Whats Your Proof?

[Abraham]

Hi.

I have had several so-called "out of body experiences" and to me they seemed to be just dreams or hallucinations. Id like to know, do any of you have any solid proof that this is real? As far as I can see, you all discuss and debate about things you have little or no knowledge of, and make crazy assumptions off your hallucinations.

Tell me, where is the proof that astral projection is  a real phenomena? And if it is real, how often does someone actually have an "Experience" I read about a test conducted with "skilled"astral projectors guessing something in a separate room. And only a minority could give a description(of the objectS). So tell me, how many of you are befooling yourselves, and how many of you are actually having a real experience? In other words, where is your proof?

-Abraham

[magicmac2000]

Hi Abraham:
                  First of all, welcome to the board . I'm glad that say you "have had several out of body experiences" as you call them, but as you say, they seemed to be just dreams or hallucinations, so if you say that, I'm sure they were exactly that: dreams or hallucinations.
That does not mean that everyone experience is the same, for example, you can say that love is a kind of hallucination or something cultural based on your -very valid- experience and I can say that love really exists.
Tell me, do you believe in what ? In God ? In Darwin ? If you wanna start an "Intellectual Battle", there are plenty of sites out there claiming a lot of things, and I think those are better places if that's your attitude. Please, discard the idea -if you have it- that I'm an idiot trying to convince myself of something that is unreal. I already thought about that, but my experiences lead me to continue.

The problem, my friend is the way you asked the questions. I don't think too many people will have a burning desire to reply, because you made the questions wrong.

You will find here, a lot of people who say that these experiences are "REAL", others -like me- who say that they don't know and another group who say that these are Lucid Dreams or "Hallucinations".

Now I will speak just for myself: I'm an "Open Minded Guy". I'm searching and trying to find out if these experiences are "REAL" or not. If you check out the threads here, there are a few guys who are doing real experiments in order to find out. Yes, there is some proof. Where ? Well, here in this same board or in other boards.

The question is: do you believe when someone says that he was correct when he saw the random number in the other room ? Do you believe what Bruce Moen says when he bring to the real world proof that he contacted deceased ones ? You can believe it or not, but if you believe, it will just be no more than a Belief. Not too different from what Christian, Mormons, Islamics or Atheists believe. If you experience that and validate it, you don't have to believe anymore: you KNOW it's REAL.

So, instead of trying to find somebody to prove it to you, just do a few exercises before going to sleep and see what happens. Maybe you will end up thinking it's just crap, or maybe, you will find out there "there's something out there". No matter if it "Out of Body" or whatever you wanna call it, THERE'S SOMETHING OUT THERE.

How in the world do we feel the same sensations ?
What are those Vibrations and Noises that we feel ?
Hallucinations ? Yeah, but it's strange that we are making this up more or less the same way. There are "physical" sensations that are undeniable.

So, my friend, I can't reply to your question. Maybe you are right, but I will find out instead of believing.
By the way my friend, what are your beliefs ?

Cheers,
Magic.

[Tombo]

There are allready very long old threads discussing this, You might wanna look there cause likely the people do not wanna rewrite it all.

[The AlphaOmega]

Ah the good ol' proof argument.  The simplest and most basic reason for disbelieving.  Well all I can really say is this... my only goal is to prove it to myself.  Call it selfish, but this is a personal and individual journey for each of us, and I have no concern to other peoples beliefs on the matter.  Truthfully, in real life my friends and family don't even know I've had OBE.  It's just for my own growth.  And when people refute it and argue it's invalidity, I just smile and nod   !!

[Kazbadan]

There are allready very long old threads discussing this, You might wanna look there cause likely the people do not wanna rewrite it all.

Yes, there are many threads like Tombo says. Check this one:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

[qbeac]

Hi.

I have had several so-called "out of body experiences" and to me they seemed to be just dreams or hallucinations. Id like to know, do any of you have any solid proof that this is real? As far as I can see, you all discuss and debate about things you have little or no knowledge of, and make crazy assumptions off your hallucinations.

