith > Well said, Keith. This is what I meant in my response to Robert's original post when I said that after he experienced it for himself, he'd be less interested in convincing others! Alexa ###### From: "rbwalton" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:38:34 -0800 Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service Lines: 38 Message-ID: <6eq7ug$1sv$1@news.ncal.verio.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com> <6em2jd$lr2$1@nntp-3.io.com> <350fe837.24765627@news.nashville.com> <6enpsd$qld$1@nntp-3.io.com> <351037c5.45093974@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: inakka19.dcsi.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.4.94.15!vncnews!HSNX.wco.com!news.ncal.verio.com!not-for-mail I think we (or at least I know I do) label it as OBE because that is the best description of what the sensation is like. It may not really be that. It may be that this is the only label that makes sense in this dimension. -- Richard Visit this web page for some useful OOB links. . . www.angelfire.com/ca/onestepbeyond/ To respond, delete #nospam# rbwalton@#nospam#outrageous.net Alexa James wrote in message <351037c5.45093974@news.nashville.com>... > >> >>It would help me a great deal in my personal experiences if I knew there was >>a high probability that I was not just wasting my time. Also, knowing who >>could perform simple experiments in OOBEs would help me differentiate the >>professionals from the charlatans, of whom I am sure there are many. >> >> >I understand what you're saying, Robert. All I can say is this: >everyone on this NG (or at least most people) have experienced >SOMETHING extremely out of the ordinary. And all of the descriptions >are remarkably similar. Clearly, there's something going on. Maybe >the best way to approach it is not to label it "OBE." Just use the >techniques and wait and see what happens to you. > >Oh! And let us know! I'd be really curious to find out what you >experience! > >Alexa >> > ###### From: alexa.james@nashville.com (Alexa James) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:10:43 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 21 Message-ID: <351037c5.45093974@news.nashville.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <350e54fb.1307709@news.nashville.com> <6em2jd$lr2$1@nntp-3.io.com> <350fe837.24765627@news.nashville.com> <6enpsd$qld$1@nntp-3.io.com> Reply-To: alexa.james@nashville.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 6917@207.65.180.148 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail > >It would help me a great deal in my personal experiences if I knew there was >a high probability that I was not just wasting my time. Also, knowing who >could perform simple experiments in OOBEs would help me differentiate the >professionals from the charlatans, of whom I am sure there are many. > > I understand what you're saying, Robert. All I can say is this: everyone on this NG (or at least most people) have experienced SOMETHING extremely out of the ordinary. And all of the descriptions are remarkably similar. Clearly, there's something going on. Maybe the best way to approach it is not to label it "OBE." Just use the techniques and wait and see what happens to you. Oh! And let us know! I'd be really curious to find out what you experience! Alexa > ###### Message-ID: <35106B21.41C6@bmis.com.au> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:47:29 +0800 From: Keith Alderslade Organization: Business Management Information Systems (BMIS) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; AIX 2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> <350F327E.794B@bmis.com.au> <6enrsv$qq0$1@nntp-3.io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.135.120.34 X-Trace: 19 Mar 1998 00:46:17 GMT, 202.135.120.34 Lines: 8 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: or otherwise violate the IBM.NET Terms of Service X-Notice: should be forwarded in their entirety to postmaster@ibm.net Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!202.135.120.34 Robert Theron Brockman II wrote: > > > > Ok, although controlling experiments across time as well as space is a bit trickier, though not impossible The difficult we do today, the impossible we do while OB! Keith ###### From: Gail Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:43:51 -0800 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 44 Message-ID: <35119FA7.D9840EA1@cidcorp.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> <350F8A70.4701@hotmail.com> <350F5667.94095C19@cidcorp.com> <351040C5.3BB0@lib.siu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 26613@209.2.84.78 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!feeder.qis.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.direct.ca!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail student@lib.siu.edu wrote: > > Gail wrote: > > > > Jeff and Evelyn: > > > > I totally agree with you. In the past 150 years (and undoubtedly more) > > big business, in one form or another, has taken over all health care. > > Money is the only criteria. If you jeopardize someone's profit, they'll > > just try to take you over, the way drug companies and the FDA are now > > doing with supplement and herbs. How in the world do we fight back? > > > > Gail. > > > > Gail, > Please, don't get me started about the supplements! > > Why would people need to take supplements in the first place?! Is there > something wrong with our food supply?! Actually...YES there is! I've > been hearing more and more about how, because of decades of intensive > farming, our vegetables have lost a significant amount of vitamins and > minerals. Having grown up on a farm, I've seen how many chemicals > (ie,synthetic fertilizers, pesticides) are dumped onto the soil. > Eventually, something has to give. > So, I do believe that our food is lacking in nutrients, but > conversely, I'm certainly not pushing supplements, because that's not > how the body was meant to get its nurishment. Besides, I suspect they > just go through the body anyway. We're caught in a catch-22. The best > thing would be to have your own organic "Victory garden", in the > backyard. Unfortunately, living in an apartment complex, I don't have a > backyard. How did I get so far off the original topic? > > --jeff Jeff You may have gotton off the topic, but it was interesting. And basically I agree with you. About soil contamination and depletion, about supplements not being perfect, about organics. In a perfect world........ Gail ###### From: Gail Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:42:11 -0800 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 41 Message-ID: <3511AD53.8EF42826@cidcorp.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> <350F5780.C54F5C20@cidcorp.com> <6eqptk$s2u$1@nntp-2.io.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 23824@209.2.84.78 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail Robert: I agree. But, I wonder who those powerful rich people are who would accept the "double win"? I guess I pretty cynical. Gail Robert Theron Brockman II wrote: > > Gail wrote in message <350F5780.C54F5C20@cidcorp.com>... > >Robert, Anthony et al: > > > >This experiement is really worthwhile, although I think that even if we > >could prove it without a doubt, someone who's power and profit were > >threatened would find a way to discredit the experiment and the personal > >reputations of everyone involved. > > > Truth about reality can be suppressed for a long time, but not forever. > Attempts by the Catholic Church to shut Gailileo up worked during his > lifetime, but the facts he discovered remained for the curious to find > later. Coverups of isolated political incidents are hard enough to do, > supression of a scientific discovery only works until an independent > researcher finds the evidence again. > > Sooner or later, if OOBEs really do exist and people can gather enough > evidence, the scientific community will accept the idea. Scientists in this > century have demonstrated acceptance of sufficiently weird ideas (a > expanding universe, time dilation, atomic energy, quantum mechanics, etc.) > for me to make this statement. > > >It does not serve the purpose of the powerful to acknowledge the power > >of the people. > > Are all powerful people purely self-serving and/or evil? Some are, but many > are willing to accept the "double win," where they gain power as a result > of, rather than at the expense of, the power of the masses. > > >And who has the expertise along with the will to take the risk to > >participate in these experiements? > > That is the $1,200,000 question. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:05:26 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 111 Message-ID: <3512CC06.406801F6@ccw.ch> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Evelyn wrote: > Anthony Marotta wrote in article > > It puzzles me why there isn't more widespread study of this topic and > > related topics in the scientific community. Or maybe there is and I just > > don't know about it. It might be a good idea to try different things > such > > as this, even though it's not new, in the hopes of getting others > involved > > in this topic. There actually exists quite a bit of both alternative medicine and paranormal (and that includes OBE) research going on. It just isn't high profile stuff. For one because of fear on the part of the scientists involved of losing support if a highly profiled experiment goes wrong. On the other hand neither journalists nor anti-scientists regard acknowleging its existance as anywhere as near interesting as gloating about real and imaginary faillures. > Many great leaps of knowledge were laughed at in the beginning. Science > prefers to work in small steps. Also, I imagine scientists are not > motivated to study something that would prove a jillion (yes folks, that is > my official count of how many) current theories invalid or compromised. Actually you may be surprised that both alternate medicine and parapsychology do not collide with lots of current science. Even accepting afterlife will not require a big change. Todays Quantum Physics is extremely flexible. Most people are surprised at this statement because their knowledge of science (usually from shool science classes) represents what scientists were using about 100 years ago (Proof: did they teach you Relativity theory? That is known since 1905, Quantum Physics? 1930). And progress is central to science, and 100 years is a lot of time. > Why is it that western medicine refuses to deal with acupuncture as a pain > killer? I have difficulty grasping it!!! Accupuncture suffers from having the wrong friends. You sure know the saying "with friens like these who needs enemies". Accupuncture entered the minds of most modern medicine people together with (and from the same proponents) as many other alternative medicine methods that unfortunately didn't work so well or were simply trumped up forms of methods medicine has long distanced itsself from (healing by prayer comes to my mind). Reputation of the messanger counts a lot in science. See the remark a few days ago about crying woolf too often. > Here is something this is > replicable at will every time. You don't need a bunch of chemicals (I'm > sure the pharmaceutical companies love that!). Nobody goes under anethesia > too far and dies. Nobody barfs after waking up as a side effect. Nobody > has deadly allergic reactions. You're awake, so you