Rosemary Altea

[Reno]

Just watched the first part of Larry King. This Rosemary Altea has to be next on the list. She tried to talk over Randi because she, like all the others, is terrified to let him speak because he can cut them all down with a few sentences.

[Reno]

Part 2 finished. Larry King is the part of the anatomy between the top of the legs and the lower back.

[Lisa Simpson]

Yes, he is. Saying Shawn Hornbeck's kidnapper had long hair...in what universe?!?!?!

[Terry]

and dreads... for ed sake!

[Reno]

Part 3 over. Randi kicks Rosemary's anatomy (the part between the top of her legs and her lower back)

Go Amazing! Go Amazing! Go Amazing!

[Reno]

Part 4 over.

Altea whooping with laughter....she has to be brought down. King was no better than usual. Randi must have had less than half the actual talking time that Altea did, but it was not he who gulped and stuttered through the interview.

[Lisa Simpson]

Rosemary Altea had every excuse not to take the Challenge. I would like proof of her claim that Mr. Randi told Larry King he didn't have the million dollars.

[The Shank]

Montel "No Comment" Williams" is a f***wit too.

Also, why do all psychics seem to say "Everyone is a fake except me"?

[Reno]

Thinking back over the parts where Altea was speaking, I get the impression that she can see Sylvia Browne's crown as 'Queen of Psychics' slipping and Altea is hungrily licking her lips at the thought of picking it up herself.

[Questioninggeller]

Who's got a link to the video?

[Lisa Simpson]

Jeff is working on putting it up on Youtube.

[DJM]

Thinking back over the parts where Altea was speaking, I get the impression that she can see Sylvia Browne's crown as 'Queen of Psychics' slipping and Altea is hungrily licking her lips at the thought of picking it up herself.


Sounds like stoprosemaryaltea.com is on the way..

[Jeff Wagg]

YouTube was a failure. Dish Network decided to put up a message while it was recording, so I don't have it.

Anyone else?

[SkeptiKilt]

I just finalized the DVD of that and the Anderson Cooper segment from last week.

Larry King is a lazy [rule 8] tool. SB said Shawn's kidnaper was dark-skinned, looked Hispanic and had very long hair in dreadlocks. First question to Randi, "She described . . . the accused villain . . . pretty well . . .?" Randi looked like he was waiting for the punchline.

The description of JB Rhine as "the guy who invented ESPN" was a classic, as well. Why does this guy still have a job?

[Math Maniac]

I liked when Altea made the comment to Randi about the show not being about him (which was a red herring, anyway) and she said it was about frauds...Randi happily agreed....Loved it!

I also liked when King commented about ESPN...

[SkeptiKilt]

I don't actually have the wherewithal to convert the TiVo to whatever YouTube needs, Jeff, but I could overnight a copy of the DVD if you'd like.

CNN re-runs Larry King three hours later out here -- does it repeat in Florida?

[Jeff Wagg]

At this point, I won't be able to do anything with it until Monday at the earliest. I have a feeling it will appear on there by itself. :)

But thanks very much.

[DRBUZZ0]

Randi needs to go on Nancy Grace. She is very big on victims not being taken advantage of and I'm relatively certain she'd side with Randi. She seems pretty intelegent and no-bs, so I think this will be pretty cut and dry for her.

Also she has no mercy and is willing to tear anyone a new one who she doesn't like. I think she has a perminant severe case of PMS or something.. God, I wouldn't want to work for her.. or get her angry

[Lisa Simpson]

I will try recording it when it repeats tonight.

[Questioninggeller]

I liked when Altea made the comment to Randi about the show not being about him (which was a red herring, anyway) and she said it was about frauds...Randi happily agreed....Loved it!

Like a re-run. From June 5, 2001 Randi vs Altea on Larry King:

KING: Rosemary, he will give you a million dollars if you could prove what you do.

ALTEA: Well, I would like to respond to what James just said. We are actually going to begin this conversation by agreeing, because, I agree with what he says, that there are many, many people who claim to be spiritual mediums, they claim to talk to the dead. There are many, people, we all know this. There are cheats and charlatans everywhere. And that is an unfortunate part of my work and my...

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/03/lkl.00.html

Michael Shermer commented in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" about his Oprah appearance with Altea, and Penn & Teller embarrassed her in 2003 on Bullsh!t.

[DRBUZZ0]

I disagree with some of the stuff in this thread. I don't know that it's good for skeptics to come out against all belief in the paranormal and psycics.. Unfortionately, too many people will not be receptive to that.

I'd rather put out a message saying that people have the right to believe in whatever gives them comfort, but people like sylvia who go on tv and claim they can talk to the dead and give details for money are fraud and should be avoided.


A less purist and idealist goal, but perhaps a more managable one is to go after the most dangerous and fraudulent activities.

[SkeptiKilt]

Randi said tonight that he does not take a position on whether the phenomena exist or not, just that for several years he's been offering a million smackeroos to anyone who can demonstrate them and so far, nobody has.

[Math Maniac]

I disagree with some of the stuff in this thread. I don't know that it's good for skeptics to come out against all belief in the paranormal and psycics.. Unfortionately, too many people will not be receptive to that.

I agree. When Altea made the comment that quack doctors existed and that did not mean all of them were bunk, I thought that Randi's response and explanation about so-called psychics was perfect. Her analogy is a weak one given that the vast majority of doctors must prove the effectiveness of their work/treatments.

In the (not exact) words of Randi: If you can play the violin, then play the violin.

I think the crux of the matter is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Reno]

I disagree with some of the stuff in this thread. I don't know that it's good for skeptics to come out against all belief in the paranormal and psycics.. Unfortionately, too many people will not be receptive to that.

I'd rather put out a message saying that people have the right to believe in whatever gives them comfort, but people like sylvia who go on tv and claim they can talk to the dead and give details for money are fraud and should be avoided.


A less purist and idealist goal, but perhaps a more managable one is to go after the most dangerous and fraudulent activities.

The problem is though, that all of the dangerous and fraudulent activities are perpetrated by people who were once starting out in the scam business. I don't know the history of Sylvia Browne or Rosemary Altea's psychic career, but they probably started out taking small sums of money from people in their local neighbourhood.

If you let these type of psychics away with it, they may end up being the next Colin Fry, Derek Acorah, Rosemary Altea, John Edward or even Sylvia Browne. Better, in my opinion, to stop them when they are starting out than wait for them to retire and rest on the millions of dollars they fleeced. Like Browne is about to do. (My own little prediction there)

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Why did Larry King put on Rosemary Altea? She's not any more impressive than Sylvia Browne, just look at how she was evicerated on P&T:BS. Wouldn't it be a great sign of hard hitting journalistic integrity if they played her segments from Bull$#!+ and had her explain them? But of course that is severely lacking in this day and age of newstainment.

[Lisa Simpson]

They put Rosemary Altea on because Sylvia wouldn't show up.

[Horatius]

First question to Randi, "She described . . . the accused villain . . . pretty well . . .?" Randi looked like he was waiting for the punchline.



I think that one moment of Randi doing the "furry eyeball" at Larry King just about said it all. If King can say with a straight face that her description was pretty good, no one with any sense will listen to him, and that look said it all with no words at all.

[Reno]

I can almost hear what Randi is thinking when he gives the furry eyeball at King's announcement about Browne's description of the kidnapper being accurate:

'You're having a laugh...you can't be serious...are you honestly waiting for me to comment on that...puh-lease...how do you have a show on TV?...I'll not dignify that remark with an answer, I'll just give him the furry eyeball.'

[Questioninggeller]

They put Rosemary Altea on because Sylvia wouldn't show up.

Plus Altea has some famous friends that buy into her act. That makes her "visible" in the public eye.

[tennis_man45]

I very much enjoyed Randi pointing the finger at the camera and demanding an answer from Altea about the challenge. She gave every excuse in the book. If this is the "new challenge" Randi's been talking about, I'll be enjoying it very much.

At the beginning, it sounded like Larry King was trying to make a joke that nobody laughed it, he had a smirk on his face if I remember.. obviously, Sylvia did not accurately describe the kidnapper, that's why this feature was on the show to begin with, Browne is unreliable.

[LostAngeles]

Having gotten to see it, it's clear from the start Altea was playing a clock game. The more time she can take up talking, the less time Randi gets. :(

Happily, Randi handled her well, though I do wish he'd brought up cold reading.

[Marmaduke]

Randi needs to go on Nancy Grace.

I'd like to see him on her show, especially since he did a commentary piece on her a few years back:

http://www.randi.org/jr/061005smug.html

[Lisa Simpson]

Segment number one:

OzkgskUkOlE

[SkeptiKilt]

I've watched the thing several times now, and it's clear that King was not joking. What a waste of carbon.

[Lisa Simpson]

Segment two:

ehYIXAbM3Ss

[phyz]

Thanks Lisa!

[Lisa Simpson]

The third and fourth segments, combined:

5nqBNUDxzk8

[Lisa Simpson]

You're welcome!

[phyz]

What a waste of carbon.
A waste of carbon with an audience, no less.

One wonders if his director was trying to bail him out or run him through by posting the photo of the abductor (short-haired, bearded white dude) after Sylvia's description (hispanic dude with long dredlocks) and King's insightful assessment that she nailed it!

[T'ai Chi]

Randi said tonight that he does not take a position on whether the phenomena exist or not,


Ok, so you're brainwashed.

What Randi says is things like

"I simply do not find any evidence whatsoever that they do, so I don't believe there are any."

He certainly doesn't believe many things exist.

[T'ai Chi]

One wonders if his director was trying to bail him out or run him through by posting the photo of the abductor (short-haired, bearded white dude) after Sylvia's description (hispanic dude with long dredlocks) and King's insightful assessment that she nailed it!

Maybe he got a hair cut?

;)

[T'ai Chi]

Altea definitely got the better exchanges.

Even if Randi is technically correct, he won't win if he comes off as angry, fingerpointing, and confrontational. Unfortunately for skepticism, his 'angry' schtick cannot be reversed since he's done it for so long.

[ERGONER]

Altea definitely got the better exchanges.

Even if Randi is technically correct, he won't win if he comes off as angry, fingerpointing, and confrontational. Unfortunately for skepticism...


...yup, however it is a small victory for Randi to even be an 'equal' guest in a half-hour segment. Randi only got about a third of Altea's permitted speaking-time -- but it was enough to calmly get his basic point across to a generally dim TV audience.

Larry King and his standard audience are, of course, true-believers in all this supernatural hogwash.

[CFLarsen]

Ok, so you're brainwashed.

No, that's exactly what Randi said. Why does it make people "brainwashed" to accurately quote what Randi says?

What Randi says is things like

"I simply do not find any evidence whatsoever that they do, so I don't believe there are any."

He certainly doesn't believe many things exist.

Why should he?

Altea definitely got the better exchanges.

I disagree. It was clear that she was dodging Randi's points. Why wouldn't she simply say "yes" or "no" to whether she would take the challenge? She came off as glib and condescending.

Even if Randi is technically correct, he won't win if he comes off as angry, fingerpointing, and confrontational. Unfortunately for skepticism, his 'angry' schtick cannot be reversed since he's done it for so long.

If Randi is "angry", it is because he doesn't like seeing people being scammed by people like Altea.

It is people like you who allow psychics to continue scamming other people. You are quite alright with that.

[NewMusic_Jenn]

I don't know about anyone else but I found that one of the most egregious comments she made was something to the effect that this boradcast was "NOT ALL ABOUT YOU JAMES!". How is Randi calling her on being a fraud - and asking her to prove that which she (indirectly) condems SB for doing - about him?! It really just proved her desperation to avoid million dollar challenge question.

[T'ai Chi]

IIt really just proved her desperation to avoid million dollar challenge question.

Actually, you're not being too fair to Altea here. She has already made her views known.

"ALTEA: Well, I don't think that that is a way of proving, quite frankly, and... "

She simply doesn't consider a challenge and PR campaign by an organization in the skeptical movement a valid test.

"ALTEA: I'm not sure. I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no. I'm saying I'm not sure, because you know, many years ago, Larry, I had a very bad experience with some scientists who tested me, and tested me and tested me, and tested me. And every time I gave them something, they went away saying, "wow!" And then, a week later, two weeks later, they came back and said, "it's not enough.""

She's been down the testing route before, by actual scientists, and didn't care for the process. What makes you think testing, by non scientists, would be better or different?

"KING: Now, Rosemary was saying to me during the break that she doesn't think there's any way anybody could get your million because you have set up a condition that's impossible. "

And she opines that the conditions are impossible.

All of this is good reason why she ignores Randi's Yes or No bullying in the recent exchange; becuase she's addressed his stuff before.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Actually, you're not being too fair to Altea here. She has already made her views known.

"ALTEA: Well, I don't think that that is a way of proving, quite frankly, and... "

She simply doesn't consider a challenge and PR campaign by an organization in the skeptical movement a valid test.

"ALTEA: I'm not sure. I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no. I'm saying I'm not sure, because you know, many years ago, Larry, I had a very bad experience with some scientists who tested me, and tested me and tested me, and tested me. And every time I gave them something, they went away saying, "wow!" And then, a week later, two weeks later, they came back and said, "it's not enough.""

She's been down the testing route before, by actual scientists, and didn't care for the process. What makes you think testing, by non scientists, would be better or different?

"KING: Now, Rosemary was saying to me during the break that she doesn't think there's any way anybody could get your million because you have set up a condition that's impossible. "

And she opines that the conditions are impossible.

All of this is good reason why she ignores Randi's Yes or No bullying in the recent exchange; becuase she's addressed his stuff before.

If ". . .I don't think that that is a way of proving . . . ", why should anyone believe it exists?

I'm reminded of Thurber's "There's a Unicorn in the Garden" for some reason. Who's the booby?

A test for Ms Altea's "abilities" has to preclude the possibility of her using cold and hot reading. Entertainers such as Ian Rowland have, can, and do achive the same results as "psychics" through perfectly explainable means.

If she is anything more than deluded or a fraud, she just has to demonstrate the ability to do what she says she does.

[SkeptiKilt]

She has not addressed "Randi's stuff" before, she's avoided addressing it. Sit down and say what you can do, agree to how it can be tested, and agree on what will be accepted as passing the test. Then take the test. Anything else is weaseling out of the challenge.

[NewMusic_Jenn]

Actually, you're not being too fair to Altea here. She has already made her views known.

"ALTEA: Well, I don't think that that is a way of proving, quite frankly, and... "

She simply doesn't consider a challenge and PR campaign by an organization in the skeptical movement a valid test.

"ALTEA: I'm not sure. I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no. I'm saying I'm not sure, because you know, many years ago, Larry, I had a very bad experience with some scientists who tested me, and tested me and tested me, and tested me. And every time I gave them something, they went away saying, "wow!" And then, a week later, two weeks later, they came back and said, "it's not enough.""

She's been down the testing route before, by actual scientists, and didn't care for the process. What makes you think testing, by non scientists, would be better or different?

"KING: Now, Rosemary was saying to me during the break that she doesn't think there's any way anybody could get your million because you have set up a condition that's impossible. "

And she opines that the conditions are impossible.

All of this is good reason why she ignores Randi's Yes or No bullying in the recent exchange; becuase she's addressed his stuff before.

There was a lot more dancing before she made her points about previous scientific tests. She also made comments that she doesn't believe there's a millions dollars, the test criteria was wrong, blah blah blah...

She still takes advantage of people by taking money from those desperate for help. And of course she didn't care for an actual scientific process in the past! There's never been any proof of supernatural abilities - if there were they wouldn't be supernatural.

And I didn't find Randi to be a bully at all - he was direct and strong. Why not call people on claimed abilities? If I tell you I can do something then refuse to ever prove it for a guaranteed million dollars then I'm either nuts or I can't really do what I say I can. The fact that she has previously stated her viewpoint doesn’t mean she shouldn’t continue to be challenged on bogus claims!

[Marmaduke]

ALTEA: I'm not sure. I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no. I'm saying I'm not sure, because you know, many years ago, Larry, I had a very bad experience with some scientists who tested me, and tested me and tested me, and tested me. And every time I gave them something, they went away saying, "wow!" And then, a week later, two weeks later, they came back and said, "it's not enough.

Did she say what the test criteria was, where she was tested and by whom?

[DRBUZZ0]

She has not addressed "Randi's stuff" before, she's avoided addressing it. Sit down and say what you can do, agree to how it can be tested, and agree on what will be accepted as passing the test. Then take the test. Anything else is weaseling out of the challenge.


Yep. Interesting how this doesn't come up as often in other challenges. For example, the X-prize foundation. You never saw too many saying "Well, sure we could build a spacecraft, but the X-prize committee has the final say and they say that they want reliable instrument data that shows an acceptable altitude, but they don't define 'reliable' they also say that they want to go to 50 miles altitude, but they don't say whether they mean above sea level or above the ground or what. Also, we don't even know if they have the money. So while we *could* build a spacecraft to take the challenge... we're not even going to bother, because we know they'll just cheat us in the end"

[Questioninggeller]

Yes, he is. Saying Shawn Hornbeck's kidnapper had long hair...in what universe?!?!?!

That was funny. She didn't just say "long," Browne said "very long hair."

On a side note, Altea is a lot more chubbier than when Penn & Teller busted her. Maybe being caught hot reading on TV caused her some stress?

[Questioninggeller]

Send Larry King/CNN your thoughts: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?12

[CFLarsen]

Actually, you're not being too fair to Altea here. She has already made her views known.

"ALTEA: Well, I don't think that that is a way of proving, quite frankly, and... "

She simply doesn't consider a challenge and PR campaign by an organization in the skeptical movement a valid test.

She doesn't consider any test "valid". Why do you let psychics off the hook, T'ai Chi? Why are you defending these scam artists who cheat grieving people?

"ALTEA: I'm not sure. I'm not saying yes, I'm not saying no. I'm saying I'm not sure, because you know, many years ago, Larry, I had a very bad experience with some scientists who tested me, and tested me and tested me, and tested me. And every time I gave them something, they went away saying, "wow!" And then, a week later, two weeks later, they came back and said, "it's not enough.""

She's been down the testing route before, by actual scientists, and didn't care for the process. What makes you think testing, by non scientists, would be better or different?

You are always the first to point to the importance of scientific testing in a lab, yet you let Altea get away so easily? Why?