Tell me, where is the proof that astral projection is  a real phenomena?...(...)...

Hello Abraham, you ask the following question:

        "where is the proof that astral projection is a real phenomena?"

Well, in a Spanish Science forum called www.100cia.com, we have asked ourselves that same question, and we believe we have designed a method that could provide a conclusive answer for this question: are these experiences real or imaginary? We've named this method the "Agnostic Method."

You'll see more information about it in this other thread:

Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

... but besides the information you'll find in that link, I would like to clarify something important about this method:

The Agnostic Method consists of placing a target (Ex: two words taken at random from a dictionary) outside of the visual reach of the OBEr, and its theoretical strength is based on two important principles:

1) Let's place the target so that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the OBEr to see it using regular physical means (his five senses. And no cheating, of course).

2) Let's choose a target that is IMPOSSIBLE to be guessed by chance, or "mathematically impossible" to be guessed by chance (*1).

Ergo, if he can read those two words (only two simple words!!!), that means that we have found the "anomaly" we were looking for, because according to present scientific knowledge, what that person would do is IMPOSSIBLE, and specially if he repeats the experiment several times with positive results... but, please, bare in mind I am giving you a summary.

This is kind of similar to finding a new planet in a distance solar system, but not by watching it directly, but by watching how its mother star moves from on side to the other: they deduce that has to be caused by the gravitational pull of an unseen planet.

Please, take a look at Table 1, which has been reviewed by a professional mathematician named leach in a Spanish Science Forum (foro MIGUI):

Table 1: Probability of guessing by chance different types of random numbers:
http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119

Therefore, we believe this dilemma is quite simple to solve:

Question: How difficult is it to "guess" by chance two words taken at random from a dictionary?

Answer: According to Table 1, that's much, much, much, more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number (Ex: such as the Spanish Cupon de la ONCE, which is a five digits number. Ex: 78154), simply because there are so many words in a dictionary!

Question: What happens if you "guess" those words several times in a role?

Answer: The reliability of the Agnostic Method goes up EXPONENTIALLY!

And scientists know very well that mathematical calculations do not lie!

Take care. qbeac.

(*1) According to the professional mathematicians we have talked to, the reliability of the Agnostic Method is way above significant values regularly used in scientific and probabilistic calculations. So, that's great, because it would be a valid proof for the scientific community.

[knightlight]

define real.

[David Warner]

Abraham,

Here's a link to my ftp site full of material that I've been writing/narrating for the last 20years. Along with recent statistical data, personal verifications.  Also, read up on some of my threads about the card validation (also included in my ftp spreadsheet).

ftp://invisiblelight.us
    Id:    u38940520-guest
Pass:     astralplane

Magicmac2000 definitely hit home with proof vs. imaginary. It all comes down to "you" doing the work and finding out for yourself. Not to come of sounding rude, but this will not be handed to you on a silver platter. If you want to know if this is real, do the homework.

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18497
or
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19831&highlight=card+experiment


As of recently, I will start to work with a close friend on partner explorations. Our theory, tests, targets will take some time. To me, this would be the ultimate in validation. But again, this would be a personal validation that I can share with the AP community.

But in all honesty, something is definitely there (IMO).

btw: did you feel the vibes Abraham?


Tvos

[MindFreak]

I have proof. I went over an area of my neighborhood that I've never been and took notice of a red car in a persons driveway. I drove their right after and saw it.

[qbeac]

define real.

Hi knightlight, well, it is hard to explain what we mean by "real" without explaining first several other things. We have talked about this issue during around 9 months in the Spanish Science forum, so a lot of things have been said about it. And it would take a lot of work to translate everything. I could give you the main link where we have talked about what we consider "real" and "imaginary", which is this one:

- Post #198, pag.20. La Pantera Rosa jugando al tenis en el quirófano.
http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=35288#post35288

... but, since that's in Spanish, I am going to try to give you a very brief explanation, even though I run the risk of not explaining it correctly, so if I make mistakes, please, forgive me or lets talk about it in the next posts. Here it goes:

We could say that "real is the contrary of imaginary". But what is imaginary, then? Imaginary is any type of information which could be constructed by your own brain, or "inside" your own brain.

