Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!rl261.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: Robert Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Why no solid proof then? Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 20:50:49 +0000 Message-ID: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: rl261.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: rl261.demon.co.uk:193.237.201.39 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 896471194 nnrp-07:14560 NO-IDENT rl261.demon.co.uk:193.237.201.39 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 42 Hi there, I'm new to this group so maybe these questions have been raised before, I'm sure they must have. I have always been fascinated by the idea of obe's and especially remote viewing. I really got hooked after reading Monroe's books and hearing about the supposed military remote viewers. Now, because I was heavily into UFO's and conspiracy theories etc. plus the fact that I wanted to believe in obe's, I would defend the idea whenever anyone questioned the validity of such reports. Personally I have never had an obe or remote viewed anything, but I have dabbled in lucid dreaming. But now, I seem to asking myself a few questions about the whole thing. We have all the alleged military remote viewers coming out with their books, all the new-age quantum theory explanations as to how it could possibly work, and postings to this news group for example, on how obe's are a common experience for some people. So the main question arises, why doesn't someone proficient in remote viewing or obe'ing carry out some double-blind experiment to prove it once and for all - you know, stick a number in a room and try to view it. If McMoneagle and Moorehouse can view enemy installations as easy as they say, then why can't they do a simple experiment to prove remote viewing scientifically. Now I never thought I would move over to the sceptics corner, but they do have a point. And all the people on this news group, why not stick two fingers up at James Randi and his colleagues and claim the million dollars for proving obe's or RV. Another thing which really got me thinking was Steven LaBerge and his excellent books on lucid dreaming. Surely this can explain most obe's, can't it. If any one could answer my queries without jumping into 'new-age bullshit mode' I would be most grateful. I still want to believe, and I still personally think there must be something to it all, but I desperately need some hard evidence to remain interested. Thanks, Robert. ###### 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!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: speshialk@aol.com (SpeshialK) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Lines: 10 Message-ID: <1998052919505400.PAA18966@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 29 May 1998 19:50:54 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> You sound like me. I have gotten some declassified material directly from one of the RV pioneers, and it looks amazing, but who knows. I don't think you or I will ever believe OBES, NDES, RV, unless we experience them ourselves. Their are kooks on boths sides of the coin, but who is right? ----- Keith ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 00:34:49 +0200 Lines: 78 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p46.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p46.telia.com Message-ID: <356f388b.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news-stkh.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t5o204p46.telia.com Hi there. I haven't had as much as a Lucid Dream.......yet. But the available information about OBE, astral projection and psychic abilities is just so overwhelming that it can't be anything other than true. I guess it is possible to dig up at least several hundred thousand experiences on OBE. So I find it strange that it "can't" be proved. Well, I have big plans. Think I will start with having lucid dreams. In the end will I manage to have up to 5-6 lucid dreams each night. I might even think of projecting from a lucid dream. Haven't read Stephen LaBerge book yet, but I have it lying around here somewhere. Not sure what James Randi require before he can agree to that OBE is being proved, but I'm certainly intend to prove it if not anyone else does. But I don't think I will ever lose interest. Right now, am I trying to figure out how they hell they can get the aura on video tape and photographs... Robert wrote in message <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk>... >Hi there, > >I'm new to this group so maybe these questions have been raised before, >I'm sure they must have. > >I have always been fascinated by the idea of OBE's and especially remote >viewing. I really got hooked after reading Monroe's books and hearing >about the supposed military remote viewers. Now, because I was heavily >into UFO's and conspiracy theories etc. plus the fact that I wanted to >believe in OBE's, I would defend the idea whenever anyone questioned the >validity of such reports. Personally I have never had an OBE or remote >viewed anything, but I have dabbled in lucid dreaming. > >But now, I seem to asking myself a few questions about the whole thing. >We have all the alleged military remote viewers coming out with their >books, all the new-age quantum theory explanations as to how it could >possibly work, and postings to this news group for example, on how OBE's >are a common experience for some people. > >So the main question arises, why doesn't someone proficient in remote >viewing or obe'ing carry out some double-blind experiment to prove it >once and for all - you know, stick a number in a room and try to view >it. If McMoneagle and Moorehouse can view enemy installations as easy as >they say, then why can't they do a simple experiment to prove remote >viewing scientifically. Now I never thought I would move over to the >skeptics corner, but they do have a point. And all the people on this >news group, why not stick two fingers up at James Randi and his >colleagues and claim the million dollars for proving OBE's or RV. > >Another thing which really got me thinking was Steven LaBerge and his >excellent books on lucid dreaming. Surely this can explain most OBE's, >can't it. > >If any one could answer my queries without jumping into 'new-age >bullshit mode' I would be most grateful. I still want to believe, and I >still personally think there must be something to it all, but I >desperately need some hard evidence to remain interested. > >Thanks, > >Robert. > ###### 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!