"KING: Now, Rosemary was saying to me during the break that she doesn't think there's any way anybody could get your million because you have set up a condition that's impossible. "

And she opines that the conditions are impossible.

What you "forget", is that she opines that the conditions are impossible because she knows that she will fail, because she can't talk to dead people.

All of this is good reason why she ignores Randi's Yes or No bullying in the recent exchange; becuase she's addressed his stuff before.

No, she has avoided Randi's stuff before. That's why Randi was so insisting. But you think what Altea is doing is fully acceptable.

[NiallM]

Thank you so much for your work, Lisa.

It's greatly appreciated. I get some US channels here in Paris, but not very many. I really enjoyed watching this.

[jon]

Thanks for the vid Lisa.

Re. Randi coming across as angry/confrontational, the exchange looked pretty cool to me. Surprisingly so, if anything - they were talking about Sylvia Browne doing a few things: telling a family, incorrectly, that their missing kid was dead; giving false information to those looking for the kid; there's also allegations that she tried to get money - lots of money - off the grieving family. If a politician, journalist or cop did this, the public would be baying for blood. Why are 'psychics' let off so easily?

Hopefully the new Challenge will let JREF give these 'psychics' very regular opportunities to prove their powers - or, of course, to publically explain why they're weaselling out of taking the challenge :D

[Moochie]

I thought Mr. Randy came across as forceful and forthright, almost the complete opposite of Ms. Altea.

I think he managed to get a chuckle out of some of the off-camera staff, too.

Thank you very much for posting that, Lisa. It is appreciated.

M.

[Verde]

Thanks, Lisa, for putting that together.

I try and avoid Larry King, just as I try and avoid stepping on dog poop on the sidewalk, but had I known that this was to be discussed I would have made a point of watching. I'm not on the secret warning list, obviously.

I thought that Randi came across very well; however Ms Altea also managed to project quite a pleasant persona.[1] I would not be surprised if the average LK viewer came away with the impression that it was merely two persons with different views agreeing to disagree.

Any exposure is a good thing, but Larry's milque-toast approach is not likely to win any converts. I am really looking forward to the JREF bringing out the heavy armour this spring.

Verde

[1] whilst washing the hog, so to speak.[2]
[2] just my personal opinion, of course.

[DRBUZZ0]

I thought Mr. Randy came across as forceful and forthright, almost the complete opposite of Ms. Altea.

I think he managed to get a chuckle out of some of the off-camera staff, too.

Thank you very much for posting that, Lisa. It is appreciated.

M.

He did. I could almost hear the call screeners eyes rolling. Well not really...but a chuckle just the same

[prewitt81]

Randi missed an opportunity to ask Rosemary how one could tell a genuine psychic from a fraud. I would've loved to hear her answer to that.

[Hawkeye]

I think Randi did a terrific job.
In part three, when asked about taking the million dollar challenge Rosemary says something like:
"I'm going to tell you something James, this program is not about you. This program is about people being duped, its not about you."
I'm thinking, wait a second, it’s about people being bamboozled by frauds like YOU Rosemary.
Then 2 seconds later Randi says
"It's about people being duped by people like you” (as he points his finger at her)
I literally jumped up out of my chair and cheered. Even Larry was laughing.

Yes or no Rosemary, we’re still waiting.

[Questioninggeller]

The Jan 26, 2007 transcript from CNN:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/26/lkl.01.html

Towards the bottom:

...
L. KING: We welcome James Randi, investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims and founders of the James Randi Educational Foundation, the Web site for which is randi.org. He is also the best-selling author and worked as a professional magician once under the name the Amazing Randi. He is in Ft. Lauderdale.

In Venice, Florida is Rosemary Altea, described on her Web site, rosemaryaltea.com, as an international spiritual medium. She is the best-selling author of "The Eagle and the Rose."
...


Both were in Florida; too bad a test wasn't set up.

[Jackalgirl]

It annoys me that Altea starts laughing like a hyena when Randi says, of the testing protocol, something like "it depends on what you're claiming" -- not only does she completely interrupt his answer, but she seems to be thereby saying "see? I TOLD you this Challenge is ************!"

Whereas of COURSE the test would always be different. Different claims, different tests. I'm in Japan so it's not hard for me to call in, but if she's on that dumb show again, would someone please call in and ask, "you laughed, as if there can be only one kind of test for psychic abilities. Could you please outline, briefly, the steps of a test that would demonstrate either telekenesis and the ability to speak with the dead?" Or something like that.

Boy, that lady really ticked me off. A previous poster said it right -- she came off as "blig and condescending". Not just to Larry and Randi, but to the audience as well.

Someone else mentioned Randi pointing out that her analogy between psychic and doctors was fallacious, because doctors are subject to a objective, verifiable set of standards whereas psychics are subject to no standards whatsoever, but I didn't hear it. Randi hardly got the chance to say anything at all. Was he actually able to say that? < grumble >

[SezMe]

I thought another aspect of her trying to become the psychic queen was her repeated insistence that, of course, you have to spend at least an hour with the person being read. She's trying to make SB's 20-minute sessions look bad and thereby make SB look like one of those frauds she keeps mentioning.

[Jackalgirl]

I thought another aspect of her trying to become the psychic queen was her repeated insistence that, of course, you have to spend at least an hour with the person being read. She's trying to make SB's 20-minute sessions look bad and thereby make SB look like one of those frauds she keeps mentioning.

AND she'd be able to charge even more money, since the call would take longer. Ka-ching!

[Gr8wight]

Why do you let psychics off the hook, T'ai Chi? Why are you defending these scam artists who cheat grieving people?

Because he's a bleever.

[CynicalSkeptic]

At the end of segment 3, Larry says "both these things are easily provable, one with a DNA(???), one with a test".

Did I misunderstand him, or WTF does he mean by DNA? The only context I can perceive is that Altea is claiming Randi doesn't have the money, and Randi is pushing her to take the challenge, and those are the two things that LK says are "easily provable".

[prewitt81]

He's referring to an earlier segment about the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.

[SezMe]

He's referring to an earlier segment about the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.
If so, then he is REALLY loopy.

[BPScooter]

Hi- which BS episode is this Rosemary on? I have the DVDs but never paid enough attention to who was claiming what. Anyone that can tell me season/episode would save me at least the pain of pulling out discs and watching Penn and Teller one more time... [this is meant to be funny, as if I didn't enjoy watching them. The real thing is that I don't have time to do so now, it would be a fond wish to scan through hours of the show]

[BPScooter]

NEVER MIND. Answered my own question by looking at Google. 1st episode, "Talking to the Dead." That lady. Holy smokes. The one where Penn swears a lot :-) and explains how it's easier not to get sued if you use the language as he demonstrated. Now I *have* to watch the Larry King, good work everyone!

[William Smith]

I thought Mr. Randy came across as forceful and forthright, almost the complete opposite of Ms. Altea.

I think he managed to get a chuckle out of some of the off-camera staff, too.

Thank you very much for posting that, Lisa. It is appreciated.

M.

Proofread this, Moochie! :D

[/nitpick]
[/derail]
[/egging]

[William Smith]

Thanks, Lisa.

[Darat]

Maybe he got a hair cut?

;)

You must be brainwashed because Larry King said that the hair length he [the kidnapper] was caught with was what Larry King would describe as long.

;)

[BillyJoe]

Larry committed the mortal sin of an interviewer by letting his guest waste time.
He may, of course, had reason to do so.
Altea did her best to waste time but came across as pleasant and friendly.
Unlike Sylvia Browne.
Randi came across as an angry old man - albeit for good reason.

Most sceptics seemed to enjoy this, but I think the general public's perception would be the opposite.
I think he needs to remain firm but calm.

Only my opinion, of course.

[NiallM]

I think that the context allowed ffor some degree of anger and outrage. remember, this wasn't merely a spot about pyschic frauds, but was mounted in the context of the lies told to the parents of a missing child. the lies could have dashed their hopes and wound down the investigation; the lies could have diverted attention to the wrong locales; the lies could have also have given succour to the kidnapper.

A strong sense of anger at the thoughtlessness, rapacity and recklessness of Browne is well-justified in this case.

[JPK]

Good morning BPScooter.
Hi- which BS episode is this Rosemary on? I have the DVDs but never paid enough attention to who was claiming what. Anyone that can tell me season/episode would save me at least the pain of pulling out discs and watching Penn and Teller one more time... [this is meant to be funny, as if I didn't enjoy watching them. The real thing is that I don't have time to do so now, it would be a fond wish to scan through hours of the show]
I could be wrong, but I believe it is on Season 1, Disk 1, First episode.
JPK

[Moochie]

Proofread this, Moochie! :D

[/nitpick]
[/derail]
[/egging]

G-R-O-A-N -- Bad Moochie!

Actually, I was trying to flatter The Amazing One :D

M.

[T'ai Chi]

You must be brainwashed because Larry King said that the hair length he [the kidnapper] was caught with was what Larry King would describe as long.


Larry said long compared to his (Larry's) own hair.

[T'ai Chi]

She still takes advantage of people by taking money from those desperate for help.


And that has no relevance whatsoever on the claim of her supposedly not addressing the million dollar challenge offer.


There's never been any proof of supernatural abilities - if there were they wouldn't be supernatural.


Brilliant! You've managed to render the million dollar challenge null and void. So why should anyone (outside of the organized skeptical movement) consider it for more than 2 seconds if it can be dismissed so easily?


If I tell you I can do something then refuse to ever prove it for a guaranteed million dollars then I'm either nuts or I can't really do what I say I can.


Either or fallacy. You apparently have a strong, strong need to disbelieve people when they say they aren't interested or don't consider something very worthy (probaby going by the track record of the skeptical movement).


The fact that she has previously stated her viewpoint doesn’t mean she shouldn’t continue to be challenged on bogus claims!

Randi himself said to avoid wheel-spinning, yet you want him to do that very thing? They'd just go back and forth

Yes or No?
I've already told you my reasons why your challenge is garbage.
Yes or No?
I've already told you my reasons why your challenge is garbage.
Yes or No?
I've already told you my reasons why your challenge is garbage.
Yes or No?
I've already told you my reasons why your challenge is garbage.
(repeat)

[thaiboxerken]

Shut up, Tai Chi, just shut up. Your foolish attempt at wit only shows everyone what state of mind you are in. No one here is silly enough to think that Rosemary had an actual premonition or psychic episode, but it's not because of pre-concieved notions, it's because of where the evidence leads us.

[T'ai Chi]

Shut up, Tai Chi, just shut up.


Ah. Must be the new logic that the organized skeptical movement followers are learning? :)


No one here is silly enough to think that Rosemary had an actual premonition or psychic episode,


And? The issue was about if she addressed the million dollar challenge offer or not. She has already. She clearly has made statements that she is not interested in it, for various reasons. Well, statements clear to anyone that can think for themselves, that is.

[jon]

And that has no relevance whatsoever on the claim of her supposedly not addressing the million dollar challenge offer.

Yes it does. The challenge is one (of a number, I'm sure) of ways for her to verify or falsify her abilities. She should either do this (or a similar test) or stop taking money from desperate people for abilities which are likely to be false. As Sylvia Browne has ably demonstrated, as well as taking money from people there's also the risk of misleading them and causing a great deal of extra disruption and pain.

[T'ai Chi]

A test for Ms Altea's "abilities" has to preclude the possibility of her using cold and hot reading.


Definitely.


Entertainers such as Ian Rowland have, can, and do achive the same results as "psychics" through perfectly explainable means.


Where are scientific studies of cold readers doing this, so we know, for sure, they are acheiving the "same" results?


If she is anything more than deluded or a fraud, she just has to demonstrate the ability to do what she says she does.

No, actually she doesn't have to do anything that you, or anyone else, request of her. Why would you believe she would have to?

[T'ai Chi]

She has not addressed "Randi's stuff" before, she's avoided addressing it.


You're mistaken.

See the quotes I've posted. She's clearly stated her disinterest in the challenge.

[T'ai Chi]

Yes it does.


No, it doesn't. In fact, it has no bearing, especially since she has already expressed her disinterest in the challenge. She doesn't seem to hold it in high regard.


She should either do this (or a similar test) or stop taking money from desperate people for abilities which are likely to be false.


Your "taking" is simply an emotional way for you to describe the act of a willing client coming to her, her quoting her rates, the client agreeing, and the money and service being exhanged.

[phyz]

Maybe he got a hair cut?
;)
Oh, you forgot the "ethnicity-lift." :(

Brilliant! You've managed to render the million dollar challenge null and void. So why should anyone (outside of the organized skeptical movement) consider it for more than 2 seconds if it can be dismissed so easily?
Newsflash, T'ai Chi, and this will brighten your day without a doubt. It turns out that James Randi--not NMJ--is in charge of the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. It's somewhat disconcerting that someone with so many posts as you is unaware of this fact, but there it is.

So buck up, ChiChi! Randi is quite open to the possibilities. Yea, he is so enthused toward finding demonstrable paranormal phenomena that he's willing to pay $1M te see it! Isn't that exciting?

[thaiboxerken]

And? The issue was about if she addressed the million dollar challenge offer or not. She has already. She clearly has made statements that she is not interested in it, for various reasons. Well, statements clear to anyone that can think for themselves, that is.

Yes, and that reason is because she knows she doesn't have superpowers.

[thaiboxerken]

Where are scientific studies of cold readers doing this, so we know, for sure, they are acheiving the "same" results?

This is just idiotic. It's the same as trying to shift the burden of evidence upon those who doubt. Psychic phenomena is not established as being anything other than trickery. It's up to psychics to prove that they have superpowers, not for everyone else to prove that superpowers can be replicated by mundane means.

[CFLarsen]

Larry said long compared to his (Larry's) own hair.

And he was wrong. Devlin's hair length is even shorter than King's.

And that has no relevance whatsoever on the claim of her supposedly not addressing the million dollar challenge offer.

Rubbish. It has everything to do with it.

Brilliant! You've managed to render the million dollar challenge null and void. So why should anyone (outside of the organized skeptical movement) consider it for more than 2 seconds if it can be dismissed so easily?

Such ignorant arguments are way too easy to shoot down. Electricity would be considered supernatural a few hundred years ago, yet it isn't.

Either or fallacy. You apparently have a strong, strong need to disbelieve people when they say they aren't interested or don't consider something very worthy (probaby going by the track record of the skeptical movement).

You clearly have a strong, strong need to defend anyone with claimed paranormal abilities, regardless of how much pain and suffering they cause.

Randi himself said to avoid wheel-spinning, yet you want him to do that very thing? They'd just go back and forth

Yes or No?
I've already told you my reasons why your challenge is garbage.
Yes or No?
I've already told you my reasons why your challenge is garbage.
Yes or No?
I've already told you my reasons why your challenge is garbage.
Yes or No?
I've already told you my reasons why your challenge is garbage.
(repeat)

All she had to do was say "No". Yet, she didn't.

Now, why not? A simple "No", and it would have been all over. Instead, she chose to blabber incessantly, so the time would pass, without her having to either give a clear refusal or face a "Rosemary Clock", had she agreed.

She dodged, Justin. And you are all too eager to let her do it.

Ah. Must be the new logic that the organized skeptical movement followers are learning? :)

You include yourself in this "organized skeptical movement" you keep referring to. Only when you don't. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68791) :rolleyes:

And? The issue was about if she addressed the million dollar challenge offer or not. She has already. She clearly has made statements that she is not interested in it, for various reasons. Well, statements clear to anyone that can think for themselves, that is.

Yes, indeed. Anyone being able to think for themselves can see through her evasiveness and refusal to actually admit that she won't take the challenge because she knows she can't pass it. Not because the challenge is unfair, but because she can't talk to dead people.

Definitely.

Yet, when she did get together with scientists, she didn't like that either. She simply refuse to be tested by anyone (she can't control), even though she herself speaks of "evidence".

Where are scientific studies of cold readers doing this, so we know, for sure, they are acheiving the "same" results?

You are perfectly aware that to do such a study, you would have to cheat grieving people into believing that the cold readers could actually talk to dead people.

It would be highly unethical to do so. You know this, but ignore it, only so you can take cheap shots at skeptics. And, by doing so, you actively support the psychics who scam grieving people. Only you know that they are scam artists.

No, actually she doesn't have to do anything that you, or anyone else, request of her. Why would you believe she would have to?

Because she has an obligation to those grieving people she tells she can get in touch with their dead relatives?

Have you no decency at all?

You're mistaken.

See the quotes I've posted. She's clearly stated her disinterest in the challenge.

Because she knows she can't pass it, yes. Even though she knows - and you know - that the JREF Challenge would be far easier to pass than a scientific test. And you allow her to get away with it.

[jon]

Your "taking" is simply an emotional way for you to describe the act of a willing client coming to her, her quoting her rates, the client agreeing, and the money and service being exhanged.

Not particularly emotive - I would have said 'defrauding', but I can't know for sure whether Altea is deliberately faking her 'powers' or has deluded herself into believing that she really has superpowers. Hell, it's even possible she really has superpowers - but I see no convincing evidence for that, and plenty for the first two possibilities.

[NewMusic_Jenn]

No one here is silly enough to think that Rosemary had an actual premonition or psychic episode, but it's not because of pre-concieved notions, it's because of where the evidence leads us.

Well stated - I (like I'm sure many) would be willing to consider any actual (scientific/real) evidence. Critical thinking isn't about swallowing what what your're told or trying to prove a negative...it is about looking at the evidence (or lack there of) presented and making an informed choice about what to believe. I hope Randi and skeptics everywhere continue to challenge those who set out to decieve - and not to let them off the hook without a fight!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto
A test for Ms Altea's "abilities" has to preclude the possibility of her using cold and hot reading.

Definitely.

Yes.


Entertainers such as Ian Rowland have, can, and do achive the same results as "psychics" through perfectly explainable means.

Where are scientific studies of cold readers doing this, so we know, for sure, they are acheiving the "same" results?

Well, there aren't any as far as I know. But acknowledged cold readers do convince the the uneducated that they are "psychic". People for whom Rowland has "read" claim he is as much as 99% accurate.

If she is anything more than deluded or a fraud, she just has to demonstrate the ability to do what she says she does.

No, actually she doesn't have to do anything that you, or anyone else, request of her. Why would you believe she would have to?

