Message-ID: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> From: Bast X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-CA MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: sceptic who wants to believe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:10:20 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.204.117 X-Complaints-To: abuse@videotron.net X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 911895154 207.253.204.117 (Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:12:34 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 03:12:34 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer1.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!wesley.videotron.net!weber.videotron.net.POSTED!not-for-mail A couple of years ago, I became interested in astral projection. I read a book by Lobsang Rampa (I'm not sure of the spelling) and I began practicing. I wanted to proove something, either that it was real or that it wasn't. After about 3 months of practicing every day, I finally lift off above my bed. Of course, it scared me half to death and I went right back into my body. Now, I am and have always been a sceptic and I made the realistic conclusion that it was just a dream! My theory is: It is known (and I have experienced it myself) that a person can control his own dream, it is called lucid dreaming (as you all know). Why astral projection wouldn't be just that? My experience did feel like a dream. Has any of you really scientificly prooved that you actually got OUT of your body? I don't mean knowing somebody who did, I mean you, personnally. If so, I would really like to hear about it. ###### From: Akindeji Hill Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:34:38 -0500 Organization: University of South Florida Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: suntan.eng.usf.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: ahill@suntan In-Reply-To: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.usf.edu!suntan!ahill On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Bast wrote: > A couple of years ago, I became interested in astral projection. I read > a book by Lobsang Rampa (I'm not sure of the spelling) and I began > practicing. I wanted to proove something, either that it was real or > that it wasn't. After about 3 months of practicing every day, I finally > lift off above my bed. Of course, it scared me half to death and I went > right back into my body. > > Now, I am and have always been a sceptic and I made the realistic > conclusion that it was just a dream! My theory is: > > It is known (and I have experienced it myself) that a person can control > his own dream, it is called lucid dreaming (as you all know). Why astral > projection wouldn't be just that? My experience did feel like a dream. > > Has any of you really scientificly prooved that you actually got OUT of > your body? I don't mean knowing somebody who did, I mean you, > personnally. If so, I would really like to hear about it. > > > Hey you should look up more on the net about astral projection. You might find that alot of people hold lucid dreaming and astral projection to be the same. The slight difference is that in OBE you leave the sceen of your dream. The illusion goes away. I don't have proof except, well, How about this, If I win the lottery this week then I guess that will be proof. I had a dream that some bold guy (Posibly my Grandfather, I don't remember him very well) came to me and gave me two lottery numbers and said to find the rest for him. Today a co-worker gave me one more number, she dreamed that she won and only remembered one more number, plus one of the numbers I got. Now I have three. If I actually in succeding in OBE before the end of the week I'll push my consiousness through time and grab the last three. LOL. This is fun. At least that will prove that lucid dreaming has some tie to reality. But I have very much faith in Astral Projection. I don't really need proof. I know that is silly to you, but I guess everyone has some faith in something. Until latter. ###### Message-ID: <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 06:02:26 +1100 From: Craig Organization: Deja Vous X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.18.28.10 X-Trace: 25 Nov 1998 07:34:20 +1000, 203.18.28.10 Lines: 54 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!209.244.253.199!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.shore.net!uunet!in5.uu.net!nap-ns1!203.18.28.10 Hi Bast. Hmmm, if I asked you to 'prove' without a doubt that you dream, I mean, show me that you are dreaming, not by saying that your in REM, therefor in a dream or whatever, you would find it just as difficult to prove that as I would to prove to you that I have OBE's. I think asking people to prove the existence of the OBE is exactly the same as asking to prove the existence of dreams. The only difference is that people are more willing to just accept people dream without having to ask for proof. :-) No, you will find no proof here, just people who all know that they can do it themselves. :-) Maybe one day we will be able to record our dreams and share them with others, but until that time, I don't think there will ever be concrete proof to prove OBE's or indeed dreams even exist. How do you know a dream isn't just you thinking while you are asleep anyway. And if it is, prove it. ;-) I have the good fortune to be able to say I have dreamed, LD and had OBE's, and I know, for myself anyway, that they are all different within themselves. But that doesn't prove anything now, does it. I just know it to be so. :-) All the best Craig All the best Craig Bast wrote: > > A couple of years ago, I became interested in astral projection. I read > a book by Lobsang Rampa (I'm not sure of the spelling) and I began > practicing. I wanted to proove something, either that it was real or > that it wasn't. After about 3 months of practicing every day, I finally > lift off above my bed. Of course, it scared me half to death and I went > right back into my body. > > Now, I am and have always been a sceptic and I made the realistic > conclusion that it was just a dream! My theory is: > > It is known (and I have experienced it myself) that a person can control > his own dream, it is called lucid dreaming (as you all know). Why astral > projection wouldn't be just that? My experience did feel like a dream. > > Has any of you really scientificly prooved that you actually got OUT of > your body? I don't mean knowing somebody who did, I mean you, > personnally. If so, I would really like to hear about it. -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin To respond, delete _nospam_ scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au -- ###### From: Lucid Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: 29 Nov 1998 22:12:30 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 75 Message-ID: <36623444.4B1343EE@hotmail.com> References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts009d14.oak-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master Trent, and Bast, Lucid dream can be proven...isn't that good enough? And if there is such a state as a lucid state in the dream, then wouldn't you think there is such a possibility as the oobe state? It probably will be proven soon, and I wouldn't be suprise at all if some of these bright people in this ng are the first one to find the proof. lucid Trent Williams wrote: > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > > On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Craig wrote: > > > Hi Bast. > > > > Hmmm, if I asked you to 'prove' without a doubt that you dream, I mean, > > show me that you are dreaming, not by saying that your in REM, therefor > > in a dream or whatever, you would find it just as difficult to prove > > that as I would to prove to you that I have OBE's. I think asking people > > to prove the existence of the OBE is exactly the same as asking to prove > > the existence of dreams. The only difference is that people are more > > willing to just accept people dream without having to ask for proof. :-) > > No, you will find no proof here, just people who all know that they can > > do it themselves. :-) Maybe one day we will be able to record our dreams > > and share them with others, but until that time, I don't think there > > will ever be concrete proof to prove OBE's or indeed dreams even exist. > > How do you know a dream isn't just you thinking while you are asleep > > anyway. And if it is, prove it. ;-) I have the good fortune to be able > > to say I have dreamed, LD and had OBE's, and I know, for myself anyway, > > that they are all different within themselves. But that doesn't prove > > anything now, does it. I just know it to be so. :-) > > > > All the best > > Craig > > > > All the best > > Craig > > > > Bast wrote: > > > > > > A couple of years ago, I became interested in astral projection. I read > > > a book by Lobsang Rampa (I'm not sure of the spelling) and I began > > > practicing. I wanted to proove something, either that it was real or > > > that it wasn't. After about 3 months of practicing every day, I finally > > > lift off above my bed. Of course, it scared me half to death and I went > > > right back into my body. > > > > > > Now, I am and have always been a sceptic and I made the realistic > > > conclusion that it was just a dream! My theory is: > > > > > > It is known (and I have experienced it myself) that a person can control > > > his own dream, it is called lucid dreaming (as you all know). Why astral > > > projection wouldn't be just that? My experience did feel like a dream. > > > > > > Has any of you really scientificly prooved that you actually got OUT of > > > your body? I don't mean knowing somebody who did, I mean you, > > > personnally. If so, I would really like to hear about it. > > > > -- > > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > > > > To respond, delete _nospam_ > > scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au > > -- > > > > > > > > ###### From: sterno@bigbrother.net Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:52:33 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 35 Message-ID: <73tpsu$qud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36623444.4B1343EE@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.68.128.31 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Nov 30 09:52:33 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x9.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 206.68.128.31 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Trent, and Bast, > Lucid dream can be proven...isn't that good enough? And if there is such a > state as a lucid state in the dream, then wouldn't you think there is such a > possibility as the oobe state? Lucid Dreams are pretty commonly accepted by people because many people have them, and they fit well within our modern scientific understanding of how dreams work. Dreams would be nothing more than a bunch of images that are generated by our brains during sleep that are influenced by our subconcious mind. No pyschologist in the world would have a problem with the concept of a lucid dream. On the other hand, the concept of being able to travel in the physical world using some ethereal form is well outside the established scientific doctrine. The modern scientific understanding of how the mind functions doesn't accomodate the concept of being able to travel to distant locations outside of our physical body. Believing in LD's doesn't require much of a leap of faith but OBE's really do. > It probably will be proven soon, and I wouldn't be suprise at all if some of > these bright people in this ng are the first one to find the proof. It would be nice to see that. Unfortunately many professional scientists, are so well absorbed by the scientific doctrine of our day that they will never be convinced. But all in all, that's okay. Just because the scientists of the day said the earth was flat and that our planet was the center of existence, didn't mean that somebody couldn't come along and eventually proove them wrong. ---Steve -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### Message-ID: <366297ED.74243563@netparadise.no> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:04:45 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t1o204p58.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t1o204p58.telia.com Lines: 18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t1o204p58.telia.com Trent Williams wrote: > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > That is a tough questions.... I have proof on telepathy, precognitive dreams, remote viewing, but good evidence on OOBE remains dead.... I guess I will find some one day.... Lars P.S. It wouldn't be too much of trouble for the Monroe-institute to proove OOBE would it? Or maybe they already have? ###### From: Trent Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:08:56 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> NNTP-Posting-Host: student.uq.