Whats Your Proof?

[qbeac]

Hi skropenfield, thanks for both articles, the one you have included in your post and the Russian study in pdf format. I encourage everybody to read the Russian pdf format article, it's worth it (look for the URL at the very end of skropenfield's post). The title of the Russian article is:

"On the So-Called Alternative Vision or Direct Vision Phenomenon"
N. P. Bekhtereva*, L. Yu. Lozhnikova**, S.G. Dan'ko**,
L. A. Melyucheva*, S. V. Medvedev 1 *and S. Zh. Davitaya***
* Institute of Human Brain, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
** International Academy of Human Development, Moscow, Russia
*** International Academy of Human Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Received August 8, 2001

The article is quite interesting and it is a valid one. Therefore, it should stimulate new research initiatives in the field of the human brain and consciousness, since it seems clear there are still many more unknowns than certainties in this area.

However, I would like to point out that there are two important differences between the general approach of that type of studies (the Russian one) and the approach we propose with the Agnostic Method.

First difference

If you go to the very first page, third paragraph starting from the top, of the Russian article, it says:

"This work is a strictly qualitative pilot study not pretending to discover any quantitative patterns..."

The above paragraph indicates they have put emphasis on the "qualitative" aspects of their study, while we will put emphasis on the "quantitative" aspects of our study. Further more, the main strength of our study is pure mathematical numbers, or if you prefer, we could call it "raw mathematical power". Let me show you what I mean. If you go to Table 1 of the Agnostic Method, this is what it says:

The complete Table 1 is in Post #3, pag. 1 at link:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

The following is a brief excerpt of Table 1 (only a summary):

1.- "3 ordered words taken at random from a dictionary " (calculated on the base of only 10,000 words of a total of 59,000; 17%).
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.e-12, = 0.000000000001
(11 zeros after the decimal point).

2.- "2 ordered words taken at random from a dictionary" (calculated on the base of only 10,000 words of a total of 59,000; 17%).
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.e-8, = 0.00000001
(7 zeros after the decimal point).

3.- "Code with a mixture of 5 numbers and capital letters". Example: JF7AS.
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.442e-8, = 0.00000001442
(7 zeros after the decimal point).

5. - "Cipher of the 5 random numbers". Spanish lottery number "Cupon ONCE." Example: 78153
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.e-5, = 0.00001
(4 zeros after the decimal point).

7.- "Two ordered cards from a deck" (40 cards).
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 6.4e-4, = 0.00064
(3 zeros after the decimal point).

Note: If you make two experiments, the probability of guessing both of them is equal to the square number of guessing just one of the events one time. If you guess three times in a role, it will be elevated to the third power, 4 to the 4th... etc.

Let's see only the example of the two words from the dictionary:

Probability of guessing by chance two times: (1.e-8)^2 = 1.e-16 = 0,0000000000000001
(15 zeros after the decimal point).

Probability of guessing by chance three times: (1.e-8)^3 = 1.e-24 = 0,000000000000000000000001
(23 zeros after the decimal point).

Therefore, the main advantage of the system of the "words taken at random from a dictionary" (two or three words) is that its reliability from a mathematical point of view is much, much higher than other types of systems (Ex: cards, digits, etc.), simply because there are SO MANY words in a dictionary: around 59,000 words for a regular one volume dictionary. For security reasons, and in order to discard possible strange words and to stay on the safe side, we have applied a strong reduction factor and have calculated the above figures (points 1 and 2) based only on 10,000 words (17% of 59,000). Further more, if instead of picking up the words manually we would do it with a computer program, the base figure might be higher than 10,000 (we'll have to see), and the reliability of the words method would also increase. Not to mention that with a computer program we could apply "military precision" to generate the random numbers to pick a totally random word. But we preferred to explain first the manual method so that it is easier for people to do home tests of their own abilities.

