Whats Your Proof?

[BillionNamesofGod]

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).

Thought you did a Frank Mrs. Murphy?

[Heather B.]

No, I've just been bogged down in mundane things.  But I'm fine.  Thanks for concern.

[hotshotrobot]

BillionNamesofGod:

I have to agree with Mr. Jingo on this. It seems to me like you need to open your mind to the negative possibilities, along with the positive.

1. The mind is a powerful thing. No one really knows what it is capable of, and to assume it is not capable of producing these effects is not a truth-seeking approach.

2. No one is saying that the experiences aren't real. The controversy comes from the nature of the reality of the event.

3. A lot of people rightfully wonder simply: Is a projection into the RTZ a projection into the actual physical world, or an elaborate copy of it?

4. If it is in fact the real physical world where the projections occur, there should be some simple test one can undergo to prove it, if not to the world, at least to oneself. The test would not be to test the reality of your experience, but rather the truth of the connection between the two states of reality.

5. Now, you'll probably want to say here that one doesn't need proof, that its just a self evident truth. The problem with this response is that intuition is fallible. No matter how strongly you feel you are projecting into the physical, it is still only a feeling. You can't be sure until you've brought some evidence back from the Astral state, that it does in fact correspond. If this is not possible, than it is purely an issue of faith, the way believing in God is. But there is no very simple, obvious test to prove the existence of God the way there is here. Therefore, it should be tested. People used to feel very strongly that the earth was flat, they said "Its obvious, just look how far out there you can see! It seems to go on forever!"

6. The 'Holy Grail :: CUP' analogy is an interesting one, but it ultimately  doesn't work. The proof of the astral/physical connection is not of the form 'abstract entity :: physical object' it is of the form 'astral body/physical object 1 :: physical body/physical object 1'. We are not blinded in the quest by looking for something the wrong way in the wrong place, all we want is a very simple correlation between the two situations.

7. Saying "No scientist would believe any proof you have" is also an unjust claim. There have been several scientific tests to determine the validity of OBE's. D. Scott Rogo has been involved in many experiments, and written lots about it. It is definitely empirically testable, and even if you showed a true scientist empirical evidence that you can make gold from pete moss and melted toasters, they'll be forced to believe it. They might want to test the hell out of it, but they'll accept it alright.

The point of my going on about this is that assumptions are a bad idea regardless of how sure you are about something. I'm not saying that you should be paranoid and distrust everything, but more that you should be open to all and every possibility as Mr.J suggests.

-Andrew

P.S.: don't tell anyone about the moss and toasters. that's my gig.

[qbeac]

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.

Hi MisterJingo, in my opinion, your position is quite reasonable: you simply would like to obtain solid proof because you are aware of the possibility that your brain could trick you some how and make you believe something is real when is not. Is that correct? Did I understand you correctly?

Some people say they don't need to see any proof because they are already sure, and that's good for them, but many others say they would like to see the proof.

So, let me ask you something: reading those two words taken at random from the dictionary (several times in a role) would be a good enough proof for you, or not? Please, what do you think? Could you comment on that?

Thanks. qbeac.

[qbeac]

BillionNamesofGod:

I have to agree with Mr. Jingo on this. It seems to me like you need to open your mind to the negative possibilities, along with the positive.

1. The mind is a powerful thing...(...)...

-Andrew

P.S.: don't tell anyone about the moss and toasters. that's my gig.

Hi hotshotrobot, I very much agree with everything you say, and specially with these sentences:

"...truth-seeking approach."

"Therefore, it should be tested. People used to feel very strongly that the earth was flat, they said "Its obvious, just look how far out there you can see! It seems to go on forever!"

"7. Saying "No scientist would believe any proof you have" is also an unjust claim."

I would even go further: to provide proof to others, even though you may be already sure of something, may be an act of generosity! That's how society has evolved through out history, when pioneers found new discoveries or treasures and then gave proof of them to other human beings, so that they too could also be certain those things were true and benefit from them.

There are millions of such examples in history, in which the discoveries found by a single person were presented and shared with the rest of humanity in order to produce a change for the better. For instance: Galileo when he spotted the planets that did not go around the Earth, or Einstien when he envisioned the Theory of Relativity, or The Wright brothers when they made their first airplane, etc., etc., etc.

And the same thing has happened in many other areas when somebody who had any type of talent decided to share it with the rest of humanity simply to enrich it with it, for instance: all literature treasures from notable writers: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Aristoteles, Platon, etc., etc., etc. or in music: Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc.

Had they kept their talents, and their findings, and their discoveries only for themselves, humanity may still live in the Dark Ages. So I want to thank them for their generosity because they opened a better path for all of us and have made our life better.

Un saludo, qbeac.

[MisterJingo]

Hi MisterJingo, in my opinion, your position is quite reasonable: you simply would like to obtain solid proof because you are aware of the possibility that your brain could trick you some how and make you believe something is real when is not. Is that correct? Did I understand you correctly?

Some people say they don't need to see any proof because they are already sure, and that's good for them, but many others say they would like to see the proof.

So, let me ask you something: reading those two words taken at random from the dictionary (several times in a role) would be a good enough proof for you, or not? Please, what do you think? Could you comment on that?

Thanks. qbeac.

Hi qbeac,
You are correct. But it is more than the fact that brain can trick a person into believing fallacies though (one only needs to look at false memory syndrome which has been proven to occur through hypnotic regression, and other research where false memories have been implanted in people by simply showing them doctored photographs of their childhood). My need for proof comes from the possibility that mind is the product of brain (which would mean AP is purely brain generated, and the afterlife is wishful thinking). As much as this idea is repulsive, there is still a lot of interesting research which shows how mind function can be attributed to specific areas of brain. If AP is what people claim, then it is one of the best ways to achieve proof that the mind is possibly independent of the brain.
Even people at the forefront of AP like Monroe stated many times that you shouldn't take a belief of what AP is until you have enough evidence to make it a known.
Billion names of God, I have been projecting since earliest childhood. My experiences have been intricate and consistent, yet this is not proof of what people claim AP to be. It shows I am experiencing states which seem to be outside the confines of my body. And during a lot of these projections my mind has been more brilliant and vibrant than in any waking state. I have literally been super aware, and the experience has been more 'real' than waking reality. I am a frequent LD'er so can distinguish between AP and LD. I have seen the 'silver cord' (although it's a faint luminous green to me). I have met gods and devils, been taken to the genesis of creation and the end of the world. I have been placed in a machine which let me perceive the entirety of creation etc. In general, during these experiences I have been shown a lot, but none prove that it is more than brain induced. Each experience starts with me entering trance, inducing the vibrations (which I feel might have something to do with DMT release and trance reduced sensory input increasing its effect), and then 'rolling' out. Usually sight is limited until I get around 6 feet away. I look around; I am in my bedroom as it looks in reality. And then I go explore. If such experiences do not meet the criteria of OBE, then I would say the vast majority of people who have ever projected have not actually OBE'd too.
I also do not believe that OBE is actually outside of the body. The brain cannot distinguish between imagination and sensory input of the 'external' world. Do a google for this information, experiments where people have increased muscle mass over that of a control group by simply visualisations of working out. Also we have to consider that what we see as external reality is actually mind generated. Sensory organs do not emit information; they suck it up into the brain. The brain generates a representation of what it perceives the information to mean (this is a fascinating area in itself, google how little information the eyes can actually perceive, and how much the brain adds to our visual world to 'fill it out'), and we exist within that representation. So anything you ever taste, touch, feel, see, or experience is actually a purely internal experience. We forever interact with a mind generated representation based on sensory information. I see going out of body as moving from one mind generated state (reality) to another (Astral).

I'm not sure what would constitute good enough proof qbeac, most philosophers rule out a solipsism view of realty on the grounds that we cannot truly tell if everything is mind generated or not, so we might as well act as if it isn't, and everyone else we see is actually a sentient being.  I guess proof for me would be to amass some data which holds up to scrutiny of others in the physical. I believe that if the AP state is real, and the energy, energy bodies etc are real too. Then at some point science will be able to detect them. It's easy to take something for ones self, say I believe and that is all that matters. But that is not enough for me. I have a scientific upbringing so perhaps that's where this desire originates

[qbeac]

Hi qbeac,
You are correct. But it is more than the fact that brain can trick a person into believing fallacies though ...(...)...