Do I say she had to to anything for me? What she claims to do looks exactly like a cold reading to me. If she says it is something different, why should anyone believe her if she cannot show that difference?

[hilliag]

Randi missed an opportunity to ask Rosemary how one could tell a genuine psychic from a fraud. I would've loved to hear her answer to that.

So would I, Prewitt81. Good point.

I watched the show with my wife and daughter. They were interested in seeing Randi after my trip to TAM5. Both were bothered by his confrontational demeanor. After a while *I* was tired of hearing about the challenge. What BillyJoe was saying seemed dead-on to me.
Unfortunately, Larry King is a lousy interviewer and a worse mediator. He still has a show for what he has done in the past, not for what he can do now. He should have given Randi as much time as Altea. Next time I hope Randi supplies King with the documentation on the challenge and asks for just 30 uninterrupted seconds to make a few points to rebut Althea, who lied about the challenge:
"The million dollars does exist, it's with Goldman Sachs. Larry, you have the paperwork before you that proves that.
"I don't devise the test, the claimant does that, in consultation with a panel of experts I convene. She won't take the test until she's happy with the conditions.
"The testing is done in two stages, a preliminary stage and a final stage. So far, no one has gotten past the preliminary stage, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
"If the claimant performs as she says she can, she wins the milliion dollars. Simple as that."

That's a rough start, but you can see how he could make those points. Larry King is such an empty vessel that I don't think it would happen. On Anderson Cooper, maybe.

[BillyJoe]

jon,

This is more about Randi than yourself....

...I can't know for sure whether Altea is deliberately faking her 'powers' or has deluded herself into believing that she really has superpowers.And I bet you believe it's one or other of these two don't you?.

Hell, it's even possible she really has superpowers..But you don't really believe this do you?

..but I see no convincing evidence for that, and plenty for the first two possibilities.That's right.


The thing is, it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that you really are open to the third possibility. You are not are you? And neither is Randi. He has long since passed the point of seriously entertaining the idea that psychic powers might exist. But then why does he not say so. It's easy: "I believe that psychics are either fakes or self-deluded, because in ?50 years not a single one of them has been able to prove they have the ability". Why pretend that he is just waiting for someone to show him convincingly that they have psychic powers. He clearly is not. He is waiting to prove that they do not have them.

[rjh01]

BillyJoe
You are probably right as far as you go. However you must be careful not to close your mind to things that appear to be wrong but are not wrong. The number of times my opinion has been rejected out of hand only to be proved right is not funny.

Like if I told you that I can get 1 + 1 = 3 what would you say? Reject it out of hand? I mean it goes against everything you have been taught on the subject.

But I can do it. And so can you. In short you must always keep open the possibility that one of your core beliefs is wrong. If only on a technicality.

[BillyJoe]

rjh01,

Again, this was more about Randi but...

You are probably right as far as you go. However you must be careful not to close your mind to things that appear to be wrong but are not wrong.You are probably right as well, but hands up any sceptics here who think there is any possibility whatsoever that a psychic is going to take that prize one day - and thereby prove that psychic phenomena are real.

Like if I told you that I can get 1 + 1 = 3 what would you say? Reject it out of hand? I mean it goes against everything you have been taught on the subject.Neat trick but, Goddamn, I can't remember it.

But I can do it. And so can you. In short you must always keep open the possibility that one of your core beliefs is wrong. If only on a technicality.I don't about losing on a technicality - most people are pretty annoyed when that happens. But, yeah, always keep open the possibility that one of your core beliefs is wrong. I agree. But...I dunno, I still can't see a psychic ever winning that prize? Can you?

[Drudgewire]

T'ai Chi,

I'm still a newblet on this board, and as a believer in God I'm certainly not going to be lumped in with true skeptics very often.

So believe me when I tell you I'd LOVE for psychic ability to be real. Hell, I'll even grant you the "science can't accurately measure the paranormal because it exists outside of science" argument... leaving open that possibility that until something can be disproved there's a real chance that it does exist.

The problem is that there is SOOOOO much tangible, real evidence that psychic ability is bunk... and not so much as a single documented account of even a personal anecdote about any psychic ever that has held up to any scrutiny once the facts were looked at objectively.

Not ONE!

And what makes the whole profession look so downright dishonest is that when something the entire community knows at a glance is not on the up and up, they ignore it, dismiss it, or have a pat answer that skirts around the issue entirely.

Rosemary's a great case in point. Repeatedly she uses the analogy of how bad doctors don't mean that the entire medical profession is a sham, but then in the same breath refuses to villify Sylvia or even so much as speculate on her motives. What blows apart her analogy is that the medical profession doesn't go out of their way to protect bad doctors. They do everything they can to weed them out.

And of course there's the other difference between doctors and psychics: Doctors would never say "we can't be right 100% of the time" to anyone without being sure to mention that beforehand. And no doctor who had a patient with a 50% chance of survival would tell him anything as matter-of-factly as Sylvia did with those parents while never batting an eyelash.

Police pyshic detective shows are another stellar example. Anyone who has gone back and looked at ANY case on ANY police psychic show has found out real quickly that the evidence doesn't match what is being presented to the viewer. Where's the outrage by the psychic community? Where is anyone who will speak out against the blatant dishonesty going on by their "superstars" by someone who would rather they focused on the actual success stories they've had without having to resort to... at the very least... massive embellishment?

When no one in the profession is pointing out the fraud going on right in front of their eyes and instead do nothing but blindly bash those who point it out, it doesn't take Scotland Yard to figure out it's because they're committing the same fraud.

Be it the psychic hotlines (I went to film school in Lauderdale with a guy who worked for the fat Jamaican lady one. He never let me see the script but he certainly never claimed to have any psychic powers either. It was just a job to him), the TV shows, or anything else in the genre: It's not that there's fraud going on in the industry that makes it a scam..

...it's the fact that no "legitimate" psychics have ever been able to clearly demonstrate exactly what they do that is in any way different from how the scammers do it.

[Jackalgirl]

...The problem is that there is SOOOOO much tangible, real evidence that psychic ability is bunk... and not so much as a single documented account of even a personal anecdote about any psychic ever that has held up to any scrutiny once the facts were looked at objectively...

Rosemary's a great case in point. Repeatedly she uses the analogy of how bad doctors don't mean that the entire medical profession is a sham, but then in the same breath refuses to villify Sylvia or even so much as speculate on her motives. What blows apart her analogy is that the medical profession doesn't go out of their way to protect bad doctors. They do everything they can to weed them out...

...It's not that there's fraud going on in the industry that makes it a scam...it's the fact that no "legitimate" psychics have ever been able to clearly demonstrate exactly what they do that is in any way different from how the scammers do it.

Well said, Drudgewire. As a corollary to your point, another difference between doctors and psychics is that doctors are held to a set of professional standards that involve verifiable, observable, measurable results (in addition to ethical standards). Psychics aren't held to any set of standards that I know of -- not by "legitimates", as you point out, and certainly not by any professonal psychic association, with a published set up ethics and a review board. Haven't heard of "psychical" licenses, either; at least none issued by a government-recognized board.

I think that my biggest problem with "psychic powers" is that it glosses over what -- I think -- is the more miraculous ability of all human beings: the human being is, in my mind, the most sophisticated pattern-seeking machine in the world. We humans have the capability to pull the most profound insights out of absolutely nothing at all (well, and BS too, but that's another story).

This ability is innate. It allows us to be problem-solvers, to invent, to come up with connections and conclusions that are mindblowing. It gives birth to both art and science (and religion). We're constantly trying to pull pattern out of chaos and sometimes, intuitively, we manage to actually find a signal there, to come up with completely intuitive solutions for something considered insolvable.

My dismay at the psychic crowd is that, for the most part (because this is a sweeping generalization), they touch on the pattern-seeking ability /but then go no farther/. "I can talk to angels!" "I can talk to dead people!" "I can talk to God!" "I have a psychic connection to other human beings!" And it stops there. I don't see much attempt at scholarship other than coming up with elaborate feel-good hypotheses about their special powers -- I see no actual drive to experiement, to test, to find out the true limits and source of their abilities (which I think is pattern-seekiness) and, in that way, to find out ways to train and hone their ability. It's like they have a special talent in pattern-seekiness but then just stop right there, stuck with no means of self-improvement because they think they've already got all the answers they need.

Some people find they have this knack and instead of thinking they are psychic, know that they have some higher-than-average ability to sense patterns -- they train themselves very carefully, using time-tested techniques, to maximize their abilities. These people are our detectives, our profilers, our scientists, our musicians, our artists, our psychologists, or any one of the amazing number of professions which produce results in an observably positive way (that's another generalization, of course; there are bad detectives, scientists, profilers, etc -- we're all humans).

And what's worse, because the "psychic arts" /inherently/ shun any kind of systematic, careful questioning and observation, there is /no means/ to prevent or minimize things like Sylvia Browne telling people that their dead children are alive or their living children are dead.

No wonder this Forum is often perceived as a hotbed of rudeness and intolerance. I'm actually amazed it's not worse than it is.

[SkeptiKilt]

Some people find they have this knack and instead of thinking they are psychic, know that they have some higher-than-average ability to sense patterns -- they train themselves very carefully, using time-tested techniques, to maximize their abilities. These people are our detectives, our profilers, our scientists, our musicians, our artists, our psychologists, or any one of the amazing number of professions which produce results in an observably positive way

Our top poker players . . .

[Jackalgirl]

Our top poker players . . .

ROFL! Yes! : )

[SezMe]

Psychics aren't held to any set of standards that I know of -- not by "legitimates", as you point out, and certainly not by any professonal psychic association, with a published set up ethics and a review board. Haven't heard of "psychical" licenses, either; at least none issued by a government-recognized board.
American Association of Professional Psychics (http://www.certifiedpsychics.com/index.html). From their certification page:

The American Association of Professional Psychics® administers the only objective Certification Program for professional psychics in America today.

All of our members have been tested and Certified for ethics, professionalism, and proven psychic ability.

We seek to maintain the highest standards of ethics and credibility in our field.
WARNING: You may want to cover your keyboard/monitor with barf-proof material before going to that site.

ETA: This has already been discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1652288).

[SezMe]

Or go here (http://www.crystal-healing.com/courses.htm) to see a psychic training program that is claimed to be certified by the government of Australia.

And to think just yesterday Zep told me Australia was a nation of skeptics. Ouch!

[Zep]

Or go here (http://www.crystal-healing.com/courses.htm) to see a psychic training program that is claimed to be certified by the government of Australia.

And to think just yesterday Zep told me Australia was a nation of skeptics. Ouch!Perhaps not down to the last person. :o After all, Australians head up both Answers In Genesis (USA) and its equivalent here in Australia. :eek:

The actual wording used on the referenced website, in a number of places, is "government accredited". On closer inspection, that is obviously referring to the government of Queensland, not the Australian Federal government. Another point is that this course is available via a mailing centre on the Gold Coast (south-east Queensland).

Now, just a few points of interest here:

1) The Gold Coast, being Australia's equivalent to Miami, is rife with these types of New Age con-artists. The more well-known ones include Answers in Genesis and Breatharianism. More hucksters per cubic fortnight than you can poke a stick at. So this scheme is one of the milder ones!

2) Nearly every mail-based huckster scheme in Australia is handled through the Gold Coast. They have a virtual monopoly on it! :eye-poppi

3) The words "Government accredited" can mean anything in the context of that website. The most likely true meaning is that the operation is a genuinely registered business for legal purposes, etc. Also most likely, it does NOT mean the government approves of or endorses the product or "training". I suspect the Qld Education Dept. knows nothing whatever about it!

So the words are true in what they say, but definitely not in what they mean. It is, in effect, misleading wording in advertising, and really should be followed up with the Queensland state consumer protection authority. However Queensland has a reputation for being very lax in that regard...so the scammers try to get away with this sort of stuff. :rolleyes:


In summary, this is a weak immitation of Sylvia Browne, with el cheapo crystals and crapola going for hundreds of dollars.

Now, how many can I sell you? :D

[Drudgewire]

The American Association of Professional Psychics® administers the only objective Certification Program for professional psychics in America today.

All of our members have been tested and Certified for ethics, professionalism, and proven psychic ability.

We seek to maintain the highest standards of ethics and credibility in our field.

That might not be quite as laughable if I'd never read The Psychic Mafia (H. Lamar Keene in the JREF library) :cool:

[Jackalgirl]

American Association of Professional Psychics (http://www.certifiedpsychics.com/index.html).

Urp! I stand corrected! Thanks very much for the link -- hmmmm...wonder what their thoughts are regarding Sylvia Browne, whether they've actually ever revoked someone's license, and whether they're working towards legistlatory standards? I shall have to ask. Thanks again!

[grayman]

I wonder if they issue a Doctorate in Metaphysics like the one earned by Virginia Wade (http://www.transformationsahealingplace.com/schedule.htm)?

[T'ai Chi]

Newsflash, T'ai Chi, and this will brighten your day without a doubt. It turns out that James Randi--not NMJ--is in charge of the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. It's somewhat disconcerting that someone with so many posts as you is unaware of this fact, but there it is.

So buck up, ChiChi! Randi is quite open to the possibilities. Yea, he is so enthused toward finding demonstrable paranormal phenomena that he's willing to pay $1M te see it! Isn't that exciting?

But "phyz", it was already explained that once paranormal is done, it is no longer paranormal. So why would a paranormal challenge with rules addressing the paranormal, still apply? Even if they money is paid it wouldn't mean a thing.

[T'ai Chi]

The problem is that there is SOOOOO much tangible, real evidence that psychic ability is bunk... and not so much as a single documented account of even a personal anecdote about any psychic ever that has held up to any scrutiny once the facts were looked at objectively.

Not ONE!


I fail to believe you have heard and researched all things, including personal anedcotes, all over the world. In fact, I'm atheist to that idea.


When no one in the profession is pointing out the fraud going on right in front of their eyes and instead do nothing but blindly bash those who point it out, it doesn't take Scotland Yard to figure out it's because they're committing the same fraud.


You're free to contact the proper authorites to investigate what you believe is fraud.

[Soapy Sam]

"There are many, many people out there who have this very rare gift..."

It seems Ms. Altea cannot even make a simple declarative sentence without contradicting herself.

I wonder if this is a deliberate tactic, enabling her to claim that when people heard her talk nonsense she actually meant to talk sense.

[LostAngeles]

But "phyz", it was already explained that once paranormal is done, it is no longer paranormal. So why would a paranormal challenge with rules addressing the paranormal, still apply? Even if they money is paid it wouldn't mean a thing.

So we can't test it so it can keep its extra special name?

[Drudgewire]

You're free to contact the proper authorites to investigate what you believe is fraud.
Except to file a police report you pretty much have to be the victim. :p

[SkeptiKilt]

But "phyz", it was already explained that once paranormal is done, it is no longer paranormal. So why would a paranormal challenge with rules addressing the paranormal, still apply? Even if they money is paid it wouldn't mean a thing.
Could someone translate that for me? It loses something in the original.

[Soapy Sam]

It's about paradigm shifts and money.

[Curnir]

Ok, so you're brainwashed.

What Randi says is things like

"I simply do not find any evidence whatsoever that they do, so I don't believe there are any."

He certainly doesn't believe many things exist.

Yeah well... you probably don't believe in thr Jumping Purple Kangaroo of Southwest Minnesota.

So why should I listen to you? Huh? Can you tell me that?


*This has been a presentation of stoopid rule8-uped arguments theater.*

*Curnir takes his bows*

Thank you. Thank you.

[CFLarsen]

But "phyz", it was already explained that once paranormal is done, it is no longer paranormal. So why would a paranormal challenge with rules addressing the paranormal, still apply?

Very dishonest of you.

You know perfectly well that Randi is legally bound to pay the money. Once the phenomenon is described as paranormal and the test is done, there is no way Randi could get away with calling it "non-paranormal". If he didn't think it was paranormal, why agree to the test?

Even if they money is paid it wouldn't mean a thing.

Of course it would: It would mean the discovery of a whole new phenomenon. To Randi, it's worth it. To you, it's worth nothing.

You really aren't interested in discovering new things, are you?

[T'ai Chi]

Except to file a police report you pretty much have to be the victim. :p

Well surely this wouldn't be too difficult, given the claim by organized skeptical clubs that there are so so many victims around. You know, victims that willingly give their money to psychics, and know full-well there are no guarantees in a reading.

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah well... you probably don't believe in thr Jumping Purple Kangaroo of Southwest Minnesota.

So why should I listen to you? Huh? Can you tell me that?


That made no sense.

The issue was that it was claimed that Randi does not say he doesn't believe in it.

Yet, a breif search shows that Randi has said things like

"I simply do not find any evidence whatsoever that they do, so I don't believe there are any."

So he certainly doesn't believe many things exist.

So you shouldn't listen to me.. I agree. You should read what Randi actually wrote. And try to understand. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Well surely this wouldn't be too difficult, given the claim by organized skeptical clubs

Yes, skepticism sounds less important and dangerous, if you describe it as "clubs", instead of your usual "organized skeptical movement". :rolleyes:

that there are so so many victims around. You know, victims that willingly give their money to psychics, and know full-well there are no guarantees in a reading.

Wow. You put the whole blame on the victims, while allowing the scam artists to continue.

You think that the grief and anguish that Shawn Holbeck's parents felt is entirely their own fault. That is incredible callous of you.

That made no sense.

The issue was that it was claimed that Randi does not say he doesn't believe in it.

Yet, a breif search shows that Randi has said things like

"I simply do not find any evidence whatsoever that they do, so I don't believe there are any."

So he certainly doesn't believe many things exist.

So you shouldn't listen to me.. I agree. You should read what Randi actually wrote. And try to understand. ;)

There is a huge difference between saying "I don't believe in X" and "I don't believe in X because there is no evidence of X".

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

So he certainly doesn't believe many things exist.


This is the second time in this thread that you have said that, and it doesn't make any more sense to me the second time.

I am pretty sure that Randi believes that quite a few things exist. Trillions of things, in fact. Like, for example, atoms, molecules, cells, insects, animals, trees, mountains, clouds, stars, planets, etc. etc. etc. Last I checked, we have evidence for the existence of all of those things, and quite a few more.

[Expression_man]

I understand where Randi is coming from. It would be foolish to consider him as being anything other than a pseudo skeptic though, even despite what he says on TV. His position is well-known and it's simply this...