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.idt.net!news-feed.fnsi.net!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!student.uq.edu.au!s341783 Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Craig wrote: > Hi Bast. > > Hmmm, if I asked you to 'prove' without a doubt that you dream, I mean, > show me that you are dreaming, not by saying that your in REM, therefor > in a dream or whatever, you would find it just as difficult to prove > that as I would to prove to you that I have OBE's. I think asking people > to prove the existence of the OBE is exactly the same as asking to prove > the existence of dreams. The only difference is that people are more > willing to just accept people dream without having to ask for proof. :-) > No, you will find no proof here, just people who all know that they can > do it themselves. :-) Maybe one day we will be able to record our dreams > and share them with others, but until that time, I don't think there > will ever be concrete proof to prove OBE's or indeed dreams even exist. > How do you know a dream isn't just you thinking while you are asleep > anyway. And if it is, prove it. ;-) I have the good fortune to be able > to say I have dreamed, LD and had OBE's, and I know, for myself anyway, > that they are all different within themselves. But that doesn't prove > anything now, does it. I just know it to be so. :-) > > All the best > Craig > > All the best > Craig > > Bast wrote: > > > > A couple of years ago, I became interested in astral projection. I read > > a book by Lobsang Rampa (I'm not sure of the spelling) and I began > > practicing. I wanted to proove something, either that it was real or > > that it wasn't. After about 3 months of practicing every day, I finally > > lift off above my bed. Of course, it scared me half to death and I went > > right back into my body. > > > > Now, I am and have always been a sceptic and I made the realistic > > conclusion that it was just a dream! My theory is: > > > > It is known (and I have experienced it myself) that a person can control > > his own dream, it is called lucid dreaming (as you all know). Why astral > > projection wouldn't be just that? My experience did feel like a dream. > > > > Has any of you really scientificly prooved that you actually got OUT of > > your body? I don't mean knowing somebody who did, I mean you, > > personnally. If so, I would really like to hear about it. > > -- > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > > To respond, delete _nospam_ > scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au > -- > > > > ###### Message-ID: <3662E4F1.7A368926@the.end.of.the.message> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 05:33:21 +1100 From: Craig Organization: Deja Vous X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.18.28.17 X-Trace: 1 Dec 1998 07:20:12 +1000, 203.18.28.17 Lines: 43 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.axxsys.net!router1.news.adelphia.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!nap-ns1!203.18.28.17 Trent wrote: > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? Hi Trent. I never said that anyone 'here' could not find proof that OBE's exist. :-) After all, I have proven to myself that they do exist just like so many others here. What I was saying was, that the proof that we find for ourselves is almost, if not, impossible to show to someone else. Let me put this to you. ;-) Do you dream? I would say, yes you do. Well, prove it! How can you prove to me that you dream? You know yourself that you do, you have proof, FOR YOURSELF, that you do. But how do you show someone else your dreams? Show me you are dreaming. Now, lets say you CAN somehow prove to me that you dream. Then you say that you can lucid dream. Well, now I want proof of that too. Can you prove also that you lucid dream? I don't think that you can prove, without a doubt, to anyone else, that you do indeed have lucid dreams. :-) See what I mean. The only proof that OBE's exist, will come in the form of self. That is why there are so many who do not believe, who need outside proof. They can dream, sure, most people do, so no one needs proof about dreams, but when some people try to have an OBE and find that they cannot, therefor not getting the self proof, they tend to not believe that it is possible. That is when they start to question others about proving that the experience does indeed exist. IMO. No, I cannot prove to you, or anyone else that I can have OBE's, I can only share what I have done and hope that, in the same way that you believe I can dream, or have LD's, I can have OBE's. At any rate, I have no need to prove to anyone that I can have OBE's. Ultimately I am doing this for myself anyway. :-) The funny thing is, not believing, is one of the best ways to stop yourself from having an OBE in the first place. IMO, in order to be able to get OOB, you first must truly believe it is possible. :-) All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin To respond, delete _nospam_ scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au -- ###### From: "Richard" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:36:50 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com - Discussions start here! Lines: 56 Message-ID: <73vhu9$kl$1@supernews.com> References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36691127.4010601@news.melbpc.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.48.95.47 X-Trace: 912476936 I0G4.QBCE5F2FCF30C usenet52.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed-east.supernews.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail Following the logic . . . You can not always dream when you want to or about a subject you want to dream about, but no one doubts existence of dreams. I have had OOBEs that have proven it for me, and the person that was involved as my target in those projections. But the only real proof for a skeptic would be to experience an OOBE for themselves. One can be open to the experience, but the proof has to be your own. -- RBWalton Visit this web page for some useful OOB links. . . www.angelfire.com/ca/onestepbeyond/ To respond, delete #nospam# rbwalton@#nospam#bigfoot.com John Fitzsimons wrote in message <36691127.4010601@news.melbpc.org.au>... >On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:08:56 +1000, Trent Williams > wrote: > >>Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > >< snip > > >His answer might be : > >(1) Most people here cannot have an OOB *when* they want to. > >(2) When they do go OOB they do not go somewhere physical and/or >exactly where they had intended going. > >(3) What is proof for the experiencer is not necessarily proof for >you. > >(4) Many people are not interested in being guinea pigs and *proving* >to you, or anyone else, what they believe they are doing. > >(5) If you want "proof" then do what others here do. Do your own >searching/experiencing. > >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/ > > ###### From: chester basshead Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:33:45 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 1 Dec 1998 05:29:01 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Mon Nov 30 21:35:11 1998 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 33 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust31.tnt7.lax1.da.uu.net Message-ID: <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Trent Williams wrote: > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > > Hi Trent. Many of the people experieced in the realms of OBE, etc.. don't have the standard textbook Newtonian view of reality. The question of proof is much less important that 'what the hell is this illusion'? to many. I believe it has been proven, though, in ways that could easily be put under scientific scutiny. Many people have met up with other astral travelers at particular non-physical locations, many have visited family and friends and described their actions and environments at particular times. I have a friend who had an OOBE and visited a friend at her house which he had never seen before and accurately identified it afterwords (and was quite surprised after a visit!) My opinion is that most people firmly embedded within a voyage of self discovery and spiritual evolution have deeper concerns and much deeper unanswered questions than 'prove this to someone who hasn't experienced it'. I would personally be a bit saddened if the Monroe Institute ever wasted money on such silly propositions... I don't see it as important at all. Peace from Within, Brian ###### From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:37:57 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 32 Message-ID: <36691127.4010601@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> NNTP-Posting-Host: bilby16.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 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.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 On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:08:56 +1000, Trent Williams wrote: >Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? < snip > His answer might be : (1) Most people here cannot have an OOB *when* they want to. (2) When they do go OOB they do not go somewhere physical and/or exactly where they had intended going. (3) What is proof for the experiencer is not necessarily proof for you. (4) Many people are not interested in being guinea pigs and *proving* to you, or anyone else, what they believe they are doing. (5) If you want "proof" then do what others here do. Do your own searching/experiencing. 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/ ###### From: chester basshead Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:03:49 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> <36645251.EEFE319A@the.end.of.the.message> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 1 Dec 1998 22:58:24 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Tue Dec 1 15:05:04 1998 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 45 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust15.tnt5.lax1.da.uu.net Message-ID: <366475D5.42CF5243@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!la-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Craig wrote: > > > Sometimes, Lars, people need hard proof of things before they will > believe they exist. Just getting the Monroe Inst. to give proof (which > is what they have done pretty well anyway, by being so public about it) > doesn't mean people will believe. Look at what the NSA or FBI did with > RV. Still, even though the American Government set up programs for > spying on the Russians etc., there are people who just will not believe > until it is 'proven. I mean, really, what do we have to do? By popping > next door and describing in detail what I see, will not be evidence > enough for these people anyway. They will always come back with some > other 'logical' explanation, IMO. The only real proof that people can > get, is to do this for themselves, but even then there is a catch. For, > in the end, if they don't succeed in getting OOB, it would just add more > fuel to the fire. No, I don't even think we need to prove this. If they > don't want to believe we can do this, that's up to them, as long as > nobody tries to stop me, who cares what they think. :-) > > Hi Craig! I agree with you. When 'Alain Aspect' proved that the non-local presumptions of quantum mechanics were actually REAL, most of the scientific community ignored it. Because many physicists have the same close minded mentality as evangelical biblical literalists. One of the conclusions I came to after studying statistics and demography is that both sides of any issue can be sufficently proven. I believe people become addicted to their cute beliefs and what 'reality' IS to them and no amount of proof will change any of that. The fact is, as anyone would know from reading such cool books as 'Leaving The Body' by D. Scott Rogo, OBE's have been documented, scientifically studied and PROVED since the 1800's. I personally don't feel I will ever know what is really going on when they occur but the experiments people suggest in these types of posting have already been conducted countless times. Anyone who seriously researches the topic will find the documentation themselves. But I also think the most enjoyable and meaningful 'proof' is achieving the state yourself. :-) peace from within, brian ###### Message-ID: <3663F9F8.1D8930D4@netparadise.no> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:15:20 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <3662E4F1.7A368926@the.end.of.the.message> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p6.