Psience Quest

Unfortunately the database of British soldiers who died in WWI (at ancestry.co.uk) doesn't appear to include an Eric Saunders (or Sanders). If that's right, maybe the name was changed, or maybe he wasn't really killed, or maybe there's something more seriously wrong with the story.

(2017-08-28, 12:31 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately the database of British soldiers who died in WWI (at ancestry.co.uk) doesn't appear to include an Eric Saunders (or Sanders). If that's right, maybe the name was changed, or maybe he wasn't really killed, or maybe there's something more seriously wrong with the story.

Are you sure that database is exhaustive though?

I came across this Eric Saunders just googling a little bit earlier, who died in '17 in WWI, but in Belgium in June, not in France in August.

Quote:Pioneer Eric Stanley Saunders (182435) Royal Engineers (RE) Pioneer Eric Saunder was the third man from Raglan to fall. He was born 1 January 1885 and died aged 32 on 19 June 1917, being killed in action at Poperinghe, Flanders. Poperinge, or “Pops” as the British soldiers called it, was an important rail centre behind the front line and was used for the distribution of supplies, for billeting troops, for casualty clearing stations and for troops at rest from duty in the forward trench areas. Thousands of troops passed through this small town, a junction of five roads, at some time or other. So it was constantly bustling with military traffic. Because of its importance to the military behind the front Allied lines, the town was frequently targeted by long range German artillery. Eric Saunders was the organist at St Cadoc's Church. He was one of five children of Charles Saunders, Headmaster and also organist at St Cadoc’s. He had followed in his father's footsteps as organist before signing up. Eric Saunders had been a clerk in the County Council Offices, Monmouthshire. He served as a pioneer in the Royal Engineers being attached to XI Corps Signal Company. Pioneer Saunders died on the same day as another sapper from his unit and it is likely that they died together for they are buried next to each other in Poperinghe New Military Cemetery, Poperinge/Poperingle, North Flanders, Belgium. Grave II.D.20. He is commemorated by a plaque in St Cadoc’s Church which reads: In the gory of GOD and in ever loving memory of ERIC STANLEY SAUNDERS who served this Church …..as organist … many years born 1 June 1885 and gave his life for his country June 19th 1917. Interred at Poperinge Flanders.

http://www.raglanpedia.org.uk/wiki/Raglan_at_War

(2017-08-28, 12:37 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Are you sure that database is exhaustive though?

I came across this Eric Saunders just googling a little bit earlier, who died in '17 in WWI, but in Belgium in June, not in France in August.

http://www.raglanpedia.org.uk/wiki/Raglan_at_War

Hmm. He turns up as E. S. Saunders. A search for E. Saunders brings up three possibilities (including middle initial E), but none in August 1917.

Maybe the way to go would be to trace the service record of Findlay's brother, and see if there's one for an Eric Saunders in the same regiment.

(2017-08-28, 01:05 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm. He turns up as E. S. Saunders. A search for E. Saunders brings up three possibilities (including middle initial E), but none in August 1917.

Maybe the way to go would be to trace the service record of Findlay's brother, and see if there's one for an Eric Saunders in the same regiment.

His brother's name was John Findlay.

(2017-08-27, 11:00 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]We're not allowed to know everything in QM. For example were not allowed to know both position and momentum of particles. The more accurately you know one variable, the less accurately we know the other. If you knew the momentum of a particle to incredible accuracy, then it's position could be anywhere. How we understand things by processing them into spacetime (3+1 dimensions) doesn't mean that is how they are stored. Systems that interact seem to release information appropriate to each other into spacetime, and no more than that, and that interaction is stored. We can't seem to get passed that.

We're not interested in points, we're interested in systems, in particular those systems which exhibit stochastic resonance - like the brain. We already have behavioral studies which show an effect from hyper-weak magnetic fields that is somehow used to encode spatial memory.

1. Cages don't filter out magnetic fields. But where we do filter out magnetic fields we sometimes observe unusual effects.

2. I'm only proposing a localised effect as one single possibility.

3. The studies I guess your referring to seem complicated and flawed to me.

4. QM suggests that no correlation between particles is ever lost, no matter how far away in spacetime.

1. Cages don't filter out magnetic fields. But where we do filter out magnetic fields we sometimes observe unusual effects. 
- So we can agree that electric fields can be ruled out? Hey- we're making progress.

2. I'm only proposing a localised effect as one single possibility. 
White Crow theorum says that I don't have to prove this effect is always invalid, I just need to show a case where it is. It is a possibility that can be ruled out based on the test results I cite. Another assertion ruled out. Great. 

