Rosemary Altea

[Mercutio]

Blanke does publish. His work with stimulation of the angular gyrus is not your friend, as it demonstrates that the perception of an out-of-body experience may be the result of normal brain functioning. The more we learn about the multiple pathways of perceptual processing, the more amazing it is, but the less puzzling are some of the claims of OOBE.

 

[Expression_man]

Blanke does publish. His work with stimulation of the angular gyrus is not your friend, as it demonstrates that the perception of an out-of-body experience may be the result of normal brain functioning. The more we learn about the multiple pathways of perceptual processing, the more amazing it is, but the less puzzling are some of the claims of OOBE.

But he's not talking about being able to use the projected double to receive sensory input. I don't care what explanation he comes up with I just want him to tell people about all of his findings.

 

[sackett]

...I don't care what explanation he comes up with I just want him to tell people about all of his findings.

Well gosh, I do too.

 

[CFLarsen]

But he's not talking about being able to use the projected double to receive sensory input. I don't care what explanation he comes up with I just want him to tell people about all of his findings.

You are not just going to ignore my posts, are you?

 

[Expression_man]

You are not just going to ignore my posts, are you?

Yes. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth. You'll claim that I'm in error and then I'll present examples which you will claim are invalid and then I'll try to defend them and you won't have that so I'll have to go and fetch even more after which we probably won't even care.

So let's pretend that the points of contention have been resolved and that all is well in both our worlds. We both expressed our points of view without having to kill each other.

*Shakes hand*

Let's not push our luck.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth. You'll claim that I'm in error and then I'll present examples which you will claim are invalid and then I'll try to defend them and you won't have that so I'll have to go and fetch even more after which we probably won't even care.

So let's pretend that the points of contention have been resolved and that all is well in both our worlds. We both expressed our points of view without having to kill each other.

*Shakes hand*

Let's not push our luck.

Oh, no. You don't get off that easy.

If you think that there is ample evidence of Out Of Body Experiences, open a thread and let's examine the evidence.

Do you think that what Randi is doing is not important to mankind's mental evolution? He wants science to progress, to stop charlatans from cheating people, to end superstition. How is superstition important to mankind's mental evolution?

Why is it a problem that people have to go through proper channels to take the JREF Challenge?

Why should Derek Ogilvie be treated preferentially?

What do you think of Project Alpha, where scientists - according to you, much better equipped to detect fraud than people like Randi - were fooled, good and proper, by mere amateurs?

Don't chicken out here. Don't be a coward. Stand up for what you believe in, and answer the pertinent questions.

 

[Mercutio]

But he's not talking about being able to use the projected double to receive sensory input. I don't care what explanation he comes up with I just want him to tell people about all of his findings.

Given his list of publications and stated goals of his research, I find it quite hard to believe that if he found anything of the sort he would hesitate an instant to publish it. The easy answer is that there is no such finding.

I would love to see any evidence you have of controlled studies of such a phenomenon; such a finding would make anyone's career, or cement Blanke's reputation for generations. Do you have any such evidence? Or is this mere speculation? I see nothing (and I did a database search through medical and psychology journals as well--many more articles than in the link above) in the literature to even hint that Blanke has approached what you are speaking of here.

You could prove me wrong with a citation or two, but right now it looks to me like you are dropping Blanke's name as someone in the scientific community whose work supports your views on OOBE (even if you have to claim that he is for some reason suppressing his work on the topic). It appears that his work actually undermines your view. Again, I invite you to show me my mistake. There is even contact information for Dr. Blanke in the link; I would love to see you invite him here to clarify.

 

[Drudgewire]

Don't be ignorant. If people like Olaf Blanke would stop holding their findings back for fear of being ridiculed you'd see so many more people like me coming forward. The only reason I'm here is because I'm more confrontational than the rest of them. That is the failure of science and and the fear mongering this place is guilty of.

Fear-mongering? There's no fear-mongering here. Just a demand for proof. If someone has that proof there's nothing to be afraid of.

If the findings are legitimate they'll stand up to ridicule. If they aren't... well, I'd probably be afraid to post them too and instead resort to telling people who simply "want" to believe. They ask fewer questions.

 

[Expression_man]

let's examine the evidence.

The world's first ever conference dedicated to near death experiences was held in June last year (2006). It was attended by doctors, researchers and patients who have been silent for far too long on this subject.

Comments included as part of it...

People who were brain-dead could see what was going on in a waiting room, or around them, in precise detail. We are not talking about an hallucination here because it was quite real

I noticed that doctors were very interested in the subject, but that they conducted their research in secret, afraid of being considered quacks,

The aim of this international day is not to prove that there is life after death, it is to show what this can teach us on a human and scientific level,

And you people have the balls to call these guys "woos".