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p6.telia.com Lines: 86 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p6.telia.com Craig, you can't compare dreams and out of body experiences like that... Dreams are not know to take place outside your body. They are personal. While on the other out of body experiences are known to be outside your body where you find yourself in your own bed. You may find yourself in your bedroom and can travel everywhere you want. This is how you can prove OOBE too. You can travel to your neighbor and describe the living room down to the smallest detail: That is proof. Many people have done this, and can do it again. The only thing needed to be done it to do it in a laboratory. Make a report and there you have it: Proof. Is that too much of a problem? Why not just do it and get over with it? People ask for proof all the time, why not produce the proof and get the issue out of the world. I believe this has already been done, and the report is out there somewhere. But where? I guess I could ask around and see if I find something... Just need to find evidence on people that have been able to gather information from another physical area in a labratory... That shouldn't be too hard. Dreams are mostly subjective, while OOBE are mostly objective... Take care, Lars Craig wrote: > Trent wrote: > > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > > Hi Trent. > > I never said that anyone 'here' could not find proof that OBE's exist. > :-) After all, I have proven to myself that they do exist just like so > many others here. What I was saying was, that the proof that we find for > ourselves is almost, if not, impossible to show to someone else. Let me > put this to you. ;-) Do you dream? I would say, yes you do. Well, prove > it! How can you prove to me that you dream? You know yourself that you > do, you have proof, FOR YOURSELF, that you do. But how do you show > someone else your dreams? Show me you are dreaming. Now, lets say you > CAN somehow prove to me that you dream. Then you say that you can lucid > dream. Well, now I want proof of that too. Can you prove also that you > lucid dream? I don't think that you can prove, without a doubt, to > anyone else, that you do indeed have lucid dreams. :-) See what I mean. > The only proof that OBE's exist, will come in the form of self. That is > why there are so many who do not believe, who need outside proof. They > can dream, sure, most people do, so no one needs proof about dreams, but > when some people try to have an OBE and find that they cannot, therefor > not getting the self proof, they tend to not believe that it is > possible. That is when they start to question others about proving that > the experience does indeed exist. IMO. No, I cannot prove to you, or > anyone else that I can have OBE's, I can only share what I have done and > hope that, in the same way that you believe I can dream, or have LD's, I > can have OBE's. At any rate, I have no need to prove to anyone that I > can have OBE's. Ultimately I am doing this for myself anyway. :-) The > funny thing is, not believing, is one of the best ways to stop yourself > from having an OBE in the first place. IMO, in order to be able to get > OOB, you first must truly believe it is possible. :-) > > All the best > Craig > -- > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > > To respond, delete _nospam_ > scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au > -- ###### Message-ID: <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:28:34 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p6.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p6.telia.com Lines: 41 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p6.telia.com chester basshead wrote: > > I believe it has been proven, though, in ways that could easily be put under > scientific scutiny. Many people have met up with other astral travelers at > particular non-physical locations, many have visited family and friends and > described their actions and environments at particular times. I have a friend > who had an OOBE and visited a friend at her house which he had never seen before > and accurately identified it afterwords (and was quite surprised after a visit!) > Right, easily proven.... why not just do it, and get on with it...? > > My opinion is that most people firmly embedded within a voyage of self discovery > and spiritual evolution have deeper concerns and much deeper unanswered > questions than 'prove this to someone who hasn't experienced it'. I would > personally be a bit saddened if the Monroe Institute ever wasted money on such > silly propositions... I don't see it as important at all. Do you want as many people as possible to be given the chance to experience something like an out of body experience? Then wouldn't proof on these experiences give more inspiration and strength to those that want to try? The Monroe Institute have been doing research on out of body experiences for decades... Wouldn't proving the possibility of seeing other physical locations while out of body the first thing to do? To prove that you are really leaving your body? Who is better to proven OOBEs than The Monroe Inst.... I would be jumping with joy if they could put an end to the issue. To rule out telepathy do the picture or the stuff that is the target need to be generated randomly. Regards, Lars ###### From: sterno@bigbrother.net Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:20:00 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 47 Message-ID: <741fge$tq2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <3662E4F1.7A368926@the.end.of.the.message> <3663F9F8.1D8930D4@netparadise.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.242.228.33 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Dec 01 19:20:00 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x9.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.242.228.33 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > I believe this has already been done, and the > report is out there somewhere. But where? > I guess I could ask around and see if I find > something... > > Just need to find evidence on people that have > been able to gather information from another > physical area in a labratory... > That shouldn't be too hard. > > Dreams are mostly subjective, while OOBE > are mostly objective... I think the reason that it seems so difficult to provide a solid body of scientificly validated evidence is similar to why finding a solid body of evidence for cold fusion is so difficult. Two unrelated subjects, but they both suffer from a dramatic stigma which keeps them well clear of being presented in respected publications. I read an article on Cold Fusion in Wired a couple months ago and it was fascinating. There are countless scientists in the world who are able to proove cold fusion exists. The problem though is that it is incosistent and the general scientific community is unwilling to publish anything about the subject after the fiasco they had several years ago. The general conclusion is that until somebody makes a working application of cold fusion, nobody will believe it. I've read countless articles and postings and a couple books which have all described OBE's. Many people have researched it on some level and proven in some manner that the phenomenon exists. Until somebody can get published in what is considered to be a reputable source, most people won't believe it. Instead they think that it is all a trick by scam artists, or the dellusion of a few flaky people. I think that if somebody approaches the subject with a rational and open mind they will find that the proponderance of evidence points to the legitimacy of OBE's. The bulk of people though are too easily swayed by popular opinion and they will miss out on an intriguing experience because of it. Of course that's there problem :) ---Steve -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### Message-ID: <3664505B.B558F52F@the.end.of.the.message> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 07:23:55 +1100 From: Craig Organization: Deja Vous X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <3662E4F1.7A368926@the.end.of.the.message> <3663F9F8.1D8930D4@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.18.28.9 X-Trace: 2 Dec 1998 08:48:42 +1000, 203.18.28.9 Lines: 112 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.shore.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!nap-ns1!203.18.28.9 Hey, woo down there Lars. ;-) I didn't compare dreams with OBE's. I simply stated that proving the two is basically the same. :-) At this point in time I think you would find it hard to prove that we dream, I mean, not just stating that we think we dream when in REM etc., I mean, actually showing that someone is dreaming. I can't for the life of me figure why people have such a hard time just believing that some can indeed get OOB, without proof, when everyone believes that everyone else dreams, cos most of us do that anyway. :-) Oh, btw, don't you believe in 'dream pools'. That's the place the consciousness goes to dream. It's outside the body. :-) All the best Craig Lars Foleide wrote: > > Craig, > you can't compare dreams and out of body experiences like that... > > Dreams are not know to take place outside your body. They > are personal. > While on the other out of body experiences are known to > be outside your body where you find yourself in your own > bed. You may find yourself in your bedroom and can travel > everywhere you want. > > This is how you can prove OOBE too. > You can travel to your neighbor and describe the living room > down to the smallest detail: That is proof. > > Many people have done this, and can do it again. > The only thing needed to be done it to do it in a laboratory. > Make a report and there you have it: Proof. > > Is that too much of a problem? > Why not just do it and get over with it? > People ask for proof all the time, > why not produce the proof and get the > issue out of the world. > > I believe this has already been done, and the > report is out there somewhere. But where? > I guess I could ask around and see if I find > something... > > Just need to find evidence on people that have > been able to gather information from another > physical area in a labratory... > That shouldn't be too hard. > > Dreams are mostly subjective, while OOBE > are mostly objective... > > Take care, > Lars > > Craig wrote: > > > Trent wrote: > > > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > > > > Hi Trent. > > > > I never said that anyone 'here' could not find proof that OBE's exist. > > :-) After all, I have proven to myself that they do exist just like so > > many others here. What I was saying was, that the proof that we find for > > ourselves is almost, if not, impossible to show to someone else. Let me > > put this to you. ;-) Do you dream? I would say, yes you do. Well, prove > > it! How can you prove to me that you dream? You know yourself that you > > do, you have proof, FOR YOURSELF, that you do. But how do you show > > someone else your dreams? Show me you are dreaming. Now, lets say you > > CAN somehow prove to me that you dream. Then you say that you can lucid > > dream. Well, now I want proof of that too. Can you prove also that you > > lucid dream? I don't think that you can prove, without a doubt, to > > anyone else, that you do indeed have lucid dreams. :-) See what I mean. > > The only proof that OBE's exist, will come in the form of self. That is > > why there are so many who do not believe, who need outside proof. They > > can dream, sure, most people do, so no one needs proof about dreams, but > > when some people try to have an OBE and find that they cannot, therefor > > not getting the self proof, they tend to not believe that it is > > possible. That is when they start to question others about proving that > > the experience does indeed exist. IMO. No, I cannot prove to you, or > > anyone else that I can have OBE's, I can only share what I have done and > > hope that, in the same way that you believe I can dream, or have LD's, I > > can have OBE's. At any rate, I have no need to prove to anyone that I > > can have OBE's. Ultimately I am doing this for myself anyway. :-) The > > funny thing is, not believing, is one of the best ways to stop yourself > > from having an OBE in the first place. IMO, in order to be able to get > > OOB, you first must truly believe it is possible. :-) > > > > All the best > > Craig > > -- > > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > > > > To respond, delete _nospam_ > > scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au > > -- -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin To respond, delete _nospam_ scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au -- ###### Message-ID: <36645251.EEFE319A@the.end.of.the.message> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 07:32:17 +1100 From: Craig Organization: Deja Vous X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.18.28.9 X-Trace: 2 Dec 1998 08:48:48 +1000, 203.18.28.9 Lines: 69 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsgate.tandem.