Hi MisterJingo,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The experiment we are proposing (reading two words taken at random from a regular dictionary) is one of the simplest one we can do which has a very high level of reliability according to the mathematical law of probabilistic calculations (statistics). In other words, its simplicity to reliability ratio is VERY high, or "mathematical reliability", if you prefer. Please, take a look at Table 1 of the Agnostic Method:

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

If the results were to be positive, then many other more sophisticated experiments may be done. For instance, with group astral travels, in which several people meet in the astral plane and exchange information. There are also several other types of more sophisticated experiments that could be considered using modern technological advances (all sort of sensors, particle accelerators, etc.), etc.

But the current experiment (the two words from the dictionary) would be a proof that the laws of physics are not working the way the scientific community think they are (in the year 2005). Let's put it this way: we would have found an important anomaly that should not be there. And that's indeed quite a BIG statement all by itself!

Seriously, after 9 moths debating this subject in depth in the Spanish Science forum (www.100cia.com) many people there consider that would be a very big anomaly, and therefore, a very big deal in modern science! And I do too.

If the results of the experiment were to be positive, this is what would happen: The target was in one place (Place A), the OBEer was in a remote place in relation to the target (Place B), and somehow they "met together". Did the OBEer get to the target or the target to the OBEer? Maybe they met "in between"? We don't know, but they certainly met, because before the experiment they were "separated" and now they are "together". Now the information is "inside" the brain (or mind) of the OBEer. Do you know what I mean?

In other words, that would be a good enough accomplishment "to begin with", in my personal opinion. That would imply, for instance, considering having to change or review current scientific textbooks concerning human consciousness! (Ex: psychiatric books, psychology books, neuroscience books, etc.)

However, for right now and with this first experiments we do not pretend to say that "OBEs as such are real" (meaning getting out of your body), but we do pretend to say that there was a transference of information from the target (the paper with the two words written on it) to the brain (or mind) of the OBEer which should not have happened, because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen according to current physical laws.

We must consider that the target has two characteristics:

1) It is "physically" IMPOSSIBLE to be seeing by the OBEer. It is totally out of his physical visual reach. And no tricks, no nothing. Artificial optical devices simply cannot do that.

2) It is "mathematically" IMPOSSIBLE to be guessed by chance (considering he repeats the experiment several times in a role with positive results. See Table 1 for more details).

Also, the results of the OBEer would be compared to the results of a control group who do not have an OBE, and we are just looking for "mathematically significant" differences in the probabilities of guessing by chance between the two groups. Do you know what I mean?

Un saludo. qbeac.

[qbeac]

Hi MisterJingo,

Please, let me ask you something. You say that you "have been projecting since earliest childhood. My experiences have been intricate and consistent....."

This is the question:

In your own personal experience, do you think it could be possible for an experienced projector to read those two words correctly at least a certain amount of times?

I don't mean "always", but some times, and with the hints to read them correctly that I explained in the Instructions of the Agnostic Method:

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

qbeac.

[qbeac]

....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....

Hi Tvos, if you start experimenting in collaboration with your friend, I suggest you do something:

Include a "control group" in your experiments. That's quite simple:

All you have to do is to talk to some other friends of yours who do not know how to AP and ask them that every time your friend (the controller) changes the two words for a new experiment (or what ever random number you decide to use, cards, digits, etc.), they, your friends from the control group, should also choose their own words to see if they guess or not.

When each of the experiments is over, you should compare the results you get with the results the persons in the control group get. Then we could analyze the data in the Math forum and see if the results are mathematically significant or not from a statistical analysis point of view.

Please, what do you think?

Un saludo, qbeac.

[MisterJingo]

Hi MisterJingo,

Please, let me ask you something. You say that you "have been projecting since earliest childhood. My experiences have been intricate and consistent....."

This is the question:

In your own personal experience, do you think it could be possible for an experienced projector to read those two words correctly at least a certain amount of times?

I don't mean "always", but some times, and with the hints to read them correctly that I explained in the Instructions of the Agnostic Method:

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

qbeac.

If Ap can really take place in the physical, then there is no reason why those words cannot be read successfully. From all the studies I have read regarding trying to get proof in the physical, the participants cannot find the cards, cannot read the cards or simply read them wrong. My experience of RTZ projections is that the similarity to reality is superficial, and one soon finds discrepancies. The longer spent in the RTZ the more distorted reality become until it bears no resemblance.

Something I have noticed time and time again is that if I'm OBE in an area that I am familiar with and I fly above the roof tops, then everything usually changes. It seems that I have no waking day knowledge of a roof top scene, even though I have knowledge of the area from the ground level. So the mind/brain generates a roof top scene which bears little to no resemblance of what that area actually looks like.
Other OBE authors have talked about this phenomena, it seems the mind can only interpret the astral within the confines of knowledge it already posses. So if something outside of our experience is encountered, it is interpreted in the best way possible – (which explains why people can interpret astral beings as angles, energy people, gnomes, elves, greys etc).
With the astral experience being so subjective, any attempt at gaining empirical evidence is going to be tough.

[qbeac]

If Ap can really take place in the physical, then there is no reason why those words cannot be read successfully....(...)...

Hi MisterJingo, it is very interesting indeed what you explain. However, I wonder if what you say applies to every case and every person or not. I mean, are there any people out there who may have a high enough degree of control during their APs, so that they would be able to "hold up" the physical scenario long enough as to read the correct words, or not? And I don't mean "every time" or 100%, but at least "some times", 40%, 50%, 60%...?

In other words, is having good or bad control over your APs just a matter of expertise, or a matter of practicing with it, or not?

Is it possible at all, at least for some people, to "mentally" (or some how) challenge the physical scenario so that you can look at it from the astral plane and it is not distorted, or not? (or at least "too distorted")

Thanks. qbeac.

P.S. If anybody would like to learn more about the Agnostic Method (AM) to verify if AP are real or imaginary experiences, this is the link (look for the instructions of the AM and Table 1 in pag. 1):

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

[David Warner]

Qbeac,

What I can tell you from my ap experiences and research is that reading numbers, letters, or words is not that difficult. I've had many successful times where I've seen the word, or number remain static and other times dynamic. Not speaking for the others on the board, a majority of the people in AP are just beginning out which would be unfair to judge. But people like Frank, Major Tom, Me and among others have been successful.

From what I can tell you is that it takes a great amount of energy, patience, desire to pursue this. If the projectionist doesn't want to spend his or her time pursuing this - that's fine too. I also ask you to give it more experiences to really draw a conclusion if real or not. You have to be subjective at the same time objective.

Dig deep into ap and start working on your own experiences and see where it takes you.

I've also opened up my ftp site for research of my journals, experiences, for the last 20years. Feel free to indulge and explore.


ftp://invisiblelight.us
    Id:     u38940520-guest
Pass:     astral-plane

Thank You,

Tvos

[AmericanIdiot]

In response to the very first post in this topic:
 Where's your proof that it isn't real? Bring it. :smiling9:

[Mendel]

Hey all,

My proof:

http://www.mysticalexplorer.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

Not perfect. Not double-blind. Lots of fun, though.

BTW, if anybody is interested in a free "psychic inspection"
send me an email. The purpose of these P.I.'s are to
improve my ability to locate others, validate my experiences,
but not to be a psychic in the traditional sense, i.e. offering
advice, etc.

-mike

[qbeac]

Hi Tvos, thanks a lot for your explanations. Yes, as you say, my intention is to remain impartial and to be patient (because I understand these things may take its time). I also have the desire to pursue the truth behind this matter. I also want to learn how to do it myself, but this may take its time too, so, in the meantime I'd appreciate very much your inputs and opinions.

Well, I see here two distinct opinions:

MisterJingo says: "...any attempt at gaining empirical evidence is going to be tough."

Tvos says: "...reading numbers, letters, or words is not that difficult."

My question to MisterJingo: you say it will be tough, but will it be possible? (Meaning by "possible": Is there anybody who is capable of doing it?)

