NDErs who witness events in other rooms....

I'd have to disagree with that then. I do think it's a reasonable standard, and it's the standard that most of the rest of science uses. In other words, discovering things under information control. The trouble is, that these stories seem to *disappear* when you chase them down to formal confirmation.

How do you know that they disappear? Any references or examples? I have verified tens of spontaneous cases and not all of them have disappeared. Naturally people often misinterpret the situation, but simple and concrete cases have been confirmed after questioning multiple witnesses and checking the possible traces. I would say that doctors and nurses are not necessarily quite foolish in their observations.
 
Indeed, Billw. However, it's not impossible to set up a controlled environment for out of body claims. It is simply difficult.
Yes, I agree. And I did say difficult, not impossible. However, if for some reason patients tend not to notice, remember, or report things like posted numbers, researchers may still be left with evidence that requires some of the methods used by Stevenson to analyze it.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Hey Max, I'm glad that you posted on this thread. I've actually come across your story a few times while doing research on verified OBE's. I think I first saw it on Penny Sartori's blog in the comment section.

Is there anyway you could get your father or brothers to corroborate this story for you? I know at first that may seem rude to ask. I hope you can understand that it would go a long way in providing solid evidence that these experiences really do happen as the experiencers claim.

I've been thinking of getting my Dad on video for my own purposes, because he's getting on... 82 this year and might not be around much longer as he has a heart condition...
 
Timeslips are a fascinating subject, I have a book with a chapter dedicated to them. One example concerned someone who had gone on holiday in the Dieppe area a few years after the war ended. They heard what appeared to be a re-enactment of the calamitous raid of 1942, with machine gun fire and the cries of the wounded and dying played out intermittently over some hours. A more mundane version was someone who saw the Liverpool shopping street they were in transform to the way it was many years before.

Another case concerned two young men camping in a remote part of the Scottish Highlands. They awoke early to see the bedraggled remains of a defeated Scots army pass below them. Ghosts or timeslip, and is there any difference? As my library is presently in storage I can't provide exact details.

Yes, the cases and interviews on the Ghost Hunters episode "Ripples in Time... are really valuable (best series I've ever seen on this type of phenomena)...

 
Yes, the cases and interviews on the Ghost Hunters episode "Ripples in Time... are really valuable (best series I've ever seen on this type of phenomena)...

Hi Max if you mean the UK channel 4 series with "captain bob" and the guy who saw the roman soldiers in the cellar in York, I'd agree it was a fascinating and well-made series.
 
Hi Max if you mean the UK channel 4 series with "captain bob" and the guy who saw the roman soldiers in the cellar in York, I'd agree it was a fascinating and well-made series.

Aye, that's it, the the one narrated by William Wollard... I should really get my own copy...
 
I just rewatched those four lads on the episode 'Ripples in Time', and it's true for me, like it seems to have been for three of them. My experience affected my life and changed how I view the world, and what I became interested in...
 
There are so many strange subjective experiences, whether they are NDE OBE's or otherwise, such as Carl Jung's famous time-slip related in his autobiography.
Just saw the one described by Jung in the video, very interesting. It makes me wonder though, if it were indeed "time travel" or just a moment of (joint!) clairvoyance. I'm reading Ian Stevenson's book about Stefan Ossowiecki and Stevenson talks about the "akashic records" that clairvoyants claim to get information from--a record of every thought, idea, object that ever existed. Stevenson, being familiar with theosophy, said "I myself always thought this idea a mere fantasy until I became aquainted with Ossowiecki's record." Sounds like that may be what Jung was actually "seeing." Although I never read his account and he may have reasons for considering it actual time travel.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Just saw the one described by Jung in the video, very interesting. It makes me wonder though, if it were indeed "time travel" or just a moment of (joint!) clairvoyance. I'm reading Ian Stevenson's book about Stefan Ossowiecki and Stevenson talks about the "akashic records" that clairvoyants claim to get information from--a record of every thought, idea, object that ever existed. Stevenson, being familiar with theosophy, said "I myself always thought this idea a mere fantasy until I became aquainted with Ossowiecki's record." Sounds like that may be what Jung was actually "seeing." Although I never read his account and he may have reasons for considering it actual time travel.