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!nap-ns1!203.18.28.9 Lars Foleide wrote: > > chester basshead wrote: > > > > > I believe it has been proven, though, in ways that could easily be put under > > scientific scutiny. Many people have met up with other astral travelers at > > particular non-physical locations, many have visited family and friends and > > described their actions and environments at particular times. I have a friend > > who had an OOBE and visited a friend at her house which he had never seen before > > and accurately identified it afterwords (and was quite surprised after a visit!) > > > > Right, easily proven.... why not just do it, and get on with it...? > > > > > My opinion is that most people firmly embedded within a voyage of self discovery > > and spiritual evolution have deeper concerns and much deeper unanswered > > questions than 'prove this to someone who hasn't experienced it'. I would > > personally be a bit saddened if the Monroe Institute ever wasted money on such > > silly propositions... I don't see it as important at all. > > Do you want as many people as possible to be given the chance to experience > something like an out of body experience? > Then wouldn't proof on these experiences give more inspiration and strength to those > > that want to try? > > The Monroe Institute have been doing research on out of body experiences > for decades... Wouldn't proving the possibility of seeing other physical locations > while out of body the first thing to do? To prove that you are really leaving your > body? > > Who is better to proven OOBEs than The Monroe Inst.... > I would be jumping with joy if they could put an end to the issue. > > To rule out telepathy do the picture or the stuff that is the target need > to be generated randomly. > > Regards, > Lars Sometimes, Lars, people need hard proof of things before they will believe they exist. Just getting the Monroe Inst. to give proof (which is what they have done pretty well anyway, by being so public about it) doesn't mean people will believe. Look at what the NSA or FBI did with RV. Still, even though the American Government set up programs for spying on the Russians etc., there are people who just will not believe until it is 'proven. I mean, really, what do we have to do? By popping next door and describing in detail what I see, will not be evidence enough for these people anyway. They will always come back with some other 'logical' explanation, IMO. The only real proof that people can get, is to do this for themselves, but even then there is a catch. For, in the end, if they don't succeed in getting OOB, it would just add more fuel to the fire. No, I don't even think we need to prove this. If they don't want to believe we can do this, that's up to them, as long as nobody tries to stop me, who cares what they think. :-) All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin To respond, delete _nospam_ scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au -- ###### Message-ID: <36655A8A.9870F4A@netparadise.no> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 15:19:38 +0000 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <3662E4F1.7A368926@the.end.of.the.message> <3663F9F8.1D8930D4@netparadise.no> <741fge$tq2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p19.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p19.telia.com Lines: 58 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p19.telia.com sterno@bigbrother.net wrote: > > I think the reason that it seems so difficult to provide a solid body of > scientificly validated evidence is similar to why finding a solid body of > evidence for cold fusion is so difficult. Two unrelated subjects, but they > both suffer from a dramatic stigma which keeps them well clear of being > presented in respected publications. > > I read an article on Cold Fusion in Wired a couple months ago and it was > fascinating. There are countless scientists in the world who are able to > proove cold fusion exists. The problem though is that it is incosistent and > the general scientific community is unwilling to publish anything about the > subject after the fiasco they had several years ago. The general conclusion > is that until somebody makes a working application of cold fusion, nobody > will believe it. Hmmm, I should check up that story on cold fusion in wired, and read it myself... > > I've read countless articles and postings and a couple books which have all > described OBE's. Many people have researched it on some level and proven in > some manner that the phenomenon exists. Until somebody can get published in > what is considered to be a reputable source, most people won't believe it. > Instead they think that it is all a trick by scam artists, or the dellusion > of a few flaky people. Me too, the only thing need is a report, and the experiment need to be done in a labratory... It doesn't have to be published in a reputable source... Just need it to show to those that are interested... > > I think that if somebody approaches the subject with a rational and open mind > they will find that the proponderance of evidence points to the legitimacy of > OBE's. The bulk of people though are too easily swayed by popular opinion > and they will miss out on an intriguing experience because of it. Of course > that's there problem :) Yeah, its a shame.... I sent a post to alt.research.monroe-inst regarding proof and got this email in reply: ------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 20:50:52 -0500 From: "---- -. ----" <---@------.---.---> To: Lars Foleide Subject: Monroe Institute I am sure the Monroe Institute has evidence to prove OBE's. (they have a record of a lot of OBE's on cassette. They keep this stash out of reach from people though...) ------------ Maybe I will send them an email and see what they got. Cheers, Lars ###### Message-ID: <3665601D.8003F233@netparadise.no> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 15:43:25 +0000 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <3662E4F1.7A368926@the.end.of.the.message> <3663F9F8.1D8930D4@netparadise.no> <3664505B.B558F52F@the.end.of.the.message> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p19.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p19.telia.com Lines: 32 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p19.telia.com Craig wrote: > Hey, woo down there Lars. ;-) > > I didn't compare dreams with OBE's. I simply stated that proving the two > is basically the same. :-) At this point in time I think you would find > it hard to prove that we dream, I mean, not just stating that we think > we dream when in REM etc., I mean, actually showing that someone is > dreaming. I can't for the life of me figure why people have such a hard > time just believing that some can indeed get OOB, without proof, when > everyone believes that everyone else dreams, cos most of us do that > anyway. :-) I still don't see the logic. Dreaming is something everyone does. OOBE is not. It is like saying, if you believe in walking, why not believe in OOBE? (Just my opinion on comparing dreams with OOBE) > > Oh, btw, don't you believe in 'dream pools'. That's the place the > consciousness goes to dream. It's outside the body. :-) Give a good reason for believing it, and maybe I will... So far do I not see many reasons why dreams should not take place in the brain. Studies on energy leaving the body could prove that wrong... Regards, Lars ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: 02 Dec 1998 23:21:36 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 56 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lars Foleide writes: > > chester basshead wrote: > > > > > I believe it has been proven, Unlikely. > > though, in ways that could easily be put under > > scientific scutiny. The wasy are not the problem. The problem is that any provably (to an other person) observed thing could also be explained with PSI. > > Many people have met up with other astral travelers at > > particular non-physical locations, many have visited family and friends and > > described their actions and environments at particular times. Could be share dreams using telepathy to synchronise. > > I have a friend > > who had an OOBE and visited a friend at her house which he had never seen be fore > > and accurately identified it afterwords (and was quite surprised > > after a visit!) Could be remote viewing while in dream state > Right, easily proven.... why not just do it, and get on with it...? Seeing the other location is proven, but not the experience of being out of body. That is the cruy of this problem. > To rule out telepathy do the picture or the stuff that is the target need > to be generated randomly. That would only rule out brain-to-brain telepathy but not matter-to-brain remote viewing / clairvoyance. The fundamental problem is that there exist no second party proof even for the existance of conciousness! Let allone dreams*, LDs or even OBEs. * REM can be proven, theta/alpha/beta waves also, but not the experience of an dream. -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:12:19 -0500 Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 45 Message-ID: <744lb2$ohe@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh42-59.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Dec 02 4:17:38 PM PST 1998 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!news.idt.net!ix.netcom.com!news >* REM can be proven, theta/alpha/beta waves also, but not the >experience of an dream. According to the book I've been reading, Padre Pio occasionally left signs that he was actually at certain places. There is supposedly at least one item - a piece of a bed sheet with a blood stain in the shape of a cross where he put his hand during a healing while in the act of bilocation. It is supposedly preserved in a glass frame (I don't know where). If they did a study on this and found it matched Pio's DNA - would it be proof? I don't know... I doubt it. I personally don't think we actually leave the body anyway. I'm one of those (and according to some of Pio's own words, so was he) who think of it more as an extension of our personality through awareness rather than actually "leaving the body". To me, time and space is really just an illusion that we've gotten ourselves tangled up in. We can shift our attention away from the physical, and in the act of doing so, we can say that we have left our body - but (IMO) what we have done, is simply shifted our point of view. One thing that has often amazed me is the reflective surface of a mirror - yes, simple things amaze me with their simplicity ;-) I mean... you can have an item sitting on a table - with a large mirror across the room. As you look at the mirror from one angle - there is the item reflecting off of it in a certain location of the mirror. But if you change your position in the room, so changes the position of the reflection in the mirror. The photons from the item are striking the mirror at every single angle - but we only see one angle at a time. If we saw every angle at the same time, we would not be able to function in the physical. We couldn't see anything. We couldn't feel anything. There would be no perspective from which to perceive time or space - but then... this is how PSI works because it goes beyond space and time... In short, I think it IS a function of PSI. I don't think it lessens anything about OBE. I actually think that OBE is a limited point of view in comparison to PSI. I feel there are some benefits to seeing it as being 'out-of-body', but I don't think it is a benefit to desperately cling to that specific point of view at all times. Bart ###### From: sterno@bigbrother.net Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 03:23:04 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 30 Message-ID: <74506n$udv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <3662E4F1.7A368926@the.end.of.the.message> <3663F9F8.1D8930D4@netparadise.no> <741fge$tq2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36655A8A.9870F4A@netparadise.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.68.128.32 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Dec 03 03:23:04 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x8.