My question to Tvos: you say it is not that difficult, but will it be possible? (Meaning by "possible": Is it possible to look at a good "copy" of the physical plane from the astral plane and seeing without too much distortion what's in the physical plane, or to see with a reasonable degree of accuracy the "real" objects in the physical plane? Is that possible? Is that easy? Why yes or why not?)

Well, that ended up being the same question for both of you  ... but they mean different things in each case.

In my opinion, it all depends on whether or not it is possible to "hold up" long enough a "real" physical scenario so that the two "real words" are not distorted (or badly distorted) and you can read them correctly. Also, we must underline that the two words are a physical scenario that "you did not know previous to your AP". Is it possible then to see them correctly? I say this because of what MisterJingo explains about the mind/brain being capable of generating a "non real" scenario (such as the roof top).

So, in the case of the two words from the dictionary, your brain will not be capable of fabricating the two "real words" (by imagining them, guessing them, etc.). Either you see them or you don't.

MisterJingo, Tvos, please, do you think it is possible to read correctly the "real" words?

Thanks. qbeac.

P.S. Hi Mendel, yes I am interested in what you explain, but I ask you the same question: do you think it will be possible to read the two "real" words?

[Mendel]

Qbeac,

I don't think I could read two physical words
a 1000 miles away, based on my experiments.
But other projectors may be capable of this.

The general sense I have been getting from OBE'ing
to visit other people is that I'm not actually travelling
to their physical locales but instead to their dream locales.
A funny way to put it - I am travelling inside their head.

One way we could theorize this is that a part of
us, maybe many of our thoughts, visualizations
of the the way places look, and our dreams
exist in a different dimensional plane, that any
traveler can traverse. This is still is a really cool
aberration of conventional psychological thought.

Some of my earlier experiences in OBE'ing were
more "physical" in nature. Like seeing the rafters
in my apartment's roof,  feeling the material
under the carpet, or putting my hand inside
different objects to feel their inner texture.
Alas, as I moved farther from my
sleeping body, the reality distortions tended to kick in.

So the experiment I'd like to perform now is thought
transferrence in the OBE state similar to partnered
exploration (PE) with Tvos. Many people have successfully
performed PE's. It's a common occurrence at
the Monroe Institute's programs. But like we advise
everybody else, we've got to do for ourselves to believe
it.

-mike

[David Warner]

Qbeac,

Reading numbers, letters is not difficult. Looking from the astral plane to the physical plane there will be traces of the past,present, future. If you read up on my card experiments and review my journal notes/narrations of other experiences I am sure that you can draw conclusions.

Seeing both planes at the same time is always there and validations come in different ways. Ex: I was totally focused on proving my card experiment when I projected. Sure I was able to validate 2 cards but the other cards didn't validate. But what did happen is that I had a precognition of my mom going into the hospital and another event where it rained that day in my city. I had no knowledge period of these events taking place prior. So seeing into the astral to the physical definitely gave me that validation.

Tvos

[Tombo]

Hi Qbeac,

You asked whether I considered it to be possible (in pm).

It ought to be possible, although it seems to depend on the psychological make-up of the person doing the "projecting".

First and foremost, the connection between the environment and the OBE environment is atmospheric.

It is atmospheric because perceiving objects or words in an OBE environment have to be processed through the psychological space of the person doing the perceiving.

So for example, a person who embarks upon the task of reading a card or two words will perceive something that is either an exact replica of what is there (the least likely possibility), or he/she will perceive something related to the task and objects.

For the sake of giving a clarifying example let's say the words is "hell's kitchen".   It takes little imagination to see where things may go wrong in trying to perceive these words, and it all depends on the psychological make-up of the person what is actually experienced.

A person with an affinity to the city of new york may find him/herself in the location of hell's kitchen. A person preoccupied with darker aspects of OBEs may find him/herself in a hellish environment. A person watching to many television shows may find himself talking to hollywood celebreties.

All these are "hits" that cannot be appropriately quantified through normal scientific means.

So why does psychological make-up have such an effect on perception? The simple reason is that perception in real life in largely psychological. After all, no such thing as "two words" exists in real life. The reading and perception of the words is largely psychological already. The physical/sensory component of the words is totally meaningless (consiting of some lines on a piece of paper).

So everything is psychological space, which leads to all kinds of difficulties, since there is no actual reality against which things can be measured nor seperated from the observer either in real life or while OBE.

Yet, hits with "perfect" correspondence do seem to be possible. At least, there is some anecdotal evidence that those who experience it will have difficulty dismissing (scientific or not). Also, all these instances of  atmospheric correspondence do seem to pile rather quickly when OBEing that are difficult to categorize under "coincidence".

What you would probably need is an OBEer whose psychological make-up is extremely orietented towards normal consensus reality, and will have the tendency to perceive an object directly, rather than its greater atmospheric reality.

Now, that may very well be impossible!  

Mayor Tom you give a very good explanation and seem to have a lot of insight into this matter. At least as far as I can tell my own experience points in the same direction as you explain.

Now, I wonder how one could set up a validation experiment that would bypass these difficulties. You know, some kind of experimental setup that would allow validation for most people, something that would maybe even take advantage of these atmospheric conditions. I have no idea yet, though. Do you have any Idea how that could work?

[skropenfield]

Here some extracts from Hector Durville never published in english. :naughty: Hector Durville LE FANTŌME DES VIVANTS, Recherches expérimentales sur le dédoublement des corps, Anatomie et Physiologie de l'āme, Lieu d'édition: Paris, Date: 1912, A Paris Librairie du Magnétisme 1909.                                                                            V. — Proofs of real presence of a phantom in a place occupied by him.