Cheers,
Bill

I try not to get too bogged down by the labels, but it certainly seems Jung and his friend experienced a temporal anomaly at a spatial position.
 
I try not to get too bogged down by the labels, but it certainly seems Jung and his friend experienced a temporal anomaly at a spatial position.
I don't either. The simplest word that comes to my mind is clairvoyance.

Cheers,
Bill
 
I'd rather describe it, than label it...
The descriptions given by the woman "seeing" the priest figures "through the back of her head" and the men seeing the black figure, yet each seeing variations (one as smoke) corresponded well to other descriptions that I've read that have used the well defined term "clairvoyance."

Jung's description is most interesting in that I've not heard of such a level of clarity before, allowing two people to discuss the same perceptions for 30 minutes.

Cheers,
Bil
 
I've been thinking of getting my Dad on video for my own purposes, because he's getting on... 82 this year and might not be around much longer as he has a heart condition...

I think it would be a great idea to do that. If anything you'll have a cool video of your dad recollecting what I assume is one of your life's important moments.
 
How do you know that they disappear? Any references or examples? I have verified tens of spontaneous cases and not all of them have disappeared. Naturally people often misinterpret the situation, but simple and concrete cases have been confirmed after questioning multiple witnesses and checking the possible traces. I would say that doctors and nurses are not necessarily quite foolish in their observations.

Well, interview and corroboration is not a formal experiment. What I mean is that, in the past , for example, attempts have been made to establish whether out of body experiences really happen. They are always inconclusive at best, and a failure at worst. We don't even have this situation for NDEs. AWARE study has been the only sincere effort. But even there, if the *targets* aren't sighted, then it cannot be considered a formal success.
 
Well, interview and corroboration is not a formal experiment. What I mean is that, in the past , for example, attempts have been made to establish whether out of body experiences really happen. They are always inconclusive at best, and a failure at worst. We don't even have this situation for NDEs. AWARE study has been the only sincere effort. But even there, if the *targets* aren't sighted, then it cannot be considered a formal success.

I think you're being pretty unreasonable in this regard. It is true that interviews and corroborations are not formal experiments, but they are closer to what social scientists call a natural experiment. Given the nature of the experiences, i.e. they are random human experiences, they are not reasonably able to be studied conducting a formal experiment. It is unfair to dismiss these claims based on such unreasonable demands.

Now if we could accurately predict 100% of the time who was going to undergo an NDE/OBE, then we'd be in a position to conduct some sort of formal experiment. All we would have to do is tell this person before hand to make sure they look for a hidden target on top of some shelf or monitor, and come back and tell us. Since that is very unreasonable, we have to work with what we have.

As far as the AWARE study goes, my personal thoughts on that is that we will either have 1 target hit every few decades, or none. I think even if we have 1 target hit, I don't think that will be enough. All a dedicated debunker will have to do is find one reflective surface somewhere in that room, and propose that somehow subconsciously the NDE'r tuned into this reflection and gathered the information that way. There are many ways to debunk target hits, don't believe me just ask Shen1986's wife LOL.

I think we will however be more likely to produce many more veridical NDE's such as the one of Viola Horton. That will put us in a position to do better verification than in the past, and depending on the outcome of this verification it will tell us much more about the reality of these experiences then anything else.
 
I think you're being pretty unreasonable in this regard. It is true that interviews and corroborations are not formal experiments, but they are closer to what social scientists call a natural experiment. Given the nature of the experiences, i.e. they are random human experiences, they are not reasonably able to be studied conducting a formal experiment. It is unfair to dismiss these claims based on such unreasonable demands.

