Science Confirms Survival

[ForumScribe]

(Originally posted by Steve Grenard)

From: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/snyder.html

SCIENCE CONFIRMS SURVIVAL

A group of British scientists, including two astrophysicists, a thermodynamicist, and other professional researchers, are conducting experiments and solving complex equations that they believe furnish conclusive and irrefutable proof of human survival of bodily death.

Michael Roll, a rationalist and freethinker who heads The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom, is unofficial spokesman for the group. He has recently revealed information that could drastically alter humankind's entire belief system regarding continuation of consciousness beyond the grave. Roll, of Bristol, England, a former businessman, is a long-time explorer of paranormal phenomena. He and his colleagues' series of discoveries, involving mathematical equations and physical experiments, when taken together, furnish empirical evidence that makes an extremely strong case for continuing after-death survival of the human psyche.

The group has come to regard that continuation as the functioning of a natural, universal law, the study of which is strictly a branch of chemistry, physics, and mathematics, rather than an article of religious faith.

This scientific approach to a subject which heretofore has been discussed mainly as a function of theology is stirring lively debate, not only in Britain, but worldwide. The assertion that immortality is conferred on humankind through natural law alone, rather than by an all-powerful, monotheistic God, is awakening interest and triggering penetrating questions from the general public, including churchgoers, as they become more fully informed about prospects for continuing existence beyond the transition known as "death."

The researchers' premise is that certain recent mathematical discoveries....
read the entire article.... (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/snyder.html)

[waldiddy]

So, Randi's been forced to resign from CSICOP for character defamation? I'm shocked!

This is pretty neat webpage. Thanks for posting the link. The part about parallel universes actually reminds me of an experiment I read about and I can't remember where it was. Some physicists were playing around w/ emitting photons. You may already know this, but photons are the subatomic particles which make up waves of light. The physicists were capturing the impression that the photons made when released. Well, one of the scientists began releasing just one photon at a time. The number of impressions was still the same! In other words, they recorded multiple photon strikes even though only 1 photon was being released. So, where did the other photons come from?

Anyone else heard of this?

[Pam]

You would love Gary Schwartz's book, The Living Energy Universe, where he talks about the nature of energy, light, photons, etc. (Gary Schwartz is the researcher who tested John Edward and several other mediums.)

[Pam]

And yes, Randi was forced out of CSICOP because of his behavior. On his website, he lists himself as a founding member of CSICOP, but at the CSICOP site, he only gets passing references.

You notice these days, one rarely mentions the other, and there must be some bad blood.

Randi's had his share of legal difficulties over the years, including allegations of illegal drug possession, character defamation, all the way up to improper sexual advances to minor males, etc.

Whether or not any of these allegations are true, he has people that are taking the time and effort to make these allegations official legally. It seems that Randi doesn't play well with others and doesn't know how to make friends and influence people.

The people who like to call up Randi's name on other discussion boards, as a source of information either don't know about this, don't care, or just don't like to bring it up.

I would like to see Larry King ask him about THAT next time he makes his topic "Are psychics real?" and has Randi on as an "expert".

[BBsBliss]

Fascinating stuff in that article.
This reminds me of the popular fiction book "From the Corner of His Eye" by Dean Koontz. It's pretty recent, very thought-provoking, and a great read by the way. The kid say he can visit his dad if he goes to one of the other places where he is (instead of "reality" where his dad was dead.) It was my introduction to the whole quantum physics and classical physics connection. That and Dr. Eric Pearl's book on Reconnection. IT is also fascinating, but not spiritual. Dr. Pearl taps into the multi-dimension thing and shows you how to pull energy from the other dimensions to aid in healing. He was at the Journey of the Soul event in NYC.

[PsyQuestor]

Originally posted by Pam
You would love Gary Schwartz's book, The Living Energy Universe, where he talks about the nature of energy, light, photons, etc. (Gary Schwartz is the researcher who tested John Edward and several other mediums.)

Pam, do you know if his book "The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of life after Death" is out yet? This title gets a passing reference in CO, and states that it is due to be published in 2002.


Living Energy Universe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1571741704/qid=999793554/sr=1-2/ref=sc_b_2/107-9832596-8206952)

Tammy

[Pam]

No I don't, but a recent email dated 8/27 from Gary, he said :

<snip> "am in Glendale, CA, having just finished a working
meeting with 7 professional, superstar mediums. "<snip>

Snipped because the email was in reference to something else, and he just happend to mention what he was doing.

I hope he doesn't mind me sharing this. At any rate, whatever he was doing was over by the time he wrote me.

He went on to mention something about John agreeing with him on a particular point, and made the assumption that John was one of those "7 professional, superstar mediums."

I mean...come'on..can you have "7 professional, superstar mediums" in the room and not have John Edward there? :)

Gary's promised to let me know about a commitee-formed summary statement after it's put together, that I can provide here and on the site. Should be interesting, 'eh? :)

[AriesMoon]

Randi's had his share of legal difficulties over the years, including allegations of illegal drug possession, character defamation, all the way up to improper sexual advances to minor males, etc.

Pam, I'm glad you brought this up because I have a question. On another board someone referred to Randi as a scientist. I was interested in finding out about his educational background (what branch of science) as I figured in order to be able to be called a scientist he must have a degree. I did a search but nowhere could I find any reference to this. However, I did find much information on the topics that you mentioned above. Do you know, or does anyone know, if this man IS a "scientist" - or can anyone claim this distinction just based on the kind of work they do? Just curious.