Also, it seems easier to be able to remember correctly two words (maybe three?) than to remember a complex digit with a mixture of letters and numbers, such as Q3R8W, at least for some projectors. I would personally prefer the words, because with the digits I think I could get confused easier. But it's up to each person to decide what method he/she prefers.

In other words, the system of the "words from the dictionary" has a very high simplicity to reliability ratio.

But we would like to hear your opinions. Maybe some projectors would prefer to go for the "Q3R8W system" and some other ones for the words? Please, what do you think about that?

Second difference

There are two main approaches to study these types of phenomenon:

1) Trying to learn "how" something works.
2) Trying to "verify if" something happens by using very precise measurements.

Our approach is not the first one, but the second one. For right now, and with our first type of experiment, we do not pretend to study nor understand how these OBE processes work. Therefore, we are not going to study EEG, how neurons work, how they connect to each other, the chemistry of the brain, etc. We are not going to do any of that for right now (maybe in the future, but not now).

All we are going to do now is trying to obtain very precise measurements of the differences in the mathematical probabilities of guessing by chance a random number, both in a "control group" without OBEs, as well as in a "subjects group" with OBEs.

So, our main concern right now is this one: Will the subjects group (who practice OBE) will be able to "see" the correct words (the real words) a significant enough number of times as compared to the control group (without OBE)?

We are not looking for perfect results. For instance: control group 0%, subjects group 100%. No, we would be satisfied with something in the order, for instance, of: control group 2%, subjects group 30%, or 5%-60%, or 4%-45%...etc. Those types of results (more or less) will be sufficient to clearly show the anomaly. The higher we can get, the better, of course. But something in that order is good enough to begin with.

Let me put it this way: If you try to read the correct words, do you think you'll be able to read them correctly around 3 times out of 10? More or less, or 2, or 4 out of 10?

In summary, if the differences between the two groups are big enough (mathematically significant enough), we will have found a HUGE anomaly that should not be there, and for which modern science does not have an answer and cannot deny it because it contradicts current physical knowledge and laws (see my previous posts).

By the way, we also need to clearly show that those mathematical differences are impossible to happen due to any known physical phenomenon, and that's why we will take all sorts of security measures: make sure to place the target waaaaaaay outside of the physical visual reach of the subjects, double blind control groups, no possibility of doing tricks... no nothing, etc. For instance: an "artificial optical device", such as a video camera, cannot do that (Ex: seeing something which is outside of its visual reach), so, the human eye (which from the stand point of modern medicine is just another "optical device"), "supposedly" cannot either.

Besides the thread we have in the Medicine sub-forum to talk about all these things, we have opened another thread to discuss specifically optical devices in the Physics Spanish Science forum (to compare biological with artificial optical devices), and physicists are thinking about it, but it is also clear cut: regular optical devices cannot do that, and they know it! This is the link:

- ¿Puede un dispositivo óptico "ver" si le tapas la lente?
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=5740

For more details about the mathematical aspects of this issue, I wish you could see the comments of the professional mathematicians in the Spanish Math forums, because from a mathematical perspective, this is quite clear cut. Numbers don't lie, and they know it. Let me give you a summary of what we mean:

In case OBE were only imaginary experiences, if the experiments were repeated the necessary amount of times, we should expect that the probabilities of guessing by chance between the two groups (control and subjects) should be about the same with very minor differences: the usual small statistical gap. Neither group should guess random numbers by chance many more times than the other one in the long run. After many cycles, the probabilities of both groups should achieve a similar equilibrium. There is no reason why one group should get "significantly" ahead of the other one in the long run.

But if the results were very different (Ex: one group guessing MANY more times than the other one, and not sporadically, but in a consistent manner) that would imply a "big imbalance" and a clear indication that something is not working the way it should, because that's not the way mathematical probabilities behave in the long run. Therefore, that would be the anomaly! If there is a big imbalance, that means there is also an important cause which is causing that imbalance. And since we have already ruled out normal physical reasons for it (Ex: normal performance of regular optical devices, etc.), therefore, we would conclude there must be some type of phenomenon, unknown to current science, which is causing the imbalance. And that's a big deal!

