From: darrend@cableinet.co.uk (Darren) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Beliefs and arguments Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 04:25:12 GMT Organization: Cable Internet (post doesn't reflect views of Cable Internet) Message-ID: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: usr412-wol.cableinet.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news1.cableinet.co.uk 926137657 13913 194.117.135.179 (8 May 1999 04:27:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cableinet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 1999 04:27:37 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Lines: 39 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5.cableinet.net!cableinet-uk!news1.cableinet.co.uk!not-for-mail Having noticed recently that there have been one or two arguements between individuals about their beliefs/experiences and whether they are "real" or not. Who cares!!! If someone has experienced an OOBE or has experienced Remote Viewing then they KNOW it was real and to me, that is all that matters. Whether anyone else believes them doesn't (or shouldn't) matter. We are talking about an area which is very unknown and we are imposing 3rd dimensional/earth life/physical constraints on something which clearly transcends these constraints. Personally, I've only just started to learn how to have OOBE's and reading people's experiences (good/bad, plausable/implausable) is helping me a lot. They are helping to break down the "fear factor" within my conscious and sub-concious mind. I think ALL experiences ar valid. After all, even if you have just one OOBE in your whole life it should prove to YOU and no-one else that we are more that the physical. I know I've got along way to go (maybe years) but I don't mind that. Reading everyone's experiences is giving me a tremendous amount of inspiration. It's like my UFO research/belief. I've seen things before but I don't expect everyone to believe me, all that matters (and what should matter) is that I KNOW what I saw. If someone chooses to believe me then great but if they choose not to believe me then that's ok too. Maybe some aren't ready to believe yet. I've just finished reading Robert Monroe's third and final book, Ultimate Journey and the reports/experiences in his 3 books (which I think are absolutely wonderful) coupled with the one's I read in here are helping to break down my concious/subconcious barriers. So please keep posting your experiences in here and for those who seek to belittle others, PLEASE STOP!!! We are all greater than petty squabbling. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Happy and safe travelling and Love to all Darren ###### From: rgross6162@aol.com (RGross6162) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 9 May 1999 12:47:32 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> Message-ID: <19990509084732.28755.00001147@ng25.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Hello. I wish to thank you for your comments because I heartily agree with you. Many people just will not open up their minds to the possibility that there is indeed something else out there, and that we are all more than just the physical. Many will not believe unless they have a personal experience of their own. By being able to share our experiences, I think we are helping to open the door for many others who would otherwise continue along in their set ways, struggling along on this planet, not realizing that there is so much help for them to realize why they are here, if they would just open up their minds. Thanks again. Rose Ann ###### From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 23:42:49 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 53 Message-ID: <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: bilby4.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 Sat, 08 May 1999 04:25:12 GMT, darrend@cableinet.co.uk (Darren) wrote: >Having noticed recently that there have been one or two arguements >between individuals about their beliefs/experiences and whether they >are "real" or not. Who cares!!! Probably people who come to this newsgroup wondering whether OOB experiences are real or not. :-) >If someone has experienced an OOBE >or has experienced Remote Viewing then they KNOW it was real You obviously haven't had any experience of working with "delusional" people. I had a patient recently who had "voices" that told him that they would turn him into a frog if he didn't do certain things. He KNEW this was real. Are you going to suggest that he has a chance of becoming a frog sometime in the future ? If someone in a mental hospital KNOWS that they are Jesus Christ then are you suggesting that they are correct ? >and to me, that is all that matters. Fine, sure glad you don't work in the psychiatric field. You could end up telling all your delusional patients that there was nothing wrong with them. >Whether anyone else believes them doesn't (or shouldn't) matter. Perhaps as far as you are concerned. Some people however like to know whether an experience is an actual event or simply a daydream, fantasy etc. > We are talking about an area which is >very unknown and we are imposing 3rd dimensional/earth life/physical >constraints on something which clearly transcends these constraints. IF one is talking about OOB to physical people, in their physical environment, then it is reasonable to impose some 3rd dimensional criteria IMO. < snip > 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: "Frank" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 03:07:49 +0200 Organization: Customer of Online Internet Lines: 40 Message-ID: <7hah6m$ec4$1@trex.antw.online.be> References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: a00-122.antw.online.be X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.online.be!news.online.be!not-for-mail Here is how I see it : Some people believe to much in the non-physical (while they are in the physical reality). But I must say that most scientists believes to much in the physical too. I am a believer in possibilities, because that is all I know. Neighter the believer or the scientist can prove the (non-)existance of the non-physical. That means that we don't know shit. In the physical, we can only prove what is physical. But in the non-physical (if there is one) the laws of (this) reality are not always valid. We can not prove what can not be explained in reality. Even if we would experience something that is good enough for us as proof, how can we prove that to others? I think that that is something we can only prove to ourselves individualy. Can we prove that people dream (not only detecting it)? We know that others do because we experience it individualy too. Can we prove to a blind man how a color looks like? I know that biologicaly, much can be explained. The brain is like a powerfull computer, but who is operating it? Why are you 'you' and am I 'me'? There is only one 'me'. Can you explain how it is not to be? Nothingness? But then even nothingness doesn't exist... also something that can not physicaly be proved, anyway. I just keep an open mind and don't close my eyes for possibilities. I am sure that not all OOBE's are real OOBE's, but some are dreams about OOBE's. But can anyone prove that it is not possible? If you can't prove something, it means that you can not know if it is possible, not that it is impossible. We shouldn't say : 'It is not', neighter should we say : 'It is', because we don't know untill we find out individualy. One day we will, that's for sure. All the best, Frank ###### From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 23:58:18 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 35 Message-ID: <373f6208.4372393@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> <7hah6m$ec4$1@trex.antw.online.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: bilby20.melbpc.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news2.melbpc.org.au!not-for-mail On Wed, 12 May 1999 03:07:49 +0200, "Frank" wrote: < snip > >I think that that is something we can only prove to ourselves individualy. < snip > I disagree. If someone says they could go OOB to anywhere in the physical, anytime they wanted to, then it would be pretty easy to prove. One would only need them to report events at some distant place that they could not have physically known, or picked up by telepathy, or by guessing. Suppose for example such a person was with you in your bedroom in Belgium, lying down. Suppose you/they had no access to T.V., radio etc. Suppose further that they claimed to be able to visit an Ashes cricket test in Melbourne Australia. IF they were able to tell you who was "out", and how they got that way, and when. Wouldn't that be evidence that was pretty suggestive of "proof" of OOBs ? Many would consider it to be "proof" IMO. Better tests than this could be arranged but I think you might get the idea. Regards, John. **************************************************** ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Date: 15 May 1999 22:37:13 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 79 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6ud8023w92.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> <7hah6m$ec4$1@trex.antw.online.be> <373f6208.4372393@news.melbpc.org.au> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) writes: > > On Wed, 12 May 1999 03:07:49 +0200, "Frank" wrote: > > >I think that that is something we can only prove to ourselves individualy. > > I disagree. I agree fully with Frank. > prove. One would only need them to report events at some distant place > that they could not have physically known, or picked up by telepathy, > or by guessing. And now try to prove that something was not picked up by telepathy (or by clairvoyance or by RVing). No chance. Some people actually think that OBE is simply TP/CV/RV with an unusual form of conciousness representation attached. > Suppose for example such a person was with you in your bedroom in > IF they were able to tell you who was "out", and how they got that > way, and when. Wouldn't that be evidence that was pretty suggestive of > "proof" of OOBs ? Many would consider it to be "proof" IMO. Or of RV or of CV or of TP. The only thing proven is that information has travelled in an way not recognized by present science. That the proband went OBE to get the information remains entirely unproven. > Better tests than this could be arranged but I think you might get the > idea. Tests that get rid of above undecidability problem? IMHO as OBE is an feature of conciousness, it is unprovable. Mainly because the existance of conciousness (and therefore of any of its features (including dreaming)) is not provable in an scientific sense. Yes, I know one can prove that particular brain waves and REM appear at the same time when a proband _claims_ to be dreaming (the dreamer deliberately does some prearanged eye movements as soon as he is dreaming). But that he experienced the effect of conciousness called dreaming is only an unprovable claim. Note that dreaming is accepted to exist by most people, but this is mainly because a) many people claim it and b) most have experienced it with other words: "prove to ourselves individualy", as Frank calls it. The same is the case with OBE. Either believe those that do it, or try to experience it