I. Sensitivity of a phantom. II-. His action on witnesses. — III. His action on screens with sulphurous calcium.

Clairvoyants see the (etheric) phantom, all the more strongly and developed their clairvoyance ability is. Strong clairvoyants perfectly see him, distinguish his features, movements, and efforts, even changes in appearance. The phantom shines with very bright light, which covers almost all room, with distinctive colors, blue on the right side, orange on left. Average force clairvoyants see him as incomplete human form; he is brilliant, but color shades are hardly appreciable. Weak clairvoyants see only foggy form, albesent or grayish. Many witnesses, not clairvoyants, meet both frequently appearing and disappearing light and light jets, which, by words of clairvoyants, the phantom emits. But there are witnesses who positively see nothing and always would doubt at the presence of a phantom of place really occupied by him, if there were not the possibility of an objective check. It exist a lot of these ways; I shall state some.
I. — Sensitivity of phantom. — In the second chapter it has been told, that the phantom is extremely sensitive also; the slightest touch is reflected in the (physical) subject, sometimes even rather painful (unhealthy). This sensitivity enables to check up always, whether there is a phantom where he should be.
Let's assume that by sufficient illumination a well condensed phantom sits in an armchair put for him on the left side of the subject.
If we approach too close to armchair, it is possible to touch his leg(foot), to step  him on legs(foots) and to cause bigger or smaller pain which is reflected in the subject, who selects legs(foots), worries and complains. Stretching a hand to the top part of phantom body, make the same action on the subject. If we cautiously lead a hand around of phantom, it is possible to determine the place occupied by him. In darkness it is necessary to only hold the subject by hand and you will feel his concussion at each touch to a phantom. Acting thus, it is possible to check up always, whether really there is a phantom in that place where it has been sent?
It happens sometimes, that a phantom goes far away. If it is impossible to know exact place where it has left- it is always possible to find out the direction to this place on sensitivity of the cord connecting him with the subject. You place yourself near the subject, cautiously lifting and lowering the extended hand, on this or that point of space it is possible to touch a cord and the unpleasant sensation of this touch will be felt by the subject. The direction of a cord will show, on what side there is a phantom.
II. — Action of a phantom on witnesses. — When witnesses approach to a phantom or he approaches to witnesses, 9 from 10 persons feel his presence by sensation of freshness which covers them and soon disappears after his departure. The same people clearly feel something like a whiff, a little bit similar to as what you feel in front of electrostatic machine in movement. When the phantom can stay from 6 till 8 minutes before witnesses in one end of a cabinet it seems to the last, that in this part of room it's becoming appreciable more coldly. Few persons, who are not feeling this, have other impressions. So at approximation of a phantom, in particularly if the last stay before him 40 — 50 seconds. Dubo feels humidity on hands, especially on the ends of fingers. If the touch proceeds longer, humidity reaches the top part of body. Others feel easy trembling, something in a sort of shudder which, not being unpleasant, involuntarily amazes.
If you approach to a phantom, not touching him and omit then a hand in him, the hand is covered quickly with sensation of freshness or humidity. If you have a look in darkness at a hand, preformed a little bit (some minutes) in a phantom, it frequently seems slightly luminous, especially on the ends of fingers.
Here we deal with sensitivity of a phantom who makes sometimes dangerous and rather difficult experiences. There are witnesses who, eternally doubting the presence of a phantom, constantly demand, that the phantom was sent to them, and they prick or cut the phantom by hand. The subject shouts from pain, and the phantom leaves, not wishing more to be exposed to similar troubles.
The witnesses possessing some degree of clairvoyance feel more or less strongly touches of a phantom, especially if the last makes some pressure. I shall result only the following examples:
1. — on November, 6, 1907, 5 o'clock in the evening, in darkness, at the presence of Mrs. Steel and Fourier, Dubo and Bonn. The last near my desk, near to Steel.
I mentally express desire that phantom Edme goes to declare his presence only to two ladies. The last by turn declare that they feel presence of a phantom, an usual impression of freshness. In some minutes after the phantom has left the ladies, Bonn has complained on strong heat in head, unusual for him. — « I am exhausted, — he speaks. — under weight which presses me: blood flows to head and I choke ». The subject speaks at this time, that the phantom has climbed up my table, behind Bonn, has bent above the head of the last and has compressed it as in a vice. I order to phantom to return at place and we put on the light in room. The person Bonn is very flushed, hot head, hands damp, and the look shows deep depression. — « it is directly amazing, — he speaks, — some minutes prior to pressing of my head by phantom I thought, that the subject wants to deceive us ».
I do not enter into analysis of this unexpected case and I give the reader his own reflections.
2. — on January, 12, 1909, 9 o'clock in the evening. In darkness I make splitting by test person Jane in the presence of my son Gaston, without the conceived program. Enters Falck. We turn on a pocket electric lantern; he sits down near Gaston.
After carrying out of splitting phenomena I suggest Falck to rise and I send a phantom to him with an order to put the right hand on Falcks forehead and strongly press. The phantom goes. The witness sees how he approaches to him, lifts the right hand and hardly puts her on forehead. He feels a cold hand on forehead. In total it is more interesting that he sees details which we could not assume. — « the Hand is very brilliant, —he speaks: — I see even three rings on fingers: one on little finger, another on ring finger and the third on index. Diamond on the second ring is large and long".We put on the light and examine the hand of the subject. The indication of Falck was true. Lulling the subject, I have not noticed rings on his fingers that excludes an opportunity of mental suggestion; the clairvoyant did not know about presence of them as he has come in a dark room, not having examined even the subject.
We shall see further, that the phantom can act on witnesses still differently.
III. — Action of a phantom on sulphurous calcium. — The Phantom of some subjects allocates N rays rather plenty, what covers phosphorescence screens with remarkable image.
For people unfamiliar with last discoveries in physics, I allow me some indications on these new beams.
In the beginning of 1903. René Prosper Blondlot, the professor of physics at University in Nancy, studying rays X which do not refract, has noticed rays refracting. Soon he has discovered that these rays are independent of rays X, and characteristic property of them consists in increase in light emitting.
It is a lot of these rays in light of sun which is the main source of them. We find them also in light of electric lamp with the new glass cylinder, in human body as it have proved Augustin Charpontier, another professor in Nancy, and in some forces of the nature as other observers have proved. Professors in Nancy have named these new rays which increase shine of small fire, N rays, discovered in Nancy.
Practice has shown that it is possible to replace with advantage small fire with screen from a black paper on which it is necessary to impose preliminary sulphurous calcium, and the screen should be exposed for some minutes on light of the sun. Such screen is stored in darkness, in a dry place. Use it in full or at least relative darkness, and the screen becomes phosphorescent if you approach to it any source of N rays.
So, for example, in the darkness, sustained 5 — 6 days on the sun the screen becomes completely dark. But if you approach it some millimeters on the ends of fingers- against them on it more or less clearly will be designated a stain.
With these screens I made the most part of the experiences with phantoms and the following phenomenon has strongly struck me from the very beginning, together with everyone who saw it. As I spoke more than once, the body of the subject does not show any activity; property, which it possessed in a normal condition, — to cover screens, completely disappears; the phantom remote from a body possesses this property in extremely high degree. To some examples.
1. — on December, 17, 1907, 9 o'clock in the evening, in darkness, at presence of. M.Francois and. M.Sigon, professors of the Bruxel University.
I make separating of Mrs. Francois and I put near myself three small screens from the book: «N Rays » Blondlot, sustained 4 — 5 days on the sun and kept in darkness.
After several experiments of perception(recognition) of sounds and smells from a phantom I take two screens and I show their to witnesses who ascertain, that they are completely dark; I put one screen on lap to the subject, and another in a phantom sitting in an armchair, put for him on the left side of the subject.
The screen in a phantom is quickly glowing, and this laying in lap of the subject remains completely dark. In some minutes I take both screens and I show these to witnesses who are surprised very much with this phenomenon. Then I take the screen lying in lap of the subject, and I place it in a phantom. It is immediately  glowing, as well as the first. I again show both screens to witnesses who find their covered enough that it was easily possible to perceive a stain of sulphurous calcium on distance of meter.
Then I take the third screen, not former even in use, and I hold it 2--3 minutes on stomach of the subject without the slightest gleam of light, then I omit it in  phantom, and it is strongly covered. Witnesses certify, that it is so glowing, that one of them by means of its light sees on clock, what is the time.
2. — on November, 11, 1907, 6 o'clock in the evening, in darkness. Witnesses: Mrs. Steel and Fournier, the doctor dе-Saint Martin, Groh and Dubo.I make separating on Edme and I take two screens from the previous experiment preliminary sustained on the sun, now completely dark. I send one of screens to the doctor de-Saint Martin who must present it at known moment to a phantom who I shall send to him with the purpose of check — whether there will be an illumination. Other screen I hold 2 — 3 minutes in lap of the subject, but it is not shining. Then I put it at armchair in which the phantom sits. Through 30 — 40 seconds it is so strongly glowing, that all witnesses on distance at least 3,50 m. clearly see horizontal and vertical lines of specks. One of witnesses approaches on distance of 1 meter and can count all brilliant stains.
Having certified it, I send a phantom to the doctor who presents the screen that he holds in hand. Last is glowing, but in very weak degree.Light collected in screens is rather brightly printed on sensitive photo plates, even on completely weak.
I wanted to check up, whether the screens covered by a phantom are better printed on a (photo)plate, than those not influenced by action of a phantom I have taken two screens with sulphurous calcium, approximately identical size, sustained on the sun 2½ days, which in darkness were dark. I have put a sensitive plate in the open book; on the prepared side I have put the dark screen and the screen covered by a phantom, then I closed the book. After 10 — 12 minutes I have a plate which has given me a print represented on fig.
Though the difference on a plate is not so great, as I expected, nevertheless it is possible to notice, that the screen which has been covered by a phantom, have left appreciably more brilliant image than the other.