What I have just explained in the above paragraph is one of the key elements of the Agnostic Method: the more "quality tests" we do, the clearer we will be able to detect the anomaly in the behaviour of the mathematical probabilistic laws (in case there is one). In other words, as the number of good quality tests we do increases, the accuracy of the method will also increase.

That's why we would like to invite all of you to participate in the experiments, because the more people who participate in this study (considering they are experienced projectors who can read the "real" words), the more reliable the results will be. That's why I put the example of the sand grains from the NASA web site: because this is a team effort.

And talking about "experienced projectors" we should point out another important consideration: for what we know, real letters and numbers may morph or be distorted if you look at them from the astral plane, so it would be essential that you have a good control holding up the physical scenario long enough and with good enough quality as to be able to read the "real words" and not the "false words." That will avoid reporting "false positives" (words that the projector thought were the "real" ones but they were not) and will increase the accuracy and the reliability of this method.

So, please, think about it, practice reading the correct words if you would like to collaborate in this experiment, and go for it!

If anybody would like to translate the conversation in the Math forums where professional mathematicians talk about all these issues, here it is (and especially the "dice example"):

Leach, Math forum MIGUI: http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119
Hetzer, Math forum 100cia.com: http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?t=4290&page=28&pp=10

On the contrary, if the differences between the two groups are NOT big enough (not mathematically significant enough, no big imbalance), our method will not work, because it will not have anything to hold onto. So, we would like to try and see what happens.

That's why it is so important to know if experienced OBErs can read correctly those two words, and if the hints to read the words will help them any or not.

Thanks. qbeac.

[qbeac]

Hello everybody, in relation to the issue of trying to obtain scientific proof, I would like to pose a question for everybody. So far, it seems there are several distinct opinions, for instance:

1- Some people did not know it was possible to obtain scientific proof.

2- Some people think obtaining scientific proof is possible, but it is hard, therefore, it is not worth the effort.

3- Some people think obtaining scientific proof is hard, but it is possible and it is also import to do it for the benefit of human kind, therefore, it is worth the effort.

4- Some people think that even if it is possible to obtain scientific proof, it should not be done due to karmic reasons.

The following is an example of an opinion based on karmic reason (Post #13 & #15, pag. 2, by pmlonline):
http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=927&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Please, what do you think? My opinion is number 3, as I have tried to explain in this thread. Anybody thinks the same way, or perhaps has a different opinion than the ones above?

Thanks. qbeac.

[lkjewr]

Hey.

What about the evidence already presented, such as Robert Monroe's accounts. In one he not only verified what he saw, but caused a bruise from a pinch he gave someone while there. I've talked to a skeptic who has read Robert's work, but still says it's all hallucination or whatever.

I guess getting a card right or something could be more to their liking as what consitutes proof. But if someone just doesn't want to change their views, they can easily surmise that you may be lying. Is it really possible to prove this stuff then? What are the controls in place to alleviate the notion that you may simply be lying that you saw the cards right?

[Abraham]

SO the conclusion is there is no proof? Lol.

Some say there are ways to seeing if they are real, some say that the validity depends upon each individuals own experiences(in other words they are 'real ' to the individual) and some say there is no proof at all.

Basically theres no proof, just a lot of talk lol.

Sheesh guys.

[Lente]

Who needs proof, not the person who already knows for himself, only others need proof.

[Abraham]

Lol. Thats stupid man. Its like the Christians saying they know God because they "feel" the holy spirit enters them. "Personal revelation"

Thats just personal spiritual crack.

[James S]

Lol. Thats stupid man. Its like the Christians saying they know God because they "feel" the holy spirit enters them. "Personal revelation"

Thats just personal spiritual crack.

So how do you know? By reading it in a book??

Denying your own feelings and experiences in favour of something someone else tells you is even more stupid!