3. The studies I guess your referring to seem complicated and flawed to me. 
That seems quite fortuitous for your argument. Also seems a bit arbitrary. Sorry, you can't get away with such a soft argument such as that. Not with me anyway. These tests exist, in great numbers. The fact that that they prove your argument wrong is unfortunate for you, but they can't be simply dismissed with your notion of complexity. Please point out the flaws or accept the data. Those are your two choices if you want your opinion on the matter to carry and weight.

4. QM suggests that no correlation between particles is ever lost, no matter how far away in spacetime.
It always amazes me that people think they can just mention QM and use it like a get out of jail free card. So what you are saying seems to be that when considering QM, all things are possible and explainable. 

If that's your approach I don't see why you need to look any further. You have your answer: its all just the magic of QM. 
Pam Reynolds NDE experience? QM. 
Maria's "sneaker on the window sill" in the Seattle hospital? QM.  
The few thousand veridical reincarnation stories? QM. 
The physical birthmarks matching previous lives of others? QM. 
Shared dreams? QM
Veridical OBEs? QM
Channeled books? QM
Precognition? QM
Visitations? QM

Hey, this works pretty well. Almost wish it worked for me. It would save me a lot of time and effort.

(2017-08-28, 01:05 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm. He turns up as E. S. Saunders. A search for E. Saunders brings up three possibilities (including middle initial E), but none in August 1917.

Maybe the way to go would be to trace the service record of Findlay's brother, and see if there's one for an Eric Saunders in the same regiment.

Findlay wasn't in the same regiment as the purported Saunders IIRC. He trained him at Kessingland. I doubt the WW1 records are 100% reliable as I recall reading about differences between actual dates/locations of death and those registered on occasion, unsurprising given the circumstances.

All rather frustrating isn't it? There's also the assumption that Eric was his first name - he may have been using a middle name if that was what he was commonly called. Interestingly perhaps after a (very) quick scan, I found Ernest Joshua Cuthbert Saunders, a machine gunner killed in 1917 (that may be one you found). I guess the commmunicator may have got some details wrong too. Who can say?

Further note: had a quick look and couldn't find my great grandad who I know for a fact fought in WW1. I'm sure he'll be in there somewhere, I've also found odd variations of his name on other sites.

(2017-08-28, 07:12 AM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]Findlay wasn't in the same regiment as the purported Saunders IIRC. He trained him at Kessingland. I doubt the WW1 records are 100% reliable as I recall reading about differences between actual dates/locations  of death and those registered on occasion, unsurprising given the circumstances.

All rather frustrating isn't it? There's also the assumption that Eric was his first name - he may have been using a middle name if that was what he was commonly called. Interestingly perhaps after a (very) quick scan, I found Ernest Joshua Cuthbert Saunders, a machine gunner killed in 1917 (that may be one you found). I guess the commmunicator may have got some details wrong too. Who can say?

Further note: had a quick look and couldn't find my great grandad who I know for a fact fought in WW1. I'm sure he'll be in there somewhere, I've also found odd variations of his name on other sites.

I'm certainly not an expert in WWI records, but I know the soldiers' documents are incomplete because many were destroyed by fire.

But I would think the records of deaths would be more complete. I just tried a search for Saunders with initial E who died in 1917 on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website, and that turns up the Eric Stanley Saunders who died 19 June 1917 and is buried at Poperinghe (in Belgium). 

The only other one I couldn't rule out as an Eric with the help of ancestry.co.uk was an E. Saunders who was a private in the Royal Canadian Regiment, who died 1 May 1917 and is buried at Wimereux (in France). But now I see he was an Ernest:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembranc...tail/84840

Also both the E. Sanders in 1917 can be ruled out as Erics with the help of ancestry.co.uk.

So the only possibility there of an Eric (first or middle name) who died in 1917 is Eric Stanley, which isn't an exact match for the information in the book, because it's two months too early and in Belgium rather than France.

(2017-08-28, 01:38 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]1. Cages don't filter out magnetic fields. But where we do filter out magnetic fields we sometimes observe unusual effects. 
- So we can agree that electric fields can be ruled out? Hey- we're making progress.

2. I'm only proposing a localised effect as one single possibility. 
White Crow theorum says that I don't have to prove this effect is always invalid, I just need to show a case where it is. It is a possibility that can be ruled out based on the test results I cite. Another assertion ruled out. Great. 