Your brain could trick you and make you believe you are seeing something which you are not really seeing (dreams, hallucinations, etc.). But there is a way to find out whether that information has been generated inside of your brain or outside of your brain.

And that's the key: to find out whether the information came from the inside of your brain or from the outside of your brain. How can we know that? How can we know where the information came from?

Well, let's place outside of your brain (outside of your physical visual sight) some visual information that we know what it is (Ex: two words taken at random from the dictionary), but you do not know what it is. Then, we make "mathematical calculations" to see which is the probability of you guessing those two words by pure chance.

We've made those calculations and you can see them in Table 1 (third post, pag. 1):
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

And the result is what I wrote in my previous post: According to Table 1, that's much, much, much, more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number (Ex: such as the Spanish Cupon de la ONCE, which is a five digits number. Ex: 78154), simply because there are so many words in a dictionary!

Therefore, we conclude that it is "mathematically impossible" for that information to come from the inside of your brain. So, if did not come from the inside, it had to come from outside of your brain.

If you do the experiment only one time, you could argue that you still may have guessed those two words by chance, even though that's much more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number, but it could be possible. But as you keep repeating the experiment several times, the probability goes up "exponentially", and that means it becomes "impossible" in practice (see Table 1 for more details).

That would be as if somebody could repeatedly guess different lottery numbers many, many, many times in a role, without ever missing one, and that has never been done, among other reasons because it goes against the law of mathematical probabilities (random numbers, statistic, etc.). So, the more you repeat this experiment with positive results, the more reliable the method becomes to distinguish whether the information came from inside of your brain or from outside of your brain.

At the same time, you would have a control group doing the same experiment (trying to guess the words, etc.). But the control group would not do Astral Projection nor Out of Body Experiences.

So, if there was not any thing special about OBE, the imagination of people who have an OBE should yield "similar mathematical results" trying to guess the random numbers as the imagination of the people who do not have an OBE (the control group).

But, if the "mathematical results" between the control group and the subjects doing OBEs are clearly different (significantly different), then you know that we have found an "anomaly" that should not be there, because the event (whatever it may be, OBE, remote vision...) contradicts current physical laws (see my previous post for further explanation).

I would like to add one more thing: This method will work if from the astral plane you could have "visual access" to the physical plane, or at least, to a very similar copy of the physical plane. If you can have that "visual access", the method will work because you will be able to see the "real physical words" and report on them. If you cannot neither see them correctly nor report on them, it will not work.

This has been a summary, maybe not too clear, but I hope you can get the general idea.

Un saludo, qbeac.

[qbeac]

Abraham,...(...)... It all comes down to "you" doing the work and finding out for yourself. Not to come of sounding rude, but this will not be handed to you on a silver platter. If you want to know if this is real, do the homework....(...)

As of recently, I will start to work with a close friend on partner explorations....(...)

Hi Tvos, you are right, this experiment could also be done between two people, and not just one (the projector). I mean that two friends could work together in partnership to do the same experiment (like you mention in your post). For example:

qbeac is the "projector" (whenever I learn how to do it .
Abraham is the "controller".

Abraham selects the two words taken at random from the dictionary and put the paper in his room (in his house). And he doesn't tell anybody which those two words are. Top secret!

During the night, qbeac has an OBE (AP) and goes to the room of Abraham to see the two words.

Next morning, qbeac writes an e-mail to Abraham, and tells him: the two words are, for instance, "nice" and "travel."

If qbeac is right once, that way Abraham will also have gotten strong evidence of these experiences being real without having to learn how to AP.