III.  Action of a phantom on his own body.

I. Our feelings, our sensations. — II. Sight. — III. Hearing. — IV. Sense of smell. — V. Taste. — VI. Touch.

I. — our feelings, our sensations. — A person has five senses: sight, hearing, sense of smell, taste and touch.
The philosophy teaches, that the sensation is impression of objects which soul perceives trough feelings.
The physiology shows that the sensation divide in impression, transfer and an identification. The impression is made on sense organs; it is transferred by nerves, carrying out this function, in the nervous center of body where, with assistance of reason, the identification is made. So, the eye collects light impressions. The ray of light has struck in it, the retina has received this impression which is transferred by an optic nerve in the brain center of body and is transformed there in feeling. Just during this moment we learn an object which was embodied in our sight. Other sense organs operate in the same way.
The physiology examines this phenomenon only from materialistic point of view, not recognizing the mental reason which seems to it a superfluous handicap. The philosophy puts forward soul, but explains the mechanism of his action insufficiently. The theosophy goes further giving us rather exact details, but poorly based, however, on proofs.
« Forces of idea, movement, sensitivity, — speaks Annie Besant, — are not contained in nervous substance. These are ways of action of "I" working in more internal bodies ». (« L'homme et ses corps » — the Man and his bodies).
« That what you name "color", — asserts Chettergy, — is an action of vibrations on your retina environment. These vibrations are transferred by an optic nerve in a brain, and from brain in a hyperphysical or astral body. From astral transfer goes in thinking centers and then you see a object. Hence, this easy influence on the retina environment, transferred to a nerve and a brain, then in astral and at last in thinking. (« Philisophie esoterique de l'Inde » — Secret philosophy of India, page 28).
Actually, who have sensations- physical body or invisible body who revives the seen body?
Experiences prove to us, that the first is the instrument, which the second uses, so to be expressed, and that all sensations are really felt by this body. I shall prove it by means of separating of physical body and his double, separated from each other and investigated separately.
At the doubled person all physical feelings are completely destroyed; he sees nothing with physical eyes, does not hear, does not smell a smell, does not feel taste; touch does not exist for him because he does not feel a touch. All impressions are perceived by the separate senses which have been carried away by a phantom with self.
For all subjects the phantom is all-person, and the physical body is only the instrument, the tool given to him by nature, that he could be expressed physically. « The phantom is I, — speak Leontina, — a physical body — an empty bag ». « The double is I, — asserts Jane, — I do not know, that such body, but it not I ».
Edme gives on this question rather picturesque description, answering the questions suggested by me: « the Body which you touch, — she, — speaks simply in place of another. My entire person in a brilliant essence. It thinks, knows, operates; it transfers to physical body everything, that I speak to you ».
— How can we name this brilliant essence?
— The name is not necessary; it is Edme, it is I; if you want, call him Edme.
— It is necessary to distinguish him however from the other. You agree to name it аstral, a phantom, the double as it is your double?
— No, no! Merely not аastral. Name it double, how you wish; but not the double, because it is I.
Asked on the other session, she has again declared that the physical body feels nothing, sees nothing, and that all impressions are transferred to him by the double through a cord connecting them. « Touch the double, — she speaks, — the impression of a touch strikes in physical brain, and the sensation is reflected in it. When we talk, you believe that my physical body hears because it answers; but it is not true. It hears nothing; the double hears. The question and the answer are transferred by a cord in physical brain, as though movement, through something vibrating. The double sees also, and sight is transferred to physical body by movement, as though electricity forcing physical brain to vibrate and then the brain sees what the double sees. All impressions received by the double, are transferred in the brain centers, but these centers see nothing in themselves ».
This statement makes true revelation whose importance will draw attention of the reader. It should be developed and explained. A while I shall speak nothing, but in process of statement of the supervision collected by me I shall introduce some explanations which will finally demonstrate it in all its surprising simplicity.
Experiences prove up to evidence, that the phantom carries away with itself feelings and reason of the subject which has presented dwelling, and the present true body is an etheric body, instead of a physical.
The phantom directly receives impressions through sense organs. Transfer is made by special conductors to the astral centers where feeling occurs. The received sensation is transferred to body of the subject by a cord, nerves transfer it then in the brain center of body, and it is expressed physically, as though by reflection. The hearing of a phantom directly receives vibrations of words, but he can receive also them from physical body. When we speak with the last, it hears and understands as though, as answers, but actually it hears nothing, also understands nothing. Sound waves, however, are felt, but they do not make any impression on this upset tool, which has no more hearing to hear, and reason to understand. Sound waves are transferred by a cord to phantom who is the soul which feels, transforms feeling into sensation, formulates the answer in vibration, transfers these vibrations by consecutive waves to physical body which expresses them, i.e. answers them, physically — it was necessary to tell automatically — by organs of voice.
Observing these facts, you notice soon, that feelings are considerably more advanced at the doubled subject, i.e. at a phantom, that at the normal person because in the first there is no organic resistance which they find in the second.
Impressions of hearing are made not only on ear, but also on affinity of all parts of phantom body. The dwelling of sight not always happens in eyes of a phantom. Some subjects clairvoyants see the fine things, represented to a phantom, with this part, witch see in a condition of sleep-walking. Frequently impressions of sight are made with belly, a forehead, a nape, and the ends of fingers. Subjects not clairvoyants do not see in general things shown to him. Realization of other feelings is made by astral bodies just as are made  by physical when the subject lies in a normal condition.
If the present true dwelling of feelings lies not in a physical body, blind and deaf should see and hear in known conditions,  if even their bodies were unable to perceive impressions.
I have absolute confidence, that it is so indeed, and that in separation blind sees, the deaf person hears, also insensible feels a touch. I have had not the opportunity to study this phenomenon which I only for a moment observed as I still yet did not meet clairvoyant subjects of deaf persons, blind and at all not feeling a touch. But I shall take advantage of a case if it will be presented, and I hope, that in the following editions of the present book there will be overview of this sort.
Touch of hysterical subjects proves this to me; insensible parts in a normal condition are made sensitive in separation. However, Reichenbach already observed something similar. He experimented in a dark room with blind (strong clairvoyant) who saw оdon radiations allocated by people and even by metal objects taking place there.
Here it is necessary to make an important remark. The phantom operates, as a physical body in a normal condition. It is known, that we perceive better impressions when our attention is directed to them. So, we see, we hear, we try, we distinguish smells better when we look, we listen and we smell. The same happens with a phantom who sees, hears, and smells better when we suggest him to pay attention to impression which he should test.
After those a little long, but necessary forewords, necessary for clear understanding of the amazing phenomena of separation, I shall present to the reader the main overview collected by me about each of feelings, stating them approximately similarly as collecting them. III. — Hearing. — Hearing — the most subtle and most gentle sense organ at a phantom. He is capable to perceive sounds on much greater distance, that usually does make a physical body even at the greatest attention. Without exception doubled subjects perfectly hear all, when the body hears nothing. Some overview which I state by way of collecting them.
1. — on the beginning of my experiences since André, Marta is doubled; her phantom sits in an armchair on its left side on distance of meter. I bring watch to a part of the phantom corresponding to his left ear. Marta clearly hears ticking. I put watch to a nape, to belly areas, to legs(foots) of a phantom, — she continues to hear. I put gradually watch to an external aperture of ears of the subject, to a nape, belly and to legs(foots) of the subject — she hears nothing. Experience repeated with the same subject in different conditions, always yielded the same results.
2. — Phantom Edme hears watch, the same as phantom Marta; he hears also a rustle of a thin paper, which is crumbled.
Wanting to find out, whether can he hear from other room, if to speak to him silently, I have taken following measures: I have put a chair in the middle halls of assemblies « Маgn. Societies », also I has suggested to Mrs. Steel to rise from his chair during time specified by me and very silently speak to a phantom which I shall send here from the cabinet. Mrs. Furnier will be placed in a corridor, dividing two rooms, near a window to see the subject and me in cabinet, and also movements and gestures of Mrs. Steel.
I make separation on the subject (Edme) and when the phantom appears condensed enough, I send him to hall to sit on the chair prepared for him. Mrs. Steel and Furnier on the places. Edme complains at first, that Mrs. Steel touches she, that for she it is rather unpleasant. She hears, how it is spoken, but as she is weakened, she does not understand, what is spoken. I ask she to pay all attention to hearing, and I ask Mrs. Steel to repeat, what is spoken: — « she gives me advice and asks to be quiet ».
The subject is very tired, weakened; I send the phantom back on his place. Mrs. Steel declares to us, what she has told to phantom: « I'm here; you hear me? Be quiet and be not nervous ». These words have been made so silently, that Mrs. Furnier sitting in three meters of distance did not hear any word.
3. — Phantom Leontine hears very clearly ticking of watch, and physical body, despite of verbal suggestion, does not hear. We are in semidarkness.
I pass the watch to doctor de-Saint Martin and I ask him imperceptibly for the subject to check up, who hears sounds: a phantom or a physical body.  Speaking nothing, during known moment the doctor cautiously approaches to the subject and by turn puts watch to his both ears, not touching to them, the Subject speaks nothing. The doctor brings watch to external ear apertures. The subject speaks nothing. Then the doctor directs attention of the subject to the watch put on ear, speaking, that he should hear it. The subject declares that he hears nothing. The doctor insists, asserting, that ticking of clock is very loud, that he should hear. The subject irritably speak, that he does not hear it. In some minutes the doctor quietly approaches to a phantom sitting in armchair on the left side of the subject, and stretches clock to that place, where lies a head of a phantom. The subject immediately declares that he hears ticking of watch. Then the watch is put on an armchair, on floor, on some distance from legs (foots) of a phantom. The subject declares, that he feels moving an object and perfectly hears it where it is have been put.
Knowing, that completely deaf people hears ticking of watch if they hold them on a teeth, I take watch from the doctor, I order to the subject to open the mouth, I insert in  mouth a ring of watch and I order to press  the  tooths, paying the attention to sounds which I should hear. Then I ask him to unclench the tooths to take out the object. The subject understood, that he compresses something in teeths, but, despite of suggestion, he hears nothing.
4. — in darkness, I'm alone in cabinet with Teresa doubled.
After knocks in a table to which nobody have been approached, I want to find out, whether a phantom can easy hear noise when his attention is driven on other subject. For this purpose I put the armchair before a desk near window, in 5 meters from the subject, and I put the watch on armchair. I approach to the subject and, to distract his attention, again I make knocks in table; then, during the known moment, I suggest to phantom to sit in armchair and to tell to us if he will see something interesting on my desk. He slowly goes to armchair. At light of a pocket electric lantern I check, whether there he is, and I come back to the subject who exclaims: « anything interesting is present on your table, but I hear ticking of watch». I ask where watch is. — « I do not know, — he answers, — but I hear them perfectly ». — Well, — I speak, — be attentive. Having put hands on a table, you learn, whether on a table is a watch. — The Subject answers immediately: « The watch is not on table ». After some silence, adds: « it is directly amusing, I sit on watch ». Again having kept silence a little, he speaks craftily: « Yes, it is very ridiculous; ordinarily my ears are not there ».
5. — on February, 16, 1909, experience with Jane, at nine o'clock in the evening at the presence of Falck and Demalier, in darkness.
I want to find out, whether a phantom hears on known distance an almost inaudible noise, and to compare hearing of strong and very easy noises.
Having ascertained once again, that the subject hears nothing with ears, I send a phantom to my desk on distance of four meters from the subject and I ask Demalier to put his watch on head of phantom. « I see, — speaks Jane, — a round subject; this is watch, I hear ticking ».
I give the watch to the experimenter who replaces them. — « I see a watch, — the subject, — but the watch is not the same; this is bigger, and ticking is louder. » It was true.
I take a plate and strongly scratch on it with nails to make a loud scratching sound. — « I hear noise; precisely scratch on a board ». I ask, is this noise loud or weak? — « I well hear it, — but it is not loud » the subject answers.
I softly nails on a plate. Very easy sound is hardly audible. Demalier on distance of one meter. G.Falk does not hear it on 2 meters. — « I hear that scrape on plate as before », — the subject speaks. I ask what sound, the previous is louder or more silent? The subject answers, that he hears the same as before.
I ask Demalier to approach to me as possible closer, not touching me. I softly spend four times with pulp of a finger on plate which is put to the right ear. I hardly hear, and Demalier, in several centimeters from me, hears nothing. — « I hear noise on a plate », — the subject speaks. I ask how many times he heard this noise. — « I did not consider how many ». — Pay attention, I touch four times to a plate. — « I heard the same noise four times ». I spend on the plate once, very easy. G.Demalier who have very good hearing, hears nothing. — « I heard one only time ». I spend a finger three times. — « I heard three times ».
I ask Jane, whether she well hears last sounds, as loud scratching of nails. — « I hear very well, — she, — that sound is not identical, but I hear equally well both those, and others ».
I order to a phantom to remain on a place occupied by him; I depart on one meter of distance and softly spend on a plate two times. — « the Sound has repeated two times ». I depart on two meters and I spend on a plate two times. The subject hears nothing more. I approaches on 25 centimeters and also spend two times on a plate. The subject as though hears something, but he does not distinguish sounds. I approaches on 25 centimeters and I repeat action. — « I heard noise two times », — the subject speaks.
I light on candle which I put on a desk and again I start spend fingers on a plate. On distance of 1,50 m the subject hears nothing, meanwhile as in darkness he heard well. I approach to a phantom on one meter of distance; he hears nothing; very easy sounds only then are audible to him when I approach very close to a phantom.  Checking up this fact is rather essential for me, I extinguish candle and again I spend fingers on a plate on distance of one meter, then on 1,50 m from a phantom, and the subject hears. The experiences of hearing rather frequently repeated, in the most various conditions and with all measures of a guarantee, always yielded the same results with all subjects, even when last, tired or not suited, were unable to make other phenomena.