Everything which isn't a part of science (of which he knows precious little) is BS.

So we already have an agenda present, even before we've started.
Regarding psychic phenomena, negativity has a huge impact on them. Even if Randi isn't present it's still his challenge and the negative connotations carry over. That's why his challenge will prove nothing as long as he keeps "hunting in the shallows".

The problem with Randi is simple. He thinks rationally while operating within a limited understanding. He cannot suspend disbelief.

Were the times different he'd be yet another person proclaiming that the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth. He'd have no evidence to think otherwise. Then you have people who, for some very strange reason, believe that the current model of physics (particle physics) is complete. It doesn't take gravity into account, therefore not being a complete theory of fundamental interactions, and competing theories undermine it completely.

It's that simple, it's not complicated. Sure he can disprove frauds but who are they when you have things like the Pope and other religious leaders to contend with.

Randi doesn't really care about peoples emotions to the degree that he claims to, he's just an angry man who is cynical at heart. He may be an attention seeker too, who knows?

If he was serious in his endeavor then he would take it much further than he has. It seems that he has enough trouble "disproving" the people he's already up against.

[BillyJoe]

I understand where Randi is coming from. It would be foolish to consider him as being anything other than a pseudo skeptic though, even despite what he says on TV. No, he believes only those things for which there is evidence. This makes him a true sceptic.
He is a bit impatient with scam artists though.

His position is well-known and it's simply this...Everything which isn't a part of science (of which he knows precious little) is BS.No, everything for which there is no evidence is discarded until such evidence becomes available.
It's BS, when someone scams it though.

Regarding psychic phenomena, negativity has a huge impact on them. Even if Randi isn't present it's still his challenge and the negative connotations carry over.Some psychics even claim that Randi is actually psychic himself and that he uses his psychic powers to counteract theirs. :D

That's why his challenge will prove nothing as long as he keeps "hunting in the shallows".Hence the recent changes to the challenge.

The problem with Randi is simple. He thinks rationally while operating within a limited understanding. Yeah well, all understanding is limited.

He cannot suspend disbelief.Oh, I'm sure he enjoys the odd sci-fi book. :cool:
Suspending disbelief and then returning to the real world is fine. Trouble is, some people never come back.

Were the times different he'd be yet another person proclaiming that the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth. He'd have no evidence to think otherwise.Yes, and when that evidence became available, he would have changed his mind.
You would have done otherwise?

Then you have people who, for some very strange reason, believe that the current model of physics (particle physics) is complete. It doesn't take gravity into account, therefore not being a complete theory of fundamental interactions, and competing theories undermine it completely.Well, some people cannot construct a coherent sentence ;) , but what has this to do with Randi?

It's that simple, it's not complicated. Sure he can disprove frauds but who are they when you have things like the Pope and other religious leaders to contend with.So we should all drop whatever we are doing and pursue the pope. We should forget about the local poverty because elsewhere people are dying. We should forget about Australian Rules, because soccer is a much bigger game.

Randi doesn't really care about peoples emotions to the degree that he claims to, he's just an angry man who is cynical at heart. He may be an attention seeker too, who knows?People who have met him have a very different opinion of his warmth towards people. He hates seeing people defrauded by scam artists and it makes him angry. It doesn't help on TV because the general population are not aware of the deceit that goes on and cannot identify with his anger. Cynical, no. But he has seen it all so often, it must get a little tiring at times seeing the same old scams and scam artists cropping time and again.

If he was serious in his endeavor then he would take it much further than he has. It seems that he has enough trouble "disproving" the people he's already up against.Oh, he is serious. It's just that the problem is so overwhelming for one man or a small group to handle. The media believe or pretend to believe in them (for the sake of ratings). When they don't believe in them, most people believe they are just harmless fun. It's a uphill battle on skates.

[CFLarsen]

I understand where Randi is coming from. It would be foolish to consider him as being anything other than a pseudo skeptic though, even despite what he says on TV. His position is well-known and it's simply this...

Everything which isn't a part of science (of which he knows precious little) is BS.

So we already have an agenda present, even before we've started.
Regarding psychic phenomena, negativity has a huge impact on them. Even if Randi isn't present it's still his challenge and the negative connotations carry over. That's why his challenge will prove nothing as long as he keeps "hunting in the shallows".

The problem with Randi is simple. He thinks rationally while operating within a limited understanding. He cannot suspend disbelief.

Were the times different he'd be yet another person proclaiming that the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth. He'd have no evidence to think otherwise. Then you have people who, for some very strange reason, believe that the current model of physics (particle physics) is complete. It doesn't take gravity into account, therefore not being a complete theory of fundamental interactions, and competing theories undermine it completely.

It's that simple, it's not complicated. Sure he can disprove frauds but who are they when you have things like the Pope and other religious leaders to contend with.

Randi doesn't really care about peoples emotions to the degree that he claims to, he's just an angry man who is cynical at heart. He may be an attention seeker too, who knows?

If he was serious in his endeavor then he would take it much further than he has. It seems that he has enough trouble "disproving" the people he's already up against.

Do you think it is important to separate the charlatans from those with real paranormal powers?

[William Smith]

...
If he was serious in his endeavor then he would take it much further than he has. It seems that he has enough trouble "disproving" the people he's already up against.

Expression_man, judging by this statement, you still seem to have trouble understanding the JREF Challenge.

Mr. Randi does not "disprove", he asks for proof from those who claim "any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability".

He challenges them to provide evidence "under satisfactory observing conditions". He sweetens the deal with USD 1,000,000.

It's that simple.

[Expression_man]

Do you think it is important to separate the charlatans from those with real paranormal powers?

Of course I do.

But Randi is not the authority he claims to be. Much of what he does is for the sake of publicity. He may confront someone on television and accuse them of being fraudulent, insisting that they take the test, but when someone challenges him outright he doesn't give them the same priority. He will insist that they go through the "proper channels of application", something which might seem slightly awakward after having confronted these people out in the open.

It's arrogance on Randi's part. Yes he does some good, but people are easily impressed (much like the point he often tries to make). He is not a scientist, he should stick to devising anti-cheating protocols and be content with just that.

This man and his JREF have not come any closer to bringing about world peace. If anything, he just creates further conflict because of how vocally he proclaims his beliefs to be true.

The real disaster is that he draws people to himself who think in the same way. Suddenly you have a concept, righteous in nature, being represented by the worst possible people. Those who are not impartial.

This is all theatre and drama, not to be taken any more seriously than that which he speaks out against. If he were serious, there are much bigger fish to fry.

[William Smith]

Of course I do.

But Randi is not the authority he claims to be. Much of what he does is for the sake of publicity.

Evidence, please.


He may confront someone on television and accuse them of being fraudulent, insisting that they take the test, but when someone challenges him outright he doesn't give them the same priority. He will insist that they go through the "proper channels of application", something which might seem slightly awakward after having confronted these people out in the open.

Evidence, please.


...
This man and his JREF have not come any closer to bringing about world peace. If anything, he just creates further conflict because of how vocally he proclaims his beliefs to be true.

Evidence, please.


The real disaster is that he draws people to himself who think in the same way. Suddenly you have a concept, righteous in nature, being represented by the worst possible people. Those who are not impartial.

Evidence, please.


This is all theatre and drama, not to be taken any more seriously than that which he speaks out against. If he were serious, there are much bigger fish to fry.

Please define your understanding of "bigger fish to fry", Expression_man.

[CFLarsen]

Of course I do.

How, exactly, will you go about separating the charlatans from those with real paranormal powers?

But Randi is not the authority he claims to be.

Can you name other people who are more of an authority wrt revealing how people are being scammed by people claiming paranormal powers?

Much of what he does is for the sake of publicity.

He wants to get people's attention. Why is that bad?

He may confront someone on television and accuse them of being fraudulent, insisting that they take the test, but when someone challenges him outright he doesn't give them the same priority.

Can you name those he has not given the same priority?

He will insist that they go through the "proper channels of application", something which might seem slightly awakward after having confronted these people out in the open.

Why would it be awkward?

It's arrogance on Randi's part. Yes he does some good, but people are easily impressed (much like the point he often tries to make). He is not a scientist, he should stick to devising anti-cheating protocols and be content with just that.

Where does Randi claim to be a scientist?

Is it necessary to be a scientist to separate the charlatans from those with real paranormal powers?

Are scientists capable of detecting trickery, better than magicians are?

This man and his JREF have not come any closer to bringing about world peace. If anything, he just creates further conflict because of how vocally he proclaims his beliefs to be true.

Wrong. It isn't a question of Randi's beliefs vs. the beliefs of the Superstitious. It's solely a question of whether or not these people can show evidence of their claims.

The real disaster is that he draws people to himself who think in the same way. Suddenly you have a concept, righteous in nature, being represented by the worst possible people. Those who are not impartial.

Wrong. Randi doesn't draw people to himself, he shows the evidence that e.g. people like Sylvia Browne are not talking to the dead, but instead explains how it is done. The "concept", as you call it, is not "righteous in nature", but scientific in nature. That's what people are "drawn to", not Randi.

This is all theatre and drama, not to be taken any more seriously than that which he speaks out against. If he were serious, there are much bigger fish to fry.

What should Randi go after, if not Sylvia Browne? Why?

[T'ai Chi]

No, he believes only those things for which there is evidence. This makes him a true sceptic.


"true skeptic"

You do know that that is a fallacy. right?

[CFLarsen]

"true skeptic"

You do know that that is a fallacy. right?

Once again, you fail to comprehend the most simple concepts. The No True Scotsman fallacy goes like this:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

In this case, it's different:

Argument: "No skeptic accepts the existence of something without evidence."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus accepts the existence of something without evidence."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true accepts the existence of something without evidence."

What you are saying is that skeptics accepts the existence of something without evidence. Which, of course, is false.

[Expression_man]

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

This place is so insignificant in reality, it's not very well known in the western world and in the eastern it's just laughed at (for the most part) whenever the concept is explained.

But to each his/her own. I just think it's amazing how much influence culture (popular culture too) has when it comes to educating people.

Are scientists capable of detecting trickery, better than magicians are?

No, but they're better at avoiding bias (even if they can't get rid of it completely). If scientists are still subject to creating forgeries then I wouldn't put "true skeptics" above them.

[CFLarsen]

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.

Bull. You want Randi to go after "bigger fish", but refuse to name them? Bull.

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.

Feel free to open a thread and list those examples. Let's see if your evidence is as good as you claim.

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.

You don't think what Randi does is 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?

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 is that a problem? You need to explain this.

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. 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.

Why should he be treated preferentially?

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).

Rubbish. If a claimant can do what he claims, it is up to him to prove it.

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.

Not at all. It is when claimants start lying that people around here begin calling them liars.

This place is so insignificant in reality, it's not very well known in the western world and in the eastern it's just laughed at (for the most part) whenever the concept is explained.

You may think that, but right now, I think Sylvia Browne is sweating cold.

But to each his/her own. I just think it's amazing how much influence culture (popular culture too) has when it comes to educating people.

You got that right! But it is even more amazing how much influence superstition has when it comes to fooling people.

No, but they're better at avoiding bias (even if they can't get rid of it completely). If scientists are still subject to creating forgeries then I wouldn't put "true skeptics" above them.

I got two words for you: Project Alpha. Scientists refused Randi's advice and were fooled, good and proper.

[Drudgewire]

Regarding psychic phenomena, negativity has a huge impact on them.
So psychic phenomena has self-esteem issues? It only shows itself if it knows nobody is going to make fun of it?

Psychic phenomena needs to grow a pair. :p

[Moochie]

Just out of interest, Expression_man, did you fail the challenge, or have your application rejected, at some time?

You seem very pro-woo, yet offer nothing to substantiate woo in general, or your apparent faith in woo in particular.

M.

[Drudgewire]

Ok, so you're brainwashed.

What Randi says is things like

"I simply do not find any evidence whatsoever that they do, so I don't believe there are any."

He certainly doesn't believe many things exist.
But if proof would be provided something does he's willing to admit he was wrong. Having made that assertion for as long as he has (and backing it up with cash) and not having anyone step forward with said proof does give him some right to be cynical towards paranormal activity.

[Expression_man]

Just out of interest, Expression_man, did you fail the challenge, or have your application rejected, at some time?

You seem very pro-woo, yet offer nothing to substantiate woo in general, or your apparent faith in woo in particular.

M.

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.

[sackett]

Somewhere up above, TC used the phrase "the skeptical movement."

Christ, I wish there was a skeptical movement, and not just a thin scattering of people who are willing to confront hype artists when they get the chance. I wish there was half as much money in defying conwomen like SB and this piteous Altea as they rake in themselves.

[sackett]

I too wish Olaf Blanke would publish ALL his findings.

Or if he won't, why don't you publish them, Medicine_Man? Are they rilly, rilly so earth-shaking? If so, how did you come to know that? Come on, level with everybody.

You have nothing to lose but your illusions.

[Expression_man]

I too wish Olaf Blanke would publish ALL his findings.

Or if he won't, why don't you publish them, Medicine_Man? Are they rilly, rilly so earth-shaking? If so, how did you come to know that? Come on, level with everybody.

You have nothing to lose but your illusions.

We know what Olaf Blanke is talking about when he uses the words "shadowy man", it's what, for years, we've called the "projected double". He's trying to understand things from a medical bias. He wouldn't even publish how people could see beyond their sensory range but only briefly mentioned it on a radio show, that comment never to be taken seriously by anyone ever again.

Even people in the field of psychiatry are doubting his conclusions. He's trying to apply his findings to a limited understanding of the world. Olaf Blanke is doing his best to avoid confronting people with evidence which will make him seem crazy. It makes me angry that because of places like these we are now contending with something that is being considered as taboo.

[sackett]

We know what Olaf Blanke is talking about when he uses the words "shadowy man", it's what, for years, we've called the "projected double"....

Hold on. Who's this "we?" Where does this "we" publish?

[Expression_man]

It's a community made up of people who have out of body experiences.

Robert Monroe (who started the Monroe Institute) got the ball rolling. Unfortunately he is no longer with us.

Now the only people who publish such work are those who get laughed at by everyone else. I'm not going to give their names because there's too much unfounded criticism surrounding them.

With all the evidence that Olaf Blanke must have collected by now I am extremely worried why he hasn't published the controversial findings.

[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 (http://bmi.epfl.ch/page61087.html) 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. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/redface.gif

[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

[Expression_man]

- 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?

Obviously the answer is my own experiences, all of which I am not comfortable talking about but I will share one which might best explain it.

Tap the table in front of you. Sensory input. You heard sound, you felt touch.

One of my earlier experiences, wherein I was still having trouble moving about, my point of reference had been skewed. Half of my awareness was in my physical body and my other half was in my projected double. This is a very strange feeling but I couldn't help laughing to myself (in my mind) because it seemed so absurd.

Slowly, my awareness trickled into my projected double and I became less aware of my "sleeping position".

This is where it gets complex...

Sensory information.

Sight : 100% in my projected double but lost within a few seconds and now it's a first person perspective from my position on my bed

Motion/momentum/movement : From my projected double

Touch : Shared between my physical body and my projected double

Smell : Unimportant/can't remember

Taste : Unimportant/can't remember


So, I'm seeing things from my physical body but I'm getting information from my projection. I also lack the ability to navigate my environment properly and I find myself falling, from the perspective (not visual but motion) of my projected double.

I can feel myself falling through my bed and off to the side. I can't see anything but I can feel myself pass through the side table, I take in the sense of touch, it's wooden and I feel the surface as it corners off at the bottom and connects to the floor. I have no sight at this time.

I continue to fall (it's more like floating downwards really) and I'm thinking to myself "ack, where does that mean I am"?

The ceiling is quite thin, it doesn't take long until I am in the room below. I continue to fall and I have no idea of where I might be until I stop falling and I can feel the touch of what I know to be a leg rest.

My position is on my side, as it is in bed. Actually this is interesting. That would mean that my projected double is mimicking my physical body's popition (I rest/sleep on my side).

So this leg rest, which I recognise immediately (the moment I made contact with it) is now stopping me from falling. Hehe, I'm not sure why but I seemed to have stopped falling the moment I made contact with that particular object.

That's one example. Most of mine are usually 100% from the perspective of my projected double. I have also become conscious of my projected double while it has been in another room in the house. One time it was in the bathroom upstairs and I suddenly found myself in the dark (lights off and door closed because the room isn't in use).

These are difficult to describe in words but there's another sense you become privvy too while fully immerse in the double, it's a "knowingness". You know your environment and what is outside of it. You would think that sometimes not having sight would bother me but this other sense is much more preferable I assure you.

I'm sorry that you don't have anything other than only my word to go on. I'm certainly not the only one who experiences this, my brother also has it but to a much lesser extent. There are communities dedicated to it but, as is obvious, the integrity of the accounts is in question.

[Mercutio]

EM--

One need not project one's second self to the JREF office--if you know you can induce these states, even rarely, having an independent party put a card with a series of numbers on it in an agreed-upon location quite near you and familiar to you would be good enough, if there are sufficient controls to guard against cheating (intentional or otherwise--for instance, simple sleepwalking!). A videocamera, for instance, would be enough for a preliminary test (to test yourself, I mean; JREF encourages applicants to test themselves first, with appropriate controls in place, to save the applicant from potential embarrassment.). You could even re-use the same tape each night until a night you felt you had a successful OOBE; then check the tape to see that you had not simply sleepwalked, and have the independent party check your "seen" numbers against the actual ones. (I have oversimplified a bit here, due to time constraints, but it is a fairly simple procedure to check yourself.)

[Expression_man]

EM--

One need not project one's second self to the JREF office--if you know you can induce these states, even rarely, having an independent party put a card with a series of numbers on it in an agreed-upon location quite near you and familiar to you would be good enough, if there are sufficient controls to guard against cheating (intentional or otherwise--for instance, simple sleepwalking!). A videocamera, for instance, would be enough for a preliminary test (to test yourself, I mean; JREF encourages applicants to test themselves first, with appropriate controls in place, to save the applicant from potential embarrassment.). You could even re-use the same tape each night until a night you felt you had a successful OOBE; then check the tape to see that you had not simply sleepwalked, and have the independent party check your "seen" numbers against the actual ones. (I have oversimplified a bit here, due to time constraints, but it is a fairly simple procedure to check yourself.)