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 206.68.128.32 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Hmmm, I should check up that story on cold fusion in wired, and read it myself... Apparently you need some palladium and deuterium to do it. The problem seems to be that the palladium needs to be of a certain alloy to work best and nobody's really got the formula figured out. I've heard of people getting upwards of double the energy back that they put in though. Anyhow, that's a bit off topic so I'll stop now :) > Me too, the only thing need is a report, and the experiment need to be done > in a labratory... > It doesn't have to be published in a reputable source... > Just need it to show to those that are interested... Well as with all commonly held beliefs in any society it starts off with a few fringe people and slowly the masses get it. Welcome to the fringe folks! :) Really the evidence available is already enough for those genuinely open and interested in the subject. It's just those sceptics floating around on the periphery that need a little more. It would be nice to convince them though. > Maybe I will send them an email and see what they got. Say, if anybody on the newsgroup has a lot of money, work on gettting together a non-profit organization to work on this, okay? :) I'd be interested to hear what Monroe has got though! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### Message-ID: <3666C5CA.DE7B1434@netparadise.no> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 17:09:30 +0000 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p47.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p47.telia.com Lines: 99 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t2o204p47.telia.com Neil Franklin wrote: > Lars Foleide writes: > > > > chester basshead wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe it has been proven, > > Unlikely. Many people are making orgone cameras that can see energy leaving the body. Meaning that a tape or a picture of someone leaving their body should be proof enough. So in my opinion has someone already proven it. We have all seen the photo of bad quality that may or may not be fake. > > > > though, in ways that could easily be put under > > > scientific scutiny. > > The wasy are not the problem. The problem is that any provably (to an > other person) observed thing could also be explained with PSI. But labeling it PSI doesn't mean that energies aren't leaving the body to gather information..? These remote viewing / clairvoyance / bilocation can also be explained with partly out of body experiences. That is... not of full out of body experience, something is leaving the body, but you have still you awareness over you physical body... > > > > Many people have met up with other astral travelers at > > > particular non-physical locations, many have visited family and friends and > > > described their actions and environments at particular times. > > Could be share dreams using telepathy to synchronise. Telepathy can't exist without the exchange of information. This information is most likely exchanged with energies/particles. Or it could be energies meeting at higher vibrational states. > > > I have a friend > > > who had an OOBE and visited a friend at her house which he had never seen be > fore > > > and accurately identified it afterwords (and was quite surprised > > > after a visit!) > > Could be remote viewing while in dream state And remote viewing can be explained with energies. The subconscious projecting energy to find the information needed. Or the whole consciousness leaving the body to meet this friend at her house. > > > Right, easily proven.... why not just do it, and get on with it...? > > Seeing the other location is proven, but not the experience of being > out of body. That is the cruy of this problem. Do you have any references? I would like to have that kind of proof in my possesion. I have research on where a person is trying to figure out how a picture look like by dreaming about it. This is dreams where certain things in his dream might appear that are on the picture. Not real out of body experiences where you are like in the physical world somewhere. Research OOBE is much better than paranormal dreams... It is in my opinion enough to proven that you can see physical locations outside your body. So if you have any references, then that would be great... > > > To rule out telepathy do the picture or the stuff that is the target need > > to be generated randomly. > > That would only rule out brain-to-brain telepathy but not > matter-to-brain remote viewing / clairvoyance. Well, it is matter-to-brain remote viewing / clairvoyance proof I want so.... It is this that people have a hard time believing. Then comes the problem of explain how matter-to-brain remote viewing is possible. A reasonable explanation is that something is leaving the body and observing the world from outside its physical body. > > The fundamental problem is that there exist no second party proof even > for the existance of conciousness! Let allone dreams*, LDs or even OBEs. > > * REM can be proven, theta/alpha/beta waves also, but not the > experience of an dream. You can prove dreams with shared dreaming. Two persons share a dream, they both write them down. If they match is it proof that the other person dreams. Or it could just be proof on telepathy... :) Cheers, Lars ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: 03 Dec 1998 23:25:43 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 64 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> <744lb2$ohe@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "Bart" writes: > > >* REM can be proven, theta/alpha/beta waves also, but not the > >experience of an dream. > > According to the book I've been reading, Padre Pio occasionally left signs > that he was actually at certain places. There is supposedly at least one > item - a piece of a bed sheet with a blood stain in the shape of a cross Which to an second party would prove remote materialisation. But if one want an prove of some "thing" leaving the body (which is what skeptics demanding proof of OBE usually are thinking of) then this will not help either. > If they did a study on this and found it matched Pio's DNA - would it be > proof? Proof of materialisation (or rather apportation). Not of Pio being OBE. Proof are enormously tricky things. What does one really _observe_ vs what does one imagine to have happend behind the scene. > I don't know... I doubt it. I personally don't think we actually > leave the body anyway. The problem begins exactly there, with the word "we". If one defines that as "my conciousness" then the experience of _feeling_ ones point of conciousness outside of ones body leaves us with the unanswered question, whether conciousness is part of the body feeling itsself outside (mental focus) or some actual separate "thing" (most likely non-physical) that docks up to an different point in space-time. Given that physical is defined as "all that can be proven to exist" this is somewhat (:-)) difficult. > you look at the mirror from one angle - there is the item reflecting off of > it in a certain location of the mirror. But if you change your position in > the room, so changes the position of the reflection in the mirror. The > photons from the item are striking the mirror at every single angle You should have a go at reading: Richard Feyman, QED - the strange theory of light and matter He got an physics nobel prize for inventing QED (Quantun Electro Dynamics). > In short, I think it IS a function of PSI. I don't think it lessens > anything about OBE. I actually think that OBE is a limited point of view in > comparison to PSI. I feel there are some benefits to seeing it as being > 'out-of-body', but I don't think it is a benefit to desperately cling to > that specific point of view at all times. Actually this is also one of the explanations I am taking into account. -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: 03 Dec 1998 23:46:30 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 113 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> <3666C5CA.DE7B1434@netparadise.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lars Foleide writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > Unlikely. > > Many people are making orgone cameras that can see energy leaving the body. Actual photos of the astral body would be great. Now if only the plans for such an camera were openly available so people could disscuss the construction and what they think the camera is making images of. Self proclaimed "just trust us" experts are not regarded highly in critical society. > > The wasy are not the problem. The problem is that any provably (to an > > other person) observed thing could also be explained with PSI. > > But labeling it PSI doesn't mean that energies aren't leaving the body to > gather information..? Not necessarily leaving. Telepathy may well simply be biological radio. So it may just be recieving and evaluating non intentionally emited electromagnetic waves. No deliberate "thing" that leaves the body and comes back with information. > These remote viewing / clairvoyance / bilocation can also be explained > with partly out of body experiences. That is... not of full out of body > experience, something is leaving the body, but you have still you awareness > over you physical body... They _can_ be. Unfortunately the _can_ also be explained with "bioradio". Nailing one explanation down as provenly right and not the other is the problem. Exactly that is what is required to use them as proof that OBE exists. > > Could be share dreams using telepathy to synchronise. > > Telepathy can't exist without the exchange of information. > This information is most likely exchanged with energies/particles. > Or it could be energies meeting at higher vibrational states. There again: it could be just radio. Or some astral body. Nailing it down to astral is the impossible thing. But exactly that would be required to prove OBE (in the "something leaves body" definition the skeptics interpret out discussions to be about). > > Could be remote viewing while in dream state > > And remote viewing can be explained with energies. Or as bio radar. Again two possibilities, and still no nail. > > Seeing the other location is proven, but not the experience of being > > out of body. That is the cruy of this problem. > > Do you have any references? Oops, shoddy writing on my part. That should have been: If someone in an experiment brings back information from an other location, then ... [insert here the original sentance (seeing ...)]. > > That would only rule out brain-to-brain telepathy but not > > matter-to-brain remote viewing / clairvoyance. > > Well, it is matter-to-brain remote viewing / clairvoyance proof I want so.... What you want to prove, yes. But my remark was aimed at the discussion of whether one can prove OBE. And that is IMHO impossible. > It is this that people have a hard time believing. Skeptics at least do ... :-). For me PSI is fairly obvious. > Then comes the problem of explain how matter-to-brain remote viewing is > possible. A reasonable explanation is that something is leaving the body > and observing the world from outside its physical body. Not an explanation, just one hypothesis vying to be the explanation. Unfortunately no one can prove it to be more right than the radio variant. > > The fundamental problem is that there exist no second party proof even > > for the existance of conciousness! Let allone dreams*, LDs or even OBEs. > > > > * REM can be proven, theta/alpha/beta waves also, but not the > > experience of an dream. > > You can prove dreams with shared dreaming. Two persons share a dream, > they both write them down. If they match is it proof that the other person > dreams. Or it could just be proof on telepathy... :) Or ... Exactly that is the problem :-). It seems you are waking to understanding The Problem (TM). -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson ###### Message-ID: <3669B8B2.4949BAF3@the.end.of.the.message> Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 09:50:26 +1100 From: Craig Organization: Deja Vous X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <3662E4F1.7A368926@the.end.of.the.message> <3663F9F8.1D8930D4@netparadise.no> <3664505B.B558F52F@the.end.of.the.message> <3665601D.8003F233@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.18.28.23 X-Trace: 7 Dec 1998 06:15:29 +1000, 203.18.28.23 Lines: 46 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nntp.abs.net!cyclone.i1.