Now if we could accurately predict 100% of the time who was going to undergo an NDE/OBE, then we'd be in a position to conduct some sort of formal experiment. All we would have to do is tell this person before hand to make sure they look for a hidden target on top of some shelf or monitor, and come back and tell us. Since that is very unreasonable, we have to work with what we have.

As far as the AWARE study goes, my personal thoughts on that is that we will either have 1 target hit every few decades, or none. I think even if we have 1 target hit, I don't think that will be enough. All a dedicated debunker will have to do is find one reflective surface somewhere in that room, and propose that somehow subconsciously the NDE'r tuned into this reflection and gathered the information that way. There are many ways to debunk target hits, don't believe me just ask Shen1986's wife LOL.

I think we will however be more likely to produce many more veridical NDE's such as the one of Viola Horton. That will put us in a position to do better verification than in the past, and depending on the outcome of this verification it will tell us much more about the reality of these experiences then anything else.

Yes, but people have written whole books claiming to have undertaken hundreds of OOBEs. Yet when an offer is made, really quite a generous offer for them to demonstrate these abilities, an excuse is always found. I just don't buy it.

Now with respect to NDEs, it is true that they happen in a very difficult to control situation. And there, you have one of two choices. You either do what AWARE is trying to do...which is to bring formalism into the picture. It's very very hard, but it's worth doing...because if it is done properly, we have the potential of finding out whether the answer is YES or NO.

The other thing you can do is make what is essentially a belief-call and say "I CHOOSE to accept this non-formal evidence." But in doing so, you have to accept that you take on board a much more substantial risk of being wrong, and the error might well show up at a later point.

My instinct tells me there will be no target hits from AWARE. Instead, you will get non-formal rumors again, in other words alleged sightings that didn't actually involve the targets, and people will mistake this for formal evidence because it "came from the AWARE study."
 
Yes, but people have written whole books claiming to have undertaken hundreds of OOBEs. Yet when an offer is made, really quite a generous offer for them to demonstrate these abilities, an excuse is always found. I just don't buy it.

Now with respect to NDEs, it is true that they happen in a very difficult to control situation. And there, you have one of two choices. You either do what AWARE is trying to do...which is to bring formalism into the picture. It's very very hard, but it's worth doing...because if it is done properly, we have the potential of finding out whether the answer is YES or NO.

The other thing you can do is make what is essentially a belief-call and say "I CHOOSE to accept this non-formal evidence." But in doing so, you have to accept that you take on board a much more substantial risk of being wrong, and the error might well show up at a later point.

My instinct tells me there will be no target hits from AWARE. Instead, you will get non-formal rumors again, in other words alleged sightings that didn't actually involve the targets, and people will mistake this for formal evidence because it "came from the AWARE study."

Well if you're talking about those people who claim to have OBE's on command or whatever, then yea, I don't buy that either. I agree that if we're talking about those claims than yea I agree with you that they haven't been proven.

What I am strictly referring to are OBE's that occur during NDE's. The reason I focus on those is because there are various claims that these OBE's have been verified for accuracy.

I think there is always the chance of being wrong no matter what, but is it reasonable to accept that something is true given the weight of available evidence? I think so.

For example if I ever came across an NDE that followed this pattern;

1. Person has OBE
2. Person witnesses unique conversation (unique meaning it's not a conversation someone would reasonably expect to have occurred, i.e. "I hope person recovers, I am worried about person, etc.")
3. The witnessed event/conversation occurs in a location where physical hearing would be impossible even the person was healthy.
4. The people who are involved in the event/conversation verify the accuracy of this unique conversation.
5. All people involved have no motive for lying (i.e. financial, fame, etc).

I would consider that to be enough evidence to take these claims serious. With Viola Horton I think we had that, except it failed on point 4.
1. Viola has an OBE
2. She witnessed her brother-in-law talking to a neighbor of his, the conversation was rude in regards to Viola. This is unique because it is unlikely that Viola would expect to see a neighbor of her brother in law, it is unlikely that her brother in law would openly repeat this conversation to anyone else given the magnitude of the situation. Also Viola claims to have asked him about this, and that he denied it out of sheer embarrassment, until he finally confessed.
3. These events happened in locations outside of her hospital room
4. No known corroboration
5. Viola had no apparent motive to make these claims. She lived and died as an ordinary person would in Augusta, GA.
 