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!news.algonet.se!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 13:10:33 +0200 Organization: Algonet/Tninet Lines: 210 Message-ID: <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du79-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) Robert wrote: > > Hi there, > > I'm new to this group so maybe these questions have been raised > before, I'm sure they must have. > > I have always been fascinated by the idea of obe's and especially > remote viewing. I really got hooked after reading Monroe's books and > hearing about the supposed military remote viewers. Now, because I was > heavily into UFO's and conspiracy theories etc. plus the fact that I > wanted to believe in obe's, I would defend the idea whenever anyone > questioned the validity of such reports. Personally I have never had > an obe or remote viewed anything, but I have dabbled in lucid > dreaming. > > But now, I seem to asking myself a few questions about the whole > thing. We have all the alleged military remote viewers coming out with > their books, all the new-age quantum theory explanations as to how it > could possibly work, and postings to this news group for example, on > how obe's are a common experience for some people. > > So the main question arises, why doesn't someone proficient in remote > viewing or obe'ing carry out some double-blind experiment to prove it > once and for all - you know, stick a number in a room and try to view > it. If McMoneagle and Moorehouse can view enemy installations as easy > as they say, then why can't they do a simple experiment to prove > remote viewing scientifically. Hi Robert. I think there are several reasons for this. 1. The first is that it may indeed be very difficult to actually achieve what you suggest. This is because the OBE environment and/or state of mind is so different. At first, when I started trying to go OBE I also imagined it would be just like - well, flying away to whatever location, meeting people, perceiving things etc.. The first times it seemed like I was right too. When I came "out" I was in my bedroom (or so it seemed). It was just one thing that bothered me - I did not see my body in the bed. Soon I began to notice more discrepancies - doors and windows in wrong places, furniture I didnīt own, indeed whole rooms that didnīt exist. My "bedroom" never was unrecognizable, but always somewhat different from what it "should" be. As I began to move out from my room the anomalies intensified. The area outside, like my room, sometimes *resembled* what it "ought to" be, never corresponded exactly to it, and sometimes was *totally* different. The time or weather conditions could be different - it could be brilliant daylight in the OBE, even though I knew it rained excessively and the sun hadnīt risen yet. Even more puzzling, the locations changed. As I exited my room through (literally) the window sometimes I ended up in a huge city, or in a forest, or in a fire-lit cavern, or in the mist-like Brilliant Void. I have to stress that I did not expect these things - I had not read about them beforehand. These discrepancies were so odd that I for some time doubted whether I really had gone OBE - perhaps they just were some strange kind of dreams. All the other things matched up though: sleep paralysis, vibrations, non-break in consciousness etc.. And they were unlike any dreams I had experienced - I was almost more aware then compared to the "awake" state. Besides, noone really doubts the reality of an OBE, while it is in progress! So, this all boils down to this: On the available data, it seems likely that when you go OBE you (usually at least) at the same time leave this physical universe altogether, and enter some other "dimension" or "plane", that in some ways are similar to the physical, though in other ways not. Such a place has been described by mystics since ancient times, and is usually named the "Astral plane". This name is as good as any, so Iīll use it. The Astral plane seems to be almost infinite in extent, not subject to the usual laws of space and time, and made out of some "matter" which is more susceptible to thoughts than ordinary matter. All physical objects and places seem to leave an "impression", an imperfect Astral "copy" of the "original". The deviations could be caused by conscious and/or unconscious influences from people/creatures/entities "out there" or by interference from other Astral "places". Be that as it may, the bottom line is that it actually is fairly difficult to go OBE *and* stay in the physical world. Iīve been told that it is possible, and perhaps Iīve managed to do it myself once (not sure, though). It seems like there are no sharp boundary between the physical and the Astral, rather more like a continuum. So, when you go OBE, you may "glide" away into the Astral gradually, without really noticing anything, except perhaps that your surroundings slowly change somewhat. So, while it may indeed be possible to do the experiment you describe, it may take someone who is very accomplished to do it, and even then you are not assured of total success. Also, reading at all is for some unknown reason notoriously difficult while OBE. (It may be that reading is an ability that actually depend on brain patterns, and while OBE you donīt have your brain with you ;-) (Phew, that was a long reason, now for number two!) 2. Even if the experiment you describe could be performed in principle, perhaps you would have a hard time finding willing subjects. Before I started having OBEs, I was just like you - I really wanted proof, not only for myself, but to "prove it to the world", as it were. It just does not seem so important to me any more. Since I have done it, repeatedly, I already *know* itīs true - I donīt need any more proof. As for the rest of the world, I donīt think it is ready for it yet. The mechanistic paradigm is too firmly rooted, at least in the "scientific" community, and the organized mobs of Skeptics, the self-proclaimed defenders of mechanistic