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!nap-ns1!203.18.28.23 Lars wrote: > I still don't see the logic. Dreaming is something everyone does. OOBE > is not. > It is like saying, if you believe in walking, why not believe in OOBE? > (Just my opinion on comparing dreams with OOBE) Hmmmm, I don't understand why you don't understand. Again, I wasn't comparing dreams and OBE's! I am SIMPLY stating that proving either exist is equally as hard. It's a lot easier to 'prove' walking is possible, we can see that happening all around us. Nobody can see your dreams except you, nobody can prove you get OOB, without any doubt yet. Surely you can understand what I am saying without needing to analyse everything I say Lars! > Give a good reason for believing it, and maybe I will... > So far do I not see many reasons why dreams should not take place > in the brain. So, what you are saying is, that dreams are a part of the physical brain and nothing to do with the consciousness!? I would beg to differ. But if you want proof, that is something I can not give you Lars. It seems to me that you NEED some sort of proof for something to exist before you will even consider that it is possible. Sometimes you need to go with what you feel, over what you know is possible. I dunno, you sometimes attack people for being so sceptical, when half the time, this is how you appear to be yourself! > Studies on energy leaving the body could prove that wrong... Studies on energies leaving the body will only ever prove that some form of energy leaves the body. I don't see how you correlate this with people having dreams or OBE's. Until such a time when we can actually record what people experience while OOB or while dreaming, we aren't going to be able to actually prove these things exist, IMO. All the best Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin To respond, delete _nospam_ scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au -- ###### Message-ID: <366C1D4B.B7D5D3CD@netparadise.no> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:24:12 +0000 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> <3666C5CA.DE7B1434@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p2.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t3o204p2.telia.com Lines: 165 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t3o204p2.telia.com Neil Franklin wrote: > Lars Foleide writes: > > > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > > > Unlikely. > > > > Many people are making orgone cameras that can see energy leaving the body. > > Actual photos of the astral body would be great. Now if only the plans > for such an camera were openly available so people could disscuss the > construction and what they think the camera is making images of. One beautiful day when I have a lot of free time will I try finding one of these cameras, maybe get in contact with someone on the internet that know how to get one. Or use my intuition (wherever that might be) to build one myself. > Self proclaimed "just trust us" experts are not regarded highly in > critical society. > > > > The wasy are not the problem. The problem is that any provably (to an > > > other person) observed thing could also be explained with PSI. > > > > But labeling it PSI doesn't mean that energies aren't leaving the body to > > gather information..? > > Not necessarily leaving. Telepathy may well simply be biological radio. > So it may just be recieving and evaluating non intentionally emited > electromagnetic waves. No deliberate "thing" that leaves the body and > comes back with information. Telepathy has been proven not to be of electromagnetic waves, at least not on the higher frequencies... maybe down on ELF. They are more likely to be of scalar wave nature. Like in non-vector waves.... Waves that travel faster than speed of light. The nature of scalar waves are difficult to understand... If you want more info can you check out this site: http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/whscalar.htm And normal EM waves don't have the range that telepathy has... PSI and psionics is something I have studied for a long time, I have an ocean of experiences to pick from. Everything points in the direction that we are dealing with energies... How can you remote heal someone with waves that goes in every direction? > > These remote viewing / clairvoyance / bilocation can also be explained > > with partly out of body experiences. That is... not of full out of body > > experience, something is leaving the body, but you have still you awareness > > over you physical body... > > They _can_ be. Unfortunately the _can_ also be explained with "bioradio". > Nailing one explanation down as provenly right and not the other is the > problem. Exactly that is what is required to use them as proof that OBE > exists. Could you go in more details on this bioradio theory you have? Explaining it with the concept that normal radios work by just doesn't seem like a good explanation to me... And your subconscious would have to be constantly process all the information from the whole universe for you to be able to move around in this universe... And I can't see how the brain make a 3 dimensional replica of EM waves from all around the universe. It is just information, maybe with its origional origin, but compared to what? And how can you view a real-time converstaion with someone far, far away when the signal travel at the speed of light? > > > > Could be share dreams using telepathy to synchronise. > > > > Telepathy can't exist without the exchange of information. > > This information is most likely exchanged with energies/particles. > > Or it could be energies meeting at higher vibrational states. > > There again: it could be just radio. Or some astral body. Nailing it > down to astral is the impossible thing. But exactly that would be > required to prove OBE (in the "something leaves body" definition the > skeptics interpret out discussions to be about). > I wouldn't call it impossible...nothing is impossible... > > > > Could be remote viewing while in dream state > > > > And remote viewing can be explained with energies. > > Or as bio radar. Again two possibilities, and still no nail. So you can explain remote viewing in the past and future with EM waves? Interesting.... > > > > Seeing the other location is proven, but not the experience of being > > > out of body. That is the cruy of this problem. > > > > Do you have any references? > > Oops, shoddy writing on my part. That should have been: > > If someone in an experiment brings back information from an other > location, then ... [insert here the original sentance (seeing ...)]. > > > > That would only rule out brain-to-brain telepathy but not > > > matter-to-brain remote viewing / clairvoyance. > > > > Well, it is matter-to-brain remote viewing / clairvoyance proof I want so.... > > What you want to prove, yes. > > But my remark was aimed at the discussion of whether one can prove > OBE. And that is IMHO impossible. I find the information more important than the "how it works"... > > > It is this that people have a hard time believing. > > Skeptics at least do ... :-). For me PSI is fairly obvious. > > > Then comes the problem of explain how matter-to-brain remote viewing is > > possible. A reasonable explanation is that something is leaving the body > > and observing the world from outside its physical body. > > Not an explanation, just one hypothesis vying to be the explanation. > Unfortunately no one can prove it to be more right than the radio variant. If two people meet in the astral, then the physical environment has to be sent as information to the two people in form of EM waves. And both brains need to send out in form of these waves where their "supposed" astral body is right now, and the same goes for words that are being exchanged. I may not have proof that something is leaving the body, but viewing the matter on a rational ways points in one direction, and it is not the bio-radio. > > > > The fundamental problem is that there exist no second party proof even > > > for the existance of conciousness! Let allone dreams*, LDs or even OBEs. > > > > > > * REM can be proven, theta/alpha/beta waves also, but not the > > > experience of an dream. > > > > You can prove dreams with shared dreaming. Two persons share a dream, > > they both write them down. If they match is it proof that the other person > > dreams. Or it could just be proof on telepathy... :) > > Or ... > Exactly that is the problem :-). It seems you are waking to understanding > The Problem (TM). > > -- > Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic > neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ > "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson Cheers, Lars ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: 07 Dec 1998 23:57:02 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 133 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> <3666C5CA.DE7B1434@netparadise.no> <366C1D4B.B7D5D3CD@netparadise.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lars Foleide writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > Not necessarily leaving. Telepathy may well simply be biological radio. > > So it may just be recieving and evaluating non intentionally emited > > electromagnetic waves. No deliberate "thing" that leaves the body and > > comes back with information. > > Telepathy has been proven not to be of electromagnetic waves, at least > not on the higher frequencies... maybe down on ELF. Note that I wrote "may be". I was simply pointing out, that there is no _need_ for an thing to leave, because ther are other non-leave hypothesis existing (and more important: no doubt many potential not yet invented hypotheses to come). > And normal EM waves don't have the range that telepathy has... To be more precise: EM waves drop to 1/4 of their power at doubled distance. I an an electrical engineer and have buil an radio transmitter. > How can you remote heal someone with waves that goes > in every direction? How can you light out an single object with an lamp (light is EM waves). You focus the light. Bio-radio (assuming it is such, see below) could use an SAR (synthetic apearture radar, also known as "see around the corner" radar) like system. You just need an time sequence generator, a brain will do just fine for this :-). > > They _can_ be. Unfortunately the _can_ also be explained with "bioradio". > > Nailing one explanation down as provenly right and not the other is the > > problem. Exactly that is what is required to use them as proof that OBE > > exists. > > Could you go in more details on this bioradio theory you have? > Explaining it with the concept that normal radios work by just doesn't > seem like a good explanation to me... Note again the "can". I was not implying that that is the correct hypothesis. I was again pointing out that there exist multiple explanations for the phenomena we were discussing. I personally do not believe bio-radio to be right. One because of radio attenuating, and second because telepathy doesn't seem to suffer from faraday cages like EM does. > And your subconscious would have to be constantly process all the information > from the whole universe for you to be able to move around in this universe... Hmmm. Usenet is certainly not the medium to give you an course in information processing by neurocomputers (brains). But this one is actually not an problem. Distance is one. > And I can't see how the brain make a 3 dimensional replica of EM waves from > all around the universe. No need to. Just to extract features from it. Just like extracting from visual input (eyes). > It is just information, maybe with its origional origin, > but compared to what? All information is just patternd signals relative to some default value. That applies also to sight, hearing, etc. I happen to also be an ex-programmer. So I know this. Again: this is too complicated for Usenet, go and read some neurocomputing books. > And how can you view a real-time converstaion with someone far, far away when > the signal travel at the speed of light? That one also speaks against EM radio. But discounting radio still does not automatically prove energies leaving the body. It could also be some other type of (astral?) link between conciousnesses. Or some world generated by conciousness hypothesis. Or any other hypothesis, including one not known to either me or you or not even invented by any human. > > There again: it could be just radio. Or some astral body. Nailing it > > down to astral is the impossible thing. But exactly that would be > > required to prove OBE (in the "something leaves body" definition the > > skeptics interpret out discussions to be about). > > > > I wouldn't call it impossible...nothing is impossible... This is not an "impossible" as in "humans can't fly", but rather as in "white can not be black". Perhaps you should look into the philosophical issues of decidability. "Sopies Choice" from your fellow Norwegian Jostein Gaarder would be an start. > > Or as bio radar. Again two possibilities, and still no nail. > > So you can explain remote viewing in the past and future with > EM waves? Interesting.... Or something else. There are N possibilities. Even killing EM only makes that N-1. N-1 is not 1 (=energy leaving). So no proof for OBE in your definiton of energy leaving. > > But my remark was aimed at the discussion of whether one can prove > > OBE. And that is IMHO impossible. > > But my remark was aimed at the discussion of whether one can prove > > OBE. And that is IMHO impossible. > > I find the information more important than the "how it works"... I do not see how that remark fits in with the above bit. Could you elaborate? > I may not have proof that something is leaving the body, but viewing the matte r > on a rational ways points in one direction, and it is not the bio-radio. Unfortunately when it comes to proving conciousness (or any special state of it), which is what the original discussion was about, ratio says that we can not prove its existance, let alone how it works or what it feels like. -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson ###### Message-ID: <366CF54D.F88B000E@netparadise.no> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 10:45:49 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> <3666C5CA.DE7B1434@netparadise.no> <366C1D4B.B7D5D3CD@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p27.