Yes, that's perfectly reasonable but something like that has already been done by a few people. The problem is that you have to take their word for it also. As for me doing it, it wouldn't prove anything to me but it might be fun to try. Here's something else fascinating, if you have a book nearby you can experience it in many more ways than by simply reading it.

As for sleepwalking, I don't sleepwalk. How would I know? I lock my door when I sleep and I live in a crowded house.

[CFLarsen]

As for sleepwalking, I don't sleepwalk. How would I know? I lock my door when I sleep and I live in a crowded house.

You don't need to leave your room to sleepwalk.

[Expression_man]

You don't need to leave your room to sleepwalk.

I'm aware of that but since the context has already been set...where am I sleepwalking?

[CFLarsen]

I'm aware of that but since the context has already been set...where am I sleepwalking?

Where did I say you were?

[Expression_man]

Where did I say you were?

Ah, right then. I thought you were insinuating something else.

[CFLarsen]

Ah, right then. I thought you were insinuating something else.

Now that I got your attention:

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?

[Mercutio]

Yes, that's perfectly reasonable but something like that has already been done by a few people. The problem is that you have to take their word for it also. As for me doing it, it wouldn't prove anything to me but it might be fun to try. Here's something else fascinating, if you have a book nearby you can experience it in many more ways than by simply reading it.
Oh, I did not intend this as anything more than one way of testing your own beliefs. And yes, it really should be fun; either way it goes down, you learn something. And "reading a number" was chosen just for convenience; there is no reason one would have to use that measure. If your primary experience during these OOBE's was olfactory, one's independent person might put a spice (or crayons, or cheese, or whatever--so long as you did not know which one it was, although it would not be a problem to have you pick the items which could be used). If your primary experience is touch, then rough, smooth, hot or cold stimuli could be used. Whatever your experience is, it can be tested.

And yes, this sort of thing has been done. In one case (the researcher escapes me at the moment), a remarkable report of a string of numbers was given. Sadly, that case did not have controls to prevent the subject from peeking (as you say, we would have to take her word for it), and she left the experiment without replicating the experience with proper controls in place.

"Taking your word for it" is not a problem, though, when you are just doing this for yourself, for fun. You would only be lying to yourself, and there is no point to that. If you found success, then and only then would I advise you to take the next step of having an independent researcher join in the observation. Eventually, if it is real, there is no reason at all why you could not demonstrate that it is.

But, as BillyJoe pointed out above, at present there are two explanations that fit your observations. You would have to do some of that fun systematic observation before you could legitimately say that yours is the better explanation. Blanke's published work supports the other explanation at present, but it is still early. Evidence. That's what is needed.

[Expression_man]

Now that I got your attention:

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?

The only thing of any importance there is bringing this to peoples attention. To tell you the truth, I'm actually scared of Randi. That's why I sometimes attack him. I don't believe in him and ignorance scares the **** out of me.

I don't want a confrontation (despite my nature) or a thread. My being here is part of a reaction I had to Randi. I am not in a position to persuade people. All the same, it's a learning experience. No thread please. I don't want anymore focus. I'll stop talking about it altogether.

[CFLarsen]

The only thing of any importance there is bringing this to peoples attention. To tell you the truth, I'm actually scared of Randi. That's why I sometimes attack him. I don't believe in him and ignorance scares the **** out of me.

I don't want a confrontation (despite my nature) or a thread. My being here is part of a reaction I had to Randi. I am not in a position to persuade people. All the same, it's a learning experience. No thread please. I don't want anymore focus. I'll stop talking about it altogether.

That's not going to work here. You claim there is ample evidence of Out Of Body Experiences. You want to bring it to people's attention.

The only way you can do that is by providing the evidence. The claim itself is not enough. Open a thread and present the evidence there. Or do it here, in this thread.

Here's the rest of the questions:

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?

[Expression_man]

I already started a thread and am in the middle of an experiment with Jonnyfive. I'm not posting there until I have something to offer with regards to his challenge. I just let myself get carried away here again.

Apologies.

[Gr8wight]

Obviously the answer is my own experiences, all of which I am not comfortable talking about but I will share one which might best explain it.

Tap the table in front of you. Sensory input. You heard sound, you felt touch.

One of my earlier experiences, wherein I was still having trouble moving about, my point of reference had been skewed. Half of my awareness was in my physical body and my other half was in my projected double. This is a very strange feeling but I couldn't help laughing to myself (in my mind) because it seemed so absurd.

Slowly, my awareness trickled into my projected double and I became less aware of my "sleeping position".

This is where it gets complex...

Sensory information.

Sight : 100% in my projected double but lost within a few seconds and now it's a first person perspective from my position on my bed

Motion/momentum/movement : From my projected double

Touch : Shared between my physical body and my projected double

Smell : Unimportant/can't remember

Taste : Unimportant/can't remember


So, I'm seeing things from my physical body but I'm getting information from my projection. I also lack the ability to navigate my environment properly and I find myself falling, from the perspective (not visual but motion) of my projected double.

I can feel myself falling through my bed and off to the side. I can't see anything but I can feel myself pass through the side table, I take in the sense of touch, it's wooden and I feel the surface as it corners off at the bottom and connects to the floor. I have no sight at this time.

I continue to fall (it's more like floating downwards really) and I'm thinking to myself "ack, where does that mean I am"?

The ceiling is quite thin, it doesn't take long until I am in the room below. I continue to fall and I have no idea of where I might be until I stop falling and I can feel the touch of what I know to be a leg rest.

My position is on my side, as it is in bed. Actually this is interesting. That would mean that my projected double is mimicking my physical body's popition (I rest/sleep on my side).

So this leg rest, which I recognise immediately (the moment I made contact with it) is now stopping me from falling. Hehe, I'm not sure why but I seemed to have stopped falling the moment I made contact with that particular object.

That's one example. Most of mine are usually 100% from the perspective of my projected double. I have also become conscious of my projected double while it has been in another room in the house. One time it was in the bathroom upstairs and I suddenly found myself in the dark (lights off and door closed because the room isn't in use).

These are difficult to describe in words but there's another sense you become privvy too while fully immerse in the double, it's a "knowingness". You know your environment and what is outside of it. You would think that sometimes not having sight would bother me but this other sense is much more preferable I assure you.

I'm sorry that you don't have anything other than only my word to go on. I'm certainly not the only one who experiences this, my brother also has it but to a much lesser extent. There are communities dedicated to it but, as is obvious, the integrity of the accounts is in question.

What was it about that experience that led you to conclude it was something other than a dream or an hallucination? What specific detail led you to the belief that it could not have been a dream or an hallucination?

[Expression_man]

What was it about that experience that led you to conclude it was something other than a dream or an hallucination? What specific detail led you to the belief that it could not have been a dream or an hallucination?

For me it was the sensory input I received while passing through the different surfaces.

There was also an experiment I did with someone I met online who asked me to view where it was he lived. I got everything down perfectly with the exception of some furniture which had been removed since. Although I was lucky to get the location and perfect sight on my first attempt.

My grandfather described escaping a Russian prison camp by following a white shadow which I now take to be his projected double.

I'm sorry that I don't have anything else to offer you.

[CFLarsen]

I already started a thread and am in the middle of an experiment with Jonnyfive. I'm not posting there until I have something to offer with regards to his challenge. I just let myself get carried away here again.

Apologies.

That's fine. You can still answer the questions in this thread:

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?

[Mercutio]

What was it about that experience that led you to conclude it was something other than a dream or an hallucination? What specific detail led you to the belief that it could not have been a dream or an hallucination?
If I could add to this a bit, E_m, since you mentioned Blanke earlier: Have you read any of his papers? Some are available online (at least to educational institutions), perhaps a local library would have access. I would love to hear how your personal experience stacks up against the experiences Blanke reports.

[SirPhilip]

As fate would have it, "Rosemary Altea" also had a name that sounded like a homeopathic remedy...

[Moochie]

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.

LOL... You know that neither you nor anyone else needs us, or the JREF, to prove any point you wish to make, don't you?


M.

[Expression_man]

Do you think that what Randi is doing is not important to mankind's mental evolution?

The notion is righteous, I just doubt his integrity. My problem.

He wants science to progress, to stop charlatans from cheating people, to end superstition. How is superstition important to mankind's mental evolution

Superstition is probably more damaging than atom bombs. I agree with you there, but I'm sure there's a better way to further ourselves than pressuring people into confronting him.

I've caused enough trouble in this thread, I don't want to engage in conflict anymore. That's why I'm answering the questions which are important.

If I could add to this a bit, E_m, since you mentioned Blanke earlier: Have you read any of his papers? Some are available online (at least to educational institutions), perhaps a local library would have access. I would love to hear how your personal experience stacks up against the experiences Blanke reports.

I've only managed to get my hands on a few excerpts and public statements. I dislike reading them because he only sees things up close and not the bigger picture.

If you want me to comment on something in particular I'd be glad to.

[Moochie]

We know what Olaf Blanke is talking about when he uses the words "shadowy man", it's what, for years, we've called the "projected double". He's trying to understand things from a medical bias. He wouldn't even publish how people could see beyond their sensory range but only briefly mentioned it on a radio show, that comment never to be taken seriously by anyone ever again.

Even people in the field of psychiatry are doubting his conclusions. He's trying to apply his findings to a limited understanding of the world. Olaf Blanke is doing his best to avoid confronting people with evidence which will make him seem crazy. It makes me angry that because of places like these we are now contending with something that is being considered as taboo.

That is just absolute rubbish, man. If "Olaf" had any real evidence, wild horses couldn't keep him from publishing. You seem very naive.

M.

[Expression_man]

That is just absolute rubbish, man. If "Olaf" had any real evidence, wild horses couldn't keep him from publishing. You seem very naive.

M.

Maybe you're right. I just got angry that you called it "woo".

[Gr8wight]

For me it was the sensory input I received while passing through the different surfaces.

What is sensory input? It is simply your brain interpreting electrical signals from your neural system. The dreaming brain is capable if replicating these interpretations without the actual electrical input. Many people have dreams so vivid they involve the tactile and other senses. How can you distinguish between running your hand across a rough surface and dreaming about running your hand across a rough surface?

There was also an experiment I did with someone I met online who asked me to view where it was he lived. I got everything down perfectly with the exception of some furniture which had been removed since. Although I was lucky to get the location and perfect sight on my first attempt.

That's excellent! You already have the kind of experience with astral travel that would allow you to easily pass a test of this phenomenon. A test just like I described in an earlier post on this thread. Why don't you organize one. There have been many good suggestions here about how to do so.

Oh, wait, I know. You will not participate in any test that has the potential to shake your belief in your "special" abilities. You know, deep inside, in some recess of your rational mind that you have deliberately blocked off, that your are simply dreaming these things, so you pontificate and philosophize, but will never take any actual, concrete action under controlled circumstances. You are afraid of just being normal, and like everybody else, so you preserve your delusions that you are special.

My grandfather described escaping a Russian prison camp by following a white shadow which I now take to be his projected double.

Maybe it was simply the prisoner in front of him, occluded by a snowstorm. Or maybe his mind invented it to explain something he couldn't. Or, maybe he enjoyed telling tales, and loved to stretch the truth. Who knows. It's fun to interpret things any way you want. Especially something about which it is impossible for anyone, anywhere to refute.

I'm sorry that I don't have anything else to offer you.

Anything else? You haven't actually offered me anything yet. Stop hiding from the truth. Test yourself honestly.

[Moochie]

Maybe you're right. I just got angry that you called it "woo".

I recommend an anger-management program. Works for me.

M.

[Expression_man]

That's excellent! You already have the kind of experience with astral travel that would allow you to easily pass a test of this phenomenon. A test just like I described in an earlier post on this thread. Why don't you organize one. There have been many good suggestions here about how to do so.

In progress.

Oh, wait, I know. You will not participate in any test that has the potential to shake your belief in your "special" abilities. You know, deep inside, in some recess of your rational mind that you have deliberately blocked off, that your are simply dreaming these things, so you pontificate and philosophize, but will never take any actual, concrete action under controlled circumstances.

This may even be true, the subconscious does a lot of things. I will certainly do more tests just to be sure.

You are afraid of just being normal, and like everybody else, so you preserve your delusions that you are special.

100% wrong. Anyone can do this and I encourage you all to try. Even if you are just mindful that such a thing exists you have a head start on everyone else.

[BillyJoe]

Em,

I admire your restraint in the face of some of JREF's famous prodders.
Hi Moochie. ;)

The first step seems to be to prove this thing to yourself one way or another. You mentioned a book. Why not leave a random book on your side table and the next time you have one of these experiences open it up at a random page and read. If your OOB experience is not real, you will actually find it impossible to read a coherent sentence or paragraph. Note the page number and, when you are awake, open it up at that page and see if you have succeeded.

BJ

[Expression_man]

Em,

The first step seems to be to prove this thing to yourself one way or another. You mentioned a book. Why not leave a random book on your side table and the next time you have one of these experiences open it up at a random page and read.

I prefer the idea of having someone fill up a mystery box with items I can interact with. Stuff which I might be able to smell, feel and even hear (squeaky toy maybe). That would be really interesting for me.

If your OOB experience is not real, you will actually find it impossible to read a coherent sentence or paragraph. Note the page number and, when you are awake, open it up at that page and see if you have succeeded.

No, this isn't exactly true. There are so many different ways to interact with objects that, simply by focussing on them visually, it's possible to induce something crazy. That is to say you might not have the "limited interaction" you expect*. If it were in a locked room and already open with the lights turned off, I might be able to find some way of reading it.

In the experiment I'm doing with Jonnyfive I'm having unforseen difficulties. I managed to project somewhere with him in mind but I didn't have full sight. I had to feel my way around so to speak. I had no way of determining what the bigger picture was. As a result of that I loaded up 3d studio max and started modelling things based off what I could feel while trying to place them in some sort of context. It makes for a very confusing picture. Fortunately I'm being given a lot of time to get it right so I don't have to make guesses.

*Some people experience 360 degree vision, this has only happened to me once and I couldn't understand it. I heard the most god-awful screeching noise and started seeing everything distort after which I snapped back to my physical body. That is to say that sometimes, the moment you try to take over from your subconscious (by putting a conscious effort on directing your sight [or no longer taking it for granted]) everything goes to ****.

So, there's lots to take into account. Experimenting should be kept simple I think.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

And there are people who are absolutely certain they are Jesus Christ. They "don't need proof" either. But the rest of us (or me anyway) would like to see a miracle or two. Is that so unreasonable a request?

[Expression_man]

They "don't need proof" either. But the rest of us (or me anyway) would like to see a miracle or two.

The only thing miraculous about it, as far as many are concerned, is being able to sit there and pretend it's not happening.

Is that so unreasonable a request

When you exhibit less than a casual interest, yes.

[Mercutio]

I prefer the idea of having someone fill up a mystery box with items I can interact with. Stuff which I might be able to smell, feel and even hear (squeaky toy maybe). That would be really interesting for me.
Honestly? That is exactly what you want! Something that you, before the test (self test, in this case) even begins! Why on earth would anyone choose something you find boring?!?

No, this isn't exactly true. There are so many different ways to interact with objects that, simply by focussing on them visually, it's possible to induce something crazy. That is to say you might not have the "limited interaction" you expect*. If it were in a locked room and already open with the lights turned off, I might be able to find some way of reading it.
As long as you have a set of things which you think (think, not know--you are just starting your exploration) you might be able to interact with as shadow-self, there is no reason not to include a number of things. For instance, if you have ten visual things, ten auditory things, ten tactile, ten olfactory, ten gustatory (taste) things, your tester (trusted by you and also hidden from you!) could choose one from each category to include in your target. As long as the probabilities are adjusted to recognise that 5 guesses are different from one guess, this would work just fine.

In the experiment I'm doing with Jonnyfive I'm having unforseen difficulties. I managed to project somewhere with him in mind but I didn't have full sight. I had to feel my way around so to speak. I had no way of determining what the bigger picture was. As a result of that I loaded up 3d studio max and started modelling things based off what I could feel while trying to place them in some sort of context. It makes for a very confusing picture. Fortunately I'm being given a lot of time to get it right so I don't have to make guesses.
This is why it is important to test yourself before subjecting yourself to the challenge. Assuming that you *can* do this, there is no reason to suspect that you know exactly what you can and cannot do; testing yourself systematically will narrow this down so that you can be more specific when applying for the million (if you so choose). If you can't, systematic testing will reveal that too.

*Some people experience 360 degree vision, this has only happened to me once and I couldn't understand it. I heard the most god-awful screeching noise and started seeing everything distort after which I snapped back to my physical body. That is to say that sometimes, the moment you try to take over from your subconscious (by putting a conscious effort on directing your sight [or no longer taking it for granted]) everything goes to ****.
The more you test yourself with complete experimental control, the more you will find one of two things: If the effect is real, it will (or should, if virtually 100% of past experience applies) become much more clear, but if the effect is due to expectancies, artifacts, or bias, it will (or should, if past experience is any indication) diminish. I know I would prefer to see a real effect; I have seen too many false alarms. I know that many here--but certainly not all--agree with that preference.

So, there's lots to take into account. Experimenting should be kept simple I think.Simple, yes. I agree completely, and think that shows true wisdom. But not overly simple. Experimental controls are absolutely necessary. But, frankly, experimental controls really are quite simple, most of the time. It is not a case of "these controls, as opposed to those controls", but rather "these simple controls, as opposed to no controls whatsoever". And I sincerely trust that you do not wish anyone to believe you based on an uncontrolled experience. If this experience is real, I will be among the first to cheer you on as you demonstrate it in controlled conditions!

[thaiboxerken]

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

I can't speak for anyone else, but those guys ARE woos.

[thaiboxerken]

I think EM's point is rather simple. Science and evidence isn't all that important. What's important is validating personal beliefs and evidence by consulting other people who have had similar experiences. That way, a person can feel like they aren't looney-tunes, even though they obviously are.

[Expression_man]

I think EM's point is rather simple. Science and evidence isn't all that important. What's important is validating personal beliefs and evidence by consulting other people who have had similar experiences. That way, a person can feel like they aren't looney-tunes, even though they obviously are.

You can speak to me directly, I'm right here. Why the third person reference?

[Burner]

For me it was the sensory input I received while passing through the different surfaces.