yourself. Scientific (= objective, not subjective) proof will not be (at least not by current knowledge of provability). Actually an OBE proof would require first to have an scientific proof of souls, then an way to determine their state and place, and then use this to prove an soul traveling to the remote site. I an not aware of any such knowledge, nor even the desire to find it, among present day scientists. And even this would only verify/falsify the OBE = soul traveling interpretation. The OBE as phenomena of conciousness would require an yet different test (very detailled neurology?). -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ 20th century record companies fit the 21st century data highways as good as 19th century stagecoaches fit the 20th century freeways ###### From: "rbwalton" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> <7hah6m$ec4$1@trex.antw.online.be> <373f6208.4372393@news.melbpc.org.au> <6ud8023w92.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <374055a4.1964980@news.melbpc.org.au> Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 18:25:27 -0700 Lines: 89 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.142.58.131 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.142.58.131 Message-ID: <373fe1f3@news1.jps.net> X-Trace: 17 May 1999 02:31:31 -0700, 209.142.58.131 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.63.224.240 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!news-in-east1.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-west.eli.net!news1.jps.net!209.142.58.131 One more quote comes to mind. . . For a scientist, no proof of an OOBE is possible. For an OOBEr, no proof is necessary. I have had a few things happen to me in the past that have proven OOBEs are real to me. For the most part these events have happened without any previous knowledge of the target. I may not have been 100% accurate on details I have seen, but on a number of occasions I have gotten details I could not possible have known. Did I just guess? If these things had not come to me in an OOBE I would guessing these details would amount to really good guesses. Do I expect my accounts to be proof for someone else? No. I went through a stage when I was looking for proof. Now I no longer need to see things that would pass as proof to someone else. This just loses importance after a while. Are my OOBEs so far off the mark sometimes that no detail is correct? Yes, sometimes I am not even close. But I do not take these as being failures. Even in my waking state I sometimes guess wrong when I have good information on which to base the guess. When I fail to do something in my waking consciousness it does not mean I am not really conscious. It is just as easy to misinterpret things out there as it is in "real" life. All events you see in OOBE state must be filtered through your conscious awake mind. This is something that does not always work 100% of the time. Some things out there do not compute in the real world even though they make perfect sense while you are there. -- RBWalton Visit this web page for some useful OOB links. . . www.angelfire.com/ca/onestepbeyond/ Join the search for Intelligent Life in the Universe at home http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ To respond, delete #nospam# rbwalton@#nospam#bigfoot.com John Fitzsimons wrote in message <374055a4.1964980@news.melbpc.org.au>... >On 15 May 1999 22:37:13 +0200, Neil Franklin >wrote: > >>johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) writes: > >>> On Wed, 12 May 1999 03:07:49 +0200, "Frank" wrote: > >>> >I think that that is something we can only prove to ourselves individualy. > >>> I disagree. > >>I agree fully with Frank. > >>> prove. One would only need them to report events at some distant place >>> that they could not have physically known, or picked up by telepathy, >>> or by guessing. > >>And now try to prove that something was not picked up by telepathy (or >>by clairvoyance or by RVing). No chance. > >< snip > > >Few things in life are perfect but ; suppose your computer generated >a random image/message while nobody was in the room. If someone was >able to "supposedly" OOB to your house, and then tell you correctly >what that message/image was, then I would think that that would >strongly suggest to people the possibility of an OOB experience. > >At the least it would be negating the telepathic possibility. As >nobody knowing what the message/picture was it couldn't have been >sent telepathically. > >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: "Frank" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 19:17:11 +0200 Organization: Customer of Online Internet Lines: 41 Message-ID: <7hmrhg$q06$1@trex.antw.online.be> References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> <7hah6m$ec4$1@trex.antw.online.be> <373f6208.4372393@news.melbpc.org.au> <6ud8023w92.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: a01-175.antw.online.be X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsfeed.online.be!news.online.be!