orthodoxy, will denounce and "debunk" any positive outcome of an experiment. Actually I think the kind of experiments you propose actually have been performed, with positive but not completely unambiguous results. They have been "debunked" of course, on the grounds that since it is possible the results were faked, the *must* have been (rather like saying that since there exist good counterfeits, there are no real bills). You see, to a Skeptic, the mechanistic world view (the notion that all phenomena in nature are explainable in terms of known mathematical laws and interactions) isnīt an hypothesis, but an axiom. If an experiment shows data that cannot be explained in mechanistic terms, then it must be faulty. And if no errors in experiment design can be found, the experimenters *must* have forged their journals. In this manner, any experiment result, no matter how conclusive, can be torn to shreds. Ordinary scientists for the most part look the other way when this happens, because the results challenge some of the very foundations of science (predictability, repeatability, and the detached, unbiased experimenter), and it is easier to pretend it isnīt there or believe it has been "debunked" that to reevaluate perhaps a lifetime of research. This is what have happened to all positive results in paranormal research, not just concerning OBEs. 1. Someone performs an experiment on some paranormal phenomenon. 2. If positive results are obtained, and if a publisher is willing to take the risk, it is published. 3. "Debunkers" scrutinize the experiment. Inevitably, they conclude that the experiment was lacking in some respect. (Note: the "debunkers" need not present any evidence for their conclusion - their merely saying so is accepted as proof.) 4. The experiment is ignored and forgotten by science, the experimenter is disreputed, the "debunkers" move on to their next victim, and mechanistic orthodoxy is saved once again! So, few experimenters are willing to stick their necks out, since they know that no matter what results, they will be branded as fakes anyway. And as far as the subjects are concerned, they know what they have experienced, and what they can do, but feel no need to prove it to others. > Now I never thought I would move over > to the sceptics corner, but they do have a point. And all the people > on this news group, why not stick two fingers up at James Randi and > his colleagues and claim the million dollars for proving obe's or RV. James Randi, as one of the most notorious "debunkers", would never accept *any* evidence of the paranormal. He can always find a way to explain away it. (If nothing else helps, he says that the experimenters faked their data. How do you prove that you havenīt?) > Another thing which really got me thinking was Steven LaBerge and his > excellent books on lucid dreaming. Surely this can explain most obe's, > can't it. Well, in a sense, yes. But this doesnīt mean that OBEs are unreal as dreams. It means that Lucid dreams, and even ordinary ones, are *real* in any practical sense of the word. Perhaps this is too much for you to swallow, but it is the conclusion I have reached (dreams being unconscious OBEs). > If any one could answer my queries without jumping into 'new-age > bullshit mode' I would be most grateful. I still want to believe, and > I still personally think there must be something to it all, but I > desperately need some hard evidence to remain interested. Sadly, I donīt think you are going to get any hard evidence, other than perhaps the most solid kind of all, personal experience. It all boils down to this: Once you have done it yourself there can no longer be any doubt about its authenticity. Those who want to believe, will continue so. Those who donīt also will remain in their disbelief. Thatīs life. The only way you can be certain, is by achieving it yourself, something I highly recommend. Those who have experienced it themselves, however, they *know*. > Thanks, > > Robert. Youīre welcome, and See you out there... /Gunnar -- Nothing has ever been proved. -- (Charles Fort) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 20:38:12 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 50 Message-ID: <35705cdc.46194821@news.eunet.no> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sat, 30 May 1998 13:10:33 +0200, Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: >So, this all boils down to this: On the available data, it seems likely >that when you go OBE you (usually at least) at the same time leave this >physical universe altogether, and enter some other "dimension" or >"plane", that in some ways are similar to the physical, though in other >ways not. Such a place has been described by mystics since ancient >times, and is usually named the "Astral plane". This name is as good as >any, so Iīll use it. > >The Astral plane seems to be almost infinite in extent, not subject to >the usual laws of space and time, and made out of some "matter" which is >more susceptible to thoughts than ordinary matter. All physical objects >and places seem to leave an "impression", an imperfect Astral "copy" of >the "original". The deviations could be caused by conscious and/or >unconscious influences from people/creatures/entities "out there" or by >interference from other Astral "places". > >Be that as it may, the bottom line is that it actually is fairly >difficult to go OBE *and* stay in the physical world. Iīve been told >that it is possible, and perhaps Iīve managed to do it myself once (not >sure, though). It seems like there are no sharp boundary between the >physical and the Astral, rather more like a continuum. So, when you go >OBE, you may "glide" away into the Astral gradually, without really >noticing anything, except perhaps that your surroundings slowly change >somewhat. I have been wondering if there are more "timelines" or dimensions, maybe an infinite number. You say that the transition feels like a continuum. Would it be possible to stop "gliding", check the surroundings, "glide" some more and check the surroundings if they get gradually stranger? I seem to remember Robert Monroe describing that he could go out of the physical body and then go out of that Astral body to end up in a completely different "dimension". There are practially an infinite number of radio channels in the air. I wonder if