Further more, if they both repeat the experiment several times in a role with success, and according to the law of mathematical probabilities, Abraham will have gotten conclusive proof, and will have no doubt that these experiences are real.

Therefore, by following this method, people who can have OBEs (or AP), could provide conclusive proof of the real nature of their experiences to people (one or several ones) who still don't know how to have an OBE.

Un saludo, qbeac.

[jeremywiebenga]

Well ia m new to this site, so i will put in my 2 cents. Personally it is "real" for me because, when i had my first accident OBE, i had full view of the back of my head and others around me, all was happeneing in my OBE as it was happeneing for real.  Now i may have imagined it sure, but how many of you know what the back of your head looks like, personally i need a mirror;)

[qbeac]

Hi everybody, in the sixth post of the previous page I gave an example saying that detecting a real OBE "is kind of similar to finding a new planet in a distance solar system, but not by watching it directly, but by watching how its mother star moves from on side to the other: they deduce that has to be caused by the gravitational pull of an unseen planet." You cannot see them directly, but you know they are there because what they do around them!

Well, you will be able to see a very nice example in this link, but instead of detecting the gravitational pull between a planet and its mother star, in this case is between a star and a black hole:

NASA Astronomy picture of the day archives:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051023.html

At the Center of the Milky Way
Credit : Rainer Schödel (MPE) et al., NAOS-CONICA, ESO

Explanation: At the center of our Milky Way Galaxy lies a black hole with over 2 million times the mass of the Sun. Once a controversial claim, this astounding conclusion is now virtually inescapable and based on observations of stars orbiting very near the galactic center. Using one of the Paranal Observatory's very large telescopes and a sophisticated infrared camera, astronomers patiently followed the orbit of a particular star, designated S2, as it came within about 17 light-hours of the center of the Milky Way (about 3 times the radius of Pluto's orbit). Their results convincingly show that S2 is moving under the influence of the enormous gravity of an unseen object that must be extremely compact -- a supermassive black hole. This deep near-infrared image shows the crowded inner 2 light-years of the Milky Way with the exact position of the galactic center indicated by arrows. The ability to track stars so close to the galactic center can accurately measure the black hole's mass and perhaps even provide an unprecedented test of Einstein's theory of gravity as astronomers watch a star orbit a supermassive black hole.

[qbeac]

Hi everybody, let me give another example of what I meant in my previous posts when I said (regarding OBEs and guessing a random number by chance many times in a role), that, according to the law of mathematical probability, certain events are "mathematically impossible" to happen by chance.

Take a look at the link bellow about the grinding process of sand grains.

If you take, let's say, 10 kilograms of regular sand grains and shake them for a very long time so that they have the opportunity of grinding each other down, it is "mathematically impossible" that the majority of them will not end up having a round shape, because it is almost impossible (and in practice and in real life it is impossible) that most of them will escape the constant contact and wear caused by each other.

Same thing could happen with OBEs: if many of you can correctly "see" those two words many times in a role, it is mathematically impossible that we will not find the anomaly (considering everything that has already been said in these threads)... do you know what I mean?

Here is the link I was talking to you about:

NASA Astronomy picture of the day archives:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051024.html

Angular Sand on Martian Hills
Credit : Mars Exploration Rover Mission, JPL, NASA

Explanation: Why isn't this sand round? The robotic Spirit rover currently rolling across Mars has found notably angular sand in the Columbia Hills on Mars. Previously, small bits of sand found in the plains of Gusev Crater were significantly more round. The finding indicates that angular hill sand has tumbled less and likely traveled a shorter distance than the corresponding round plain sand. Such tumbling has the general effect of making sand and rocks increasingly round and with fewer sharp edges. Pictured above, as taken last month, are angular sand grains magnified by Spirit's Microscopic Imager. The above frame spans about three centimeters.

