Messages

I am sure you are aware of Blanke's experiments, concerning epileptic patients and the angular gyrus.  In order to simulate an OBE-feeling, that part of the brain had to be exposed to an electrical current.
And, Robert Monroe did some experiments with a Faraday Cage, but I did not read that book, so you would have to look into it.

[Do] you honestly think that an unknown force actually mimicked data misallocation on the hard drive by deliberately corrupting areas of the disk along a circular path that is a few nanometers wide, in a completely controlled manner that was harmless to all vital system and user files?

Let's see, when you used the phrase "inadvertently", and explained that my "arms" had to come into contact with the HD one way or the other: No, it was not controlled, or else I would have said that I was attempting to affect that and not the monitor.
I think you are forgetting the subject matter here.  We are NOT talking about physical habbits of causality-- we are talking about something that goes right up there with psychokinesis or magick (whichever you want to call it).  Ask a practitioner of either if they always get exact results, and if there has never been a time when the result they achieved was related, but not predicted.

Since I am saying that the event seemed to happen in response to an OBE, then it is now your burden of proof to do one of a few things: show that OBE are not real; show that ether behaves exactly like EM radiation; show that it is not possible to accidentally affect another system in response to the presence of ether (and no such accidents could ever happen); or deny that had projected at all.  You have done no such thing, other than try to explain it away, by explaining how the physical target operates.  And, that would be logical, if you had been able to achieve one of the latter possibilities.

You are the one making the association between touching your monitor in an OBE, and your hard drive having a very common non-magical problem...

Excuse me, but now you make it sound like I did something else.  I said that I passed my "hands" through the monitor, while at the same time, had to be in contact with the tower (because of how the two were positioned).
In the occult paradigm, it is not uncommon for a magician to affect the environment in ways that are related to their activities, but not nessesserily in a way that was intended or predicted.

Answer this question...

I was asking the questions first, so please show some courtesy, and stop avoiding my points.  I noticed that I have done most of the explaining, so I am waiting for you to back up your statements, rather and use ranting and accusations to get by.

[That's] like arguing that it may not have been your fingerprints on a murder weapon, because it's possible that another person somewhere on this planet has the exact same prints you do.

How so?  Did I commit the same crime at the exact time as the other person?  Your analogy does not make sense, so clarify, or next time think about what I am saying before you respond.

Right, I don't think it's fair for her credibility to be hurt by another person's mistake.

Oh, so now you are saying that she did not misinterpret or change my story in any way, and my corrections had absolutly no distinction.  And, you completly take back your statements on how "misleading" her e-book has been?  What exactly was my mistake, when the only version published was one that is not the original story.

I already explained that you can not dismiss the event by trying to explain how the target is supposed to work-- how can you use that as the basis for confirming or dismissing a non-physical force?

It's just that what happened is so typical of a common computing mishap and bears no resemblance to electromagnetic damage... It changes everything..

What about the etheric body is electromagnetic?  Did I not say that I was not advocating that possibility, or had you already, and are to present proof that is correct? 
In order for you to say that, you would have to accept that it is in whole or in part, because your basis of reasoning seems to be that it would have to interact with the disk exactly the same way as an EM field.
Since I said the etheric body could mimic an EM field in some ways but does NOT emulate it, then your assertion that it has to absolutly behave like an EM field is just silly.
Do you have any evidence to support your claims?  Right now, you have about is much as I do, and I was the one actually experiencing the event.

Right now, what you're saying is that some unseen force tried to damage your computer by writing random bits in specific areas of the hard drive, but did it in a careful way that would not damage any known used data or important system files. It worked very stealthily to accomplish this feat and mask it as the single most common disk error, ever. I believe the expression used in this kind of context is "hanging on to a thread."

What I am saying, is that you are trying to use physical terms to explain the operations of something that is not physical.  That is a completely illogical association.
Let's pretend you are correct, absolutly.  By your reasoning, psychic forces (or whatever you like to call them) have no inherrent direction, so when they act upon a medium, they must also change everything else around it in accordance.  Is that a fair summary?  Take a look at this OBE study: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=31 (scroll down to the fourth night of the experiment).
Why did Miss Z not report seeing any of the people in the building?  Why was it just the numbers, and not the person who wrote them down, or the person who rolled them?  More importantly, why did Charles Tart not see her, as she was being monitored?  If she projected, and as you say, must mutually and inadvertently interact with the environment and everything connected to it (like a hard disk on a machine next to a monitor), then it should not be just the numbers and their position she reported.

In my case, the target location did seem to be affected, only not in the direct manner I had planned.  my target was the monitor, which was positioned next to the tower.  First, anything seen on the monitor HAS to come from the tower; and second, if a person could project and move their arms around through the monitor, then their "field" would have no choice but to come into contact with the tower.
There is no reason to deny this possibility, and your lack of academics are less than convincing to me.

As in, it would be best to omit facts?

AS IN... the story that Synergie published and YOU quoted is NOT exactly what happened, but one can still learn from it, if they choose.

I don't think your side of the story can be supported by the A++ guy's theory either, just because of the probability of it happening that way...

Basically, that coupled with your previous statement, what you are trying to say: is that both of us do not have the education to understand how a computer works, but you are right anyways, just because you say so.
Somehow, I do not find that very assuring, and I am going to listen to the person who actually has the experience in these matters.