So, we have, if even only in theories, four attires, four bodies in which the soul also consistently get dressed, then leaves, when they will be worn out, the bodies having own existence in three plans of the nature. Knowing characteristic features of each of them, it is possible to find out easily on experiences, at the presence of what body we are.
Between 1850 and 1866 Reichenbach has proved that for clairvoyants in full darkness the person shines with beautiful colors, blue to the right, yellow, orange or reddish — we shall tell orange — on the left. In 1882, having begun with experiences which have allowed me to formulate the physical laws managing actions of magnetism, I have described the overview in ,,Magnetic physics ». De-Roche, Luis and other researchers have confirmed them.
The result of this overview will serve us as a point of support, for opinion about two subtle bodies penetrating through our seen body and splitting in "separation".
I am in a dark room with the subject who I shall separate, and with several witnesses among which is one good clairvoyant, capable of separation, but taking place in a condition of wakefulness and full consciousness.
In some minutes two clairvoyants says that by them, as well as I and all witnesses, are made brilliant, shine beautiful blue light on the right and not less beautiful orange on the left.
These colorful shades as though belong to physical body, but it is incorrect.
I lull the subject who even as though is more brilliant than before. I exteriorise him. He becomes less brilliant, keeping the colors, and during 1 — 1, 5 meters air around of him too is done brilliant, but without colors. I continue magnetize and I make separation. The physical body becomes completely dark, the subject at all does not see itself though he sees all witnesses, and the body of a phantom not only is very brilliant, but it shines blue light on the right, orange on the left similarly as the body of the subject has shone several minutes ago.
All light matter has passed, hence, from physical body to a phantom. But of what bodies consist the last? — It is obvious, that he will consist of invisible bodies, and physical body, on picturesque expression of Leontine, this minute — « is only empty bag ».
We go further. We believe that the etheric body rather seldom abandons physical body and never leaves him because it should support the vital energy necessary to him for existence. If we shall suggest to a phantom to leave on some kilometers, to go, for example, to ourselves, to look, what there occurs, then there will happen rather remarkable phenomenon on eyes of the subject and awake clairvoyant. In a body of phantom there happens the same separation. It is done more brilliant, but loses the blue and orange shades covering him from both sides which pass in body of the subject, again beginning to shine. The phantom leaves, passing through the nearest wall; he executes the task and comes back to the place left, the side of the subject. He still shines white light. Gradually he accepts color shades, loses partly dazzling whiteness, and the body of the subject becomes completely dark.
What has taken place? Is easily to understand. The etheric body making a body of a phantom has returned to the body of subject for maintenance of life, and the phantom has left with the astral body as the instrument.
This experience is easy to carry out; it is checked by various ways mutually confirming each other.
When the subject is separating spontaneously, he always sees that the phantom soaring above him shines with more or less bright white light.
When the subject has easy fallen asleep in the bed, and the phantom of him goes to be shown far, as on experiences in VI, he always shines white light without color. In both cases the etheric body was not separated from physical body and the seen body (for clairvoyants) of a phantom will consist of an astral body, more brilliant, than etheric body.
Other proof, that it is so: subjects clairvoyants see sometimes a phantom of dead and see him always brilliant, but without color. And except for subjects on experiences all persons seeing in known circumstances died, always saw them in the brilliant form without color. The reason of this phenomenon is easy for determining. The soul has left with the astral body as the instrument, having abandoned for decomposition end following death physical and etheric bodies from which she was separated for ever. And when she will wish to see somebody from relatives, she is shown in the astral body which became her unique external attire, because it is her unique body, the unique instrument.
On my experiences the truth is that some subjects saw an astral body with colors as opposed to etheric body, but I believe that if the first happens really, that it seems to me almost authentic that this can see only very strong clairvoyants, and that only when they pay all attention to it.
Therefore I think proved enough, that when the phantom shines beautiful blue and orange light on the right and on the left, he has tangible, seen (for clairvoyants)  etheric body; when he is more brilliant, but without color painting on his tangible body, his external attire will consist only of an astral body. In splitting subjects strong clairvoyant sees this brilliant sphere which seems to them of incomparable beauty; it soars above head of a phantom to which it is connected by very brilliant energy cord. I have obtained rather remarkable picture of this sphere,fig., on a glass plate wrapped up in black paper and put on left side of Leontiny, at height of spleen, at that minute, when the scared phantom has rushed to the subject to enter him. It was on June, 26, 1908, on 6 o'clock in the evening, at the presence of Mrs. Dangle. Dubo, Fardo and major Darzhe.