[qbeac]

Hi everybody,

So, let me give you my personal opinion about this matter. If you want to see an important change in the current situation concerning these types of experiences (OBE, AP), in which society in general shows so much scepticism and rejection against them (they think they are dreams, hallucinations, some people may even make fun of it, etc.), this is what I think you should do:

Please, as many of you as possible, try to read several times in a role those two words. Show your friends and family members what you are capable of doing.

If you can do it, I am pretty sure the situation will change, because scientists know that mathematical probabilistic calculations do not lie! And that's a very strong, powerful and convincing argument.

Do you think you could read those two words?

Un saludo, qbeac.

P.S. The arguments on this thread have been completed in this other thread:

Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0

Both threads go hand by hand.

[Tombo]

Hi qbeac

What if the results are mixed?

lets say my mother places the word "Bongo" but I read "Banjo"
From what I know so far most of the time it is not possible to read the correct word but it is sometimes the case the the Projector perceives a somehow related word/picture

Are you confidently that we can overcome this difficulties? have you already tested methods to do so?

Cu Tom

[qbeac]

Hi qbeac

What if the results are mixed?...(...)

Hi Tom,

Well, that's why I put the example of the sand grains, because maybe a few of the grains could escape some how the erosion process. That's very difficult in the long run, but it could be remotely possible. However, after many cycles, the majority of them will end up having a round shape. But if 100% of them do not have a round shape, that does not mean that the erosion process has not taken place. The erosion process did indeed take place.

How do they know the erosion process did take place? Answer: because a "mathematically significant" number of grains end up being round.

With OBEs the same thing happens. You may not "see" the right words 100% of the time. But if the overall results are high enough (Ex: 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%... etc.), and if those results are considerably higher than the control group's results (Ex: suppose their results are 1%, 2%, 3%... but no more than that), then you'll know we have found the anomaly.

In statistic you can calculate a lot of statistical values: mean average, standard deviation, distribution, variance, etc. That way, you can know if the overall results are significant or not according to the law of mathematical probability. And that gives you a very accurate picture of what's happening in real life.

The bigger the "sample" we have, the more reliable the results will be. Sample is a technical word in statistics. It means the amount of subjects you consider when calculating the statistical values. In our case, the sample will be the amount of persons who participate in this experiments and the number of times they will attempt to read the two words.

That's why it is so important that everybody who can have an OBE, practices reading those two words. This is a team effort! The more people who participate in it with positive results (not necessarily 100% accuracy), the highest the reliability of the method will be in the long run and the stronger the argument will be, specially in the eyes of the scientific community.

But, in order to increase the accuracy of reading the words, that's why we designed the hints to correctly read the words. And we would love for the people who practice OBEs, to tell us if those hints work properly or not.

Do you know what I mean?

Chao. qbeac.

[qbeac]

...Are you confidently that we can overcome this difficulties? have you already tested methods to do so?

Cu Tom

Hi Tom, we believe we can, but we are not totally sure yet. We are right now doing different tests and adjusting procedures and techniques. So far we have had partial results, but it is too early yet to reach to conclusions.

And that's why we would like for you to do the same thing we are doing, to see how you do when you try to do your own tests.

Bye. qbeac.

[qbeac]

Hi qbeac

What if the results are mixed?

lets say my mother places the word "Bongo" but I read "Banjo" ....

Hi Tom,

You ask what happens if "my mother places the word "Bongo" but I read "Banjo"?

We are not looking for an "all-nothing" or a "black-white" type of result. We are looking for a grey result which is as white as possible.

If the right word is "Bongo" and you read "Banjo", you have correctly guessed at least 3 letters out of 5: B, n, o ("Banjo"). We could take these types of results to the Mathematics forum, and see if they can calculate the probabilities of these types of mixed results. The result will not be 100% correct, but it will not be 100% wrong either.

Now then, the higher the accuracy we get, and the higher the number of people who participate in the experiment and can get accurate results, the better and more reliable the final overall results will be and, therefore, the more convincing they will be.

Chao. qbeac.