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p27.telia.com Lines: 128 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-stkh.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t2o204p27.telia.com Neil Franklin wrote: > > And normal EM waves don't have the range that telepathy has... > > To be more precise: EM waves drop to 1/4 of their power at doubled > distance. I an an electrical engineer and have buil an radio transmitter. Scalar waves don't have this problem... > > How can you remote heal someone with waves that goes > > in every direction? > > How can you light out an single object with an lamp (light is EM > waves). You focus the light. Bio-radio (assuming it is such, see > below) could use an SAR (synthetic apearture radar, also known as "see > around the corner" radar) like system. You just need an time sequence > generator, a brain will do just fine for this :-). Scalar waves have shown to have healing capabilities, so if you exchange EM waves with scalar waves do I find the theory more likely... > > > > > Could you go in more details on this bioradio theory you have? > > Explaining it with the concept that normal radios work by just doesn't > > seem like a good explanation to me... > > Note again the "can". I was not implying that that is the correct > hypothesis. I was again pointing out that there exist multiple > explanations for the phenomena we were discussing. > > I personally do not believe bio-radio to be right. One because of > radio attenuating, and second because telepathy doesn't seem to suffer > from faraday cages like EM does. > > > And your subconscious would have to be constantly process all the information > > from the whole universe for you to be able to move around in this universe... > > Hmmm. Usenet is certainly not the medium to give you an course in > information processing by neurocomputers (brains). But this one is > actually not an problem. Distance is one. Can't say I have looked into neruocomputer processing... Just know that they are fast...very fast. There may very well be some good holographic theories > > > And I can't see how the brain make a 3 dimensional replica of EM waves from > > all around the universe. > > No need to. Just to extract features from it. Just like extracting > from visual input (eyes). > > > It is just information, maybe with its origional origin, > > but compared to what? > > All information is just patternd signals relative to some default > value. That applies also to sight, hearing, etc. I happen to also be > an ex-programmer. So I know this. Again: this is too complicated for > Usenet, go and read some neurocomputing books. I like my energy theory, and think I will stick with that, maybe look more deeper into it. Like how can telekinesis be done without energy? But it is good that other people are taking care of other hypothesis. > > And how can you view a real-time converstaion with someone far, far away when > > the signal travel at the speed of light? > > That one also speaks against EM radio. But discounting radio still > does not automatically prove energies leaving the body. It could also > be some other type of (astral?) link between conciousnesses. Or some > world generated by conciousness hypothesis. Or any other hypothesis, > including one not known to either me or you or not even invented by > any human. That are a lot of ways explaining how things happen. I guess time will show what is the right hypothesis. I only need to find a good way to measure this energy. > > > > Or as bio radar. Again two possibilities, and still no nail. > > > > So you can explain remote viewing in the past and future with > > EM waves? Interesting.... > > Or something else. There are N possibilities. Even killing EM only > makes that N-1. N-1 is not 1 (=energy leaving). So no proof for OBE > in your definiton of energy leaving. No, still no proof, had to dig up proof just by discussing something... > > > But my remark was aimed at the discussion of whether one can prove > > > OBE. And that is IMHO impossible. > > > > I find the information more important than the "how it works"... > > I do not see how that remark fits in with the above bit. Could you > elaborate? The important thing is the actual OOBE experience, and what you can do while you have this experience. But in this case is it also interesting to know what is happening when you have the experiences, since knowing in detail what is happening might create effective techniques... Like if the energy leaving hypothesis is correct, then you can build a device that cause you to leave your body just like some people pull others out. But I have to disagree with your opinion that it is impossible to prove you are leaving your body. If it is energy that is leaving the body, then it is also possible to measure this energy. > > I may not have proof that something is leaving the body, but viewing the matter > > on a rational ways points in one direction, and it is not the bio-radio. > > Unfortunately when it comes to proving conciousness (or any special > state of it), which is what the original discussion was about, ratio > says that we can not prove its existance, let alone how it works or > what it feels like. Well, that is your opinion. I feel that everything that is real can also be proven... Cheers, Lars ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: 08 Dec 1998 22:26:24 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 43 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36637FB9.201D88E@earthlink.nXXXet> <3663FD12.EA4A558E@netparadise.no> <3666C5CA.DE7B1434@netparadise.no> <366C1D4B.B7D5D3CD@netparadise.no> <366CF54D.F88B000E@netparadise.no> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lars Foleide writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > And your subconscious would have to be constantly process all the informat ion > > > from the whole universe for you to be able to move around in this universe ... > > > > Hmmm. Usenet is certainly not the medium to give you an course in > > information processing by neurocomputers (brains). But this one is > > actually not an problem. Distance is one. > > Can't say I have looked into neruocomputer processing... Just know that they > are fast...very fast. There may very well be some good holographic theories Speed was not the main point, but the holographic id going there. I was mainly thinking of information filtering ability. Just think about how you recognize the an person or even a particular face out of all them pixels your eyes are recording. > > Unfortunately when it comes to proving conciousness (or any special > > state of it), which is what the original discussion was about, ratio > > says that we can not prove its existance, let alone how it works or > > what it feels like. > > Well, that is your opinion. I feel that everything that is real can also be > proven... Hmmm. The glass of drink here next to my keyboard is real. Now prove: a) that it is/was there, b) what drink and how much is in it. While looking into neurocomputing also take an side look at local information limits (essential travel limits of the information carrying medium (say photons difracted by the contents)). Of course for an Clairvoyant or OBEer there exists no such limit, but our hypothetical sceptic we want to prove OBE to is not an RVer :-). -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ "No, it was a JOKE! You can't RUN this!" Ken Thompson ###### From: wish@you.knew (Joe Russa (SUNEYE)) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 01:40:08 GMT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <366297ED.74243563@netparadise.no> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 10 Dec 1998 01:41:11 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Wed Dec 9 17:45:08 1998 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Lines: 41 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-002njnewap334.dialsprint.net Message-ID: <367225cb.87834057@news.earthlink.net> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:24:55 +1000, Trent Williams wrote: >Lars, wouldn't remote viewing by very similar to OBE? You might already >have your proof. >Trent > >On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Lars Foleide wrote: > >> Trent Williams wrote: >> >> > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? >> > >> >> That is a tough questions.... >> >> I have proof on telepathy, precognitive dreams, remote viewing, >> but good evidence on OOBE remains dead.... >> >> I guess I will find some one day.... >> Lars >> >> P.S. >> It wouldn't be too much of trouble for the Monroe-institute to >> proove OOBE would it? >> Or maybe they already have? >> >> >> Remote viewing is nowhere near an OBE. With remote viewing, you are sitting or lying in a trance and your mind sees images from other places. It is like being at the movies were you are sitting and seeing images. You are aware that your physical body is lying or sitting. With OBE, you are present at another location. It actually feels as if your physical body is at the other location, when in reality, it is your astral body. Joe Russa (SUNEYE) suneye@earthlink.net http://suneye.8m.com/ ###### From: Trent Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:20:06 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 89 Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36623444.4B1343EE@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: student.uq.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <36623444.4B1343EE@hotmail.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-a.ais.net!ais.net!news.ais.net!ameritech.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!student.uq.edu.au!s341783 Lucid, in my opinion Lucid Dreaming and OBE's are too different things. The idea of a lucid dream does not imply that one can venture in the real world while sleeping. Lucid dreaming also does not contridict todays current scientific theories. OBE's on the other hand do. Therefore to believe the possibitity of a conscious state while dreaming is not to imply that one believes in OBE. Trent On 29 Nov 1998, Lucid wrote: > Trent, and Bast, > Lucid dream can be proven...isn't that good enough? And if there is such a > state as a lucid state in the dream, then wouldn't you think there is such a > possibility as the oobe state? > > It probably will be proven soon, and I wouldn't be suprise at all if some of > these bright people in this ng are the first one to find the proof. > > lucid > > Trent Williams wrote: > > > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > > > > On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Craig wrote: > > > > > Hi Bast. > > > > > > Hmmm, if I asked you to 'prove' without a doubt that you dream, I mean, > > > show me that you are dreaming, not by saying that your in REM, therefor > > > in a dream or whatever, you would find it just as difficult to prove > > > that as I would to prove to you that I have OBE's. I think asking people > > > to prove the existence of the OBE is exactly the same as asking to prove > > > the existence of dreams. The only difference is that people are more > > > willing to just accept people dream without having to ask for proof. :-) > > > No, you will find no proof here, just people who all know that they can > > > do it themselves. :-) Maybe one day we will be able to record our dreams > > > and share them with others, but until that time, I don't think there > > > will ever be concrete proof to prove OBE's or indeed dreams even exist. > > > How do you know a dream isn't just you thinking while you are asleep > > > anyway. And if it is, prove it. ;-) I have the good fortune to be able > > > to say I have dreamed, LD and had OBE's, and I know, for myself anyway, > > > that they are all different within themselves. But that doesn't prove > > > anything now, does it. I just know it to be so. :-) > > > > > > All the best > > > Craig > > > > > > All the best > > > Craig > > > > > > Bast wrote: > > > > > > > > A couple of years ago, I became interested in astral projection. I read > > > > a book by Lobsang Rampa (I'm not sure of the spelling) and I began > > > > practicing. I wanted to proove something, either that it was real or > > > > that it wasn't. After about 3 months of practicing every day, I finally > > > > lift off above my bed. Of course, it scared me half to death and I went > > > > right back into my body. > > > > > > > > Now, I am and have always been a sceptic and I made the realistic > > > > conclusion that it was just a dream! My theory is: > > > > > > > > It is known (and I have experienced it myself) that a person can control > > > > his own dream, it is called lucid dreaming (as you all know). Why astral > > > > projection wouldn't be just that? My experience did feel like a dream. > > > > > > > > Has any of you really scientificly prooved that you actually got OUT of > > > > your body? I don't mean knowing somebody who did, I mean you, > > > > personnally. If so, I would really like to hear about it. > > > > > > -- > > > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > > > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > > > > > > To respond, delete _nospam_ > > > scrappy@_nospam_netconnect.com.au > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ###### From: Trent Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:24:55 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <366297ED.74243563@netparadise.