they could be likened to "dimensions" and our body could be likened to a sentient radio? One would simply stay on one station most of the time but when one felt like it one could simply slide off that station and slowly or quickly go to another frequency. What if there are people in this world with a defective or missing AFC? That would explain OBEs, mediums, psychics etc. By the way, great posting! Arthur Engh arthur.engh@eunet.no > ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: 30 May 1998 23:47:09 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 113 Message-ID: References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > Robert wrote: > > So the main question arises, why doesn't someone proficient in remote > > viewing or obe'ing carry out some double-blind experiment to prove it > > once and for all - you know, stick a number in a room and try to view > > Soon I began to notice more discrepancies - doors and windows in wrong > places, furniture I didnīt own, indeed whole rooms that didnīt exist. My > "bedroom" never was unrecognizable, but always somewhat different from > what it "should" be. Is this allways the case? For all OBEers? I remember reading in a.oob that some do see the world reliably. Some write about etheric vs astral OBE which seem to have exactly this difference between them. > The Astral plane seems to be almost infinite in extent, not subject to > the usual laws of space and time, and made out of some "matter" which is > more susceptible to thoughts than ordinary matter. All physical objects > and places seem to leave an "impression", an imperfect Astral "copy" of > the "original". The deviations could be caused by conscious and/or > unconscious influences from people/creatures/entities "out there" or by > interference from other Astral "places". And the Etheric plane? This is more supposed to be like the normal world. > Be that as it may, the bottom line is that it actually is fairly > difficult to go OBE *and* stay in the physical world. Iīve been told > that it is possible, and perhaps Iīve managed to do it myself once (not > sure, though). It seems like there are no sharp boundary between the > physical and the Astral, rather more like a continuum. So, when you go > OBE, you may "glide" away into the Astral gradually, without really > noticing anything, except perhaps that your surroundings slowly change > somewhat. Is this a bit like there being no sharp boundry between wakeing and an daydrem? Astral quasi an Etheric daydream? > You see, to a Skeptic, the mechanistic world view (the notion that all > phenomena in nature are explainable in terms of known mathematical laws > and interactions) isnīt an hypothesis, but an axiom. If an experiment > shows data that cannot be explained in mechanistic terms, then it must > be faulty. And if no errors in experiment design can be found, the > experimenters *must* have forged their journals. In this manner, any > experiment result, no matter how conclusive, can be torn to shreds. You are actually giving them too much credit (cannot be explained). Most skeptics I have seen on the net will claim anything to be an illusion for which there does not _already_ exist an mechanistic explanation. Even if there exists poniter suggesting that there may be an explanaition in the future, they will not accept it. While I am an firm believer in materialistic explanations, I look at parapsychology as "not yet explained", not as "not explained, so it must be bunk". My current hypothesis (science-speak for speculation) is that the Etheric (and telepathy) is an phenomen of electrical fields and the astral (and above) are an representation of the human brains contents, as the term "internal travel" also suggests. > Ordinary scientists for the most part look the other way when this > happens, because the results challenge some of the very foundations of > science (predictability, repeatability, and the detached, unbiased > experimenter), and it is easier to pretend it isnīt there or believe it > has been "debunked" that to reevaluate perhaps a lifetime of research. Or are simply overworked and desinterested enough to ignore it. > > Another thing which really got me thinking was Steven LaBerge and his > > excellent books on lucid dreaming. Surely this can explain most obe's, > > can't it. > > Well, in a sense, yes. But this doesnīt mean that OBEs are unreal as > dreams. It means that Lucid dreams, and even ordinary ones, are *real* > in any practical sense of the word. Perhaps this is too much for you to > swallow, but it is the conclusion I have reached (dreams being > unconscious OBEs). I would support that astral OBE is a form of lucid dream. But etheric OBE seems to be more a form of telepathy. > > If any one could answer my queries without jumping into 'new-age > > bullshit mode' I would be most grateful. I still want to believe, and > > I still personally think there must be something to it all, but I > > desperately need some hard evidence to remain interested. > > Sadly, I donīt think you are going to get any hard evidence, other than > perhaps the most solid kind of all, personal experience. It all boils > down to this: Once you have done it yourself there can no longer be any > doubt about its authenticity. Yes, that is why I am trying it, so far no success. Try further... > Youīre welcome, and > > See you out there... Great post. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!worldfeed.gte.net!nntp.flash.net!excalibur.flash.net!not-for-mail From: "Evelyn" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: 31 May 1998 03:44:39 GMT Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Lines: 38 Message-ID: <01bd8c47$9ef0f4c0$614c1ed1@logmein.flash.net> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk><356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: lash8-97.flash.