[qbeac]

Hi everybody,

It seems to me that the sand grains example taken from the NASA web site is a very appropriate one for this situation. Let me explain you why with an analogy:

Suppose we all have a little sand grain. Each person has one sand grain of its own. In that case, our mission will be one composed of two main tasks:

1) Each one of us needs to try to get its own sand grain as round as possible.

2) All of us need to get together with as many people as possible whom all have their own sand grains, to build a huge mountain of nice round sand grains.

Let me translate that:

To get the sand grain as round as possible means that each individual person needs to try to get the best possible results trying to read those two words correctly. That would be equivalent to the "coefficient of roundness" of each little sand grain. So, let's all try to get the grains "as round as possible." In other words, let's try to see those 2 words as correctly as possible.

To build a huge mountain of sand grains means that the more people who participate in the experiment, the "heavier" the argument will be. A "heavy" argument means a very strong, convincing, reliable and mathematically significant argument to present to our friends, relatives, society in general, and specially to the scientific community.

Do you know what I mean?

So, let's tell everybody about building together this big mountain of beautiful round sand grains.

Un abrazo. qbeac.

[qbeac]

Hello everybody,

Let's see one good reason why we should perhaps consider building together this big mountain of beautiful round sand grains:

The reason is because if Howard Storm's NDE account is true, then it is worth while trying to build that mountain. Now, do you believe his account could be true? I believe so.

Howard Storm's near-death experience
http://www.near-death.com/storm.html

The Therapy of Love
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/storm03.html

Brief excerpt:

My friends explained, quite clearly, that all it takes to make a change was one person. One person, trying, and then because of that, another person changing for the better. They said that the only way to change the world was to begin with one person. One will become two, which will become three, and so on. That's the only way to affect a major change.

I inquired as to where the world would be going in an optimistic future – one where some of the changes they desired were to take place. The image of the future that they gave me then, and it was their image, not one that I created, surprised me.

My image had previously been sort of like Star Wars, where everything was space age, plastics, and technology. The future that they showed me was almost no technology at all.

What everybody, absolutely everybody, in this euphoric future spent most of their time doing was raising children. The chief concern of people was children, and everybody considered children to be the most precious commodity in the world. And when a person became an adult, there was no sense of anxiety, nor hatred, nor competition. There was this enormous sense of trust and mutual respect.

If a person, in this view of the future, became disturbed, then the community of people all cared about the disturbed person falling away from the harmony of the group. Spiritually, through prayer and love, the others would elevate the afflicted person.

What people did with the rest of their time was that they gardened, with almost no physical effort. They showed me that plants, with prayer, would produce huge fruits and vegetables. People, in unison, could control the climate of the planet through prayer. Everybody would work with mutual trust – and the people would call the rain, when needed, and the sun to shine. Animals lived with people, in harmony.

People, in this best of all worlds, weren't interested in knowledge; they were interested in wisdom. This was because they were in a position where anything they needed to know, in the knowledge category, they could receive simply through prayer. Everything, to them, was solvable. They could do anything they wanted to do.

In this future, people had no wanderlust, because they could, spiritually, communicate with everyone else in the world. There was no need to go elsewhere. They were so engrossed with where they were and the people around them that they didn't have to go on vacation. Vacation from what? They were completely fulfilled and happy.

Death, in this world, was a time when the individual had experienced everything that he or she needed to experience. To die meant to lie down and let go; then the spirit would rise up, and the community would gather around. There would be a great rejoicing, because they all had insight into the heavenly realm, and the spirit would join with the angels that came down to meet it. They could see the spirit leave and knew that it was time for the spirit to move on; it had outgrown the need for growth in this world. Individuals who died had achieved all they were capable of in this world in terms of love, appreciation, understanding, and working in harmony with others.

The sense I got of this beautiful view of the world's future was as a garden, God's garden. And in this garden of the world, full of all beauty, were people. The people were born into this world to grow in their understanding of the Creator. Then to shed this skin, this shell, in the physical world, and to graduate and move up into heaven – there, to have a more intimate and growing relationship with God.