I think you may miss the point, all together.  We are talking about a non-physical phenomenon interacting with a physical one.  There is absolutely no way to measure how it will behave, other than through observations and anecdotes, such as my own-- trying to explain how it works, by explaining how the target object works, is illogical.  Yes, if the etheric body is magnetic, then your interpretation is likely correct, but do not forget that even if it were, it is still possible to have the effect that was described, according to at least one source with whom I checked (I'd be open to other suggestions from people in that field of study).
I really dont like to speculate on these matters, so please do not confuse my side of the story as something that advocates the association between magnetism and ether.  What I am trying to get across, is that it is possible that ether has some behaviors like magnetism, while at the same time does not emulate it, so any effects, like the supposed one on my machine, can take place.
If my target was the same, and on the same day, some pots and pans fell out of the cupboard, in that instance I would not think there was any kind of connection.  Considering my intent and the target, I have to say that the error that suddenly turned up is too anomalous for me to ignore a metaphysical possibility.  One also should understand, that my life has been filled with more specific psychic events, so I have no hesitation considering the possibility if there is enough synchronicity between my actions and the physical events.  It is not like I am jumping at the chance to be included in something that has previously eluded me.

Synergie has the best intentions, so I hope her readers will learn to trust her, even if she misquotes or misinterprets a friend tells her.  She's not an impulsive person, so there is usually a lot of thought placed into the things she writes.
In the case of my story, and the case of how it actually happened, it would be best to look at the general theme.  (1) A synchronicity between an etheric projection, and a physical event; and (2) a possible similarity between ether and magnetism.  That is the sort of thing that one does not followed directly, but uses to ask further questions into such matters.

But on OBE message boards, it's become somewhat of an urban legend that people routinely mention and give actual weight to, because it was in the ebook and presented almost as solid fact.

Are you forgetting where you are?  This entire forum was created on the premise that Robert Bruce can project, and that his stories are true.  I do not see the distinction between how people view his, and how people view mine, other than we're different people.  In both cases, one might inflate the events to be something they are not, but certainly, you cant say there is no truth in anything any of us says because you were not there.
I agree, that how it is presented can be misleading.  The fact is that it happened; how one interprets that is another story.

It may also interest other to know that I am writing a book about etheric projection as a specific paradigm.  Content-wise, it is close to completion, but can not say when it will be published.  There in, I explain how ether has been connected to physical phenomena, and how etheric projections greatly vary from astral projections (supported by scientific and anthropological literature; not just my opinions).  My story about the memory loss is mentioned briefly, along with examples from other sources-- so I would not use my story on its own to make the case for the etheric body.
I always keep a copy of my bibliography handy, if anyone is interested in researching my sources.

Wow, this is a blast from the past.  I guess I should speak up and defend my name.
Kiwi, I vaguely remember your name, but I am going to have to correct you on a few points, because I think this time you are the one who is confused.

Firstly, it was the monitor that I was trying to affect, not the hard drive; however the two were situated next to each other.
Second, I was not the one who started the machine, and so I was not the person who would have ran any kind of disk scan.  It was actually my brother who started the machine, ran the error check, and told me that something was wrong that was not wrong the previous day.  Further, he had absolutely no clue about what I had done, or thought I had done, so there was no chance of meddling.  I did look at the amount of available memory on the C Drive, and he was correct, that there seemed to be a significant amount of memory "missing".
Thirdly, where do you get off telling someone they are confused about something that happened to them?  Obviously, I would not have a lot of information to give you, because it was not I that had checked for such an error on that day.  And, how often does that kind of synchronicity happen to you?  I think my attitude on the subject does not change the facts of that day.
How many "general errors" in Windows XP can cause that level of a disturbance (that can be noticed by casually looking at the memory allocation on the C Drive, or some other obvious means), and what is the frequency of their occurrence?  It seems to me, that even if I did not inadvertently affect the hard drive, the synchronicity between my OBE and the physical event seems like there is more evidence that something psychic occurred, then not at all (future selection for example).  I been using XP on other machines, and have yet to see something like that happen again.
None of us can be completely certain if what I said happened was what it seemed, however I have no doubt that sort of thing warrants further investigation, and is completely consistent with a psychical explanation.  The fact is, that the report of the memory loss and what I tried to do happened on the same date-- IF the etheric body is capable of EM disturbance, then that even IS consistent with such a hypothesis.

Oh... And I forgot to actually explain what happens when you put a magnet near a hard drive... Take out your hard drive, rub a magnet on it, and put it back into your computer. It'll work just fine, as if nothing happened. It's a hard drive... Not a VHS tape. If it did cause damage, the hard drive would be completely dead...

Does a hard disk not use electromangnetic forces to change data?  And if so, then if my hand did pass through it (which it did not), then how is some other physical shielding going to have any affect?  Recently, I spoke to a student of computer technology (A++ Certification), and he said that it is theoretically possible to change only a portion of the stored data if the "magnet" were very small-- he went on to say that the data would not be erased, but would flip random bits, not to mention the speed of the wipe relates to the amount of data lost.
I am not saying this to confirm or deny my interpretation of the facts, but you cant use that analogy to support one side or the other, because it can support either.