I have experienced this for myself. I have induced it multiple times since. I have been above my body, I have been awake and seen my projected double. I have seen my physical body from the perspective of my projected double. I have explored environments using my projected double. I don't care what reasons you come up with to doubt it when you haven't experienced it. I don't care what variables you introduce to cast doubt on it. Page through the hundreds of thousands of reported incidents and disprove every one of them as being figments of the imagination if you want.

I don't need proof, you need it. I can't give it to you I am sorry. I am attempting to do what I can for you people in another thread.

 

[Mercutio]

The world's first ever conference dedicated to near death experiences was held in June last year (2006). It was attended by doctors, researchers and patients who have been silent for far too long on this subject.

Comments included as part of it...

And you people have the balls to call these guys "woos".

I have experienced this for myself. I have induced it multiple times since. I have been above my body, I have been awake and seen my projected double. I have seen my physical body from the perspective of my projected double. I have explored environments using my projected double. I don't care what reasons you come up with to doubt it when you haven't experienced it. I don't care what variables you introduce to cast doubt on it. Page through the hundreds of thousands of reported incidents and disprove every one of them as being figments of the imagination if you want.

I don't need proof, you need it. I can't give it to you I am sorry. I am attempting to do what I can for you people in another thread.

Source, please. Is this available online? Is there a book?

Are these comments based on research data, or on anecdotes? If there are real effects here, they will be all the more clear when experimental controls are applied. If there are expectancy effects, confirmation biases, and other known (and researched) artifacts, those tend to dissappear when controls are applied. So it makes a very real difference what these comments are based on.

I have much more I could say, but I will wait until you provide a source; I would not want to accuse you or these people of errors you have not committed.

 

[Flange Desire]

...
I have experienced this for myself. I have induced it multiple times since. I have been above my body, I have been awake and seen my projected double. I have seen my physical body from the perspective of my projected double. I have explored environments using my projected double. I don't care what reasons you come up with to doubt it when you haven't experienced it. I don't care what variables you introduce to cast doubt on it. Page through the hundreds of thousands of reported incidents and disprove every one of them as being figments of the imagination if you want.

I don't need proof, you need it. I can't give it to you I am sorry. I am attempting to do what I can for you people in another thread.

Hi E.M.

I have been lurking and reading your posts with much interest.
You sound like you would just love to convince all the nasty skeptics that what you say is true.

Considering your extraordinary claims above, it would seem that they are mostly untestable except for perhaps the last - "I have explored environments using my projected double".

Have you considered how you could design a test for this and so pick up the easy million dollars?
And if not, would you explain why not?

 

[LostAngeles]

Yes. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth. You'll claim that I'm in error and then I'll present examples which you will claim are invalid and then I'll try to defend them and you won't have that so I'll have to go and fetch even more after which we probably won't even care.

So let's pretend that the points of contention have been resolved and that all is well in both our worlds. We both expressed our points of view without having to kill each other.

*Shakes hand*

Let's not push our luck.

Don't be ignorant. If people like Olaf Blanke would stop holding their findings back for fear of being ridiculed you'd see so many more people like me coming forward. The only reason I'm here is because I'm more confrontational than the rest of them. That is the failure of science and and the fear mongering this place is guilty of.

Irony tree wins again.

 

[Gr8wight]

Bigger fish to fry would be some members of the community I am a part of, not myself though. The last time it was mentioned on these forums we had an influx of people trying to start trouble though so no, no names allowed.

That and every single person alive in the world who has undergone a near death experience and reported objective information outside their sensory range while clinically dead.

I think he's talking about Astral Dynamics.

I don't give a damn about showmen who flaunt their egos, to the extent Randi has, in an attempt to come over as being important to mankinds mental evolution.

With regards to evidence of my other claims, plenty of people have accepted Randi's challenge during a confrontation only to be told they need to go through the proper channels.

Why wouldn't they need to go through proper channels? The challenge rules are very carefully designed to prevent any applicant from using the standard excuses for failure.

1) They must state their own ability, and how they will demonstrate said ability. This prevents them from claiming Randi wanted to test them for something they were unable to do.

2) They must design their own test protocol for the same reason. Randi will not suggest a protocol. He will only point out controls that need to be in place to prevent the test being passed by mundane means.

3) They must state the accuracy at which they will demonstrate their claim. This is to prevent them from later claiming that Randi set the bar too high. Randi will only protest an accuracy or success rate that is set low enough as to allow a reasonable possibility of passing the test by random chance. If they cannot demonstrate a significantly higher than chance level of success, why should anyone believe their abilities are out of the ordinary?

