[Bondjrno]

Hello everybody,

In Spain we are conducting a scientific experiment to try to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences. The experiment is based on the "Agnostic Method", (AM) which is a method we have designed in a Spanish Science forum (http://www.100cia.com). I have left a post with information about the experiment in the following link:

- Has there ever been RTZ Scientific Study? (see Post #12 by qbeac):
http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewto ... =9039#9039

The Agnostic Method is based on the mathematical probabilities of guessing by chance different types of random numbers, which have been calculated by professional mathematicians of the Math sub-forum:

- Math forum MIGUI. Calculations of Table 1 done by professional mathematicians:
http://foro.migui.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1119

The method requires for an experienced projector to read “two normal words” taken at random from a dictionary and written with large letters in a regular piece of paper.

Please, do you think you could that? Anybody around here feels capable of doing that?

Best regards. qbeac.

[russmodel]

Oh, I just saw this post. If you're still doing the experiment, I'd love to join in.

[Bondjrno]

Oh, I just saw this post. If you're still doing the experiment, I'd love to join in.

Hi Dsmoke, yes, we are doing the experiments right now. In fact, we have just developed the Agnostic Method very recently (only a few weeks ago), and still have not tried it yet with anybody. We are about to start doing trials with an experienced projector here in Spain. We’ll start in about 3 weeks or so (I hope), but will be glad to invite any other projector to join in.

But, the main question is this one: do you think you will be capable of reading the two words written on the paper and report on them correctly? Have you ever tried to do something like that: reading letters or numbers?

For what we know, real letters and numbers may morph 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 “false words.” Please, think about it.

Almost all the information you’ll need to know about the method you’ll find it in these two links, and if you have any questions, please, feel free to ask me. Here it is:

Method to verify if OBE are real or imaginary experiences
Instructions of the Agnostic Method and Table 1:
Probabilities of guessing by chance a random number (See Post #3, #4, pag. 1)
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20907

Whats Your Proof? (this has been a very interesting and long debate; lots of information here):
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21011

Thanks a lot. qbeac. Spain.

[Snweyuag]

The thing about reading words in the astral/real-time is that they may or may not be the same words that are in the physical.

Let's say you put the projector in a windowless room, lock them in, and put a poster in another room with the words "Read This" on it. They project, go through the wall, and read the poster. Now, depending on what the projector is thinking at the time, the poster words will vary. The plane in which you view the poster (astral, real-time, whatever you want to call it) is directly affected by what the projector thinks. Thoughts become reality.

People say that the real-time/lowest astral resembles the physical. However, once they go somewhere where they don't know everything for certain, say a town they've never been to or another planet, the problem of reality changing (such that it varies from the physical plane aspect of that location) becomes much more pronounced. If I project and go to mars expecting to find something, I will find it. My expectations may or may not be conscious, but either way they will affect what I find.

In order to get accurate results from your experiment, you would need a very experienced projector(s) that can hold all levels of their mind clear while reading what's on the poster. This is extremely difficult, because some level of the mind is curious and will guess what will be on the poster. Most likely, that guess will be true in the astral/real-time, but not in reality.

That's my two cents on that.

[Bondjrno]

The thing about reading words in the astral/real-time is that they may or may not be the same words that are in the physical.

Let's say you put the projector in a windowless room, lock them in, and put a poster in another room with the words "Read This" on it. They project, go through the wall, and read the poster. Now, depending on what the projector is thinking at the time, the poster words will vary. The plane in which you view the poster (astral, real-time, whatever you want to call it) is directly affected by what the projector thinks. Thoughts become reality.

People say that the real-time/lowest astral resembles the physical. However, once they go somewhere where they don't know everything for certain, say a town they've never been to or another planet, the problem of reality changing (such that it varies from the physical plane aspect of that location) becomes much more pronounced. If I project and go to mars expecting to find something, I will find it. My expectations may or may not be conscious, but either way they will affect what I find.

In order to get accurate results from your experiment, you would need a very experienced projector(s) that can hold all levels of their mind clear while reading what's on the poster. This is extremely difficult, because some level of the mind is curious and will guess what will be on the poster. Most likely, that guess will be true in the astral/real-time, but not in reality.

That's my two cents on that.