can tell someone if it > starts to hurt even a little (have you heard those cases of people not far > enough under who felt the entire pain of the operation!). And that is why Accupunture is spreading. Unfortunately too slow for people who are convinced of its good. But that is something everything newly introduced has to face. Newtons theories, Einstein, Quantum Mechanics all suffered this as well. Would you prefer a doctor who tries out on you every new treatment of the month? > Is it because > the doctors don't want to face the fact that they don't know something? Do > the drug companies have that much power? You would think that they would > be all over the thing, studying the pants off of it! But instead, you get > a few little studies giving positive results and going mostly ignored. No. More likely a combination of these: - trusting past success over something that may be great or be a washout - fear of lawsuits if something new fails (there is a lot of "damage control" in medicine) - lack of time to read up on new things (doctors have 16 hour workdays), so the Pharma industry peddling a new substance with a million budget wins over people peddling a new method without an budget. > Answer this question and maybe you will have an idea of what it will take > to get OBEs noticed. We don't have to face the fear of lawsuits. They also so not demand droppng something that has worked up to now. On the other hand OBEs are less relevant than health treatments, so it suffers more from the time limit problem. > Despite my pessimism, I do agree. We should try at least. And be realistic that no revolution happens in a few hours or even a few years. Time is on our side but it has ist own pace. > If I ever get some kind of piddly control over the trips, I will be happy > to volunteer. But for now, I can't even figure out where I do go! > -Evelyn I will add myself to that one. But at the moment I'm still trying to get out. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch, http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped See wether the new one is better, could you mail me a confirmation of reciept? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!excalibur.flash.net!not-for-mail From: "Evelyn" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: 21 Mar 1998 06:02:41 GMT Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Lines: 161 Message-ID: <01bd5490$5610b040$8b4c1ed1@logmein.flash.net> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> <3512CC06.406801F6@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: lash8-139.flash.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote in article <3512CC06.406801F6@ccw.ch>... > Evelyn wrote: > > Anthony Marotta wrote in article > > > It puzzles me why there isn't more widespread study of this topic and > > > related topics in the scientific community. Or maybe there is and I just > > > don't know about it. It might be a good idea to try different things > > such > > > as this, even though it's not new, in the hopes of getting others > > involved > > > in this topic. > > There actually exists quite a bit of both alternative medicine and > paranormal (and that includes OBE) research going on. > It just isn't high profile stuff. For one because of fear on the part of > the scientists involved of losing support if a highly profiled > experiment goes wrong. On the other hand neither journalists nor > anti-scientists regard acknowleging its existance as anywhere as near > interesting as gloating about real and imaginary faillures. > Good to know some progress is being made! > > > Many great leaps of knowledge were laughed at in the beginning. Science > > prefers to work in small steps. Also, I imagine scientists are not > > motivated to study something that would prove a jillion (yes folks, that is > > my official count of how many) current theories invalid or compromised. > > Actually you may be surprised that both alternate medicine and > parapsychology do not collide with lots of current science. Even > accepting afterlife will not require a big change. Todays Quantum > Physics is extremely flexible. > > Most people are surprised at this statement because their knowledge of > science (usually from shool science classes) represents what scientists > were using about 100 years ago (Proof: did they teach you Relativity > theory? That is known since 1905, Quantum Physics? 1930). And progress > is central to science, and 100 years is a lot of time. > > Well I agree with you in that technically OBEs concur with many recent discoveries (especially physics), I think scientists have been saying that we are crackpots for quite a while and are not eager to eat their words! They would much rather put their faith in elaborate theories as to what we are really experiencing, chemical imbalances, oxygen deprivation (for NDEs), etc instead of looking at the obvious but to them less likely explanation. > > Why is it that western medicine refuses to deal with acupuncture as a pain > > killer? I have difficulty grasping it!!! > > Accupuncture suffers from having the wrong friends. You sure know the > saying "with friens like these who needs enemies". Accupuncture entered > the minds of most modern medicine people together with (and from the > same proponents) as many other alternative medicine methods that > unfortunately didn't work so well or were simply trumped up forms of > methods medicine has long distanced itsself from (healing by prayer > comes to my mind). Reputation of the messanger counts a lot in science. > See the remark a few days ago about crying woolf too often. > > Yup, that reputation thing is tough to beat. ANd if you think acupuncture has a reputation problem! I can tell you one thing. I would not have