4) They must state in writing, and/or before a video camera that the final protocol has been agreed upon by both sides, and that they believe they will be able to perform as claimed.

All of these provisions require that the challenge rules be followed to the letter by every applicant. Any applicant who requests that any part of the official rules be waived for them is simply trying to stack the deck in their own favour, or set themselves up to have a ready excuse upon failure, and all such requests must be denied. If you do not understand that, then there is no sense even having this discussion with you. Do you understand why all applicants - even those Randi has openly challenged - must go through all the proper channels now?

As much as I doubt her abilities, Sylvia Browne (sp) is one of them. Randi had a chance to organize everything for her as a result of his direct confrontation but chose not to. He insisted that she apply like everyone else.

Here you display your ignorance of the facts. Sylvia and Randi did go through all the "proper channels." Sylvia went so far as to complete protocol negotiations with Randi. They agreed upon a protocol that was satisfactory to both sides. It was only after that agreement that Sylvia backed out of the test.

Then we have Derek Ogilvie who has stated he wants to be tested (in public no less) but no efforts have been made to accomodate him as a priority subject after a member of this forum confronted him on television.

Again, you are not cognizant of the facts. Derek Ogilvie is currently in negotiations with the UK skeptics to undergo a test of his abilities. This test, if it ever occurs, will qualify as a JREF preliminary test. Don't hold your breath. I predict Derek will back out before a protocol can be agreed upon.

The JREF doesn't really prove anything to anyone but it's own members who, incidentally, have their minds made up already (for the most part).

It is true that the JREF does not prove anything to anyone. You have the order of things backwards. It is those claiming remarkable abilities who must prove their claims. The JREF is simply sitting back and saying, "show me." That's all. Just show them, and collect one million dollars. Randi simply points out that, despite his generous offer, no one, ever, has been capable of demonstrating any paranormal ability. Every single person who has tried to prove it to Randi has failed. Does this prove that no paranormal claim is true? No. We're all still waiting for the true paranormal claims to come out of the woodwork. none of us are holding our breath, though.

I'm still trying to find out why this place is so special. So far it seems that way because of the controversy it has caused by accusing anyone who claims to be able to induce paranormal phenomena as being a liar.

No. The JREF simply states that all such people have so far proven unable to support their own claims. No one calls unsuccessful applicants liars. No one officially affiliated with the JREF, that is.

Hey, what about you? If you can actually do what you claimed above wrt astral travel, you could easily demonstrate to the whole world that these phenomena exist, and collect an easy breezy million bucks. All you would have to do is astral project to a prespecified location, and identify a target object placed in that location. Simple, right?

 

[SkeptiKilt]

Interesting that Randi is a "showman who flaunts his ego" to the Ex_Man, but Derek Oglivie apparently is not.

 

[BillyJoe]

"true skeptic"

You do know that that is a fallacy. right?

Just contrasting your "pseudo sceptic"

 

[BillyJoe]

I have experienced this for myself. I have induced it multiple times since. I have been above my body, I have been awake and seen my projected double. I have seen my physical body from the perspective of my projected double. I have explored environments using my projected double.

I don't need proof, you need it. I can't give it to you I am sorry.

That's the end of it then.
Why did you even bother to come here?

In fact, you could prove it if you really wanted to.
Induce your OOB experience and read what's on that piece of cardboard on top of the cupboard.
Controlled conditions this time.

Can't do it you say?
Well then, that's the end of it. Bye.

 

[BillyJoe]

....geez, I'm starting to understand how Randi feels.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's basically the same MO we see. Every time.

 

[Expression_man]

Hi E.M.

I have been lurking and reading your posts with much interest.
You sound like you would just love to convince all the nasty skeptics that what you say is true.

Considering your extraordinary claims above, it would seem that they are mostly untestable except for perhaps the last - "I have explored environments using my projected double".

Have you considered how you could design a test for this and so pick up the easy million dollars?
And if not, would you explain why not?

I'll answer this because you seem to have a serious interest.

The misconception most people get is that there are many who can do this at will. I know of no such person who is able to snap his fingers and project on the spot.

This next part will be difficult to explain. Imagine, as best you can, if now you were to have an OOBE. Certain thoughts will begin to race through your head. The circumstances will affect it though. In an operating theatre you are more likely to think the worst and for some reason the experiences sustain themselves for longer periods of time.

First Experience (very rarely any longer than a few seconds)...

<shock>
1.) ?
2.) Reality check - how did I get here?
3.) I can't remember the series of events which led me to this scenario.
4.) This doesn't feel like any dream I've ever had.
5.) Back in body.
</shock>

Second Time (lasts longer than the first)...