Doctor Baraduke frequently obtained prints on which the brilliant sphere is seen above the person represented in an objective. Sometimes this sphere forms light around of head.A Fig. represents the medium-mystic doctor in London who treats the patient with a pray, assigning hands. On fig. doctor Baraduke, in ecstasy of devotion is represented. Last photo especially shows us, that this phenomenon of separation never happens in ordinary conditions of life and, to observe it, it is necessary to leave the Corporal. :heh:

[qbeac]

Hello everybody,
Hello Major Tom, Mendel, Tvos, Tombo, skropenfield, thanks a lot for your comments.

Before we proceed, I think it would be good for us to agree on a common definition of "validation" and "scientific proof." For instance, this could be one:

Definition of validation: "Whatever is necessary for people to be convinced of something."

Note: By "people" we are referring either to a "single individual", or to a "small group of persons", or to "all humanity".

Definition of "scientific proof": a specific type of validation which is accepted by the "scientific community" to be convinced of something.

According to each author, "scientific proof" could also be referred to as "conclusive proof", or "empirical proof", etc., but we can discuss this later on.

Modern society, for better or worse, it is very much influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and principles: to see, to touch, to measure, in order to believe. In accordance to those Aristotelian principles, modern science has developed a very well known and standard method to obtain their own particular type of validation. They call it the Scientific Method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Brief excerpt: Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by scientific communities. Scientists use observations and reasoning to develop technologies and propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of hypotheses... etc., etc.

Therefore, "scientific proof", or "conclusive proof" may not always be the same as "validation", because it depends on the persons involved in the events: a single individual, a small group of persons, the scientific community, all humanity.

That's why in the Spanish Science forum (100cia.com) we have defined three levels of validation: Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.

Level 1 validation is only a personal level, for a single individual.

There are different things that could provide a single person the necessary level of validation that would be quite satisfactory for him/her, "but" only for that person. Those things could range from home made experiments (seeing cards, objects, etc.), to feelings, emotions, perceptions, acquisition of special intimate knowledge, contact with other "non material" beings and realities, etc. That may very well be a good enough validation for that person.

A graphic example: Let's suppose you are cooking French fries and you spill hot oil in your hand. That hurts! Therefore, you know in your heart the oil was hot. You are convinced of it because you "felt it", and it does not matter to you that the rest of humanity thinks other ways (including the scientific community).

However, in the case of OBEs, if somebody has not obtained yet the necessary personal validation (Level 1) he/she would like to have, that person could also apply the Agnostic Method (two words from the dictionary) to obtain it. This method could indeed provide a single individual "scientific proof" of the real nature of his/her own personal experiences. But it's up to that person to apply it or not, depending on how sure he/she is of his/her experiences.

Level 2 validation is for small groups of people (Ex: family members, friends, etc.).

In the material world we live in, we can exchange information, knowledge, data, etc., but not feelings. Therefore, in order to provide validation to your friends and relatives about the real nature of your experiences, you may have to give them something different from feelings, descriptions, etc. Some people may believe you if you just give them your testimony, but others may not.

The Agnostic Method is a good and efficient way to provide your friends and relatives (and specially the most sceptical ones) with the type of validation they will not be able to deny, because this method has been certified by professional scientists according to mathematical calculations and so forth (see previous posts for more details, Table 1 of the Agnostic Method, etc.).

That way, and in case any of them may have underestimated, or ridiculed, or made fun of your accounts, they could not keep on doing it any longer without contradicting a certified scientific validation: The Agnostic Method. In other words, from now on your credibility will grow and they will take you more seriously. That will also give you a greater level of self confidence about your own experiences.

For instance, you will be able to tell your friends or relatives the following:

"Hey, I have "guessed" those two words from the dictionary, but did you know that is much, much, much, more difficult to do than guessing by chance a lottery number? And I haven't "guessed" them once, I have guessed them 3 times in a role (or 4, 5, 6...). Look, check out Table 1." (Note: the reliability grows up exponentially with repeated positive results).

Level 3 validation is for the scientific community and, therefore, for all humanity.

The scientific community are in a similar position as your friends or relatives: they cannot feel what you have felt and experienced, and therefore, they need other type of validation: they want to measure it, or reason it out, or to perform mathematical calculations on it, etc. In other words, they need Level 3 validation, which is based on the Scientific Method. Thus, the Agnostic Method will still be a good method to obtain this type of validation, but it will have to be done according to all the guarantees of the Scientific Method (Ex: with security measures, with double blind control groups, computer programs and military precision to generate the random numbers, etc.).

-----------------------

Well, now I would like to pose the following question so that we can reflect upon it:

Would it be good at least for some OBErs to try to provide Level 3 validation to the scientific community?

What do you think?

Un abrazo. qbeac.

[qbeac]

Qbeac,

Reading numbers, letters is not difficult. Looking from the astral plane to the physical plane there will be traces of the past,present, future. If you read up on my card experiments and review my journal notes/narrations of other experiences I am sure that you can draw conclusions....(...)

Hi Tvos and everybody,

Please, I would like to ask this question to anybody who may have already tried or will try in the future to use the two hints we described in the Instructions of the Agnostic Method (see bellow). This is the question:

Do you think the hints to read the words could be of any help in order to read them correctly? I mean in order to help you reading the "real" words and not "false" words?

We have described those two hints in this link:

INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AGNOSTIC METHOD (4th post, pag.1):
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

Let me reproduce the two hints here:

Possible hints to read the words might include but are not limited to the following:

A) Write in front of the words 2 distinct numbers that the projector (the one having OBEs) already knows before hand from the physical plane (he can even choose this numbers himself) in order to help him "focus" better on the words. If the projector is not able to recognize the numbers (while in the OBE state) that he already knew from the physical plane, that will be a sign that something is going wrong, and vice versa. For example, the projector already knows the numbers 25 and 47, but not the words, so we would write in the paper something like this:

25 HORSE
47 DOOR

B) Write the words in more than one paper at the same time (Ex: 2, 3, 4 different papers), and maybe on papers and with inks of different colours, or also using different types of materials instead of just paper (Ex: paper, metal, wood, plastic, a black board, etc). How complicated this hint becomes is up to you. The idea is to make sure that when you are looking at all of the papers (or all of the materials) from the astral plane, all of them should have the same words written on them, and if there are differences, you will know that something is going wrong.

Due to the differences between the astral plane and the physical plane, all of the above are ways to help the person having the OBE or AP to read the correct words.
-----------------

Please, what do you people think? Do you think it could work? Do you think those hints could help, or not?

Thanks. qbeac.