a problem telling everyone I knew that I often do acupuncture and that it is real, but I tend to keep rather silent about the OBE thing! > > Here is something this is > > replicable at will every time. You don't need a bunch of chemicals (I'm > > sure the pharmaceutical companies love that!). Nobody goes under anethesia > > too far and dies. Nobody barfs after waking up as a side effect. Nobody > > has deadly allergic reactions. You're awake, so you can tell someone if it > > starts to hurt even a little (have you heard those cases of people not far > > enough under who felt the entire pain of the operation!). > > And that is why Accupunture is spreading. Unfortunately too slow for > people who are convinced of its good. But that is something everything > newly introduced has to face. Newtons theories, Einstein, Quantum > Mechanics all suffered this as well. > Would you prefer a doctor who tries out on you every new treatment of > the month? > Nope, I wouldn't want them to just try out everything! (although they seem pretty eager to try just about any crackpot diet drug aweful fast!) But I wish they would study it more and find out for themselves. And acupuncture has been around for longer than a month! :-) > > Is it because > > the doctors don't want to face the fact that they don't know something? Do > > the drug companies have that much power? You would think that they would > > be all over the thing, studying the pants off of it! But instead, you get > > a few little studies giving positive results and going mostly ignored. > > No. More likely a combination of these: > - trusting past success over something that may be great or be a washout > - fear of lawsuits if something new fails (there is a lot of "damage > control" in medicine) > - lack of time to read up on new things (doctors have 16 hour workdays), > so the Pharma industry peddling a new substance with a million budget > wins over people peddling a new method without an budget. > Yup, it's hard to break out of the cycle. If it isn't established, no money. No money, no one cares... > > > Answer this question and maybe you will have an idea of what it will take > > to get OBEs noticed. > > We don't have to face the fear of lawsuits. They also so not demand > droppng something that has worked up to now. > On the other hand OBEs are less relevant than health treatments, so it > suffers more from the time limit problem. > Yeah, how many people post here asking what OBEs are good for! I guess if it doesn't put dinner on the table or drive the kids to school, people are less likely to spend time on it. You have to worry about the necesities before dealing with abstractions. Another tough cycle to break out of. > > > Despite my pessimism, I do agree. We should try at least. > > And be realistic that no revolution happens in a few hours or even a few > years. Time is on our side but it has ist own pace. > > > > If I ever get some kind of piddly control over the trips, I will be happy > > to volunteer. But for now, I can't even figure out where I do go! > > -Evelyn > > I will add myself to that one. But at the moment I'm still trying to get > out. > > > -- > private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch, http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ > If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped > See wether the new one is better, could you mail me a confirmation of reciept? > Meanwhile I will do my part by having more OBEs and hopefully getting better at them! :-) It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.... -Evelyn ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news2.melbpc.org.au!not-for-mail From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 22:28:05 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 25 Message-ID: <352018a8.13614678@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> <350F8A70.4701@hotmail.com> <350F5667.94095C19@cidcorp.com> <35100c61.33986271@news.nashville.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: b1-24.melbpc.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:03:39 GMT, alexa.james@nashville.com (Alexa James) wrote: < snip > >Well, luckily the feds can't really stop people from growing herbs, >much though I'm sure they'd like to! Not totally true ! Some time ago there were moves here to "patent" a number of types of "seeds". On the surface this seemed to some to be reasonable as they were "designer" seeds that were more resistant to pests etc. However what happens if one cannot get the "original" seed ? You have to pay someone if you want to grow your own food. :-( Regards, John. **************************************************** ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 00:27:04 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 118 Message-ID: <35144CC8.A95D408C@ccw.ch> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <01bd516d$a2d07ee0$b14e1ed1@logmein.flash.net> <3512CC06.406801F6@ccw.ch> <01bd5490$5610b040$8b4c1ed1@logmein.flash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Evelyn wrote: > > Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote in article > <3512CC06.406801F6@ccw.ch>... > > Actually you may be surprised that both alternate medicine and > > parapsychology do not collide with lots of current science. Even > > accepting afterlife will not require a big change. Todays Quantum > > Physics is extremely flexible. > Well I agree with you in that technically OBEs concur with many recent > discoveries (especially physics), I think scientists have been saying that > we are crackpots for quite a while and are not eager to eat their words! Well nobody is _eager_ to eat their words. But I doubt that scientists will deliberately drop evidence or ideas trust to