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: student.uq.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <366297ED.74243563@netparadise.no> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!student.uq.edu.au!s341783 Lars, wouldn't remote viewing by very similar to OBE? You might already have your proof. Trent On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Lars Foleide wrote: > Trent Williams wrote: > > > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > > > > That is a tough questions.... > > I have proof on telepathy, precognitive dreams, remote viewing, > but good evidence on OOBE remains dead.... > > I guess I will find some one day.... > Lars > > P.S. > It wouldn't be too much of trouble for the Monroe-institute to > proove OOBE would it? > Or maybe they already have? > > > ###### From: Trent Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:06:10 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36691127.4010601@news.melbpc.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: student.uq.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <36691127.4010601@news.melbpc.org.au> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!student.uq.edu.au!s341783 G'day John (glad to see another Aussie in here), You seem to have got the wrong opinion of me. I am not after proof from anyone here, and when I deem it necercery to find proof, I will try. Thats points 4 and 5 covered. Points 1 and 2 are fair, but still it doen't rule out the posibility that OBE's are abled to be proven. And as for point 3, proof for the experiencer is not necercarily proof me, I would not care for whatever proof the experiencer gained in relation to my own proof. The proof I gain is all that matters. Regards, Trent On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John Fitzsimons wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:08:56 +1000, Trent Williams > wrote: > > >Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > > < snip > > > His answer might be : > > (1) Most people here cannot have an OOB *when* they want to. > > (2) When they do go OOB they do not go somewhere physical and/or > exactly where they had intended going. > > (3) What is proof for the experiencer is not necessarily proof for > you. > > (4) Many people are not interested in being guinea pigs and *proving* > to you, or anyone else, what they believe they are doing. > > (5) If you want "proof" then do what others here do. Do your own > searching/experiencing. > > 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/ > > > > ###### Message-ID: <3670D8FA.4E05A089@netparadise.no> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:34:02 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36623444.4B1343EE@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p5.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p5.telia.com Lines: 18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.online.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t2o204p5.telia.com Just one question: Just exacly what in current scinetific theories says that OOBE is an impossibility? Cheers, Lars Trent Williams wrote: > Lucid, in my opinion Lucid Dreaming and OBE's are too different things. > The idea of a lucid dream does not imply that one can venture in the > real world while sleeping. Lucid dreaming also does not contridict todays > current scientific theories. OBE's on the other hand do. Therefore to > believe the possibitity of a conscious state while dreaming is not to > imply that one believes in OBE. > Trent ###### Message-ID: <3670DAC6.F0487384@netparadise.no> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:41:42 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <366297ED.74243563@netparadise.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p5.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p5.telia.com Lines: 49 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!212.63.192.161.MISMATCH!newshub.bart.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.online.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t2o204p5.telia.com I just don't like that mind-matter communication proof I have to prove OOBE. Because it was paranormal dreams. Just normal dreams that was paranormal in the sense that they showed stuff that was on the picture he tried to describe. The experiment was a success with many hits. But it was still just paranormal dreams. Not a real OOBE where everything you see is the exact same as the real world. But I guess there are other experiments on remote viewing I can use. Cheers, Lars P.S. I got a link from some guy to a site with many links to remote viewing site, reports and stuff like that. Maybe I will find something there. Trent Williams wrote: > Lars, wouldn't remote viewing by very similar to OBE? You might already > have your proof. > Trent > > On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Lars Foleide wrote: > > > Trent Williams wrote: > > > > > Craig, why could no one here find proof that OBE existed? > > > > > > > That is a tough questions.... > > > > I have proof on telepathy, precognitive dreams, remote viewing, > > but good evidence on OOBE remains dead.... > > > > I guess I will find some one day.... > > Lars > > > > P.S. > > It wouldn't be too much of trouble for the Monroe-institute to > > proove OOBE would it? > > Or maybe they already have? > > > > > > ###### Message-ID: <3670DCC2.D114A585@netparadise.no> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:50:10 +0100 From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <366297ED.74243563@netparadise.no> <367225cb.87834057@news.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p5.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t2o204p5.telia.com Lines: 24 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.online.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t2o204p5.telia.com "Joe Russa (SUNEYE)" wrote: > Remote viewing is nowhere near an OBE. With remote viewing, you are > sitting or lying in a trance and your mind sees images from other > places. It is like being at the movies were you are sitting and seeing > images. You are aware that your physical body is lying or sitting. > With OBE, you are present at another location. It actually feels as if > your physical body is at the other location, when in reality, it is > your astral body. > > Joe Russa (SUNEYE) > suneye@earthlink.net > http://suneye.8m.com/ You don't even have to see images, they are mostly a product of your imagination. You enter this trance and words pop into your mind that you write down. You just listen very carefully to your subconscious. And then you try to make sense of what you wrote down.. That is at least how TRV works... Cheers, Lars ###### From: chester basshead Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:46:43 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <366297ED.74243563@netparadise.no> <367225cb.87834057@news.earthlink.net> <3670DCC2.D114A585@netparadise.no> X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ELN-Date: 11 Dec 1998 22:42:54 GMT X-ELN-Insert-Date: Fri Dec 11 14:45:05 1998 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 39 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust159.tnt5.lax1.da.uu.net Message-ID: <3671A0D3.B02CD3D2@earthlink.nXXXet> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail Lars Foleide wrote: > "Joe Russa (SUNEYE)" wrote: > > > Remote viewing is nowhere near an OBE. With remote viewing, you are > > sitting or lying in a trance and your mind sees images from other > > places. It is like being at the movies were you are sitting and seeing > > images. You are aware that your physical body is lying or sitting. > > With OBE, you are present at another location. It actually feels as if > > your physical body is at the other location, when in reality, it is > > your astral body. > > > > Joe Russa (SUNEYE) > > suneye@earthlink.net > > http://suneye.8m.com/ > > You don't even have to see images, they are mostly a product of your > imagination. You enter this trance and words pop into your mind > that you write down. You just listen very carefully to your subconscious. > And then you try to make sense of what you wrote down.. > That is at least how TRV works... > > Cheers, > Lars I agree. The information streaming in from every type of remote viewing I have practiced and read about is subtle at best. Of course, anyone who's read Courtney Brown's tales and the fictitious crap contained in 'psychic warrior', by david moorehouse would probably think it IS like watching a movie or something. not at all true in my experience, though. That's why I dig Joe Mcmoneagle so much... he's honest! :D peace bri ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <366297ED.74243563@netparadise.no> <367225cb.87834057@news.earthlink.net> <3670DCC2.D114A585@netparadise.no> <3671A0D3.B02CD3D2@earthlink.nXXXet> Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 03:23:27 +0100 Lines: 32 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p19.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p19.telia.com Message-ID: <367324d4.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news.tvd.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!t5o204p19.telia.com chester basshead wrote in message <3671A0D3.B02CD3D2@earthlink.nXXXet>... > >I agree. The information streaming in from every type of remote viewing I >have practiced and read about is subtle at best. Of course, anyone who's read >Courtney Brown's tales and the fictitious crap contained in 'psychic >warrior', by david moorehouse would probably think it IS like watching a >movie or something. not at all true in my experience, though. That's why I >dig Joe Mcmoneagle so much... he's honest! :D > >peace > >bri > Yeah, he is great, I need to buy some of his books one day... BTW, I got a bunch of books in the mail today. With subjects on every area. Two books on research on the paranormal. Books on the montauk project. Precognitive dreams. Booke by Bruce Cathie. One by Monroe. And some other books.. Anyone know if he has been interviewed by Art Bell? Cheers, Lars ###### From: Trent Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: sceptic who wants to believe Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 13:44:26 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <365A69EC.DE7CB2CE@hotmail.com> <365B02C2.6C0C5466@the.end.of.the.message> <36623444.4B1343EE@hotmail.com> <3670D8FA.4E05A089@netparadise.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: student.uq.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <3670D8FA.4E05A089@netparadise.no> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!student.uq.edu.au!s341783 You will have to excuse me for the time it takes me to reply. I do not have much time these days to sit at my computer. Befor I answer your question Lars I will just correct what I said below. I said that OBE's contidict todays scientific theories. What I should have said was that todays scientific theories do not have an explanation for the OBE. Now looking at this situation in this new light, I would say that no current scientific theory says that OBE's are neccerserily imposible. Trent On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Lars Foleide wrote: > Just one question: > Just exacly what in current scinetific theories says that OOBE is an > impossibility? > > > Cheers, > Lars > > Trent Williams wrote: > > > Lucid, in my opinion Lucid Dreaming and OBE's are too different things. > > The idea of a lucid dream does not imply that one can venture in the > > real world while sleeping. Lucid dreaming also does not contridict todays > > current scientific theories. OBE's on the other hand do. Therefore to > > believe the possibitity of a conscious state while dreaming is not to > > imply that one believes in OBE. > > Trent > > >