<shock>
1.) ?
2.) Reality check - how did I get here?
3.) I can't remember the series of events which led me to this scenario.
4.) I've been here before...
5.) Back in body.
</shock>

Third Time... (familiarity and experimentation)

1.) I recognise this.
2.) Reality check. I am "standing"? I should be lying down in bed...
3.) Why does this keep happening?
4.) See your body.
5.) Back in body (if these are induced from a place of security, the moment you see your body lying there you will usually snap back inside it.

Depending on how "lucky" you are, it's possible to go through all those thought processes inside a single session. That, of course, makes for less time wasting the next time it happens. Keep in mind that up until now the experiences have been spontaneous. They may have also happened over a period of months or even years for some people. For most people however, they would not have happened at all.

So, then you begin to take an interest, if this is happening to you I mean. You don't want to speak to anyone for fear of being branded as crazy. If you are lucky enough, you will not come over a skeptic community whose members then tell you "oh, don't worry it's of no importance whatsoever". "I am an expert on this subject, I've read theories!".

What good are those people to you?

You look for people who have had similar experiences. You share knowledge. You come across books/OBE journals, you read them.

You might pick up some theories as to how they might be induced.

You practice them until...

4th Time / Defining Experience...

1.) "Ok, calm down".
2.) Take everything in.
3.) Explore outside the room.
4.) I am seeing things that I shouldn't be able to (verified later).
5.) "I just realised, I'm not breathing".
6.) Avoid looking at your body (until you have more experience).
7.) Examine self. "Do I have limbs?" "They appear to be different".*
8.) "I walked through this doorway...that's what you do to get from room to room. Can I perhaps..."
9.) Pass through a wall. In passing you feel everything, the different layers it's made up of and both surfaces, utterly surreal.

That's a lot to take in. Suddenly your world view is...different. You find a community to join, you celebrate the success of other people. You are exploring something new and exciting.

Suddenly someone from the JREF forum enters your community.

"You guys are all deluded. It's obviously just a lucid dream, blah blah blah".

"You mean I am imagining it"?

"Obviously"

"But what about the hundreds of thousands of reported cases...? Not to mention that experience wherein I met my friend here and..."

"All mistaken, obviously."

Now you begin to understand why I am ticked off to say the least. I am an angry man, yes. Why don't I just wizz around and look inside some mystery box for a million $?

Ok, the problems as they stand.

1.) Triggering the experience.
2.) Making sure it lasts long enough.**
3.) Caring enough about something material while in this state.
4.) Focus on something like a million $ without getting too excited.***
5.) Where is it? Randi's office? Think about it, the idea of it. Become a part of it.****
6.) Oh my, this place is negative. Oh my, I'm seeing things I really don't want to be seeing.*****
7.) Time runs out.

*When out of body you don't always retain a humanoid form. You tend to be formless but you can mold what, for lack of a better term, is your "energy" into something more recognizable.

**The duration of these experiences is limited by how much "energy work" you do prior to the experience.

***Excitement will snap you out of it very quickly. It sends everything into chaos. You can have a rush and still maintain your concentration but it's not something common.

****You can think of a person/place and sometimes be "transported" there. Usually this is not the case. The moment you have some place in mind the only thing which registers is "area transition". You the end up somewhere else which tends to be a lot more important and has something valuable to show you with regards to something else. You might even end up in some place which isn't "real", but is used to convey certain notions.

*****Thoughts are externalized by archetypes we call "thought forms". Let's call them archetypes. These archetypes exhibit behaviour based on the emotions that went into creating them. These can be very nasty things but are not able to exist independently of their creator. They take constant reaffirming in order to remain cohesive. Negative people have a lot of these things and trust me when I say that there's no place you could dislike being more than when you are near them. I've come up with some pretty nasty ones myself.

Some of the things which happen while in this state cannot be described by language, anything you describe with words will fall short of the sheer magnificence. Priorities take a u-turn very quickly and all you want to do is explore and experiment.

 

[BillyJoe]

EM,

I'll start again.
(But you have to admit you came on pretty strong with your first post here)

Okay, there are two possibilities:

- You have experienced what it is like to be outside your body.
- You have experienced certain brain states which make you feel like you have experienced what it is like to be outside your body.

You have concluded that it's the former.
What exactly has led you to this conclusion?


Your account above doesn't give any hints as to why you conclude the former. And I'm not sure hanging about with others who support your preference help to tease out the real answer, whatever it may be. But that's only my opinion of course.

regards,
BillyJoe