There was also an experiment I did with someone I met online who asked me to view where it was he lived. I got everything down perfectly with the exception of some furniture which had been removed since. Although I was lucky to get the location and perfect sight on my first attempt.

My grandfather described escaping a Russian prison camp by following a white shadow which I now take to be his projected double.

I'm sorry that I don't have anything else to offer you.

Hello e_man, I've been lukring on this thread for a while and I had to respond to this one. First let me tell you that sensory experiences you describe prove absolutely nothing. I've experieced dreams, and what you'd call lucid dreaming in which I could see, touch, taste and smell things with outmost realism, as a matter of fact these weren't any differnet from the real thing, if anything they were more real. And there is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for this. It is well known that the human brain records pretty much everything that five senses encounter. Granted, this information can not be accessed in a conscious state, but in certain conditions, such as lucid dreaming the brain can easily recall this information in outmost detail. Does this prove the existance of the alternate energetic body? Of course not.

Also the OOBs you describe can be explained similarly. I have personaly experienced this, having seen my body from ceiling perspective, walking around my body,falling trough my boudy, walking around my house, and other places, even reading labels on things to test myself. All of this, can be explained by non-paranormal means. The brain remembers many things, most of which we're not even aware of. Such as places you only passed by while driving in your car, but in a certain brain state you can walk trough these places and explore them in detail. Still, this doens't prove that you were actually outside your body at that time.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disprove it's existence, I just feel there isn't enough evidence that OOBs involve an energetic alternative body. You have been asked multiple times on this thread to present eveidence of it's existance. Why have you not done so?

One other thing, you claim to have experienced these states many times, but you can't do it with a degree of certainty that would allow testing. I see there are couple of test procedures being suggested already. Why don't you have a friend put a couple of things in a box somewhere in your house. Next time you have an OOB just walk there and see what these things are. Don't forget to lock the bedroom door tho. ;)

[Expression_man]

Hello e_man, I've been lukring on this thread for a while and I had to respond to this one. First let me tell you that sensory experiences you describe prove absolutely nothing. I've experieced dreams, and what you'd call lucid dreaming in which I could see, touch, taste and smell things with outmost realism, as a matter of fact these weren't any differnet from the real thing, if anything they were more real. And there is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for this. It is well known that the human brain records pretty much everything that five senses encounter. Granted, this information can not be accessed in a conscious state, but in certain conditions, such as lucid dreaming the brain can easily recall this information in outmost detail. Does this prove the existance of the alternate energetic body? Of course not.

Also the OOBs you describe can be explained similarly. I have personaly experienced this, having seen my body from ceiling perspective, walking around my body,falling trough my boudy, walking around my house, and other places, even reading labels on things to test myself. All of this, can be explained by non-paranormal means. The brain remembers many things, most of which we're not even aware of. Such as places you only passed by while driving in your car, but in a certain brain state you can walk trough these places and explore them in detail. Still, this doens't prove that you were actually outside your body at that time.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disprove it's existence, I just feel there isn't enough evidence that OOBs involve an energetic alternative body. You have been asked multiple times on this thread to present eveidence of it's existance. Why have you not done so?

One other thing, you claim to have experienced these states many times, but you can't do it with a degree of certainty that would allow testing. I see there are couple of test procedures being suggested already. Why don't you have a friend put a couple of things in a box somewhere in your house. Next time you have an OOB just walk there and see what these things are. Don't forget to lock the bedroom door tho. ;)

Slightly redundant, of course I'm self-testing. I'm not going to lie about anything I've experienced. The fact of the matter is that the people I'm learning from have had far more incredible "validation experiences" than I have.

What you say is true though, yes! I've been able to call up memories, while in deep trance, with perfect recall. The subconscious is not to be sniffed at, I know!

I've even had lucid dreams wherein I imagine it's an out of body experience. They quickly fail when I attempt to explore an area I haven't been. One such example being when I found myself in my room and decided to look beyond my curtains, there was only a black void. I'd normally see traffic (something dynamic) but it was not there in the lucid dream. Sometimes while in a lucid dream my subconscious will even try to put a placeholder there but it's so out of place it just gives everything away immediately.

[Burner]

So if you tried opening the curtains in an OOB you'd see everything as it was actually happening? This is different from what I've read on OOBs. I read that while experiencing an OOB you're actually walking trought a so called 'astral realm' which is somewhat similar to reality, but is really composed of 'stored memories' of places rather than real-time situation.

Btw, why don't you get one of those people who had many OOBs and can induce them at will apply for the JREF prize? Should be fairly easy if they've already self-tested and verified their abilities.

[BillyJoe]

Em,

I mentioned the book because it is something you can do yourself without any outside help. It is possible that the outside help may try to help you more than you intend, if you know what I mean.

So what about one of those child books that have a different texture on every page - satin, fluffy, corrugations, bristly, polished etc. There are usually only a dozen pages. Place a bookmark on top of the book but do not open the book until you have an OOB experience. When you do, open the book at a random page and feel the texture. Place a bookmark and close the book. When you are awake write down what you felt and then open the book at the bookmark. If the bookmark is still on top of the book, you have failed. If it's in the book either you succeeded, or someone is fooling with you. Open the book to see if you have succeeded.

[Burner]

Em,

I mentioned the book because it is something you can do yourself without any outside help. It is possible that the outside help may try to help you more than you intend, if you know what I mean.

So what about one of those child books that have a different texture on every page - satin, fluffy, corrugations, bristly, polished etc. There are usually only a dozen pages. Place a bookmark on top of the book but do not open the book until you have an OOB experience. When you do, open the book at a random page and feel the texture. Place a bookmark and close the book. When you are awake write down what you felt and then open the book at the bookmark. If the bookmark is still on top of the book, you have failed. If it's in the book either you succeeded, or someone is fooling with you. Open the book to see if you have succeeded.

While he's at it, why not just go to Washington D.C. and whack GW up the head? :D

[Expression_man]

So if you tried opening the curtains in an OOB you'd see everything as it was actually happening? This is different from what I've read on OOBs. I read that while experiencing an OOB you're actually walking trought a so called 'astral realm' which is somewhat similar to reality, but is really composed of 'stored memories' of places rather than real-time situation.

Thank you for asking. There are so many variables involved with this that it's almost impossible to explain with words.

We have different "levels of focus" and depending on which focus you are at (I'm not talking about Monroe's phasing model) you have access to different "realms".

The only thing of any consequence here is lowest "realm" which is the RTZ, or "real time zone". It's all objective information but is presented differently to how you might expect. Even the RTZ itself has different sub-levels to it (from my own experience). The lowest of these levels is an objective representation of what we perceive while awake. This is the easiest place to get to, usually. As you "move up", things start becoming interconnected and you get a blend of past, present and "potential future". The more questions you ask while in these states, the more you tend to experience. The RTZ is the only place where sensory information tends to get skewed (for me). In other places/realms of consciousness there is no "body" (not what you would recognise as being a standard body anyway) and they work very differently (it's the best feeling you will ever experience). At the lowest level it's actually possible to interact with someone who is awake (but in a very limited manner).

Btw, why don't you get one of those people who had many more OOBs and can induce them at will apply for the JREF prize? Should be fairly easy if they've already self-tested and verified their abilities many times.

Because I don't know anyone who can snap their fingers and go for it. If you're talking about the mystery box then it gets complicated. You need a very high level of control. You need to maintain a specific state for a certain period of time without losing your point of reference. We're all still experimenting, there are no "masters" that we know of.

Here comes some bias.

We tend to believe that life is unlimited. When you pop into a higher state of being it's not easy to limit yourself to the point that you're just short of being back in the physical body. While you start off in that state (why I said it's the easiest to get to), it's not easy to maintain it for long periods of time.

That is effectively what I'm trying to do here. I'm aware of what it sounds like.

Edit: Regarding what you were saying with "a place of stored memories", I think I know what you are referring to. This concept is even more complex though. You will have probably already read how the waking consciousness stores memories as emotions in the subconscious. My way of understanding this, from my experiences, is that this isn't really a memory you are storing but a journal of focus. You reference these points of interest/focus and recall the emotion which, once it reaches your conscious state, you then become familiar with (input/output recollection). I could go further with this but it's already too esoteric.

[alfaniner]

Be sure to check out the importance of double-blinding, and replication of testing (more than one data point). Neither you nor anyone immediately involved should know the object of your search. I.E. you'd probably need a third party.

[Burner]

What you wrote doens't sound as crazy as some other claims you see here, it even makes some kind of intuitive sense. However, the only way to really know for sure this is an OOB and not just a different mental process would require real-life verification. Perhaps trough mental training / meditation you could develop more mental discipline to allow you to control your state better. Anyway, I hope you find a suitable protocol to test your abilities. If not for benfit of mankind than for million other reasons. :)

[Expression_man]

To avoid confusion. When I said...

If you're talking about the mystery box then it gets complicated.

In this instance I am referring to Randi's mystery box. I was unable to edit that post due to the time having expired (120mins).

[Moochie]

You have OOB experiences? You want to prove it in order to claim the $1m JREF Challenge?

ROFLMAO :D


M.

[Expression_man]

You have OOB experiences? You want to prove it in order to claim the $1m JREF Challenge?


I'd be lying if I said it meant nothing to me. If I'm not already too late then I'd have to call into question the integrity of the JREF.

It may just be my inferiority complex but I don't think I'll be the one to prove the existence of the "human soul" or whatever it's supposed to be.

It'd be good though, no doubt. It's definitely worth a lot more to people than any currency.

So, now people are trying to buy proof of their own souls (those are the insinuations).

/sigh

I wonder if such a thing can be tempted with money.

[Moochie]

I'd be lying if I said it meant nothing to me. If I'm not already too late then I'd have to call into question the integrity of the JREF.

It may just be my inferiority complex but I don't think I'll be the one to prove the existence of the "human soul" or whatever it's supposed to be.

It'd be good though, no doubt. It's definitely worth a lot more to people than any currency.

So, now people are trying to buy proof of their own souls (those are the insinuations).

/sigh

I wonder if such a thing can be tempted with money.


I've been reviewing the "Beyond Belief" http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ series of videos, and, frankly, I am amazed that anyone would be making the claims that you are making.

I had "OOB" experiences back in the 60s, thanks to LSD. While at the time I attributed these experiences to all kinds of gods, subsequent learning and experience has taught me that when you press button "A," certain consequences follow. You are at liberty to verify this for yourself.

The brain is a marvelous thing. Don't be fooled.

M.

[Expression_man]

I had "OOB" experiences back in the 60s, thanks to LSD.

I don't take drugs. I don't drink and I don't smoke. I think you're failing to take into account the loss of control you must have had during those experiences.

Do you think that we don't have members in our community who are drug addicts?

They're quite fascinating. Sometimes you'll find someone so far into psychosis it's like listening to something from beyond the twilight zone. They usually describe a total lack of control and an experience which is either overwhelmingly positive or so negative that it chills even those who read it.

Do you think we don't listen to them?

We aim for control, we practice it. Sure, some people get so desperate that they stick needles in their arms. It's not the same, it quite often turns out bad for them. It sends them out of balance. They can get an experience so positive that coming back from it makes their waking state seem like hell. They can have one so bad that they scare themselves stupid.

While at the time I attributed these experiences to all kinds of gods, subsequent learning and experience has taught me that when you press button "A," certain consequences follow. You are at liberty to verify this for yourself.

The brain is a marvelous thing. Don't be fooled.

M.

My god were you ever uninformed to draw those kinds of conclusions, do you think I'm not familiar with what my own brain is capable of, I've manifest my worst fears in front of me. We're talking worst fears, stuff you have trouble imagining because of how terrifying they are (ask me to elaborate). I've experienced the pain of being shot in the throat/stabbed in the neck, unable to end the sessions while having to endure it for minutes on end. I've been able to taste words and hear smells. That sort of thing you probably can't even comprehend.

I've pushed my body to the brink by forcefully changing its temperature to induce a desired state. It was probably the stupidest thing I ever did but I learned something from it.

Do you think I lack the ability to critique my own experiences?

Bloody hell, man. Even I don't claim to fully understand it, yet you're coming up with all this vague "the brain does lots of stuff" stuff.

You're damn right it does!

Tell me something I don't know.

Edit: I'll share this with you. Should you ever find yourself in such a state and everything starts going to hell, with you being unable to end the session, think of something which excites you sexually :)

You thought I was going to say "say these magic words..."?

Hehehe, not quite. The moment you start thinking in the way I described you get your point of reference back very quickly and you'll be awake in no time. Since I found out by accident it's been a lot of help to me during sleep paralysis too. ;)

I'd rather that people be aware of that before they have a bad experience which puts them off for life. If the experience is drug-induced, I don't know. I've never had a drug-induced experience, sounds crap though.

[alfaniner]

Time to split this thread.

[Expression_man]

The only thing that annoys me about this place is how dismissive it is. Then again, I see the reason for that. It's the same reason which keeps so many other people quiet about their own experiences.

No one talks! There's no learning being done. Peer pressure and superstition have set humanity back by hundreds of years!

First people get burned at the stake and then they get called crazy!

rarg!

Where's the love ;p

/foam

Edit: You can experience incredible things with altered states. You can make the best music you've ever heard and the most relaxing scenes you've ever immersed yourself in.

Consciousness is amazing.

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, EM --

I'm following with interest. I think you and Mercutio are working really well together and his suggestions are excellent insofar as designing a good protocol to play with.

I'll see if I can find your other thread (please post a link to it, if you would -- the fora are a big place!) and follow your actual tests there. I'm interested in the specific protocols you're using -- again, Mercutio's got some great ideas. Very interesting!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The only thing miraculous about it, as far as many are concerned, is being able to sit there and pretend it's not happening.

And as far as many others are concerned it's merely a subjective experience that has no connection with reality.

When you exhibit less than a casual interest, yes.

Huh? Ok. I'll express no interest at all. Now prove to someone, anyone that you are not just another "Jesus Christ".
:boggled:

[BillyJoe]

Huh? Ok. I'll express no interest at all. Now prove to someone, anyone that you are not just another "Jesus Christ". Em pegged you as someone who has no real interest in the subject except to dismiss out of hand without even listening to what he has to say, even if you do think it's all BS.
Seems he was right. ;)

[BillyJoe]

The only thing that annoys me about this place is how dismissive it is.There are probably two reasons for this:

1) I've been through it all before and I have decided it's all B.S.
2) I don't know very little about it but it all sounds like BS to me, so it is.

I don't why the first group bother.
The second group are not using their sceptical outlook to investigate claims relatively new to them.

Both can safely be ignored.
The JREF is like a dark cloud but with a silver lining. ;)

[Jackalgirl]

The only thing that annoys me about this place is how dismissive it is.

Some of us, that's for sure. But it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that you come up with a properly-controlled test and demonstrate what you claim. There are enough of us here willing to help you do that -- as for the others? They can eat your data, no? ; )

[Moochie]

I don't take drugs. I don't drink and I don't smoke. I think you're failing to take into account the loss of control you must have had during those experiences.

The incident I referred to occurred in the early 70s, when I was in my early 20s. I took the LSD in the company of good friends, who also took it. We were young and perhaps stupid, but the experience of that night and day has never left us.

During subsequent years I researched all kinds of strange and wonderful phenomena, as a direct result of that initial LSD experience. Several decades later I am still researching -- it's something of abiding interest -- only nowadays I tend to be better at sorting the wheat from the chaff.

<snip>

But that's neither here nor there.

Work with those who care enough to develop a protocol and be tested.

I will sit bemusedly on the sidelines and watch.

M.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Em pegged you as someone who has no real interest in the subject except to dismiss out of hand without even listening to what he has to say, even if you do think it's all BS.
Seems he was right. ;)

I'm having trouble parsing this. :)

So I'll restate my position in a little more detail. First, I do have an interest in OBEs. Not a huge interest but, if they really are real, I certainly would very much like to have it proven.

But, like other people I have read about and listened to in the past, I don't see any proof. Expression_Man believes. He has had experiences that prove to him that he has experienced OBE. Others here have experiences that appear to be exactly similar to his but have alternate and more mundane explanations.

What objective proof does he have that he has experienced an OBE? If a "Jesus Christ" was to perform a miracle I would certainly have to, at the very least, rethink my position.

I await the resuts of the on-going experiment. :cool:

[BillyJoe]

I'm having trouble parsing this. :) Yeah, must have been dosing off a bit.

So I'll restate my position in a little more detail. First, I do have an interest in OBEs. Not a huge interest but, if they really are real, I certainly would very much like to have it proven.

But, like other people I have read about and listened to in the past, I don't see any proof. Expression_Man believes. He has had experiences that prove to him that he has experienced OBE. Others here have experiences that appear to be exactly similar to his but have alternate and more mundane explanations.

What objective proof does he have that he has experienced an OBE? If a "Jesus Christ" was to perform a miracle I would certainly have to, at the very least, rethink my position.Fair enough.
Your first two posts sounded a bit dismissive, but I probably misinterpreted them. That's easy to do on a forum where there's no visual feedback.

[thaiboxerken]

You can speak to me directly, I'm right here. Why the third person reference?

You don't deserve that respect.

[Expression_man]

You don't deserve that respect.

Probably not, I think the same way about a lot of people here too. I can certainly understand your thinking well enough.

What objective proof does he have that he has experienced an OBE? If a "Jesus Christ" was to perform a miracle I would certainly have to, at the very least, rethink my position.

I'm not "a Jesus Christ", but I know what you mean by the idea. What I'm trying to convey is that anyone can do this. People want to feel secure by the notion that everything is explainable, to an extent, by current science.

Unfortunately, a lot of people get carried away with their thinking. I'll be the first to admit that I've been guilty of that. The first time I had an OOBE I thought that I'd been posessed by a demon. I was suspended in the air above my bed whilst trying to scream for help and unable to control my limbs. Being a christian, at that time, I had an entirely different way of thinking.

Olaf Blanke is supposedly having very limited success. As a result of that his conclusions fall short of what he has yet to discover, but that's obvious. The only thing in question is what the big picture looks like. Current science has no way of knowing, nor does anyone else. To assume that the "truth" has already been reached after poking around in the brain and getting a reaction is just wishful thinking. It's also supremely arrogant (like me maybe).