prevent this. Rather as someone who grew up with an entirely scientific background and only started looking at the paranormal (and OBE) in the last few years I would say: Scientists are very cautious people, they have an extreme "better be safe than sorry" sort of thinking. So they often say "no" when they should say "don't know". Unfortunately this got combined with an "if it is not explainable it does not exist" attitude beginning in the 1950s. I think that the later is rapidly improving (going away) in the last 10 years or so. > They would much rather put their faith in elaborate theories as to what we > are really experiencing, chemical imbalances, oxygen deprivation (for > NDEs), etc instead of looking at the obvious but to them less likely > explanation. Actually science is about finding explanations (mechanisms) for observed phenomena. So theories are the aim, and most of them are elaborate because the world is complex. When making theories one obviously takes known (that is: to one self) phenomena as building blocks. Usually one goes looking for new building blocks if this fails (relativity and quantum were cases of this). The problem with OBE (and paranormal and NDE and ghosts) is that the phenomena are not known in enough detail to enough scientists, so most of them do not recognise that the old building blocks need new ones adding to. > > Accupuncture suffers from having the wrong friends. > > Reputation of the messanger counts a lot in science. > > See the remark a few days ago about crying woolf too often. > Yup, that reputation thing is tough to beat. ANd if you think acupuncture > has a reputation problem! I can tell you one thing. I would not have a > problem telling everyone I knew that I often do acupuncture and that it is > real, but I tend to keep rather silent about the OBE thing! Yes, Accupunture is a lot further along the road than OBE (or anything paranormal is. Actually as for telling about OBE. No one less than Richard Feynman (Nobel prize for physics (quantum electro dynamics)) has written* about his OBE experiences (inclusive mentioning the term) but puts them down to hallucination. That is what started me on taking the stories seriously and wanting to find out if they are real. * in: Surely, You're Joking Mr Feynman, ISBN 0 09 917331 X, chapter "Altered States, page 330-338. > > Would you prefer a doctor who tries out on you every new treatment of > > the month? > Nope, I wouldn't want them to just try out everything! (although they seem > pretty eager to try just about any crackpot diet drug aweful fast!) There is a large difference between scientists and drug company sales departments. The later will adopt anything that promises sales. And claiming that it is "scientific" increases sales, but don't be fooled, that has nothing to do with real science. > And acupuncture has been around for longer than a month! :-) In China: yes. In the West it has only been known for a few decades. And what it can do for even less than that. > > On the other hand OBEs are less relevant than health treatments, so it > > suffers more from the time limit problem. > > > Yeah, how many people post here asking what OBEs are good for! I guess if > it doesn't put dinner on the table or drive the kids to school, people are > less likely to spend time on it. You have to worry about the necesities > before dealing with abstractions. Another tough cycle to break out of. I would not call it an abstraction, it is after all real (so far I can see). Just ephemeral to most peoples lifes (that is: in their valuing of it). > > If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped > > See wether the new one is better, could you mail me a confirmation of > reciept? First successfull post in 3 weeks. New newsfeed is good. Great! > Meanwhile I will do my part by having more OBEs and hopefully getting > better at them! :-) It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.... > -Evelyn So am I, going to try. Hope to be out there one day. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch, http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: 25 Mar 1998 11:38:12 GMT Lines: 104 Message-ID: <1998032511381201.GAA02351@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> >From: "Robert Theron Brockman II" >I've heard much talk about people having OOBEs, but little about ways to >isolate and scientifically study the phenomenon. You need to be careful about discussing the phenomena as though it were one single thing. The very best oobe-as-delusion work being done these days,imho, focuses on ketamine chemistry. Apparently some instances of what some people report as the oobe/nde experience resemble events that can be reproduced through drugs. A problem with that is we all know one can intensely imagine as real an experience even without drug intervention. Proving that yet another method of creating a subjective experience resembling oobe/nde merely adds to the store of things which might provide subjectively believed experiences of oobe/nde but do not account for all possible such experiences. Proving that some instances of oobe/nde as asserted based on reports of the subject can be brought about by drug intervention or intense imagination may or may not be taken as demonstrative of what the entire population of oobe/nde experiences are a manifestation of. If the experience itself is not one unified or single phenomena it can have multiple causes that match up to different experiences that are only happenstance labelled oobe/nde in common. > I propose the following simple experiment to decisively > demonstrate the existence and potential ofOOBEs. If successful > and repeatable, this experiment would allow the phenomenon to > break into the scientific