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Neil Franklin wrote in article ... > Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > > Robert wrote: > > > So the main question arises, why doesn't someone proficient in remote > > > viewing or obe'ing carry out some double-blind experiment to prove it > > > once and for all - you know, stick a number in a room and try to view > > > > Soon I began to notice more discrepancies - doors and windows in wrong > > places, furniture I didnīt own, indeed whole rooms that didnīt exist. My > > "bedroom" never was unrecognizable, but always somewhat different from > > what it "should" be. > > Is this allways the case? For all OBEers? > > I remember reading in a.oob that some do see the world reliably. Some > write about etheric vs astral OBE which seem to have exactly this > difference between them. > I did have one perfect OBE while in high school. At that time, I didn't know about OBEs and thought it was a freak occurance of precognition. Not only did the living room look identical to real life, but all the events I saw came to pass exactly as I saw them about 2 months later. In that experience, I had the strange tunnel vision with zoom capabilities and floating body that is common in OBEs. I even felt the compulsion to hide so that my mother wouldn't see me and get scared and so floated behind a door, but then I realized she couldn't see me if I didn't want her to. So I think it IS possible to see the real world, but maybe just quite difficult. Perhaps I was able to do it because my conscious mind was not sticking its nose into my subconscious mind's business! -- Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel. -Evelyn ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!sun4nl!bullseye.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!flyers.demon.co.uk!glyn From: Glyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 09:35:23 +0100 Organization: home Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: flyers.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: flyers.demon.co.uk:158.152.37.166 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 896603821 nnrp-08:29332 NO-IDENT flyers.demon.co.uk:158.152.37.166 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.04 Lines: 77 In article <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk>, Robert writes > >So the main question arises, why doesn't someone proficient in remote >viewing or obe'ing carry out some double-blind experiment to prove it >once and for all - you know, stick a number in a room and try to view >it. If McMoneagle and Moorehouse can view enemy installations as easy as >they say, then why can't they do a simple experiment to prove remote >viewing scientifically. Now I never thought I would move over to the >sceptics corner, but they do have a point. And all the people on this >news group, why not stick two fingers up at James Randi and his >colleagues and claim the million dollars for proving obe's or RV. There are serious experiments going on, but the trouble is the ability is so damn inconsistent. Also, people interested in such things have been, in the past, (and still are, though it's getting better), lumped with the 'psychic weirdo' label. Even successes tend to be viewed as coincidence, lies, or magic tricks. People like Uri Geller haven't done serious research any favours either (as far as the general public is concerned anyway), but at least they've brought publicity to it; which helps towards acceptance. Uri may or may not have psi abilities, and there are reports of him having been tested many times, but he is such an showman/entertainer that he tends to be discounted as a stage magician. He's very clever anyway, and he makes a good living out of it, so good luck to him. The point I'm trying to make, is that if there were people who had very strong and controllable psi abilities then in the present climate of opinion they only have a limited number of options. Either they 'do a Uri', (and that's OK because it's not threatening and the public will 'wink' and accept it), or they have to go ahead in secret. If I had such abilities (which I haven't unfortunately) there's absolutely no way I'd want to be plunged into the lime-light, as I'm not that kind of person, and wouldn't want to spend my life being pursued by the press and odd-balls. I would go ahead in secret; perhaps with others with the same interests. I believe that such 'powers' once proven to be consistent and accurate, would actually be viewed as threatening by some that did not have the ability themselves. People in general are not ready yet.....so research will continue, 'hiding' behind the slightly weirdo image, or in complete secrecy; until such a time that the climate is right. As a personal aside I think that there probably are people 'out there' who could give Randi a pretty good run for his money, but perhaps for the reasons above they decline the invitation......who knows? >Another thing which really got me thinking was Steven LaBerge and his >excellent books on lucid dreaming. Surely this can explain most obe's, >can't it. I think that to prove a true obe you would have to actually observe the 'real' world, and then go to places/talk to people afterwards and confirm that scenes/events really existed or happened. People have claimed to have done this. I think visits to the 'astral plane' etc. are lds.....but I keep an open mind. > >If any one could answer my queries without jumping into 'new-age >bullshit mode' I would be most grateful. I still want to believe, and I >still personally think there must be something to it all, but I >desperately need some hard evidence to remain interested. Yes, there is an awful lot of new-age, (and not so new) psychobabble surrounding psi. Some of this is very old however, and like 'old wives' tales' may contain distorted and forgotten truths; if we can only dig deep enough and discard the 'chaff'. The 'hard evidence' you need would be to actually be able to do it yourself. Without that you can only believe, there is nothing else.....Belief without personal proof is, to me, illogical, but we would never have got out of the caves without it. Hang on in there......... -- Regards, Glyn ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!europa.clark.net!206.251.127.50!worldfeed.gte.net!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:22:07 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 31 Message-ID: <6ksshd$lc2$2@gte2.gte.net> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> <3571B708.9E6E6E55@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: 2cust30.