[Pam]

Randi throws the word "scientific" around quite a bit, but according to his own words, "Well I'm a professional magician to start with, since the age of 17." ( http://www.abc.net.au/science/correx/archives/randi1.htm ) and does not hold any degrees that I know of. If he did, I'd think he'd list them at his own "about Randi" page located at:

http://www.randi.org/jr/index.html

If you'd like to read an account of Randi's integrity and how he values honesty, go to:

http://www.johnedwardfriends.org/readingroom/whoisscicop.htm

If you'd like to read a convuluded comment that James Randi made about moi, where he accuses me of lying, go here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/05-11-2001.html

All I can say is that it must have been a slow news day at the Randi.org office, if Randi had to write about civilian and non-media person Pam Blizzard. For God's sake, someone sent him a post I made quoting Gary Schwartz on an internet discussion board, and he wrote a whole few paragraphs around it. Randi was eventually proven wrong and he never pushed a peanut, nor offered me an apology much less a retraction.

Like I said....May 11, 2001: Sloooooow news day at Randi. org :)

[AriesMoon]

Cool! Thanks Pam. I have "heard" you mention this episode before but I didn't know how to find it, thanks for the links. I will read with enthusiasm.

[WPBEAR14]

They are demanding more information, as well as the lowering of all remaining barriers to free and open discussion of the matter. In future years, it is likely that the present times will be looked back upon as the dawning of a new Renaissance in humankind's perception of both the physical and non-physical worlds alike.


This quote is from the article mentioned in the first posted message by Steve G. I underlined a word that could be taken for two different meanings. (Hey Yardie,what is that called?)
All I can say is that it is about time that science is supporting metaphysical "reality." I had heard that physicists were working on some of this research, but am glad articles are coming to the surface.
As a science person,who believes in ADC, etc this is very supportive and validating for me.
Pooh

[Dawsthedruid]

I thought we weren't allowed to talk about Randi on this board?

[sgrenard]

Originally posted by Dawsthedruid
I thought we weren't allowed to talk about Randi on this board?


1. We are if its in reference to strictly scientific purposes

2. The post you refer to was made before the skeptic folder
was functional.

Now if there is to be any skeptic debate, in either direction, it should be placed in the skeptic folder.

[Fairiedust]

That was pretty nasty. To be called a liar once, is bad enough, but he did it enough to stuff a turkey....I, me, moi, wanted to smack him for ya!

Sooner or later the black slime will show up to get him.

[Dawsthedruid]

"Whether or not any of these allegations are true, he has people that are taking the time and effort to make these allegations official legally. It seems that Randi doesn't play well with others and doesn't know how to make friends and influence people. "

At the risk of being banned from the board or the thread being moved to another folder which for some reason I can't find or access, I have to respond to this. Pam, I can't stand Geller at all and Geller is the source for most of Randi's problems including the allegations of sexual relations with teenage boys. Most of Randi's litigation has involved Geller and he almost claimed bankrupcy over it.

On your own link above you state that you thank Randi for debunking Geller. You have to understand that there is a cause and effect here and character defamation is the only weapon the phony psychics can bring to bear. I myself believe in JE but the charlatans (Cleo et al.) need to be taken care of.

Randi isn't a statistician or a scientist. However, when it comes to arranging and administering the tests, he does use the services of qualified academics. I guess it's kind of like expecting the CEO of a major motor company to rebuild a transmission.

If you truly believe in JE's powers and know there are phonies out there you should quickly come to understand that we and Randi are on the same side.

[Pam]

Why haven't you requested access to the skeptical folder? Others have found the process without a problem. I'll give you access, and then this thread is being moved there.

You won't be banned for what you said - please get off the defensive. Everything you've read about me at Randi.org is NOT true...well not all of it, LOL.

[sgrenard]

[

Randi isn't a statistician or a scientist. However, when it comes to arranging and administering the tests, he does use the services of qualified academics. I guess it's kind of like expecting the CEO of a major motor company to rebuild a transmission.

If you truly believe in JE's powers and know there are phonies out there you should quickly come to understand that we and Randi are on the same side. [/B][/QUOTE]

Reply: Most of your post is clearly off topic for the scientific folder but parts of it are and I would like to address those. These are reprinted above for reference.

Randi indeed is not a scientist, but the other night he claims to have rceived the imprimateur of scientists at Harvard and MIT for his preliminary test of Sylvia Brown but failed to identify them. This is not the way it is done. I know who one of the scientists are, or think I do, and he is a professor of media arts at MIT. But putting that aside for a moment, if you go to other threads on the Randi/Browne test you will see discussion on why Randi's proposal to Sylvia, accepted provisionally by her and King without the benefit of counsel with other scientists, is a bit of a scam. We have spelled this out in detail elsewhere on this board.

I don't think anybody disagrees with the sad truth that there are many phonies out there. Randi and his colleagues should concentrate on debunking these but instead go after genuine, high profile mediumship because it gets more press and is a bigger target for them than Madame whois or whomever.

Please find and review the thread(s) and posts regarding the experiment he proposed last week to Sylvia Brown and reply to these if you choose. Thank you.

PS: Somehow the Sylvia/Randi thread has ended up in three different threads so you may need to skip around a bit. Perhaps they can at some point be consolidated although I dont know if this is possible. Now this post appears in Science Confirms Survival.