Current science might not prove the existence of an energy body any time soon, or ever, but that's only a problem if you actually wait for it to catch up. At the very least we need an explanation of NDE/OBE occurrences (are they even the same thing) and I mean all of them.

In the same way that many of you take it upon yourselves to educate others, I am just bringing something to your attention. How much consideration you give it is up to you. It only depends on how much of a taboo the concept has become in your worlds.

I have my own reality, I dislike being the focus of everyone else's. In that sense I am definitely not a "Jesus Christ".

[BillyJoe]

Em,

Let us know if you decide to put your OBEs to the test and how you intend to do this.
Experiences are interesting but, for most of us here, explaining what these experiences are is more interesting.
Do you have any thoughts along these lines?

[MadOverlord]

First of all, please excuse the discourtesy of some of the other posters. They ought to know better.

It seems to me that you have, indeed had some sort of interesting experience. The question is, was it really what you thought it was, and if so, how can one determine that experimentally.

The first time I had an OOBE I thought that I'd been posessed by a demon. I was suspended in the air above my bed whilst trying to scream for help and unable to control my limbs.

This sounds very much like sleep paralysis. You know what this is, but for others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

Sleep paralysis is often associated with lucid dreaming and hypnagogic hallucinations, which can produce the sensations you describe.

I can attest from personal experience that sleep paralysis, if you don't know what it is, can be deeply frightening. When I was 17, I took a nap on the couch, and woke up (facing in to the couch) totally paralysed. I could not move a muscle, not even open my eyes. I was terrified, I thought that somehow I had broken my neck or something. I spent what felt like the next half an hour desperately trying to alert my family, trying to make a sound or move even a finger. And then, suddenly, I could move again.

Your challenge here is to develop an experimental protocol that can distinguish your experience from these uncommon phenomena. I submit that whatever the results, by removing some doubt from the situation, your position will be improved.

The toughest part of being a skeptic is putting your own beliefs to the test. Good luck.

[Expression_man]

There are some things I want to comment on here.

I can attest from personal experience that sleep paralysis, if you don't know what it is, can be deeply frightening. When I was 17, I took a nap on the couch, and woke up (facing in to the couch) totally paralysed. I could not move a muscle, not even open my eyes. I was terrified, I thought that somehow I had broken my neck or something. I spent what felt like the next half an hour desperately trying to alert my family, trying to make a sound or move even a finger. And then, suddenly, I could move again.

Right, this is well-documented. And yes, if you don't know what it is then words cannot describe the horror of what you end up going through in some cases. :)

If you know what's going on, and are able to rationalize that panicking isn't going to help, you have an incredible opportunity to experiment. Depending on your mental state during paralysis you can have some incredible experiences. One of the theories is that it comes about in order to prevent us from causing ourselves physical harm by enacting our dreams.

An early experiment I did involved consciously asking to hear a "disturbing alien noise" (I loved getting a rush) and, sure enough, it came on almost immediately and would have scared the living crap out of me had I not known it was me creating it. It came on my right ear, very close and utterly surreal. I'd never heard anything like it, it was like experiencing a new colour for the first time. But, as I knew it was because of my request, I couldn't help but grin to myself. Paralysis broke almost immediately after my positive reaction to it.

I admit some fear though. During sleep paralysis I tend to keep my eyes shut as I have a tendency to fear the worst case scenario (my subconscious running away with manifestations). Well, "good stuff" happens too but I have trouble staying positive while in that state. ;)

One time there was an entity standing next to my bed. He kept telling me about my faults and I was furious at being unable to react to him. I lashed out with a mental verbalization (which actually became audible in this instance) accusing him of not being who he said he was and that he wasn't "real". I then tried to scare him away by shouting but due to the paralysis all I could get out were pathetic wheezing noises. Then he had the nerve to kiss my forehead after which I was so angry he just vanished and I was able to sit up. Um, on my part that was an immature reaction to have had but I dislike being in a vulnerable position.

Your experience is interesting to me because I've never suffered paralysis for longer than what seems like a few minutes. I started getting regular sleep paralysis around the time I was playing with exit techniques.

The projected double however (what I was talking about in regards to my first OOBE) is difficult to control sometimes. Quite often I've just had to go along for the ride so to speak. Sometimes I even find myself forced into a specific position while it floats around. It can be quite spooky.

Your challenge here is to develop an experimental protocol that can distinguish your experience from these uncommon phenomena. I submit that whatever the results, by removing some doubt from the situation, your position will be improved.

I'll keep people updated but it's going to take time to seperate things. I have a mystery box set up in someone else's room (not done by me) and I'm eager for an opportunity to examine it (no, not physically).

Edit: Something else of interest. If I see (while having skewed awareness) my projected double from the perspective of my physical body (documented by Robert Bruce as being the "mind split effect") I tend to want to throw up immediately. My stomach feels like it's convulsing. Some people describe it as looking into a mirror and seeing infinity (two mirrors face to face). My experience was very short lived but some accounts involve being unable to tear your focus away from it.

It's an unwelcome experience but also fascinating.

[thaiboxerken]

EM, I thinks that we need an explanation now even though science has done this. the problem is he doesn't like the scientific explanation because it's not mysterious. it is not a spiritual.

[Moochie]

There are some things I want to comment on here.



Right, this is well-documented. And yes, if you don't know what it is then words cannot describe the horror of what you end up going through in some cases. :)

If you know what's going on, and are able to rationalize that panicking isn't going to help, you have an incredible opportunity to experiment. Depending on your mental state during paralysis you can have some incredible experiences. One of the theories is that it comes about in order to prevent us from causing ourselves physical harm by enacting our dreams.

An early experiment I did involved consciously asking to hear a "disturbing alien noise" (I loved getting a rush) and, sure enough, it came on almost immediately and would have scared the living crap out of me had I not known it was me creating it. It came on my right ear, very close and utterly surreal. I'd never heard anything like it, it was like experiencing a new colour for the first time. But, as I knew it was because of my request, I couldn't help but grin to myself. Paralysis broke almost immediately after my positive reaction to it.

I admit some fear though. During sleep paralysis I tend to keep my eyes shut as I have a tendency to fear the worst case scenario (my subconscious running away with manifestations). Well, "good stuff" happens too but I have trouble staying positive while in that state. ;)

One time there was an entity standing next to my bed. He kept telling me about my faults and I was furious at being unable to react to him. I lashed out with a mental verbalization (which actually became audible in this instance) accusing him of not being who he said he was and that he wasn't "real". I then tried to scare him away by shouting but due to the paralysis all I could get out were pathetic wheezing noises. Then he had the nerve to kiss my forehead after which I was so angry he just vanished and I was able to sit up. Um, on my part that was an immature reaction to have had but I dislike being in a vunerable position.

Your experience is interesting to me because I've never suffered paralysis for longer than what seems like a few minutes. I started getting regular sleep paralysis around the time I was playing with exit techniques.

The projected double however (what I was talking about in regards to my first OOBE) is difficult to control sometimes. Quite often I've just had to go along for the ride so to speak. Sometimes I even find myself forced into a specific position while it floats around. It can be quite spooky.



I'll keep people updated but it's going to take time to seperate things. I have a mystery box set up in someone else's room (not done by me) and I'm eager for an opportunity to examine it (no, not physically).

A lot of verbiage that reads like a comic book. How about getting to the nitty gritty?

M.

[Expression_man]

Apologies, I just find it really exciting.

[Mercutio]

Olaf Blanke is supposedly having very limited success. As a result of that his conclusions fall short of what he has yet to discover, but that's obvious. The only thing in question is what the big picture looks like. Current science has no way of knowing, nor does anyone else. To assume that the "truth" has already been reached after poking around in the brain and getting a reaction is just wishful thinking. It's also supremely arrogant (like me maybe).

Excuse me--what do you base this on? You said earlier that you had only read a bit of what Blanke had written. And "what he has yet to discover"... can only be conjecture. Right now, Blanke's work is the stuff that has had controls against experimenter and subject bias. You have had some suggestions here as to how to control your own observations.

Remember, as important as it is for disbelievers to be open to the possibility that the evidence will show something real, it is also important that you be open to the possibility that your amazing experience is nothing more than a vivid dream.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Probably not, I think the same way about a lot of people here too. I can certainly understand your thinking well enough.



I'm not "a Jesus Christ", but I know what you mean by the idea. What I'm trying to convey is that anyone can do this. People want to feel secure by the notion that everything is explainable, to an extent, by current science.

Unfortunately, a lot of people get carried away with their thinking. I'll be the first to admit that I've been guilty of that. The first time I had an OOBE I thought that I'd been posessed by a demon. I was suspended in the air above my bed whilst trying to scream for help and unable to control my limbs. Being a christian, at that time, I had an entirely different way of thinking.

Olaf Blanke is supposedly having very limited success. As a result of that his conclusions fall short of what he has yet to discover, but that's obvious. The only thing in question is what the big picture looks like. Current science has no way of knowing, nor does anyone else. To assume that the "truth" has already been reached after poking around in the brain and getting a reaction is just wishful thinking. It's also supremely arrogant (like me maybe).

Current science might not prove the existence of an energy body any time soon, or ever, but that's only a problem if you actually wait for it to catch up. At the very least we need an explanation of NDE/OBE occurrences (are they even the same thing) and I mean all of them.

In the same way that many of you take it upon yourselves to educate others, I am just bringing something to your attention. How much consideration you give it is up to you. It only depends on how much of a taboo the concept has become in your worlds.

I have my own reality, I dislike being the focus of everyone else's. In that sense I am definitely not a "Jesus Christ".

Perhaps with practice we all can have the experience of having an OBE. But that does not make it real. It just means that's what it feels like.

Where is the objective evidence? You said earlier that you visisted a friend's apartment and got some details right. Without a detailed statistical analysis ,neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can say how "impossible" this really is. The human brain is a great pattern matching computer. There could be very mundane explanations.

Please understand that I am not trying to be dismissive but there has to be some intersection with the objective world to get any acceptance. Otherwise, you are just "a Jesus Christ:" without a miracle.

You think you live in your own reality and thus I disagree with you at a very basic philosophical level. There is no point in continuing, is there?

My favourite "Jesus Christ" lives in his own reality too. :D

[Expression_man]

Please understand that I am not trying to be dismissive but there has to be some intersection with the objective world to get any acceptance. Otherwise, you are just "a Jesus Christ:" without a miracle.

I understand that now you're not trying to be negative. I may be wrong about everything, that's also possible. My life might be a lie. My subconscious may have built up a picture of these external environments by listening to sound waves / delayed sound waves (that would explain some redundant information instead of the blend of past and present theory). :)

You think you live in your own reality and thus I disagree with you at a very basic philosophical level. There is no point in continuing, is there?

Ah, I think you misunderstand me. By living in my own reality I simply mean that everyone's thought processes are subjective. That doesn't mean that they can't be influenced, that's what this converstation is getting at. I've had to invest a lot of emotion just to get people to consider something new for instance.

Excuse me--what do you base this on? You said earlier that you had only read a bit of what Blanke had written. And "what he has yet to discover"... can only be conjecture.

Hmm, point taken. My stance is this...

I have a lot of confidence in my own validation experiences and, in my world, that would make anyone biased to an extent. I'm willing to self test, it's not like I haven't done it (to a lesser extent) before. I'm doing this out of interest and I understand the need to be certain. In expressing that, I may have gone a step too far, you're right.

"There is nothing mystical about these ghostly experiences", said Peter Brugger, a neuroscientist at University Hospital in Zurich, who was not involved in the experiments but is an expert on phantom limbs, the sensation of still feeling a limb that has been amputated, and other mind-bending phenomena.
“The research shows that the self can be detached from the body and can live a phantom existence on its own, as in an out-of-body experience, or it can be felt outside of personal space, as in a sense of a presence,” Dr Brugger said.

Hehe, it's those kinds of comments which have influenced me to react in the way I have. If there's one thing I've learned about people in general, myself included, it's that we jump at the chance to criticize that which seems to go against all we know. Very rarely does anyone celebrate any sort of mystery these days. In the same way that I think there's more to discover, Dr Brugger might think he already has the context validated and that nothing lies beyond it. He may even associate himself with Olaf to give himself more credibility. Of course, that doesn't excuse the conjecture on my part. If everyone were to experience a fully immersive projection and be shown that which lies beyond their sensory range there'd still be contention, I understand that. It's similar to intelligent design vs darwinism. Not many people are willing to suspend their disbelief and consider the unthinkable. That life is meaningless or that it has meaning. If life is meaningless then you create a meaning by defining its meaningless. The moment another meaning comes into it the alarm bells start to go off, the same applies vice versa.

I've been wrong about things in the past. I'm open-minded enough to know that there will always be learning experiences in my future. I was once a christian fundamentalist after all. Anyone who claims to know everything there is about life is not to be trusted, that's a definite lesson.

Although, if being a skeptic means doubting everything, hmm. That's a hard life indeed. Very few people would be true skeptics in that case. Unless being a skeptic means questioning everything. In that case I'd say many people are confused.


This is Gord's quote.

Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

That's interesting. I take it to mean something else though...

When your bias reaches the other end of the spectrum, there is no going back.

That's how I understand it. Evidence, first hand experience and the like, all interesting stuff. So let's work in terms of belief. Knowing something is 10/10 on the belief scale.

You stand on solid ground?

That's arguable, it depends on how much information you have to verify it. Are we actually coming into contact with the floor or is it a force which needs more explaining. Also, until very recently the earth was known to be flat etc...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

This is Gord's quote.


Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

That's interesting. I take it to mean something else though...

When your bias reaches the other end of the spectrum, there is no going back.

Of course there is a possibility of going back. But I don't think there is much possibility of reviving my belief in Santa Claus.

The Earth has been known to be more or less round for something like 2500 years. No matter what you believe. :)

[Jackalgirl]

I think BillyJoe's point is the one that needs focus, currently. EM, do you currently have any ideas for a test protocol to demonstrate OOBE?

[Expression_man]

I think BillyJoe's point is the one that needs focus, currently. EM, do you currently have any ideas for a test protocol to demonstrate OOBE?

In a professional research environment?

Some place I can experience immediate sensory deprivation would be good. I live by a dual carriageway and it's not easy to find peace and quiet during the day. I sometimes use my bathroom whilst wearing ear plugs. I also try to ensure no light is able to get in and if I can still hear the traffic I tend to run the tap on a trickle just to create some white noise.

I suppose that having some sort of exhibit in a nearby room would be a good point of interest. The key theme here is exploring unknown content.

What I've managed to arrange, so far, is a box in another room which contains some items to identify. It was put there by a friend. As far as double blinding goes, if this first experiment is successful then I'll up the stakes accordingly.

There are quite a few ways to get an exit to come about. Sensory deprivation works best for me whilst some people, not many though, use sensory overload (listening to loud music is a common method amongst them [the type of music/sound varies]). I think the Monroe Institute used special rooms at one point, I may be wrong about that though. If I were going to go all out then I would deprive myself of sleep for a while but that's somewhat dangerous. The idea is that the constant effort to stay awake trains you to retain conscious awareness while your body relaxes completely (if only temporarily for the sake of experimenting).

The only variable which may cause problems is the amount of time it takes and how skilled the test subject is. There are some really "talented" people out there who have been getting spontaneous experiences since childhood.

Edit: Ah, one other thing. Some people can have an experience and feel great afterwards. I'm not one of them. After the session is over (if it was fully immersive) I tend to feel extremely drained. I've actually had hallucinations while fully conscious after the most complete experiences (something I really wasn't ready for the first time it happened)!

[Jackalgirl]

What I've managed to arrange, so far, is a box in another room which contains some items to identify. It was put there by a friend. As far as double blinding goes, if this first experiment is successful then I'll up the stakes accordingly.

This is a really good start -- exactly where you should be going. What I'd recommend for a more formal protocol, when you get to the point at which you feel ready, is something like this:

Equipment:
Two rooms, sufficiently distant from one another that audio communication isn't possible (tapping, etc).
Ten items, numbered 1-10
One ten-sided die
A facilitator (the person who will set up the room you will be remotely viewing)
Two observers (one for you, one for the facilitator).
Plenty of videocameras.
A means of communication (i.e., walkie-talkies, cellphones, etc).
Pads of paper and pens.

Protocol:
The facilitator rolls the die. The indicated item is placed in the facilitator's room and recorded on a pad of paper. A signal is sent from the facilitator's observer to yours, so that you know that the setup is good to go. You then enter your trance state and identify the object. Your observer writes down the answer you give (or you can, whatever you prefer). Your observer signals the facilitator's observer to let them know that you have completed your viewing. The item is retrieved and placed back in the pool. The process is then repeated, for a total of 20 times.

For the first 10 runs, you are told what the item is. This allows you to determine that everything is working as it should -- i.e., there is no interference, you're able to enter the trance state with no problems, and you're seeing what you should see. For the second set of 10 runs, the only communications permitted are the setup/complete signals.

At the end of the second set, the two lists are compared. A successful demonstration consists of one in which you correctly identify 8 out of 10 items.

(The observers may seem unnecessary, but I've included them to make sure that no hanky-panky is going on -- fudging of numbers, for example, or any coded form of signalling. The videocameras also serve this purpose, as backup if there should be any argument.)

Obviously, you have some more experimentation as to the method to do (i.e., you've been talking about experimenting with sleep deprivation, etc -- working out the actual methodology of obtaining consistent OOBEs). When you've completed all that, have tried some blinded tests (like that I describe above), and are ready to go for the Challenge, please let us know, and let us know what protocol you've worked out. I'm very interested to see how this turns out.

[Burner]

A signal is sent from the facilitator's observer to yours, so that you know that the setup is good to go. You then enter your trance state and identify the object. Your observer writes down the answer you give (or you can, whatever you prefer). Your observer signals the facilitator's observer to let them know that you have completed your viewing. The item is retrieved and placed back in the pool. The process is then repeated, for a total of 20 times.


Why complicate things? He already said he can't go into OOB state at the snap of the fingers, and your protocol suggests getting in and out of state no less than 20 times. Why not just put 5 random objects in a room and let him write them down after he finishes with his OOB. If he gets only one right, I'd say that's pretty bloody amazing. Also, having a bunch of people around you while you're trying to achieve certain state of mind won't do any good. Videocams should be preffered.