Hi everybody,
Hi Sorlac, I understand what you say, but let me ask you something:

You are basically saying that reading the correct words “is difficult.” Did I understand you correctly? So, my question is:

Is reading the “real” words totally impossible all the times? In other words, are there any good projectors out there who may be capable of holding up the physical scenario long enough and without too much distortion (by mental power, practice, etc.) so that they can read the “real” words at least a certain number of times?

I want to point out that the results of the OBEer will 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 of both groups.

Therefore, I would like to clarify something important:

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 of, for instance: control group 4%, subjects group 45%, or 5%-60%, or 2%-30%...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 any of 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 perhaps 2 or 4 out of 10? Could you try and see what happens?

Please, what do you think?

Take care, qbeac

P.S. We have talked extensively about this issue in this link (see Post #8, pag. 8):
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewt ... 207#180207

[Snweyuag]

Yes, that's essentially what I'm saying in my post. I'm also saying that even if your study were to show no differences between the control group and the projecting group, it would only mean that the method of study isn't effective, not that AP doesn't exist. Naturally, I'm stating this from the bias that AP does exist.

However, I see that there is no harm in attempting this study. If you find nothing out of the ordinary, life goes on for those who believe that AP exists, and life goes on for those who don't. If it does find something, life will go on for those who believe, and most likely those who do not. However, those who do not believe, but read about it, will be affected by what they read. Even if they dismiss it, it will be a sliver in their mind that may stay with them for some time, and open their mind to other possibilities, or at the very least things that modern science doesn't know everything about. This could spark interest in the right people, spread information, and essentially give the skeptic population that reads it a step in the right direction.

I hope your study goes well and you find the people you're seeking for your studies.

[Bondjrno]

Yes, that's essentially what I'm saying in my post. I'm also saying that even if your study were to show no differences between the control group and the projecting group, it would only mean that the method of study isn't effective, not that AP doesn't exist. Naturally, I'm stating this from the bias that AP does exist.

However, I see that there is no harm in attempting this study. If you find nothing out of the ordinary, life goes on for those who believe that AP exists, and life goes on for those who don't. If it does find something, life will go on for those who believe, and most likely those who do not. However, those who do not believe, but read about it, will be affected by what they read. Even if they dismiss it, it will be a sliver in their mind that may stay with them for some time, and open their mind to other possibilities, or at the very least things that modern science doesn't know everything about. This could spark interest in the right people, spread information, and essentially give the skeptic population that reads it a step in the right direction.

I hope your study goes well and you find the people you're seeking for your studies.

Hi everybody,
Hi Sorlac, yes, I agree with everything you say, but I still wonder if there is any body out there that would be able to read the “real” two words at least 3 out of 10 times (more or less)? Do you happen to know anybody like that? Have you heard of anybody ever trying to read words? Perhaps some experienced projector such as Robert Bruce, Brian Mercer, or somebody like that would be capable of reading the words?

qbeac.

[russmodel]

Originally Posted by Dsmoke Oh, I just saw this post. If you're still doing the experiment, I'd love to join in.

But, the main question is this one: do you think you will be capable of reading the two words written on the paper and report on them correctly? Have you ever tried to do something like that: reading letters or numbers?
Reading is an immediate trigger for me to wake or snap out of trance. I don't know why. It's possible that two words may not present much of a problem for me, but I can't guarantee that. If this is what you're doing and you're not interested in someone who may have difficulties, I'm probably not the best person to participate in your study. However, if you ever decide to work with other methods, I would be happy to work with you.

[Bondjrno]

Originally Posted by qbeac Originally Posted by Dsmoke Oh, I just saw this post. If you're still doing the experiment, I'd love to join in.

But, the main question is this one: do you think you will be capable of reading the two words written on the paper and report on them correctly? Have you ever tried to do something like that: reading letters or numbers? Reading is an immediate trigger for me to wake or snap out of trance. I don't know why. It's possible that two words may not present much of a problem for me, but I can't guarantee that. If this is what you're doing and you're not interested in someone who may have difficulties, I'm probably not the best person to participate in your study. However, if you ever decide to work with other methods, I would be happy to work with you. Hi Dsmoke, we would be glad to work with any projector who can get even a very small percentage of correct readings on the two words from the dictionary. A priori, we don’t have in mind a fixed minimum level, but to give you a general idea of what would be considered acceptable values, we believe that guessing the correct words “around” 1 every 20 times (5% of the times) would be a good starting point. If you get 1 out of 25, or even 1 out of 30 more or less, yes, that would also be ok to begin with.

Or course if you can get a higher percentage than that, it would be great. But such small percentages (3%, 5%...) would be ok as a starting point. And maybe if you practice a little bit, you’ll get better at it, we’ll have to see.

And I’ll explain you the reason why those small percentages (3%, 5%) are acceptable to begin with: because the “control group” (who do not have an OBE) will probably be even lower than that. We don’t expect for the control group to get hardly any correct reading at all, simply because the probability of guessing by chance the two words from the dictionary, is very, very, very low. It is much easier to guess a lottery number, than to guess the two words. Therefore, the control group will probably get zero correct readings almost every time. And what we pretend to do is to compare the results in both groups: the control group (without OBE) and the subject group (with OBE).

Let me give you an example taken from Table 1 of the Agnostic Method:

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

These are only two of the variants from Table 1:

2.- "2 ordered words taken at random from a dictionary" (calculated on the base of 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).

5. - "Cipher of the 5 random numbers”. Spanish well known lottery number "Cupon de la ONCE." Example: 78153
Cupon URL: http://www.once.es/home.cfm?opcion=1&orden=1&ultimos=ok
Probability of guessing by chance one time: 1.e-5, = 0.00001
(4 zeros after the decimal point).

See? If you think about it, many people have bought the lottery number “Cupon de la ONCE” during many years, and have not guessed it a single time. And guessing correctly the two words from the dictionary is even much harder than that.

Thanks. qbeac.

[lerobudrse]

I don't have any problems with time but I don't understand the project. maybe I'll take another read.

[evalayCap]

Come now, only one person is interested?

The study wouldn't involve much. I'd just ask certain people to attempt to AP at certain times of day, and then report their findings.

I'd love to participate, but I'll sketch my problem:

05.30 => alarm clock
06.30 => to work
19.30 => back from work
23.30 => bed, and AP practise

I also have 3 kids and a wife, and try to develop a usergroup at another place.

If I could be of any help tho, let me know.

Regards,

Jeroen

[Rugda]

Come now, only one person is interested?

The study wouldn't involve much. I'd just ask certain people to attempt to AP at certain times of day, and then report their findings.

[evammaUselp]

Seems very interesting. I won't be able to participate though, as I haven't actually learned to project yet.

If this experiment gets delayed for some reason, or you decide to keep it going for a couple of years or so (which would probably not be a bad thing), then I might be able to participate later.

[Tactattcahhaw]

I'm definately interested. Hope it goes well.

-Stu

[Rugda]

Hello all,

I was wondering how many of you would be willing to participate in a study. The idea I have may make APing much more memorable and/or effective, and so I wondered if some of you might want to try it.

When reading about remote viewing, I came upon the topic of local sidereal time (LST) and its effects upon remote viewing. Here's a quote from the Akashic University: http://www.akashicuniversity.com/articles/RemoteVAS.htm

Doctor James Spottiswode analyzed a series of remote viewing databases and, as an established statistician and scientist, was able to provide some findings that were statistically significant. Dr James Spottiswode has correlated many thousands of general RV sessions in the Northern Hemisphere including Europe, Canada and the USA and the Effect Scores they produced. Local Sidereal Time is, essentially, the position of where you are on the Earth relative to the rest of the galaxy--i.e., facing towards it, away from it, etc. As the article said, remote viewing is 300-400% more effective at certain times LST, and much less at other times. (For the purposes of this study, I would ask that those who might be interested in participating not look up those specific times, in order to ensure that a placebo effect is not taking place. Those who do the times may still participate, but let me know beforehand.)

So I wonder--might this increased success rate apply also to astral projection? Perhaps it would assist in shadow memory recall or getting out of the body?

I have not yet established the exact proccess of the study I wish to do, but I would like to see if anyone here is interested or would participate. Also, if you have any friends or acquaintances who might want to participate, please tell them about it. If you are interested, please post here, PM me, or e-mail me at commandercurt@msn.com. Thanks.

[lerobudrse]

That's a point...I don't project either.

[Rugda]

Basically I want to find out if local sidereal time has any influence on astral projection, based on the fact that it has a very strong influence on remote viewing accuracy.

[Phoneemer]

I would be interested in participating, as well; but I have the same problem as some of the other posters---I have not yet been successful with projection.