[Abraham]

Lol. 1+1=2 even if i 'feel' it equals 3.


No matter how much you want to believe ur own personal inclinations, the truth is the truth regardless.

[qbeac]

Hello people, there is a participant in the astraldynamics forum, called pmlonline, who says it is possible to provide global proof of OBEs to the scientific community, but nevertheless, it is not wise to provide it due to "karmic" reasons (this is a summary, he has given a longer explanation about it).

To tell you the truth, it was very surprising to me to hear such an argument based on karmic reasons. So far, I have been very much in favour of providing proof. In Spain we have designed a simple method that could provide it (I have explained it in this thread, and it is not the only method that could be used), and we really believe it could be done. We also believe it is important to provide global proof, because that way, many people in the world will realize these experiences are real (I already think they are) and will also be able to benefit from them. But now I am wondering whether what pmlonline says is correct or not.

The question has shifted from: "Is it possible to provide proof?" To, "should we provide proof or not?"

As Shakespeare would say:

To provide proof or not to provide it? That is the question!

Please, what do you think? This is the link (starting at pag. 2, Post #13):
http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=927&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Chao. qbeac.

[Ben K]

Lol. 1+1=2 even if i 'feel' it equals 3.


No matter how much you want to believe ur own personal inclinations, the truth is the truth regardless.

then what is the truth oh scholar of the ages?

if this topic had been disproven or proven we would not be discussing it in this little corner of the internet we have. why even bother asking this question when you know it cant be answered.

Im sure if you experienced what some of these people here have your opinion would be changed. But since the system is based on belief and you obviously dont BELIEVE any of it can happen your stuck with reading other peoples experiences. have fun.

[Abraham]

Lol. 1+1=2 even if i 'feel' it equals 3.


No matter how much you want to believe ur own personal inclinations, the truth is the truth regardless.

then what is the truth oh scholar of the ages?

if this topic had been disproven or proven we would not be discussing it in this little corner of the internet we have. why even bother asking this question when you know it cant be answered.

Im sure if you experienced what some of these people here have your opinion would be changed. But since the system is based on belief and you obviously dont BELIEVE any of it can happen your stuck with reading other peoples experiences. have fun.

Wow. Its funny how Ill say something rational and everyone will get all spunky about their own confusion and misguidance.

[Lente]

Lol. Thats stupid man. Its like the Christians saying they know God because they "feel" the holy spirit enters them. "Personal revelation"

Thats just personal spiritual crack.

It doesnt matter to me that you think its stupid.

[Adun]

Abraham, stop evading the question and answer: what proof do you have for your "truth"?

[qbeac]

Hi Abraham, Ben K, Lente, Adun,

In my opinion, it is indeed possible to obtain and to provide proof. There are a number of different ways in which it could be done. For instance, take a look at Post #8, pag. 8 of this thread to see one of them (not the only one):

- Explanation of one of the several possible ways to obtain proof:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=180207#180207

The question now is: Should we or should we not provide global proof to the scientific community?

I personally think we should (I believe it could benefit all humanity), but some people think other wise for other reasons they think are also good reasons, and maybe we all should debate upon this issue and try to find out what is the best option. We are talking about it at link (see Post #12):

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?p=9299&sid=dfb41431f4365f58ebdadc435d78c991#9299

Un saludo. qbeac.

[MindFreak]

Abraham Im just curious, why do you believe what you do? Because of what others have told you to believe? Intelligent people use their own judgement and discernment of their own experiences; they dont just parrot things they've heard. Polly want a cracker?

[Abraham]

Abraham Im just curious, why do you believe what you do? Because of what others have told you to believe? Intelligent people use their own judgement and discernment of their own experiences; they dont just parrot things they've heard. Polly want a cracker?

I believe what I believe because of the clear proofs that have come from the Creator unto the Prophet Muhammad sws, not from the whims or fabrications of a human being.