[Jackalgirl]

Why complicate things? He already said he can't go into OOB state at the snap of the fingers, and your protocol suggests getting in and out of state no less than 20 times. Why not just put 5 random objects in a room and let him write them down after he finishes with his OOB. If he gets only one right, I'd say that's pretty bloody amazing. Also, having a bunch of people around you while you're trying to achieve certain state of mind won't do any good. Videocams should be preffered.

I'd agree (that even getting one right would be amazing), but I don't think that a one-chance-in-five is going to be good enough for any kind of test the JREF would be interested. They're going to want to see the demonstration repeated a couple of times just to make sure the first (presumed) success wasn't a fluke. I don't know how many times will satisfy the need for improbable odds -- I have no facility with numbers -- I just throw out "10" because that seems to be pretty standard.

I don't know whether JREF would accept videocams only, but again, that'd be a question EM to ask them during protocol negotiation. As long as there was decent coverage (and, if EM requires that it be dark, some kind of night-vision or IR coverage), I personally would be okay with that. In fact, now that you mention it, I think it'd be preferable too. Less chance of EM being distracted, definitely.

As for the time: well, I imagine that an actual (JREF) test can't take a hideous amount of time, but I'm sure that some kind of lattitude can be made for time. For example, five attempts could be made per week, for four weeks. At least for the preliminary, since it will (presumably) be local to EM. Hopefully, though, with all of the experimentation and self-training that EM is doing, he'll be able to enter the state in some reasonable amount of time, if not "at the snap of a finger."

[Burner]

For this kind of case? Anything other than a big fat zero would be a surprise. Presuming that the applicant doens't know which object are to be used.

[BillyJoe]

For this kind of case? Anything other than a big fat zero would be a surprise. Presuming that the applicant doens't know which object are to be used.I'm getting the feeling that OOB experiences are fairly vague things. Em has said as much also. It's not like me getting up now and walking into the next room and writing down everything that I see whether it be one, ten, or fifty items in that room. I could obviously list them all.

But it seems the eyes and brain of the shadow don't work any where near as well as that. Or perhaps it's because it's difficult for the subject to get completely into the shadow so as to use it's eyes and brain properly. As a result what you see isn't at all very distinct. Objects cannot be made out clearly. Is that correct? Is that why it is surprising when you get even one object right?

[Expression_man]

But it seems the eyes and brain of the shadow don't work any where near as well as that. Or perhaps it's because it's difficult for the subject to get completely into the shadow so as to use it's eyes and brain properly. As a result what you see isn't at all very distinct. Objects cannot be made out clearly. Is that correct? Is that why it is surprising when you get even one object right?

I confess my ignorance here. I don't even know if the double actually has "real eyes" or a "brain". Sure, the form is dynamic and can sometimes change shape but I think that's due to the person's self-image.

Although, it can sometimes seem to exhibit intelligence of it's own. There's no way of telling if that's just your subconscious controlling it though.

You can certainly see from it but you don't breathe, at least I haven't needed to. In that sense you can't assume it works like a normal body at all. It even has free movement in all directions, the context just went out the window as far as comparing it to a physical body is concerned.

I think it's all about the point of reference and what it's being derived from. As I said, some people experience regular 360 vision, as confusing as it is to understand.

You can sometimes get perfect sight (which is a real treat and mind-blowing experience). The first time I induced it consciously my sight was bad. The room was pitch black but all objects had a strange white outline. I could make out where everything was but not being able to see the textures was slightly confusing.

The longer you focus on a particular object, the stranger it gets. It's difficult to describe with words though. The most reliable sense for me (reliable meaning the sense that is the easiest to understand) is touch.

Edit: I want to elaborate. When we focus on something, we tend to give it a visual interpretation. It's possible to overlay mental images on a scene while in this state but not 100% of the time. The key is to keep things objective which is why I say touch is more reliable for me. Sight is best for navigation provided that you don't get the other sense I mentioned earlier (the feeling of knowing where and what everything is).

[Burner]

You can sometimes get perfect sight (which is a real treat and mind-blowing experience). The first time I induced it consciously my sight was bad. The room was pitch black but all objects had a strange white outline. I could make out where everything was but not being able to see the textures was slightly confusing.

I don't get it. How is that perfect sight?

And btw, when you want to go somewhere in your OOB, do you have to float to that place like you'd do in real life, room-by-room, street by street or do you just imagine being somewhere and instantly teleport yourself?

[MadOverlord]

I may be wrong about everything, that's also possible. My life might be a lie.

Just because you may be mistaken about the nature of these experiences does not make your life a lie. It simply means that you were mistaken. Human beings make mistakes -- and sometimes, the reasons WHY we make particular mistakes are themselves very interesting. I personally think that making mistakes is a good thing, as long as you learn from them -- I'd love to spend more of my life making INTERESTING mistakes, instead of being boringly perfect in all things, as I usually am. :D

Science and Skepticism are merely methods for mitigating the inherent biases human beings tend to have - they let us quickly eliminate the dumb mistakes and focus our attention on the interesting ones.

I have a lot of confidence in my own validation experiences and, in my world, that would make anyone biased to an extent. I'm willing to self test, it's not like I haven't done it (to a lesser extent) before.

The problem here is, without a really good protocol (to get rid of that pesky human error problem), it's hard to determine if you're seeing a real effect.

Not many people are willing to suspend their disbelief and consider the unthinkable.

While this is a natural human characteristic, a good skeptic IS willing to do this, if you can provide reasonable evidence in favor of the unthinkable. In that respect, if you have good data and good protocols, skeptics are your best friends.

Although, if being a skeptic means doubting everything, hmm. That's a hard life indeed. Very few people would be true skeptics in that case.

Few skeptics are that way. We merely, as Carl Sagan so famously put it (but more eloquently), require "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims."

If you come back and report that you can OOB and view whats in the box in your friend's room, repeatedly and with some reliabillity, then you will find that there are skeptics out there who will be happy to help you refine your technique, search for errors in your protocol, and try and figure out what's going on. Because at that point, even if it turns out you are mistaken and there is no effect, it would be an interesting mistake.

[Cuddles]

Do you think I lack the ability to critique my own experiences?

Yes. One of the main reasons there is so much woo around is precisely because people don't realise or don't believe that they are so easy to fool. The arguments are always the same "I'm not stupid, I could see it was real", "I can spot frauds but this wasn't", "A person might fool me if they were trying, but this was just nature and it couldn't happen by accident". The simple fact is that people are very often fooled, whether it is by someone else or by themselves. We think you lack the ability to critique your own experience because everyone lacks this ability.

This is the whole point of science. While it is possible for a person to be fooled, it is also possible to set up experiments that can't be fooled. In your case it is very simple, you think that you are leaving your body and seeing things. This has a variety of mundane explanations, relying either on memory or on your brain making things up. It is very likely you are simply fooling yourself. If you see your room for the ceiling, simply put a card with unknown writing on top of a cupboard. If you read the writing then it could not have been memory or hallucination. The experiment can't be fooled in the same way that your brain can by itself (although there are of course other ways to fool it). The reason people here do not believe you are really experiencing anything paranormal is because you have not provided any evidence to discount the mundane explanations. The fact is that until you prove you are not being fooled, any sensible person will assume you are.

[Expression_man]

I don't get it. How is that perfect sight?

It's not, it's just an example of one of the different ways of seeing things.


And btw, when you want to go somewhere in your OOB, do you have to float to that place like you'd do in real life, room-by-room, street by street or do you just imagine being somewhere and instantly teleport yourself?

You don't walk as such, it's floating. If you were to have an experience for the first time you might try to walk across the room because it's what you're familiar with doing. To that end, you might be able to emulate the the feeling of walking but the moment you start thinking outside the box more options become available to you. You can move pretty damn fast which makes an area transition redundant if you know how to naviagte your way to the location in question. Sometimes you can "trip up" and instead of being upright you find yourself at an angle. That can be difficult to recover from if you get agitated.

As for teleporting (if that's even the right word), you can get an area transition by changing your focus to something else but it's not always going to be what you had in mind.

If you want to move to a remote location then you have to question if such a place exists objectively (even if you are familiar with it) and then wait to see what happens (hence the difficulty I'm having with Jonnyfive's location). The moment you start thinking of what the place might look like (painting an imaginary picture) you begin to lose conscious awareness and your mental critique begins to fade. That may be because subconsciously you're asking to be fooled, I'm not sure. You can also think "show me something interesting" and then remain receptive to what follows.

[CFLarsen]

Do you think I lack the ability to critique my own experiences?

And thus, you hit upon one of the main reasons why people believe in the supernatural.

I congratulate you on asking the pertinent question. Time will tell if you have the courage to accept the answer.

Indulge me for a moment. Take your time, and read about Rene Blondlot (http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html).

Great scientist. Made major contributions, at a time where a lot of discoveries were made. Yet, he managed to not only fool himself, but also a lot of other people.

For one reason only: All of them lacked the ability to critique their own experiences.

Read the link. Tell me what you think. Specifically, tell me why you think you are better at critiqueing your own experiences better than Blondlot.

What makes you someone I should believe in, more than I should believe in Blondlot?

[William Smith]

Expression_man, I might sound like a broken record, but all your descriptions of your experiences really do not prove anything besides your subjective view.

You said you can't offer proof. Fair enough.

For what specific reason do you continue to post on a skepticism forum, and especially in the Million Dollar Challenge subforum?

[Moochie]

Because many people have the misguided notion that science should be infallible and a fount of absolutely certain truths, they look at the Blondlot episode as a vindication of their excessive skepticism towards science. They relish accounts such as the one regarding Blondlot and the phantom N-rays because it is a story of a famous scientist making a great error. However, if one properly understands science and scientists, the Blondlot episode indicates little more than the fallibility of scientists and the self-correcting nature of science.

This point is too often glossed over by believers in all kinds of fantasies.

I will self-correct when I see some evidence of OOBEs, not the bloated blather we're usually fed.

Forget the foreplay; get to the really dirty stuff!

M.

[Expression_man]

Indulge me for a moment. Take your time, and read about Rene Blondlot (http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html).

Great scientist. Made major contributions, at a time where a lot of discoveries were made. Yet, he managed to not only fool himself, but also a lot of other people.

For one reason only: All of them lacked the ability to critique their own experiences.

Read the link. Tell me what you think.

Interesting read, although it raises more questions than answers for me. That may be because I need more information though, not because it might be a hasty conclusion.

It doesn't comment on what Robert W.Wood actually saw regarding the experiment, he only comments on the behaviour of the people in question. When I think about things as bizzare as the phantom DNA effect I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. Although, that too might be a blunder!

Regarding Pons and Fleischmann's "discovery" that's also something I've given thought in the past. Either they were wrong or there was some extra variable they failed to identify. Who knows?

Specifically, tell me why you think you are better at critiqueing your own experiences better than Blondlot.

Hmm, with this in mind I definitely don't.

What makes you someone I should believe in, more than I should believe in Blondlot?

I don't think that you should take my word for anything. You are able to have these experiences for yourself and do whatever testing you like. Just because some guy on a forum tells you "stuff" doesn't mean you should believe him outright. I just want to get people thinking about it rather than dismiss it out of hand. So far I've only been relaying my own experiences. There are many more interesting ones out there.

For what specific reason do you continue to post on a skepticism forum, and especially in the Million Dollar Challenge subforum?

Just answering questions and commenting on things. If people take an interest I'll do my best to explain myself.

[CFLarsen]

Interesting read, although it raises more questions than answers for me. That may be because I need more information though, not because it might be a hasty conclusion.

If you need more information, then you cannot possibly continue claiming that you have experienced a paranormal phenomenon.

It doesn't comment on what Robert W.Wood actually saw regarding the experiment, he only comments on the behaviour of the people in question. When I think about things as bizzare as the phantom DNA effect I'm open to all sort of possibilities. Although, that too might be a blunder!

The issue isn't what someone else saw. The issue is what Blondlot saw, along with a string of other scientists.

Regarding Pons and Fleischmann's "discovery" that's also something I've given thought in the past. Either they were wrong or there was some extra variable they failed to identify. Who knows?

Yeah. Who knows. That's the question. So, if you question these people, why don't you question your own experiences?

Hmm, with this in mind I definitely don't.

So, do you formally retract your claims? Yes or no?

I don't think that you should take my word for anything.

But that's exactly what you are asking us to do.

You are able to have these experiences for yourself and do whatever testing you like. Just because some guy on a forum tells you "stuff" doesn't mean you should believe him outright. I just want to get people thinking about it rather than dismiss it out of hand. So far I've only been relaying my own experiences. There are many more interesting ones out there.

No, I am not able to have these experiences for myself. Isn't that what you have been arguing? That these experiences are not something that everyone can experience at will?

Pardon me, but if you are aiming to make an impact here, you will have to make a coherent claim. Don't muck about, don't f**k with people here.

Make up your mind!

Just answering questions and commenting on things. If people take an interest I'll do my best to explain myself.

Bull. That is not your aim. You have demanded that people take your word for it. That people believe you, your word. But when you discovered that people would not do that, you went through all this bull.

It's bull.

[Expression_man]

Hmm, this is regrettable.

If you need more information, then you cannot possibly continue claiming that you have experienced a paranormal phenomenon.

I don't know what you mean. I'm sure science will have a full explanation one day. I'm just saying there's something worth looking into.

The issue isn't what someone else saw. The issue is what Blondlot saw, along with a string of other scientists.

I'm more interested in what the person who went to verify the claims saw of the experiment than his bias towards it being in error.

Yeah. Who knows. That's the question. So, if you question these people, why don't you question your own experiences?

Hmm, I have. At first I thought it was something with religious connotations but much reading and experience has led me to believe something else.

So, do you formally retract your claims? Yes or no?

Which claim? I made lots I think.

But that's exactly what you are asking us to do.

There is no way I can prove this to any of you short of interacting with you individually/directly.

No, I am not able to have these experiences for myself. Isn't that what you have been arguing? That these experiences are not something that everyone can experience at will?

Oh, you can certainly increase the frequency of them. I've induced it consciously a few times myself. It is difficult however, yes.

Pardon me, but if you are aiming to make an impact here, you will have to make a coherent claim. Don't muck about, don't f**k with people here.

I claim that there may be more to this than meets the "eye"! : P

Make up your mind!

I don't have enough data, yet. : )

Bull. That is not your aim. You have demanded that people take your word for it. That people believe you, your word. But when you discovered that people would not do that, you went through all this bull.

It's bull.

Moo : p

Yeah, I did get frustrated after reading people's opinions of OOBE in general. What makes you angry though?

[BillyJoe]

Em,

It seems to me that, because of the vagueness of your experiences, especially regarding vision, you will probably have difficulty proving to yourself that these experiences are real. For example, ou won't be able to read the number on the card because your vision is not sufficiently clear. You won't be able to detail what you find in a remotely viewed room, because the concentration required interferes with the clearness of your vision. Etc. Etc,

Are there any amongst your colleages who have perfect vision? They would be in a good position to prove the reality of OBEs to themselves, if they so desired. You might invite them here to discuss this, if there is such an individual..

[Expression_man]

Are there any amongst your colleages who have perfect vision? They would be in a good position to prove the reality of OBEs to themselves, if they so desired. You might invite them here to discuss this, if there is such an individual..

Yes, there are a few. I'm still very much a newcomer to this subject, I've only been pursuing it for about 4 years which is why I say I'm not the man for the job. Some have been doing it for most of their lives.

Yes, they are in an excellent position and have, supposedly, validated their experiences beyond any reasonable doubt. They also tell me that I'm unwise to approach a community like the JREF. I think they're wrong about that mind you.

The reason I got involved with these people was due to an experience I had in a remote healing session with them. I don't know what to make of all this stuff about "chakras" but one of them managed to stimulate what is supposedly the second/orange/Hara/Svadhisthana chakra in me (lots of names for it). I got a buzzing/tingling feeling around my stomach. Moments before I could mention it to them I was told what they were doing and that I shouldn't be alarmed. Needless to say, that got me very curious about things. I'll certainly keep mentioning this stage to them, I'd do that without prompting from anyone.

[Moochie]

Yes, there are a few. I'm still very much a newcomer to this subject, I've only been pursuing it for about 4 years which is why I say I'm not the man for the job. Some have been doing it for most of their lives.

And I'd guess your age at about 15--16...

Yes, they are in an excellent position and have, supposedly, validated their experiences beyond any reasonable doubt. They also tell me that I'm unwise to approach a community like the JREF. I think they're wrong about that mind you.

:D I wonder why they would say such a thing?

The reason I got involved with these people was due to an experience I had in a remote healing session with them. I don't know what to make of all this stuff about "chakras" but one of them managed to stimulate what is supposedly the second/orange/Hara/Svadhisthana chakra in me (lots of names for it). I got a buzzing/tingling feeling around my stomach.

ROFLMAO :D

Priceless!

Moments before I could mention it to them I was told what they were doing and that I shouldn't be alarmed. Needless to say, that got me very curious about things. I'll certainly keep mentioning this stage to them, I'd do that without prompting from anyone.

I'm finding your naivety refreshingly hilarious. But, really, this thread ought to be in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy forum.

M.

[Expression_man]

And I'd guess your age at about 15--16...

If my pay grade factors into this then I'm 23 with 1 GNVQ (advanced information and communications technology), 1HND, and a 1:1 hons in Software Systems for the Arts and Media (BSc). I had an interest in parapsychology at one point but it seems to only entail theoretical work which is more or less useless to me.

I'm finding your naivety refreshingly hilarious

/shrug

[Burner]

Yes, they are in an excellent position and have, supposedly, validated their experiences beyond any reasonable doubt. They also tell me that I'm unwise to approach a community like the JREF. I think they're wrong about that mind you.

Any particular reason or is JREF just 'bad people' ?


The reason I got involved with these people was due to an experience I had in a remote healing session with them. I don't know what to make of all this stuff about "chakras" but one of them managed to stimulate what is supposedly the second/orange/Hara/Svadhisthana chakra in me (lots of names for it). I got a buzzing/tingling feeling around my stomach. Moments before I could mention it to them I was told what they were doing and that I shouldn't be alarmed. Needless to say, that got me very curious about things. I'll certainly keep mentioning this stage to them, I'd do that without prompting from anyone.You sound like a perfect client for those phone healing woos. 'Do you feel a tingle in your stomach ?' 'Uhhhh, yes? Yes.. I do! Wow!' :D