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: 550A83860B8C4D8243120412 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > Is this allways the case? For all OBEers? > > > > I remember reading in a.oob that some do see the world reliably. Some > > write about etheric vs astral OBE which seem to have exactly this > > difference between them. > > I seem to recall that unintentional OBEs, in particular those associated > with accidents, sickness etc. (NDE being an extreme case of this) > usually seem to take place in the normal, physical world. > > When it comes to intentional OBEs it seems they most often take place in > the Astral. Someone hypothesized that this, as the *natural environment* > of the 2nd body, is where one automatically ends up, unless proficient > and strong-willed enough to remain in the physical. > It also seems that the closer you are to being completely awake and aware when you have an OBE, the more solid and etheric the OBE environment seems to be. The closer you are to falling asleep, the more astral the environment becomes. Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!masternews.telia.net!news.algonet.se!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:01:00 +0200 Organization: Algonet/Tninet Lines: 42 Message-ID: <3571B6FC.BC890964@algonet.se> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> <35705cdc.46194821@news.eunet.no> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du44-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > I have been wondering if there are more "timelines" or dimensions, > maybe an infinite number. You say that the transition feels like a > continuum. Yes. One example is background sounds, which does not go away at once when I go OBE, but rather dies away within about two seconds. > Would it be possible to stop "gliding", check the > surroundings, "glide" some more and check the surroundings if they get > gradually stranger? I guess it would be possible. The problem is: I usually "glide" automatically and unintentionally. (Havenīt the kind of control Iīd like to. ;-) > I seem to remember Robert Monroe describing that > he could go out of the physical body and then go out of that Astral > body to end up in a completely different "dimension". There are > practially an infinite number of radio channels in the air. I wonder > if they could be likened to "dimensions" and our body could be likened > to a sentient radio? One would simply stay on one station most of the > time but when one felt like it one could simply slide off that station > and slowly or quickly go to another frequency. What if there are > people in this world with a defective or missing AFC? That would > explain OBEs, mediums, psychics etc. Great analogy (I think Don DeGracia uses it as well). I think it might well be like this. This could also explain the Voids (analogous to empty frequencies). > By the way, great posting! Why, thank you. > Arthur Engh > arthur.engh@eunet.no See you out there... /Gunnar ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!masternews.telia.net!news.algonet.se!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:01:12 +0200 Organization: Algonet/Tninet Lines: 71 Message-ID: <3571B708.9E6E6E55@algonet.se> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du44-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) Neil Franklin wrote: > > Is this allways the case? For all OBEers? > > I remember reading in a.oob that some do see the world reliably. Some > write about etheric vs astral OBE which seem to have exactly this > difference between them. I seem to recall that unintentional OBEs, in particular those associated with accidents, sickness etc. (NDE being an extreme case of this) usually seem to take place in the normal, physical world. When it comes to intentional OBEs it seems they most often take place in the Astral. Someone hypothesized that this, as the *natural environment* of the 2nd body, is where one automatically ends up, unless proficient and strong-willed enough to remain in the physical. > And the Etheric plane? This is more supposed to be like the normal > world. The Etheric is generally described as some "borderland" between the physical and the Astral - or indeed the very physical world as seen from an OBE state. > Is this a bit like there being no sharp boundry between wakeing and an > daydrem? Astral quasi an Etheric daydream? Perhaps. > You are actually giving them too much credit (cannot be explained). > Most skeptics I have seen on the net will claim anything to be an > illusion for which there does not _already_ exist an mechanistic > explanation. Even if there exists poniter suggesting that there may be > an explanaition in the future, they will not accept it. I think it is an incredible arrogance to assume that we already know all there is to know about the world, even the physical. The scientists of the late 19th century thought so too. Boy were they wrong. > While I am an firm believer in materialistic explanations, I look at > parapsychology as "not yet explained", not as "not explained, so it > must be bunk". And right you are. Materialistic explanations are very important and valuable. The mistake is to assume that there are nothing more. [snip] [About scientists] > Or are simply overworked and desinterested enough to ignore it. Also possible. > I would support that astral OBE is a form of lucid dream. But etheric > OBE seems to be more a form of telepathy. How so? Could you please explain? > Yes, that is why I am trying it, so far no success. Try further... Donīt give up. If you are persistent, I believe you *will* succeed, sooner or later. > Great post. Thank you, and, See you out there... /Gunnar ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!masternews.telia.net!news.algonet.se!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:01:31 +0200 Organization: Algonet/Tninet Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3571B71B.E71DFCE0@algonet.se> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk><356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> <01bd8c47$9ef0f4c0$614c1ed1@logmein.flash.net> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du44-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) Evelyn wrote: > > I did have one perfect OBE while in high school. At that time, I > didn't know about OBEs and thought it was a freak occurance of > precognition. Not only did the living room look identical to real > life, but all the events I saw came to pass exactly as I saw them > about 2 months later. In that experience, I had the strange tunnel > vision with zoom capabilities and floating body that is common in > OBEs. I even felt the compulsion to hide so that my mother wouldn't > see me and get scared and so floated behind a door, but then I > realized she couldn't see me if I didn't want her to. So I think it IS > possible to see the real world, but maybe just quite difficult. Exactly. This is just what I am saying. It not being impossible OBEing in the physical world, just kinda hard (for most people, most of the time). > Perhaps I was able to do it because my conscious mind was not sticking > its nose into my subconscious mind's business! > > -- > Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel. > -Evelyn See you out there... /Gunnar ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!fci-se!fci!