Well if you're talking about those people who claim to have OBE's on command or whatever, then yea, I don't buy that either. I agree that if we're talking about those claims than yea I agree with you that they haven't been proven.

What I am strictly referring to are OBE's that occur during NDE's. The reason I focus on those is because there are various claims that these OBE's have been verified for accuracy.

I think there is always the chance of being wrong no matter what, but is it reasonable to accept that something is true given the weight of available evidence? I think so.

For example if I ever came across an NDE that followed this pattern;

1. Person has OBE
2. Person witnesses unique conversation (unique meaning it's not a conversation someone would reasonably expect to have occurred, i.e. "I hope person recovers, I am worried about person, etc.")
3. The witnessed event/conversation occurs in a location where physical hearing would be impossible even the person was healthy.
4. The people who are involved in the event/conversation verify the accuracy of this unique conversation.
5. All people involved have no motive for lying (i.e. financial, fame, etc).

I would consider that to be enough evidence to take these claims serious. With Viola Horton I think we had that, except it failed on point 4.
1. Viola has an OBE
2. She witnessed her brother-in-law talking to a neighbor of his, the conversation was rude in regards to Viola. This is unique because it is unlikely that Viola would expect to see a neighbor of her brother in law, it is unlikely that her brother in law would openly repeat this conversation to anyone else given the magnitude of the situation. Also Viola claims to have asked him about this, and that he denied it out of sheer embarrassment, until he finally confessed.
3. These events happened in locations outside of her hospital room
4. No known corroboration
5. Viola had no apparent motive to make these claims. She lived and died as an ordinary person would in Augusta, GA.

I agree with you it's probably a worthwhile thing to do, but it will have minimum impact on the scientific community at large and so "opinion" about NDEs would not shift because of that. I've said this before, so it's probably worth repeating. In a high stakes scenario like this, people will only change their mind en masse in one of two situations 1)Their arm is forced up their back by the data, 2) a sudden and significant practical benefit becomes possible which cannot be achieved any other way (who cared about splitting the atom skepticism after the atom bomb? nobody)
 
I agree with you it's probably a worthwhile thing to do, but it will have minimum impact on the scientific community at large and so "opinion" about NDEs would not shift because of that. I've said this before, so it's probably worth repeating. In a high stakes scenario like this, people will only change their mind en masse in one of two situations 1)Their arm is forced up their back by the data, 2) a sudden and significant practical benefit becomes possible which cannot be achieved any other way (who cared about splitting the atom skepticism after the atom bomb? nobody)

I think it's a little lofty to aim to try and change the scientific communities opinion about NDE's at this point. For one, we don't even know what they are. Are they purely physical brain phenomena, spirit separation, ESP, etc.?

Consider that perhaps OBE's aren't really the spirit leaving the body, but instead the mind tapping into the minds of others. Couldn't this account for veridical OBE's, and provide insight as to why target hits might be unlikely? There are various reports of NDE's in which the experiencer claims to have read someones thoughts, etc. There are also various reports where the experiencer was also able to see through walls, and other physical objects. I think those things have to be considered. That's why I'm not focusing on the AWARE study as my primary source to verify whether these things are true.

I think even if these verified OBE's were some form of telepathy/ESP type thing it would still provide a huge blow to materialism. That is why I believe corroborating these reports is important, to see if in principle it is even possible. After that we can start to test to see by what mechanism these experiences occur.

The AWARE study is operating under the assumption that the mechanism is the mind leaving the body and witnessing the actual physical room. For all we know it could be some sort of collective mind model that the mind of the experiencer is drawing information from.
 
Back
Top