My favourite NDE video.

Not at all, but the experiment needs to be solid, and designed to rule out information leakage, otherwise I and others are going to be rightfully skeptical that any hits they claim to get are real. A very very difficult task!!



I felt it was a long shot that the fishing boat could have been in the same place at sea, at the same height, on the same swell etc, it destroyed any early preconceptions I had entertained, that information might be tied to absolute positions in spacetime, i.e. a position on the earth, like a place, where a castle was, or an old house was, or where stonehenge was. Following that, I had to change my ideas to allow information to be related to relative positions in spacetime... those ideas have since changed, and been developed much further.

"Not at all, but the experiment needs to be solid, and designed to rule out information leakage, otherwise I and others are going to be rightfully skeptical that any hits they claim to get are real. A very very difficult task!!"

Who is the "others" that you refer to, Max. More to the point can you explain specifically how this (potential in your view) error in the study is likely to occur and why you think you are better qualified to spot it than the researchers themselves ?

The 'others' are anybody who is skeptical that an entity actually leaves the body.

I don't know why I'd be better qualified to spot anything.

We know next to nothing about the details of the study that they are undertaking, so one can hardly say anything specific... but say it's a changing target on a horizontally mounted LCD screen above head height... perhaps a CCTV camera within the hospital is able to show/record the target... somebody is seen looking at the target from a stepladder... somebody is seen with a mirror on pole... the target can be easily guessed... the target is not realtime... the target doesn't change often enough... the method of verification of a hit on the target is not secure... not accurate etc. etc. all the same objections we've seen elsewhere about other phenomena.

I wish they would use a shotgun approach to targets. More targets, and with targets at different heights so different targets are visible to people in at different heights, those standing up, sitting down on chair, lying down on bed, fallen down on floor etc... and just gather lots of data in an attempt to just demonstrate recall of information using random realtime targets.
Instead of plumping everything on above head height targets, with - I think - the inevitable result that they have no hits, the lack of which causes funding (and hospital commitment) to further target studies to evaporate.

But I may be pleasantly surprised, the study may be far cleverer than the very sketchy info we have.

"The 'others' are anybody who is skeptical that an entity actually leaves the body.

I don't know why I'd be better qualified to spot anything.

We know next to nothing about the details of the study that they are undertaking, so one can hardly say anything specific... but say it's a changing target on a horizontally mounted LCD screen above head height... perhaps a CCTV camera within the hospital is able to show/record the target... somebody is seen looking at the target from a stepladder... somebody is seen with a mirror on pole... the target can be easily guessed... the target is not realtime... the target doesn't change often enough... the method of verification of a hit on the target is not secure... not accurate etc. etc. all the same objections we've seen elsewhere about other phenomena.

I wish they would use a shotgun approach to targets. More targets, and with targets at different heights so different targets are visible to people in at different heights, those standing up, sitting down on chair, lying down on bed, fallen down on floor etc... and just gather lots of data in an attempt to just demonstrate recall of information using random realtime targets.
Instead of plumping everything on above head height targets, with - I think - the inevitable result that they have no hits, the lack of which causes funding (and hospital commitment) to further target studies to evaporate.

But I may be pleasantly surprised, the study may be far cleverer than the very sketchy info we have.Max_B"
..........................................

I'll go through this properly tomorrow.

"The 'others' are anybody who is skeptical that an entity actually leaves the body.

I don't know why I'd be better qualified to spot anything.

We know next to nothing about the details of the study that they are undertaking, so one can hardly say anything specific... but say it's a changing target on a horizontally mounted LCD screen above head height... perhaps a CCTV camera within the hospital is able to show/record the target... somebody is seen looking at the target from a stepladder... somebody is seen with a mirror on pole... the target can be easily guessed... the target is not realtime... the target doesn't change often enough... the method of verification of a hit on the target is not secure... not accurate etc. etc. all the same objections we've seen elsewhere about other phenomena.

I wish they would use a shotgun approach to targets. More targets, and with targets at different heights so different targets are visible to people in at different heights, those standing up, sitting down on chair, lying down on bed, fallen down on floor etc... and just gather lots of data in an attempt to just demonstrate recall of information using random realtime targets.
Instead of plumping everything on above head height targets, with - I think - the inevitable result that they have no hits, the lack of which causes funding (and hospital commitment) to further target studies to evaporate.

But I may be pleasantly surprised, the study may be far cleverer than the very sketchy info we have.Max_B"
..........................................

I'll go through this properly tomorrow.

Assuming that emergency rooms are fitted with CCTV and I don't think they are (might be wrong) the footage certainly isn't shown to patients recovering from a cardiac arrest, is it ?  I suppose you could hypothesise that the security guys could somehow 'zoom in' on the laptop and make a record of the pictures and then (for some strange reason) go and tell the patient what the picture was. It seems like an enormous stretch to me.

With regard to the step ladder scenario, surely the attending doctors/nurses and the member from the Aware team are not  going to allow someone to wander in with a pair of steps during an emergency code, are they ?

...and the bloke with the mirror on the pole. He would surely be ejected, or be arrested for indecency, wouldn't he ?

Max said " the target can be easily guessed"

How ?

Max said "the target is not realtime... the target doesn't change often enough... the method of verification of a hit on the target is not secure... not accurate etc. etc. all the same objections we've seen elsewhere about other phenomena."

... the target isn't real time ? Of course it is, what else could it be ? It just seems to me that you're throwing as much mud as possible and hoping some of it sticks, Max. Furthermore, if they are successful and the referees are satisfied that the methods are correct and tight, what will it matter to the world if you or me disagree ? 

Max said "More targets, and with targets at different heights so different targets are visible to people in at different heights, those standing up, sitting down on chair, lying down on bed, fallen down on floor etc... and just gather lots of data in an attempt to just demonstrate recall of information using random realtime targets."

Targets at different heights would invalidate the data much more effectively than any of your previous suggestions above. You would want that because your theory could then (hypothetically) be tested with doctors "transmitting" the picture they could see, into the brain of the patient beneath them. But they're never going to test for that, ever.

IMHO you're simply riding on the back of the OBE during NDE phenomenon.

Max didn't like the Dickensian participants (spirits) so it was dismissed.

He does seem like the kind to prefer Shakespearean participants...

To get a hit, I think some people are capable of doing anything.



I assume they would already be there, no one knows when somebody codes... workmen were there with Penny's Patient 10... she had to try and shoo them away...



Possibly... but some people do worse.


I believe Penny tested what people expected to see on a target, and those guesses had to be excluded from the targets in her study.



The target would have to be real-time, i.e. changing regularly and without repetition.

Spent far to long on here the last few days with that Radin nonsense... so calling it a night.

"I assume they would already be there, no one knows when somebody codes... workmen were there with Penny's Patient 10... she had to try and shoo them away..."

Patient 10 wasn't in the ER 

"I believe Penny tested what people expected to see on a target, and those guesses had to be excluded from the targets in her study."

If you ask enough patients to keep on guessing, eventually someone will come up with the right match. Don't you think that is going to extremes ? 

"The target would have to be real-time, i.e. changing regularly and without repetition."

What do you mean by real time ? The laptop displays pictures, time matched, doesn't it ?  Why does it need to do anything else ? They don't need thousands of pictures, if a few patients see anything then presumably the study will be fine tuned further, no doubt.  

" Spent far to long on here the last few days with that Radin nonsense... so calling it a night."

You must have plenty of money, Max