[BillionNamesofGod]

Well, the eternal question.


It's simple really, when you do have a real OBE there will no doubt in your mind that it is a OBE, not a dream or anything.

That simple really.


You don't need proof - you know you weren't in your body..


Of course to people who haven't experienced the OBE well, it's all just nonsense and just a dream right?

If you are doubting your experience it  * WAS NOT A OBE *.

[MisterJingo]

Well, the eternal question.


It's simple really, when you do have a real OBE there will no doubt in your mind that it is a OBE, not a dream or anything.

That simple really.


You don't need proof - you know you weren't in your body..


Of course to people who haven't experienced the OBE well, it's all just nonsense and just a dream right?

If you are doubting your experience it  * WAS NOT A OBE *.

I wouldn't totally agree with this. I have had many OBE's, even being seen by a third party in the physical who collaborated my actions and times during the projection. Yet I still have doubts to if I was actually 'outside' of my body, or that OBE is anything more than creative imagination. I am still looking for greater proofs.

Before anyone says I am lost for being so blind to my experiences, I would counter with that believing anything because it is preferable to alternatives (mind produced by the brain, death being oblivion etc) is just as blind.

I am exploring with a mind open to all possibilities and not limiting my experiences to a narrow belief system, as doing such a thing would dictate the direction of future experiences.

[BillionNamesofGod]

Well, the eternal question.


It's simple really, when you do have a real OBE there will no doubt in your mind that it is a OBE, not a dream or anything.

That simple really.


You don't need proof - you know you weren't in your body..


Of course to people who haven't experienced the OBE well, it's all just nonsense and just a dream right?

If you are doubting your experience it  * WAS NOT A OBE *.

I wouldn't totally agree with this. I have had many OBE's, even being seen by a third party in the physical who collaborated my actions and times during the projection. Yet I still have doubts to if I was actually 'outside' of my body, or that OBE is anything more than creative imagination. I am still looking for greater proofs.

Before anyone says I am lost for being so blind to my experiences, I would counter with that believing anything because it is preferable to alternatives (mind produced by the brain, death being oblivion etc) is just as blind.

I am exploring with a mind open to all possibilities and not limiting my experiences to a narrow belief system, as doing such a thing would dictate the direction of future experiences.

Well like I said, it's not a OBE then, remote viewing of clairvoyance or whatever, when you have a OBE you will damn know it. It honestly is that simple, you don't see people writing in books or offering proof - It just doesn't happen, it's a waste of time, it's the holy grail, which you'll never find because you are looking for a CUP when the holy grail is not a CUP.

And that's the magic about it.  When you do have a OBE, you won't need any Proof, or look for it.  Until you have a  OBE it's all nonsense really, pure nonsense, proving it is quite silly. No scientist would believe in any proof you have.

Heck scientists think Premonition and ESP is nonsense, never mind OBES!!!

So to answer your question is simple, very simple.


* YOU WILL NEVER HAVE PHYSICAL PROOF OR FIND PROOF ON EARTH*.

* STOP LOOKING *

You will only have proof "* IN YOURSELF * "  when you have  a true OBE.

.... and  *THAT'S ALL YOU NEED*.

so, start with expanding your mind and trying to expand your belief system. Start having more OBEs.  One will be real.

[Heather B.]

Tell me, where is the proof that astral projection is  a real phenomena? ... how many of you are befooling yourselves, and how many of you are actually having a real experience? In other words, where is your proof?

Well... My proof that my astral experiences are real is just the same as my proof that anything at any moment in time is real... I see them, feel them, hear them, interact physically with them, react emotionally and intellectually to them, remember them, cherish them, and learn from them.  They leave an indelible mark on me, and take up a permanent residences in my heart and mind.  Dreams, hallucinations, and imaginings don't retain such powerful presences in me (though they might in some).