(2017-09-14, 09:23 AM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]I meant veridical OBEs during NDEs. Only a combination of both could produce a hit that supported the hypothesis.
There were 140 survivors out of a pool of 2,000+ patients (ridiculous recruitment standards that were corrected for AWARE II) that were interviewed, out of which 9 reported NDEs. One reported an OBE and another some sort of awareness of the environment that could not be elaborated due to the severity of his condition.
Edit:If you are wondering why the recruitment standards were ridiculous, it's because they also counted the patients that died to bolster the tally.
"and another some sort of awareness of the environment that could not be elaborated due to the severity of his condition."
It was a woman named Vanessa, apparently. Her report is still very remarkable IMHO even though the "sceptics" ignored it.
At the beginning, I think I heard the nurse say ‘dial 444 cardiac arrest’. I felt scared. I was on the ceiling looking down. I saw a nurse that I did not know beforehand who I saw after the event. I could see my body and saw everything at once. I saw my blood pressure being taken whilst the doctor was putting something down my throat. I saw a nurse pumping on my chest saying "Come on Vanessa, come on Vanessa!" I saw blood gases and blood sugar levels being taken but it did not hurt (it usually does when I'm awake)
(2017-09-14, 01:10 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]"and another some sort of awareness of the environment that could not be elaborated due to the severity of his condition."
It was a woman named Vanessa, apparently. Her report is still very remarkable IMHO even though the "sceptics" ignored it.
At the beginning, I think I heard the nurse say ‘dial 444 cardiac arrest’. I felt scared. I was on the ceiling looking down. I saw a nurse that I did not know beforehand who I saw after the event. I could see my body and saw everything at once. I saw my blood pressure being taken whilst the doctor was putting something down my throat. I saw a nurse pumping on my chest saying "Come on Vanessa, come on Vanessa!" I saw blood gases and blood sugar levels being taken but it did not hurt (it usually does when I'm awake)
Of course they ignored it:
1- it doesn't support their contention
and
2- it apparently wasn't on video tape,,, (as if that would really make ANY difference)
(2017-09-14, 01:06 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it will happen.
And then there will be claims that someone else saw it and told the patient of it, or, or, or. Skeptic
Do you really think a positive result will be embraced by material science? ROFL
I think this work is important, but I have no illusions about who will mostly benefit, and it isn't the science community as a whole. It's the average seeker. The crazy truth is, there is already enough evidence to convince that person today.
Do you really think a positive result will be embraced by material science?
Dogmatic materialists ? Absolutely not, it's anathema to them.
I think this work is important, but I have no illusions about who will mostly benefit, and it isn't the science community as a whole. It's the average seeker. The crazy truth is, there is already enough evidence to convince that person today.
I agree and it's hard to know what would or might happen. Maybe once the evidence becomes sufficient it will change the world for the better (maybe). Then again the way the world is going, the knowledge could all be lost in a puff of smoke and then it's back to square one.
(2017-09-14, 01:22 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Of course they ignored it:
1- it doesn't support their contention
and
2- it apparently wasn't on video tape,,, (as if that would really make ANY difference)
It's kind of odd (at least it is to me) how anyone could read that little OBE report from Vanessa and not be impressed by it. Every way I look at it, it's impossible to explain unless of course it didn't happen that way.
(2017-09-14, 01:38 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]It's kind of odd (at least it is to me) how anyone could read that little OBE report from Vanessa and not be impressed by it. Every way I look at it, it's impossible to explain unless of course it didn't happen that way.
In the end, that is something that can (and will be) claimed by a skeptic.
Really there is an almost infinite supply of contention points that can be dreamed up.
Sounds like fun being a skeptic, almost wish I were one some days,, what with the fact that you always have another argument in your bag of tricks. And if you ever run out, you can just use the old standby and say: someone is lying...
Although, come to think of it, maybe not so fun. It's really too easy in many ways to stay interesting.
Think of it: how long would it remain fun to shoot fish in a barrel, or take candy from that baby??? Devil
(2017-09-14, 02:21 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]In the end, that is something that can (and will be) claimed by a skeptic.
Really there is an almost infinite supply of contention points that can be dreamed up.
Sounds like fun being a skeptic, almost wish I were one some days,, what with the fact that you always have another argument in your bag of tricks. And if you ever run out, you can just use the old standby and say: someone is lying...
Although, come to think of it, maybe not so fun. It's really too easy in many ways to stay interesting.
Think of it: how long would it remain fun to shoot fish in a barrel, or take candy from that baby??? Devil
I'm looking forward to the day Malf and the gang are forced to admit they were wrong. And I guess they're looking forward to the opposite. Until then, we just have to wait.
(2017-09-14, 03:24 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I'm looking forward to the day Malf and the gang are forced to admit they were wrong. And I guess they're looking forward to the opposite. Until then, we just have to wait.
If they are honest brokers, maybe that day will come. It did for me...
(2017-09-01, 12:45 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Hi, Titus
"Until now, however, not one patient—in this or any of the previous studies—has observed the visual targets.
In other words, experimentally, even this most recent study has not yet produced evidence of an experimental
nature. Parnia (2013)"
As far as I understand it (and I may be wrong of course) the only patient (in a prospective study) who has had an OBE
in a research area, or an area where there was a hidden target, is Penny Sartori's patient 10. And he claimed that he "didn't twist his 'head' around that way, apparently.
I agree with the vast majority of what you've said there but I feel very confident that now the 'target' (laptop on a pole) is being taken to the patient, someone will eventually see it. The 'sceptical' crowd are not honest in this regard, they always incorrectly (on purpose in my opinion) state that no one saw the targets and therefore the experiment failed, when it's just not true.
This is also my expectation, tim, and it would be welcome, of course. However, we should not focus on it too much, because that would mean all corroborated cases are worthless. We must realize the materialists have already lost the game, when we look at the evidence, and we don't have to wait for semi-experimental evidence.
(2017-09-01, 05:15 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Personally speaking 'Paranormal' is just a label for something we don't understand... there are masses of scientific studies that show reproducible effects in organisms that are not well understood, and a load more effects that are not understood and unique, or difficult to reproduce. Eventually people will come up with a way of understanding these effects, and incorporate them into the scientific literature. I think it's going to be difficult to get very far with hospital studies, it's just not an ideal environment to conduct experiments, we can't control them at all well.
Hi Max,
By "Paranormal" we mean clearly linked to the mind, consciousness or the psyche, and at the same time inexplicable by & incompatible with physicalist theories of reality.