[MindFreak]

And this prophet Muhammad, how can you be sure what he says is true? Clear proofs do not belong only to one man. That clear proof is not clear to you. So really you have no knowledge of your own, just blind faith in someone elses claims.

[qbeac]

Hi Abraham, Ben K, Lente, Adun, MindFreak and everybody else:

The following is an excerpt from the NDE of May, James and Rashad, three friends with three different religions united in the same NDE.

Group NDE Example #2
http://www.near-death.com/group.html

The following group NDE appears in the International Association for Near-Death Studies publication Vital Signs (Volume XIX, No. 3, 2000) and is described in a greater way in Eulitt's book, Fireweaver, published by Xlibris.

During the fall of 1971, when I was 22 years old, I shared a near-death experience with my cousin, James, and his best friend, Rashad, who was from India. Both young men were on a break from school and were staying with my family on our farm. One afternoon the three of us went to the cornfield to cut fodder. To get to the field we had to go through a metal gate, and we took turns climbing down to open and shut it. By late afternoon a storm started brewing in the west, and we decided to quit for the day. It was James' turn to open the gate, and as he did so, he reached up for my arm to climb back up onto the wagon. I was leaning the wrong way, and his weight pulled me toward him. Rashad grabbed my other arm to steady me, and we were in just this position when the lightening hit us.

I saw the lightning sparkle along the top of the gate. The next thing we knew, we were in a large room or hall made of dark stone. The ceiling was so high and the gloom was so thick we couldn't see the top. There were no furnishings or wall hangings, just cold, black stone all around. I knew I should be afraid, but I just felt peaceful, floating along there in the gloom with my two friends in the great, dark hall. The stately walls of this place loomed above us and seemed to radiate both great power and also great masculinity. I remember thinking it would have suited King Arthur. It was at that point that I realized that the three of us were united in thought and body. Images of Arthur came to me from James and Rashad. James saw only a cosmic version of the king. Rashad seemed to [be] envisioning himself in the time of Arthur. As we all became conscious of each other's thoughts, I suddenly knew James and Rashad better than I have ever known anyone else.

We realized there was light coming into the chamber from an archway at one end. It was more than just light. It was a golden, embracing warmth. It gave off a feeling of peace and contentment more intense than anything we had ever felt. We were drawn toward it. We weren't talking, but we were communicating with each other on some other level, seeing through each other's eyes. As we came to the archway and passed through, we entered a beautiful valley.

There were meadows and tree-lined hills that led to tall mountains in the distance. Everything glistened with golden sparks of light.

We saw that the sparkling lights were tiny, transparent bubbles that drifted in the air and sparkled on the grass. We realized that each tiny sparkle was a soul. To me, the valley appeared to be Heaven, but at the same time I knew that James and Rashad were seeing it differently. James saw it as the Gulf of Souls. Rashad saw it as Nirvana, and somehow we knew all this without speaking. The light began gathering at the far end of the valley, and slowly, out of the mist, a pure white being began to materialize. I saw an angel with a strong, bright face, but not like you'd usually imagine. She was closer to a strong, Viking Valkyrie. I knew she was the special angel that watches over the women of my family, and I perceived her name to be Hellena. James saw this same being as his late father, a career Naval officer, in a white dress uniform. Rashad perceived the being to be the Enlightened One, or Buddha.

The being spoke first to Rashad and welcomed him. He said that Rashad's time on earth was done. He was worthy now of Nirvana. Rashad asked why James and I were there and was told that we were part of the reason why he was worthy of Nirvana. His two great friends loved him so much that they had willingly accompanied him on his last journey. At the same time, however, James received a different message. He had been worried about what his father would think about his anti-war protest activities, and his father told him he was proud of him for standing up for what he believed. He knew he was not a coward because a coward would not have made this journey with Rashad. I received yet another message in which Hellena told me she was glad I had remembered the example of strength, honesty, wisdom, and loyalty taught to me by my family.

We spent what seemed like an eternity in this place as we talked to our separate, yet joined, entities. They said they appeared to us in this way because back in the real world we were physically joined when the lightning struck us. They said it also symbolized the joining of all religions and doctrines. They said I would live to see a new age of tolerance, that the souls and hearts of humanity would be joined as the three of us were.

The guides taught us that doctrine and creed and race meant nothing. No matter what we believed we were all children joined under one God, and that the only rule was God's true law - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We should treat all people as if they were a part of our soul because they were. All living things in the universe were connected to one another. They said that soon humanity would mature enough to assume a higher place in the universal scheme of things, but until then we must learn acceptance and tolerance and love for each other. They said there would come a new age when people would not be able to endure seeing others homeless and hungry. We would realize that only by helping each other could we truly help ourselves... (it continues)

[Ben K]

Lol. 1+1=2 even if i 'feel' it equals 3.


No matter how much you want to believe ur own personal inclinations, the truth is the truth regardless.

then what is the truth oh scholar of the ages?

if this topic had been disproven or proven we would not be discussing it in this little corner of the internet we have. why even bother asking this question when you know it cant be answered.

Im sure if you experienced what some of these people here have your opinion would be changed. But since the system is based on belief and you obviously dont BELIEVE any of it can happen your stuck with reading other peoples experiences. have fun.

Wow. Its funny how Ill say something rational and everyone will get all spunky about their own confusion and misguidance.

Wow. What a blatent rationalization.

[Guhan]

Hello Abraham,

I was like you too. When I started meditation when I was about 20 or so, i never even read about astral projections or lucid dreaming, because I didn't believe anything other than God.

I still believe in God & do regular meditation, but also try my best on Astral Projections & Lucid Dreaming. I have had a couple of Lucid Dreams, and that's when I started believing that Lucid Dreams are for real!

I still didn't have any OBE, but i know i am so close from the vibrations. I was stunned when I experienced the vibrations for the 1st time. Now I believe and trying my best to exit.

(One of my friends who belongs to your religion is already projecting!!, he prays 5 times a day as instructed in your religion. And he is a strong Muslim guy!)

OK guys... I think you all have tried  your best to convince this guy... if he is so stubborn, why waste your precious time typing... use those valuable keystrokes to help guys like me to exit successfully...  

- Guhan

[Tombo]

Thx for the NDE-report qbeac! Very interesting!

[qbeac]

Thx for the NDE-report qbeac! Very interesting!

You are welcome, Tom. These are some other group NDE examples:

12.  Paul's NDE. Two vietnam soldiers hit by gun fire at the same time.
http://www.nderf.org/paul's.htm

Brief excerpt:

"I turned around and went back towards where he lay moaning, screaming for a medic the entire time.  I had crossed the fifty feet between us in what seemed like seconds when I was shot down by machine gun fire.   Pain ripped through my legs and I fell forward.  

The next thing I knew I was viewing the scene from about sixteen feet above my body. I saw that my body had been hit several times in the right leg and once in the left. I was convinced that I was going to bleed to death and felt tremendous sorrow that I'd never see my wife and our unborn baby.   My sadness was joined by a growing  confusion and curiosity.  So, this is death? I thought. No pain! No fear! How weird, I don't feel any different. I still can think.

I stared at my body and wondered what was coming next. My buddy, Pete was lying next to my body. I was shocked to see a mist leave from his head, which instantly turned into an exact duplicate of his body. I noticed that his spirit or new body was whole and glowed a bit. (His physical body below was missing his hand and part of his forearm due to being hit by the same sniper.)  Pete looked dazed and I called to him.  He immediately flew to join me and we discussed what was going to happen from that point.  

We noticed that a young black medic had discovered our bodies. First he checked Pete and then me. He began working on my body and Pete commented that he guessed that meant he was dead, but that I probably still had a chance. He reached out and shook my hand and said, "I want to thank you for being a good friend and for trying to save my life.  I don't know why, but I just get this sense that I am not staying here.  I am going someplace I've been before.   It feels like home.  