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed.nyu.edu!worldfeed.gte.net!nntp.flash.net!excalibur.flash.net!not-for-mail From: Pete Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:17:24 -0500 Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Lines: 84 Message-ID: <35721D44.6BC8B195@flash.net> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: atlshiva2-86.flash.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) To: Robert Robert, Your question has been raised here many, many times. I was absent from this ng for 4 years and when I came back a few months ago, the same questions and discussions were taking place. People who have OBEs don't find it necessary to prove it to anyone. (That is one of the ways you can tell if someone has really experienced it). If I have experienced something for myself, why would I engage in a "debate" as to whether it is real. I already know the answer. Consistently, those people who have NOT experienced OBEs think that those who have experienced OBEs feel the need to prove it. We don't. My question to you is why you think that someone who has OBEd would feel the need to prove it to anyone? While the doubters post their taunts, we go on with the discussion and exploration of this fascinating phenomenon. Why should we pause to prove to someone the "world is not flat"? As far as lucid dreams go, I am aware of LaBerge's position on lucid dreams and OBEs and my experience with both leads me to disagree with him. However, I do believe that debate is somewhat interesting. If you are interested in experiencing an OBE, I suggest DaGracia's do_obe.txt (search Yahoo to find it) Two months after I read it, I had my first OBE. It takes some effort but it can be done. One final thing: I agree with you on the dogma thing. I (and others in this ng) have chosen to pursue the study of the OBE phenomenon from a scientific stand point. To that end, the only thing I consider to be "fact" when it comes to OBEs is what I have experienced myself. Many people will tell you (me included) "Don't believe anything anyone tells you about OBEs. If you want to know the truth, do it yourself". Pete Robert wrote: > Hi there, > > I'm new to this group so maybe these questions have been raised before, > I'm sure they must have. > > I have always been fascinated by the idea of obe's and especially remote > viewing. I really got hooked after reading Monroe's books and hearing > about the supposed military remote viewers. Now, because I was heavily > into UFO's and conspiracy theories etc. plus the fact that I wanted to > believe in obe's, I would defend the idea whenever anyone questioned the > validity of such reports. Personally I have never had an obe or remote > viewed anything, but I have dabbled in lucid dreaming. > > But now, I seem to asking myself a few questions about the whole thing. > We have all the alleged military remote viewers coming out with their > books, all the new-age quantum theory explanations as to how it could > possibly work, and postings to this news group for example, on how obe's > are a common experience for some people. > > So the main question arises, why doesn't someone proficient in remote > viewing or obe'ing carry out some double-blind experiment to prove it > once and for all - you know, stick a number in a room and try to view > it. If McMoneagle and Moorehouse can view enemy installations as easy as > they say, then why can't they do a simple experiment to prove remote > viewing scientifically. Now I never thought I would move over to the > sceptics corner, but they do have a point. And all the people on this > news group, why not stick two fingers up at James Randi and his > colleagues and claim the million dollars for proving obe's or RV. > > Another thing which really got me thinking was Steven LaBerge and his > excellent books on lucid dreaming. Surely this can explain most obe's, > can't it. > > If any one could answer my queries without jumping into 'new-age > bullshit mode' I would be most grateful. I still want to believe, and I > still personally think there must be something to it all, but I > desperately need some hard evidence to remain interested. > > Thanks, > > Robert. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!news.dbtech.net!not-for-mail From: "Suki" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: 1 Jun 1998 15:03:28 GMT Organization: db Technology News Services Lines: 5 Message-ID: <01bd8d6a$e5c3b4e0$894395d1@default> Reply-To: "Damia" NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.149.67.137 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162 The books "Surveillance" and "Metaconcert", by Julian May, deal with that subject (governments spying on other governments with OBEs), but they're science fiction. Just thought someone might be interested. -Suki ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!masternews.telia.