[qbeac]

Hi, I have a question for the moderators: Would it be possible to include the number of each post in the heading of it? That way is easier to refer to previous posts. Thanks. qbeac.

[BillionNamesofGod]

Hi MisterJingo, in my opinion, your position is quite reasonable: you simply would like to obtain solid proof because you are aware of the possibility that your brain could trick you some how and make you believe something is real when is not. Is that correct? Did I understand you correctly?

Some people say they don't need to see any proof because they are already sure, and that's good for them, but many others say they would like to see the proof.

So, let me ask you something: reading those two words taken at random from the dictionary (several times in a role) would be a good enough proof for you, or not? Please, what do you think? Could you comment on that?

Thanks. qbeac.

Hi qbeac,
You are correct. But it is more than the fact that brain can trick a person into believing fallacies though (one only needs to look at false memory syndrome which has been proven to occur through hypnotic regression, and other research where false memories have been implanted in people by simply showing them doctored photographs of their childhood). My need for proof comes from the possibility that mind is the product of brain (which would mean AP is purely brain generated, and the afterlife is wishful thinking). As much as this idea is repulsive, there is still a lot of interesting research which shows how mind function can be attributed to specific areas of brain. If AP is what people claim, then it is one of the best ways to achieve proof that the mind is possibly independent of the brain.
Even people at the forefront of AP like Monroe stated many times that you shouldn't take a belief of what AP is until you have enough evidence to make it a known.
Billion names of God, I have been projecting since earliest childhood. My experiences have been intricate and consistent, yet this is not proof of what people claim AP to be. It shows I am experiencing states which seem to be outside the confines of my body. And during a lot of these projections my mind has been more brilliant and vibrant than in any waking state. I have literally been super aware, and the experience has been more 'real' than waking reality. I am a frequent LD'er so can distinguish between AP and LD. I have seen the 'silver cord' (although it's a faint luminous green to me). I have met gods and devils, been taken to the genesis of creation and the end of the world. I have been placed in a machine which let me perceive the entirety of creation etc. In general, during these experiences I have been shown a lot, but none prove that it is more than brain induced. Each experience starts with me entering trance, inducing the vibrations (which I feel might have something to do with DMT release and trance reduced sensory input increasing its effect), and then 'rolling' out. Usually sight is limited until I get around 6 feet away. I look around; I am in my bedroom as it looks in reality. And then I go explore. If such experiences do not meet the criteria of OBE, then I would say the vast majority of people who have ever projected have not actually OBE'd too.
I also do not believe that OBE is actually outside of the body. The brain cannot distinguish between imagination and sensory input of the 'external' world. Do a google for this information, experiments where people have increased muscle mass over that of a control group by simply visualisations of working out. Also we have to consider that what we see as external reality is actually mind generated. Sensory organs do not emit information; they suck it up into the brain. The brain generates a representation of what it perceives the information to mean (this is a fascinating area in itself, google how little information the eyes can actually perceive, and how much the brain adds to our visual world to 'fill it out'), and we exist within that representation. So anything you ever taste, touch, feel, see, or experience is actually a purely internal experience. We forever interact with a mind generated representation based on sensory information. I see going out of body as moving from one mind generated state (reality) to another (Astral).

I'm not sure what would constitute good enough proof qbeac, most philosophers rule out a solipsism view of realty on the grounds that we cannot truly tell if everything is mind generated or not, so we might as well act as if it isn't, and everyone else we see is actually a sentient being.  I guess proof for me would be to amass some data which holds up to scrutiny of others in the physical. I believe that if the AP state is real, and the energy, energy bodies etc are real too. Then at some point science will be able to detect them. It's easy to take something for ones self, say I believe and that is all that matters. But that is not enough for me. I have a scientific upbringing so perhaps that's where this desire originates

I honestly and utterly can't believe I'm reading this.

I'm in shock.

Here's someone who things it's all nonsense and all in his mind.
I really don't know how to respond to that.

You really are fooling yourself that's it's all just a dream and imagination?

I honestly can't believe it, I can't believe people out there have these experiences and thing it's all just a dream.

You want physical proof?

It's 2005, well 2006, and we don't have it, we'll never have it.

I mean if you see something or someone somewhere in the RTZ, that is verified later, that's all the proof you need. This kind of proof is still not good enough for scientists.

You don't need every scientist to believe before you believe.

Once you realise we live in a multi-dimentional universe and you can't bring those dimensions down into the real world in "proof".

Heck cosmologists make more leaps of faith that you do. Scientists believe more crazy things than you do !

They believe in things like parallel worlds and so on,

*THEY HAVE NO PROOF*.

In think your argument well and truly sucks.

You can all site around debating proof, but you'll never find it.

If you don't know why, you won't you just aren't there yet.

You know what happened to the guy who send we went arond the Sun.
He had proof.

They locked him up for being a heretic.

They only pardoned him a few years ago!

Wake up and smell the roses, it's not about proof.

[MisterJingo]

I honestly and utterly can't believe I'm reading this.

I'm in shock.

Here's someone who things it's all nonsense and all in his mind.
I really don't know how to respond to that.

You really are fooling yourself that's it's all just a dream and imagination?

I honestly can't believe it, I can't believe people out there have these experiences and thing it's all just a dream.

You want physical proof?

It's 2005, well 2006, and we don't have it, we'll never have it.

I mean if you see something or someone somewhere in the RTZ, that is verified later, that's all the proof you need. This kind of proof is still not good enough for scientists.

You don't need every scientist to believe before you believe.

Once you realise we live in a multi-dimentional universe and you can't bring those dimensions down into the real world in "proof".

Heck cosmologists make more leaps of faith that you do. Scientists believe more crazy things than you do !

They believe in things like parallel worlds and so on,

*THEY HAVE NO PROOF*.

In think your argument well and truly sucks.

You can all site around debating proof, but you'll never find it.

If you don't know why, you won't you just aren't there yet.

You know what happened to the guy who send we went arond the Sun.
He had proof.

They locked him up for being a heretic.

They only pardoned him a few years ago!

Wake up and smell the roses, it's not about proof.

Please quote where I ever said it is nonsense. This is this kind of thing I'm trying to escape from. I know a lot of people who consider themselves to be occultists, or white witches or qabalists or initiates. Yet the second you mention proof they get offended and upset, like you are questioning their entire belief system. Rather than be reasonable and look at all the arguments, they get hysterical; denounce science and anyone who holds it in favour (whilst ignoring the miracles of science all around them which lets them lead long and healthy lives). Science is simply a methodology of producing repeatable facts in reality. That's all it is. And its track record is pretty damn good. Because science does not follow my own belief, does not mean I will ignore it totally.
I will give consideration to any theory regarding AP which holds some weight. For example, I have had experiences which seem to suggest AP is real. But the newly emerging facts about consciousness and the brain are very hard to ignore, so I don't discount it and keep it as a possibility. I generally refute such things which are too ludicrous to my current understanding of reality, such as if someone stated the apple tree in my back garden is really a supercomputer and I'm living in a hologram it is creating, I would generally disbelieve them.
Just because I question the experience does not mean I am questioning your experiences. If your demand of proof means a single projection tells you everything you need to know then that is fine. I am looking for something more. A million lifetimes could be wasted by getting bogged down in dogma and ignoring the underlying source.
I agree that it is possible to be blinded by science, but at the other end of the spectrum, I believe it is possible to get bogged down by belief systems - becoming caught in an illusion of unfounded belief.
I believe one of the reason we are on Earth is to learn critical thinking, and to totally throw it away because what it suggests upsets what we want to belief – that is losing sight of the goal before even setting out on the journey.
If the astral truly exists (which I believe it does) and the physical is part of the astral, then surely scientific discoveries will hold meaning to all areas of the astral? We might not be at a sufficient level to comprehend everything, or have the technology to detect the astral yet, but if it is there, we will eventually detect it with science.
For all the evil we attribute to science, without we would literally be living for about 30 years in very unhygienic conditions with no education and bogged down with massive superstition. Is that form of life really preferable?

[Ivanda]

I don`t know, guys, I may be wrong, but I think that, if OBE was only our immagination or hallucination, it would be so much easier to achieve.