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote : >I agree fully with Frank. > Thanks Neil :-) ----- >IMHO as OBE is an feature of conciousness, it is unprovable. Mainly >because the existance of conciousness (and therefore of any of its >features (including dreaming)) is not provable in an scientific sense. > >Yes, I know one can prove that particular brain waves and REM appear >at the same time when a proband _claims_ to be dreaming (the dreamer >deliberately does some prearanged eye movements as soon as he is >dreaming). But that he experienced the effect of conciousness called >dreaming is only an unprovable claim. >Actually an OBE proof would require first to have an scientific proof >of souls, then an way to determine their state and place, and then use >this to prove an soul traveling to the remote site. I an not aware of >any such knowledge, nor even the desire to find it, among present day >scientists. > >And even this would only verify/falsify the OBE = soul traveling >interpretation. The OBE as phenomena of conciousness would require >an yet different test (very detailled neurology?). > I'm thinking about these quotations : "Since the measuring device has been constructed by the observer... we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." --Werner Heisenberg "Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." --Ashley Montague ###### From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 00:07:39 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 41 Message-ID: <374055a4.1964980@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> <7hah6m$ec4$1@trex.antw.online.be> <373f6208.4372393@news.melbpc.org.au> <6ud8023w92.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: bilby11.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 15 May 1999 22:37:13 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) writes: >> On Wed, 12 May 1999 03:07:49 +0200, "Frank" wrote: >> >I think that that is something we can only prove to ourselves individualy. >> I disagree. >I agree fully with Frank. >> prove. One would only need them to report events at some distant place >> that they could not have physically known, or picked up by telepathy, >> or by guessing. >And now try to prove that something was not picked up by telepathy (or >by clairvoyance or by RVing). No chance. < snip > Few things in life are perfect but ; suppose your computer generated a random image/message while nobody was in the room. If someone was able to "supposedly" OOB to your house, and then tell you correctly what that message/image was, then I would think that that would strongly suggest to people the possibility of an OOB experience. At the least it would be negating the telepathic possibility. As nobody knowing what the message/picture was it couldn't have been sent telepathically. Regards, John. **************************************************** ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Date: 19 May 1999 23:33:25 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 39 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uk8u4agnu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> <7hah6m$ec4$1@trex.antw.online.be> <373f6208.4372393@news.melbpc.org.au> <6ud8023w92.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <374055a4.1964980@news.melbpc.org.au> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sorry the late answer, I have just hat 2 17h out days. johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) writes: > > On 15 May 1999 22:37:13 +0200, Neil Franklin > > >And now try to prove that something was not picked up by telepathy (or > >by clairvoyance or by RVing). No chance. > > suppose your computer generated > a random image/message while nobody was in the room. If someone was > > At the least it would be negating the telepathic possibility. As > nobody knowing what the message/picture was it couldn't have been > sent telepathically. That would eliminate TP (actually any mechanical picking without an local observer of the result would). Essentially double-blind method. But it still leaves RV and CV. Both of them can not be distinguished in their result (knowledge) from OBE by an external observer. As I remarked: OBE may simply be a special form of RV. Particularly those who dislike the spiritual interpretations favour that hypothesis. Actually proving that it was not RV is most likely very similar to proving the existance of spirits. As you are into spirit (and their victims) rescue: just look at how difficult/impossible it is to prove to an skeptic that spirits exist (assuming an skeptic who has not experienced an attack). -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ 20th century record companies fit the 21st century data highways as good as 19th century stagecoaches fit the 20th century freeways ###### From: "Lee W" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3734b7cf.1701327@news.cableinet.co.uk> <37381a8b.3568455@news.melbpc.org.au> <7hah6m$ec4$1@trex.antw.online.be> <373f6208.4372393@news.melbpc.org.au> <6ud8023w92.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <374055a4.1964980@news.melbpc.org.au> <6uk8u4agnu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: Beliefs and arguments Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Message-ID: <_sX03.703$X7.3118@nnrp2.clara.net> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:17:46 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.8.92.166 X-Complaints-To: abuse@clara.net X-Trace: nnrp2.clara.net 927220666 195.8.92.166 (Thu, 20 May 1999 18:17:46 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 18:17:46 BST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!nnrp2.clara.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Hi Neil > But it still leaves RV and CV. Both of them can not be distinguished > in their result (knowledge) from OBE by an external observer. > As I remarked: OBE may simply be a special form of RV. If NDE's are the same as OOBE's (which seems likely) then I find it improbable that OOBE's can be a special form of RV. Whereas you need an observer at a location for the RV, if you are having a NDE you are looking at your own body but have no observer (unless it is a spirit who is doing the remote observing for you :) ). -- Remember, to fly is not to walk, and to walk is not to fly Regards, Lee.