3. The studies I guess your referring to seem complicated and flawed to me. 
That seems quite fortuitous for your argument. Also seems a bit arbitrary. Sorry, you can't get away with such a soft argument such as that. Not with me anyway. These tests exist, in great numbers. The fact that that they prove your argument wrong is unfortunate for you, but they can't be simply dismissed with your notion of complexity. Please point out the flaws or accept the data. Those are your two choices if you want your opinion on the matter to carry and weight.

4. QM suggests that no correlation between particles is ever lost, no matter how far away in spacetime.
It always amazes me that people think they can just mention QM and use it like a get out of jail free card. So what you are saying seems to be that when considering QM, all things are possible and explainable. 

If that's your approach I don't see why you need to look any further. You have your answer: its all just the magic of QM. 
Pam Reynolds NDE experience? QM. 
Maria's "sneaker on the window sill" in the Seattle hospital? QM.  
The few thousand veridical reincarnation stories? QM. 
The physical birthmarks matching previous lives of others? QM. 
Shared dreams? QM
Veridical OBEs? QM
Channeled books? QM
Precognition? QM
Visitations? QM

Hey, this works pretty well. Almost wish it worked for me. It would save me a lot of time and effort.

Sorry about the barf about QM. Although I stand by the spirit of what I said, I'm not happy with my pithy and dismissive way of saying it. My apologies. 

I do want to focus on item # 3 (above) though.

Here's the thing: this test protocol using stand-in sitters was developed specifically for people with the concern that has been voiced in this thread: that perhaps what we are seeing is telepathy. So if one has any real desire to get to the answers, they are duty-bound to take a look at these tests and see whether their concerns have been addressed.

For someone to simply wave this data away tells me that for whatever reason, they are not approaching this challenge with an open mind. 

Personally I don't care if these people accept this data, or whether they are approaching this problem with an open mind, or whether I am able to get them to see validity of these things. I wish those people well on their private path to understanding.

In a thread like this, I like to imagine that it is not only to the principal of the post with whom I speak. In addition, there are certainly more, perhaps dozens of other people, who will read the thread in a genuine attempt to digest the information and draw their own conclusions.  It is for those people that I want to emphasize that there is well conceived and gathered test data that specifically disproves what is being asserted here, and they that might consider that fact, and FOLLOW THE DATA (no, Alex did not invent this sentiment and I am not quoting him here). 

For me personally I participate in these forums not only to learn more, and consider new ideas, but also I do it to refute those ideas which I have already determined to be false, and I try to do it in a way where others can consider the question and draw their own conclusions. I do this not to convince a particular person that they are missing something (this is sometimes just wasted effort), but rather to offer my opinions to the others who might be reading along, looking for ideas, and who might be more open to considering them.

To all: I wish you good luck in your hunt for the truth. May we all find it in our own ways. I do believe that whatever we each personally find, it will be the right thing for us at our individual stage of development.

(2017-08-28, 08:55 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I'm certainly not an expert in WWI records, but I know the soldiers' documents are incomplete because many were destroyed by fire.

But I would think the records of deaths would be more complete. I just tried a search for Saunders with initial E who died in 1917 on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website, and that turns up the Eric Stanley Saunders who died 19 June 1917 and is buried at Poperinghe (in Belgium). 

The only other one I couldn't rule out as an Eric with the help of ancestry.co.uk was an E. Saunders who was a private in the Royal Canadian Regiment, who died 1 May 1917 and is buried at Wimereux (in France). But now I see he was an Ernest:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembranc...tail/84840

Also both the E. Sanders in 1917 can be ruled out as Erics with the help of ancestry.co.uk.

So the only possibility there of an Eric (first or middle name) who died in 1917 is Eric Stanley, which isn't an exact match for the information in the book, because it's two months too early and in Belgium rather than France.

I just realised I had stupidly taken "gone out" to mean "died" rather than "gone to France". So he could have died after 1917. But another search of the CWGC database still shows no possible Eric.

I came across a copy of Findlay's "An Investigation into Psychic Phenomena" (1924), which relates the Eric Saunders incident (starting on p. 13). Presumably he reused the text in his later book:
http://www.iapsop.com/ssoc/1924__findlay...nomena.pdf

As Obiwan pointed out, Findlay said he didn't know which regiment the man came from, as the men came from all over the country.

It seems there's something wrong with that story, but it's difficult to know what.

(2017-08-28, 01:52 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]It seems there's something wrong with that story

That's a hasty conclusion, because as Obiwan said the WWI records accessible to us may not be completely reliable.