mainstream, where Really Hard Core >Scientists can apply High Tech Expensive Gadgets to the study of > OOBEs. OOBE/nde is already being studied by reputable scientists. Most of them are looking for physically based resolutions of the phenomenon as mere offbeat information processing of the brain. Even when this is done the more thoughtful researchers recognize the problems in proving what is what with the phenomena. >Here it is: > >I will write down a five digit number, randomly determined, on a >big piece of posterboard in my house. Someone with experience >in OOBEs should try to reach my house in the OOBE state, read >the number, and e-mail it to me. > >Its that simple. Ok, the universe is a big place, so naturally I would >provide physical coordinates and directions to guide any >participants in this experiment. Given the complex and >interesting accounts describing vivid OOBE experiences I've >read, reading the number and remembering it when >one returns to the physical should be no problem; guiding the >second body to the house with the posterboard could be trickier. >People should try this experiment at shorter ranges first, i.e., >reading a number written by a friend on a piece of paper in the >next room. Notably the experiment would not demonstrate the nonexistence of oobe/nde. If someone can do that this would demonstrate some for of esp but wouldn't begin to resolve the question of whether a possessor of some esp is an entity detachable from a physical corpus. Either esp with a habit of intensely imagining the process of operating that esp as though uncorporate or a more straightforward uncorporate account would be candidates. >Successful completion and repetition of this experiment should >convince even James Randi (who is offering a 1.2M$ prize for >demonstrating paranormal phenomenon) that OOBEs are real. James Randi? You mean the guy who has publically announced that presently-classified-paranormal phenomena will NEVER be demonstrated in his opinion? Well personally I prefer to let such self-claimed possessors of clairvoyance that extends throughout all future time and predicts the outcomes of all possible experiments to possess their faith in the state of knowledge at present as being definitive forever without getting into disputes about such religious faith. Mr. Randi may announce his reception of and adherence to his tenets of faith without the aide of a reward and it's all the same to me either way. I'll stick to reading the serious critics and inquirers, such as the ketamine researchers and others, who practice empiricism and eschew statements of grandiose clairvoyance into all discoveries ever to be made. >I await your response. Not for long. Personally I would rather believe all oobe/nde phenomena are but the product of weird brain effects or intense imagining. It would simplify the world and resolve questions about my own experiences to a great extent. Unfortunately having had hard to control and reproduce experiences that neither brain chemistry nor intense imagination adeqautely resolve in my mind, I continue to be obliged to live in a complex world that requires patience and searching contemplation to figure out. Once upon a time the universe seemed nearly explained by a nearly all encompassing theory but a few nagging observations and puzzling problems stood in the way. Probably nobody expected beforehand that mathematical difficulties in getting a black body to be in thermal equillibrium with itself would have such profound consequences as could eventually be inferred with that as a starting point. Michelson-Morley was probably a bit more portentious as a clue that the real world may well turn out to be strange and wonderful. Resolving two puzzles that stood in the way of an overly simple account of the world had vast consequences on the state of knowledge. Puzzles like these are better investigated, including by expressions of skepticism of the too easy accounting, than merely ignored. ---- The world insists on being exactly the way it really is,--- --- no matter how little *sense* that makes. --- ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!amsterdam.news.unisource.nl!gate.news.unisource.nl!surfnet.nl!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-stock.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: nightink1@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Enquiring Physicists Want To Know: Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:24:13 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 21 Message-ID: <6fe2ui$r6r$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6eiteu$7mm$1@nntp-2.io.com> <6ekmia$ko7$1@news.on> <6em2kh$lr2$3@nntp-3.io.com> <350F327E.794B@bmis.com.au> <6enrsv$qq0$1@nntp-3.io.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.232.25 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Mar 26 17:24:13 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.0 (compatible; MSIE 2.1; AOL 3.0; Mac_PPC) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 ww-pa01.proxy.aol.com:904 (AOL TurboWeb/3.4.6) > >PS: Your definition of remote viewing needs to be expanded so that it > >doesn't just mean current time & space. I read Mind Trek and couldn't put it down. After practicing for about 6 months, I decided to get some formal training in remote viewing. I took the week long course in remote viewing through TransDimensional Systems. It was amazing! It really worked. I am in intermediate training now, We just did a real life project where we helped solve an actual murder! We remote viewed photos and some written cues, but nothing "esoteric" like UFOs and such. The URL for TransDimensional is http://www.largeruniverse.com Paula Bjork -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading