Man has NDE, told not his time, then dies for real 2 minutes later

#41
Can you state what part of the reports of Mr A and Vanessa in Aware 1 were not basically accurate, Max ?



You must be referring to Penny's patient 10 here I guess. As far as I can remember he is the only patient who has ever been in a position to view a potential target in the whole literature. He didn't see it, no but if you remember, he also stated, "To be honest, Penny I didn't look, I didn't twist my head back that way !"

Now, Penny was the nurse who was attending to him. She was the conductor of the study and she was the person who stuck that bright red/pink symbol up on the top of the monitor. She also cleaned his mouth with the pink sponge etc. Does it not occur to you (given your theory) that she could have quite reasonably transmitted that symbol into her patient's brain from her own brain, because it would quite likely have been very much on her mind at this time...but it didn't happen.

Of course, you'll probably say that she wasn't directly looking at it when she was attending to him but then you are being selective.
Penny never knew the target pictures, that was part of her protocol, and it was deliberately done (so she told me on her blog) to rule out a telepathy type hypothesis, or other leakage.

Above patient 10's cubical, the space bore no physical resemblance to everyday reality... but then, neither Penny or the Physiotherapist are likely to have been particularly aware of the space above them. Instead they are likely to have been concentrating on Patient 10 himself. I mean, how often do we ignore the building above street level, when shopping on the high street, and that's hardly a life or death scenario... although at this time of year one might argue it often feels like it.

I didnt understand your first question with reference to hidden secret targets.
 
Last edited:
#42
That's probably fair to say too. Although he already seems to have exposed himself professionally quite extensively. If the evidence is so strong I don't really accept it would necessarily be damaging to him. I can't really think of a better way to get evidence that would be acceptable from a scientific point of view.

The evidence for survival and for NDEs comes from many sources I agree. If Sam Parnia finds good evidence that's great. If he doesn't, it doesn't affect the positive evidence from other sources, which is I think the point you're making.
That depends on how we weight evidence. That he is still talking about "Mr. A's" experience, basically promoting the project, may be suggestive of some success or at least optimism in the potential of the setup.

But, a single hit will only be regarded as intriguing, as outliers are not given the same public weight as recurrent cases. For us, it would be a lot of discussion, but to really get this to the mainstream he is likely going to need three or more hits.
 
#43
TEDxSBU: https://tedxsbu.stonybrook.edu/2014-photos-and-videos/

What is most intriguing is that Parnia uses almost the exact same words the he used after the original AWARE, he does not seem to be "backtracking" as some people suggested in here. This interview taking place three months after the presentation (above) was distributed is most interesting, given his language.

Edit: It's actually the 2014 event.
Thanks!

I scanned their site, and I still couldn't find the actual video though :/
 
#44
Penny never knew the target pictures, that was part of her protocol, and it was deliberately done (so she told me on her blog) to rule out a telepathy type hypothesis, or other leakage.
Okay, I remember that, you're right Max. But to be picky, I would have thought your "mechanism" would have been able to bypass any such protocol. Surely the other person that stuck up the targets must have had some contact with Penny even if it was just walking past her etc ?


I didnt understand your first question with reference to hidden secret targets.
Well you said this :

"Why are they are trying to produce evidence for an actual location (up high), before they have investigated whether the recalled information is simply accurate, makes little sense to me."

And I asked what information did Mr A and Vanessa report which wasn't accurate. It was accurate and Parnia speculated about this case as to whether a board fitted in that room as per the other rooms would have actually caught Mr A's field of vision from where he reported seeing his resuscitation from.
 
#45
Okay, I remember that, you're right Max. But to be picky, I would have thought your "mechanism" would have been able to bypass any such protocol. Surely the other person that stuck up the targets must have had some contact with Penny even if it was just walking past her etc ?




Well you said this :

"Why are they are trying to produce evidence for an actual location (up high), before they have investigated whether the recalled information is simply accurate, makes little sense to me."

And I asked what information did Mr A and Vanessa report which wasn't accurate. It was accurate and Parnia speculated about this case as to whether a board fitted in that room as per the other rooms would have actually caught Mr A's field of vision from where he reported seeing his resuscitation from.
I don't understand your first point, hidden secret targets will never be seen. I've always made that clear. The targets were always slid into place covered up, then the cover was removed when they were outside of the line of sight. So no one should know what target was in place.

I still don't understand the argument you're trying to make with your second point.
 
#46
I don't understand your first point, hidden secret targets will never be seen.
That's just your opinion though, Max. Hidden (out of view) objects have been seen many times during OBE's. Just because the objects were not designated as "targets" doesn't invalidate this fact.

The targets were always slid into place covered up, then the cover was removed when they were outside of the line of sight.
Are you referring to Penny's protocol ? Someone involved in that study must have known what those pictures were. Okay, even if a picture was selected randomly with a cover on it, there's still a theoretical possibility contamination could have taken place. I agree it's very unlikely though. Your theory surely doesn't rely on a connection through eyesight does it, "fields" don't need eyes to interconnect ?

I still don't understand the argument you're trying to make with your second point.
Mr A reported moving up to the ceiling and looking back at the scene. He saw the physical backs of the registrar and the nurse, something he couldn't have possibly seen from his position lying flat out on a bed with a curtain forming a partition to blind his vision. So what Mr A reported was accurate and obviously from a position high up and away from his physical body.

So the question is, why did you state they hadn't checked whether the reported information was accurate, when they had ? Furthermore, how can your theory
work in this case when no one was looking at the backs of the two medical personal to transmit this scene ?
 
#47
That's just your opinion though, Max. Hidden (out of view) objects have been seen many times during OBE's. Just because the objects were not designated as "targets"...
It makes a great deal of difference for our purposes though, which is to reproducibly show this phenomenon contains information the patient could not have known about. Unfortunately hidden secret targets have never been seen... (and they never will be).

...when no one was looking at the backs of the two medical personal to transmit this scene
No, you can construct a scene with missing information filled in... people who have a front, have a back too... there is good research showing we have awareness of say... a room and all it's boundaries, even when we have our backs to a wall. If we know the room, we know roughly where the wall is behind us.

We're trying to show that patients have information they could not have obtained from their normal senses, but that information must also be verifiable. At present experients are confirming this phenomena takes place for themselves (like me), but they could be mistaken, so these stories don't help anybody else understand or reproduce them. All the hidden target studies on high have failed to produce any hits. I say that's because third parties can't see em.

We would need hits on targets which are hidden from the patient, but they don't need to be hidden from third parties (obviously I say that is essential, otherwise the information wouldn't be available to the experient). That calls for real-time imagery targets.

Aware II seems to have hidden the visual target from everybody again... there will be no hits... and it will strengthen the evidence against the nieve 'disembodied eyes' type theories.
 
#48
Unfortunately hidden secret targets have never been seen... (and they never will be).
But as I said, only one person (as far as I know) has ever been ( prospective study wise) in an OBE position to actually have a chance of seeing a target. Why would a scientific experiment be abandoned on the basis of a single test. A test that also revealed corroborated information that the patient could not have seen ?

No, you can construct a scene with missing information filled in... people who have a front, have a back too... there is good research showing we have awareness of say... a room and all it's boundaries, even when we have our backs to a wall.
So your theory has now been amended/extended in capability presumably. Mr A couldn't see the front of the two medical staff and he didn't even know that the registrar was there, so why would he construct a picture of two persons ? And just as importantly, how would he have known there was a bald headed chunky fellow with a blue hat ?

We're trying to show that patients have information they could not have obtained from their normal senses, but that information must also be verifiable
This has already been demonstrated in five prospective studies.

Aware II seems to have hidden the visual target from everybody again... there will be no hits... and it will strengthen the evidence against the nieve 'disembodied eyes' type theories.
"there will be no hits..."

It rather sounds like you're hoping so, Max. Shouldn't we wait for the experiment to be given a good run before concluding that ? ...considering how challenging this is ? The disembodied eyes may sound comical but what we're talking about here is conscious awareness and patients describe their conscious awareness as being separated from their physical bodies which they can see below (most often).

This vision of their body and surroundings tends to be described as being crystal clear. If visual information was really being exchanged between two interacting brains, I would expect the result to be extremely fuzzy, grainy, jumbled up, anything but crystal clear. But they also describe moving about, passing through walls, up through the roof (of the hospital) and across the car park, wherever they want to go. This is what they describe, the data has to be accounted for.

I would say it's naïve to suggest that all this can be explained by some kind of hypothetical interaction between people's brains for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
#49
I would say it's naïve to suggest that all this can be explained by some kind of hypothetical interaction between people's brains for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Especially so given that one of those brains is not even switched on at the time.
 
#51
But as I said, only one person (as far as I know) has ever been ( prospective study wise) in an OBE position to actually have a chance of seeing a target. Why would a scientific experiment be abandoned on the basis of a single test. A test that also revealed corroborated information that the patient could not have seen ?



So your theory has now been amended/extended in capability presumably. Mr A couldn't see the front of the two medical staff and he didn't even know that the registrar was there, so why would he construct a picture of two persons ? And just as importantly, how would he have known there was a bald headed chunky fellow with a blue hat ?



This has already been demonstrated in five prospective studies.



"there will be no hits..."

It rather sounds like you're hoping so, Max. Shouldn't we wait for the experiment to be given a good run before concluding that ? ...considering how challenging this is ? The disembodied eyes may sound comical but what we're talking about here is conscious awareness and patients describe their conscious awareness as being separated from their physical bodies which they can see below (most often).

This vision of their body and surroundings tends to be described as being crystal clear. If visual information was really being exchanged between two interacting brains, I would expect the result to be extremely fuzzy, grainy, jumbled up, anything but crystal clear. But they also describe moving about, passing through walls, up through the roof (of the hospital) and across the car park, wherever they want to go. This is what they describe, the data has to be accounted for.

I would say it's naïve to suggest that all this can be explained by some kind of hypothetical interaction between people's brains for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Dunno why you would abandon the target studies... just extend then... using many scattered real-time visual targets at various heights and angles from the ground up, and not just hidden secret ones high up. It's stubbornly sticking to hidden secret visual targets to the exclusion of other possibilities that is so daft.

And we have got some suggestive evidence that classic NDE OBE'rs are combining information they could not have known about via/from third parties.

It's exactly the same evidence that you use to support your claims to 'disembodied eyes'. But my ideas are at least attempting to understand why child NDE OBR's say they felt older/taller, why there are both first person perspectives, as well as floaty ones, why kids say they saw through a family members eyes, how NDE OBE'rs knew other private information about third parties who were present.
 
#52
using many scattered real-time visual targets at various heights and angles from the ground up,
That would invalidate the whole test. You couldn't rule out normal vision during or before the cardiac arrest or perhaps a reflection of someone's glasses or anything which reflects light.

But my ideas are at least attempting to understand why child NDE OBR's say they felt older/taller,
So you're postulating that because (very occasionally) a child reports feeling older in her/his NDE, that that is because the endogenous fields of the attending doctors looking down on her, reflect their own age into her field and then that makes her feel older during her NDE ? How come when children have an OBE during this NDE they look down from above and see themselves as they really are, the age they actually are ? They don't report seeing themselves as 30 years older do they ?

why there are both first person perspectives, as well as floaty ones,
Nothing hard to explain there for a disembodied consciousness but your theory certainly can't get you through the wall and down the hall into the cafeteria as Michaela Roser reported.

why kids say they saw through a family members eyes, how NDE OBE'rs knew other private information about third parties who were present.
As far fetched as it sounds that seems to be part of the abilities of the disembodied consciousness. George Rodonaia reported being able to read his wife's mind while he was disembodied. He correctly saw that she had already begun to think about who was going to be her next husband now that George was dead (Atwater/Rivas) The Self does not die page 130.
 
#53
That would invalidate the whole test. You couldn't rule out normal vision during or before the cardiac arrest or perhaps a reflection of someone's glasses or anything which reflects light.



So you're postulating that because (very occasionally) a child reports feeling older in her/his NDE, that that is because the endogenous fields of the attending doctors looking down on her, reflect their own age into her field and then that makes her feel older during her NDE ? How come when children have an OBE during this NDE they look down from above and see themselves as they really are, the age they actually are ? They don't report seeing themselves as 30 years older do they ?



Nothing hard to explain there for a disembodied consciousness but your theory certainly can't get you through the wall and down the hall into the cafeteria as Michaela Roser reported.



As far fetched as it sounds that seems to be part of the abilities of the disembodied consciousness. George Rodonaia reported being able to read his wife's mind while he was disembodied. He correctly saw that she had already begun to think about who was going to be her next husband now that George was dead (Atwater/Rivas) The Self does not die page 130.
Listen to yourself... disembodied eyes are telepathic... lol.
 
#54
As far as I know, no one has ever reported just being a pair of disembodied eyes and truly meaning that they considered themselves to be literally " two floating eyeballs." They report that their conscious awareness, everything that comprises themselves, was separated from their physical shell and floating around, able to view the scene below.

I'm surprised at that comment, Max to be honest, if that's how you think I consider this phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
#55
Or as a follow up (I posted my previous thread prior to finishing the podcast) , they shared another story of a person having an NDE and being told it was his time, only to eventually be told towards the end of his NDE that they got it wrong and he was brought back.

What are we to make of stories like these? I suppose I am troubled by accounts like these because I am so used to hearing about "typical" NDE's with light and love and the occasional distressing NDE but haven't really been aware of accounts such as these..
I see no reason why bureaucracy shouldn't exist in the kingdom of heaven... lol
 
Top