Really, were you in it, me, or any other Doper?
I’m not the one backing out, or you? It sure looks like it, but maybe you truly don’t understand what I’m proposing, and if that is the case, you can’t back out of something you don’t understand.
This cite of yours is loaded with pseudo-scientists and woo-woo, some names I remember reading some 30 years ago in Flim-Flam. Charles Tart claims tests of someone having a OBE successfully read off a five digit number. Didn’t know he was still at it. But this goes against all of Blackmore’s work who never found anyone able to do this once or others who could never find anyone able to even recognize a common object up on the top shelf. There are literally hundreds of cases such as this that never once found a positive result. If such a person truly does have this ability, you agree it could be easily replicated, would it not? And that’s what we are looking for, is replication, and if everything is truly on the up and up, other research could replicate the same findings, not just a few fringe groups claiming positive results, but mainstream science. If this started happening, it would no longer belong in pseudo-science but would find itself in respectable journals of science. Perhaps one of the most comprehensive research critical of NDE’s on-line is by Keith Augustine.
So you see, we can swap cites and book recommendations all day long, and it’s not going to get us anywhere. I’m proposing neither of us rely on books or cites from here on out, and finally YOU and ME or some Doper near you, agree to do our own tests of either you or someone you know that has these frequent OBE’s and do the tests I mentioned by placing a number on a top shelf. I don’t know how to say this and make it any more simple. Do you understand now?
I think you’re purposely pretending to not understand me, and if so, I’ll take it as NO, you are not courageous enough to find out what the results would really be in a honest setting, and you really don’t believe in the stuff you claim you do, but are only a great pretender. I’m willing to be shown I’m wrong. Are you?
Also, a correction in my post # 150. Meant to say perpetual motion machines, not perpetual time machines.