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!not-for-mail From: arthur.engh@eunet.no (Arthur Engh) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:13:55 GMT Organization: EUnet Norway Lines: 47 Message-ID: <35730c0d.47385164@news.eunet.no> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> <35705cdc.46194821@news.eunet.no> <3571B6FC.BC890964@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.levanger-pm2-1.eunet.no X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sun, 31 May 1998 22:01:00 +0200, Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: >Arthur Engh wrote: >> >> I have been wondering if there are more "timelines" or dimensions, >> maybe an infinite number. You say that the transition feels like a >> continuum. > >Yes. One example is background sounds, which does not go away at once >when I go OBE, but rather dies away within about two seconds. Yes, that would indicate some sort of transition period. > >> Would it be possible to stop "gliding", check the >> surroundings, "glide" some more and check the surroundings if they get >> gradually stranger? > >I guess it would be possible. The problem is: I usually "glide" >automatically and unintentionally. (Havenīt the kind of control Iīd like >to. ;-) No, I guess it's not as easy as it sounds. I've tried for years but I've only gotten to the point mind awake, body asleep and when I got there I was so startled that I almost panicked back. I think fear is my greatest enemy. >> I wonder >> if they could be likened to "dimensions" and our body could be likened >> to a sentient radio? >Great analogy (I think Don DeGracia uses it as well). I think it might >well be like this. This could also explain the Voids (analogous to empty >frequencies). Don DeGracia? Never heard of him. I'll check up on him on the Net. The reason I came up with the analogy is that I fix electronic equipment for a living. > >See you out there... I'll try my best! Arthur ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: 02 Jun 1998 00:43:38 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> <3571B708.9E6E6E55@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > I would support that astral OBE is a form of lucid dream. But etheric > > OBE seems to be more a form of telepathy. > > How so? Could you please explain? I will try to explain this with an table: World is real World is unreal You feel in body real life dream (lucid or not) seen by eyes generated by brain You feel out body etheric proj astral proj seen by telepathy generated by brain -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-stkh.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!masternews.telia.net!news.algonet.se!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 19:23:42 +0200 Organization: Algonet/Tninet Lines: 34 Message-ID: <3574351E.E6FF9B3@algonet.se> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> <3571B708.9E6E6E55@algonet.se> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du162-93.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) Neil Franklin wrote: > > Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > I would support that astral OBE is a form of lucid dream. But > > > etheric OBE seems to be more a form of telepathy. > > > > How so? Could you please explain? > > I will try to explain this with an table: > > World is real World is unreal > > You feel in body real life dream (lucid or not) > seen by eyes generated by brain > > You feel out body etheric proj astral proj > seen by telepathy generated by brain So during a dream you feel in-body? ;-) BTW, I donīt think dreams and APs are generated by the brain at all. The mind-boggling complexity and sheer size of these environments IMHO makes it very unlikely for them to be brain-generated. Just think of the memory requirements. All these places seem to me to be equally real, which of course makes the words "real" and "unreal" meaningsless. Anything can only be real in comparison to something else which is not. See you out there... /Gunnar ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!128.230.129.106!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: Why no solid proof then? Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 22:17:41 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 24 Message-ID: <357dd82f.22379816@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: b2-24.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 Fri, 29 May 1998 20:50:49 +0000, Robert wrote: < snip > >So the main question arises, why doesn't someone proficient in remote >viewing or obe'ing carry out some double-blind experiment to prove it >once and for all - you know, stick a number in a room and try to view >it. Why ? Suppose someone did that. What would be the result ? They would simply be accused of a "trick". Besides, most people cannot go OOB consciously. Those who can usually have difficulty getting to a specific location. 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!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!newsin.iconnet.net!news.mcleodusa.net!news From: themissinglink Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Why no solid proof then? Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:14:10 -0500 Organization: By Divine Design Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3575A082.3E15@mcleodusa.net> References: <356F1FA3.A11A545@rl261.demon.co.uk> <356FE929.CF44D1AF@algonet.se> <35705cdc.46194821@news.eunet.no> <3571B6FC.BC890964@algonet.se> <35730c0d.47385164@news.eunet.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 211-A-36-180.ppp.mcleodusa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I) Arthur Engh wrote: > > >> I wonder > >> if they could be likened to "dimensions" and our body could be likened > >> to a sentient radio? that is perfect, in that truly dialing out frequencies, is a very real principle of tuning into your higher capacities and connecting to the finest frequencies that you are reaching for... it is definitely experiential... but that analogy is one that comes to me continually as a periphereal understanding. > > >Great analogy (I think Don DeGracia uses it as well). I think it might > >well be like this. This could also explain the Voids (analogous to empty > >frequencies). The > reason I came up with the analogy is that I fix electronic equipment > for a living. > > Well, that sure makes sense about your grasp of things.... all of the objective and electronic realms as well as "astral" (though that is a dimensionally limiting term, as you know, for there are many realms we can move through)voyaging all come under the jurisdiction of Uranus... which of course rules this present unfolding hour and great increase in skills and knowledge to enter the final frontier of spirit.... Indeed the dawn of the Age of Aquarius, though that term is as limited by blindsight as "astral". However, we all share the birthright of dimensions unfolding and available before our "eyes"! It's a time of wonder... > > >See you out there... > > I'll try my best! > > Arthur