I know this sounds crazy, but I think it's not your time to go yet.  I think I'll try to say goodbye to my mom now, but you go on and have a groovy life and if your kid is a boy name him after me. OK?" I said, "You got it Pete!" I reached over to give him a pat on the back, but he vanished in a blink of light.  I watched several soldiers below help carry me  away from the scene while the medic continued to work on me."

Jake's NDE: a group of fire fighters trapped in the same fire.
May, James, and Rashad: three friends hit by lightning at the same time.
http://www.near-death.com/group.html

Tom and everybody, I am going to open a new thread to talk about the possibility of moving physical objects from the astral plane. It is based on the account of an experienced projector, Jerry Groos, who says he can do it. This is the link:

Can you move a physical object from the astral plane?
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=181019#181019

Un saludo, qbeac.

[qbeac]

Hi everybody, some people have asked us several questions about how to perform the experiment with the Agnostic Method. For instance: how and where they should place the words written on the paper, etc. So, these are some clarifications about how to do the experiment:

The instructions in English of how to do the Agnostic Method experiment are in the following link:

- Post #4, pag. 1. INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AGNOSTIC METHOD
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

Also here: - Whats Your Proof?
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21011

But those are only partial instructions, since we have not been able to translate everything to English yet. The whole thing in Spanish is in this link:

- Post #301 y #302. pag. 31. Instrucciones del Método Agnostic de verificación astral.
http://www.100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?p=38484#post38484

So, let me add a few things about the experiment:

Our idea is that the experiment could be performed in three different levels:

Level 1: Personal level. A single person could try the Agnostic Method all by itself at home. You would only need the help of a friend of yours (or family member) to choose the words from the dictionary and write them on a piece of paper. Your friend would give you the papers inside a folder or something, so that you cannot see the words. You could place the paper in any appropriate place inside your room or near by and without looking at the words during the process. Of course you would have to place the paper somewhere totally outside of your physical visual reach (Ex: on top of a tall piece of furniture, or on top of a book shelve, in a near by room, or something like that).

Level 2: For small groups of people. Ex: The projector could do the experiment with the help of a few friends. The friend would choose the words and place the words in his/her own house. And the projector will have to "travel" to the house of his/her friend to try to read the words written in the paper. The next morning you talk to each other to verify if the words coincide or not. The person who controls the projector we call it "the controller", and it could be a friend of yours, or anybody else who would be willing to do the job.

For instance, we (a small group of scientists from the Spanish forum 100cia.com) are now controlling an experienced projector who is trying to read the words. This projector is trying to go from his house to the house of one of us. In case he gets positive results, we may change the controller a couple of times just to make sure there were not any errors in the process (mistakes, fraud, jokes, etc.).

Level 3: Experiments performed in a controlled environment, in a laboratory, and following all the guarantees of the Scientific Method. This is the final step and the hardest one to pass for any projector. Although for any real projector, it would be as easy to succeed with Level 1, 2 or 3 experiments. We would be willing to test in the lab any projectors who can pass the preliminary stages (Levels 1 and 2).

Therefore, our intention is to go from very low and loose security measures (Level 1), to give every projector the opportunity to practice in a very relaxed and comfortable manner (at home, with his/her own friends, etc.), to the opposite end: very high and tight security measures in a laboratory (Level 3), and to go from one extreme to the other in a very gradual way.

We are willing to adjust every single experiment to the circumstances and particularities of any projector, since we are very much aware that this is an experiment with "human beings", and each person may need a different environment to feel comfortable. Also, we believe natural phenomenon does not need to adapt to Science, on the contrary, it is Science the one that should try to adapt to natural phenomenon.

Well, that's a brief summary of all the things we have been saying in the Spanish forum. If you have any questions, please, feel free to ask.

Un saludo, qbeac.