View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Share or recommend interesting films and videos about paranormal phenomena, awakening topics, skepticism, spirituality, metaphysics, science, conspiracies, etc.

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby brett » 22 Aug 2009, 03:10

OK prof - that's an honest answer - sorry to have pushed you on this one :D - i actually agree with you as to the WHEN she had the NDE - THIS is the critical point of the whole thing - but something we must consider is like dreams - how long do they actually last ?? - a few moments with lots packed in - or a long time ,maybe even diproptionanty long ?? eg covering the whole procedure time ?? thus giving a chance for some information to be not obtained as claimed ??

never having had one i don't know - there is one classic case you may like to read up on - which concerns a lady who underwent a NDE and allegedly drifted outside the medical room and observed a plimsoll on a ledge that would have been nigh on impossible for her to of seen or even known about - ( i will see if i can find a reference for you its in one of the many books i have so may take a while to find ) anyways up , apparently the claim was later substantiated that there was a plimsoll on the ledge as described by maria ( i think her name was ) - and none of the staff knew it was there ( again apparently ) until the claim was investigated ( if any one has a link that would be appreciated ) :D

the whole subject IS i agree clouded with controversy - but the incident i related that i personally was involved in - leads me to believe there may be more to all this than just hallucination etc

regards :D
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK






Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 22 Aug 2009, 03:52

No problem Brett. I can't learn something if I don't look into it so I appreciate the little push.
I might add that during my brief research, it was mentioned somewhere that she had been studying NDE's prior to her surgery. If true, that would diminish the credibility issue a bit. Additionally, her website links to another website that has loads of stuff that makes us skeptics cringe. I don't have the full, detailed explanation for what happened, but I still believe that it wasn't paranormal. And, again, I wouldn't have posted but the irrefutable title made me jump. (Though maybe I shouldn't say that...)
:-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby brett » 22 Aug 2009, 04:35

ProfWag wrote:No problem Brett. I can't learn something if I don't look into it so I appreciate the little push.
I might add that during my brief research, it was mentioned somewhere that she had been studying NDE's prior to her surgery. If true, that would diminish the credibility issue a bit. Additionally, her website links to another website that has loads of stuff that makes us skeptics cringe. I don't have the full, detailed explanation for what happened, but I still believe that it wasn't paranormal. And, again, I wouldn't have posted but the irrefutable title made me jump. (Though maybe I shouldn't say that...)
:-)


oh agreed if that was the case ( her studying NDE's prior to the events ) - could color things a bit and puts a different light on things somewhat - so thanks for that snippet - and i think others who may have had the same opinion as me originally have to be fair give credence to that fact ( if true )

maybe they should have put a ? rather than a ! in the title :?

but of course we should not let one ( possibly ) iffy case - colour all claimed cases ;)
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby Scepcop » 22 Aug 2009, 18:55

ProfWag,
Nice article, but it makes pompous assertions when it says that Pam's NDE could not have occurred during the flat brainline. The author wasn't there and can't know that. It's another case of skeptics pretending to know more than the people who were there. Totally pompous.

It also speculates and then takes those speculations as facts. Dr. Sabom is no idiot.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 22 Aug 2009, 19:33

Scepcop wrote:ProfWag,
Nice article, but it makes pompous assertions when it says that Pam's NDE could not have occurred during the flat brainline. The author wasn't there and can't know that. It's another case of skeptics pretending to know more than the people who were there. Totally pompous.

It also speculates and then takes those speculations as facts. Dr. Sabom is no idiot.

I disagree that it's a "pompous assertion." If it did occur during a flat brainline with absolutely no brain activity, then that might be considered paranormal. Since there's no proof of the paranormal as we can tell from this study, then it's not pompous to assume that it didn't happen.
You're right though, I wasn't there. But both sides of the debate have clearly stated they can't verify one way or another when her "OBE" occured so it's more than feasable to rationalize that it didn't occur while flatlined. From my standpoint, it's totally pompous to say that it did and another example of a non-critical thinker to say a case is irrefutable when, in fact, it is not.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby Scepcop » 22 Aug 2009, 20:46

brett wrote:OK prof - that's an honest answer - sorry to have pushed you on this one :D - i actually agree with you as to the WHEN she had the NDE - THIS is the critical point of the whole thing - but something we must consider is like dreams - how long do they actually last ?? - a few moments with lots packed in - or a long time ,maybe even diproptionanty long ?? eg covering the whole procedure time ?? thus giving a chance for some information to be not obtained as claimed ??

never having had one i don't know - there is one classic case you may like to read up on - which concerns a lady who underwent a NDE and allegedly drifted outside the medical room and observed a plimsoll on a ledge that would have been nigh on impossible for her to of seen or even known about - ( i will see if i can find a reference for you its in one of the many books i have so may take a while to find ) anyways up , apparently the claim was later substantiated that there was a plimsoll on the ledge as described by maria ( i think her name was ) - and none of the staff knew it was there ( again apparently ) until the claim was investigated ( if any one has a link that would be appreciated ) :D

the whole subject IS i agree clouded with controversy - but the incident i related that i personally was involved in - leads me to believe there may be more to all this than just hallucination etc

regards :D


I think you're referring to the Maria case where she saw a shoe on the ledge during an NDE and it turned out to be true. I mention it on Page 23 of my treatise, quoting the book "The Holographic Universe":

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page23.htm

If NDE’s and OBE’s were just dreams or hallucinations, then these perceptions at a distance wouldn’t turn out to be accurate. The separation of spirit from body or the mind’s ability to remote view are the best hypotheses that fit this well documented data. One famous example of this is the case of a nurse named Kimberly Clark. Talbot describes this incident in The Holographic Universe: (page 231-232)

“Such facts notwithstanding, no amount of statistical findings are as convincing as actual accounts of such experiences. For example, Kimberly Clark, a hospital social worker in Seattle, Washington, did not take OBEs seriously until she encountered a coronary patient named Maria. Several days after being admitted to the hospital Maria had a cardiac arrest and was quickly revived. Clark visited her later that afternoon expecting to find her anxious over the fact that her heart had stopped. As she had expected, Maria was agitated, but not for the reason she had anticipated.

Maria told Clark that she had experienced something very strange. After her heart had stopped she suddenly found herself looking down from the ceiling and watching the doctors and the nurses working on her. Then something over the emergency room driveway distracted her and as soon as she "thought herself" there, she was there. Next Maria "thought her way" up to the third floor of the building and found herself "eyeball to shoelace" with a tennis shoe. It was an old shoe and she noticed that the little toe had worn a whole through the fabric. She also noticed several other details, such as the fact that the lace was stuck under the heel. After Maria finished her account she begged Clark to please go to the ledge and see if there was a shoe there so that she could confirm whether her experience was real or not.

Skeptical but intrigued, Clark went outside and looked up at the ledge, but saw nothing. She went up to the third floor and began going in and out of pateients' rooms looking through windows so narrow she had to press her face against the glass just to see the ledge at all. Finally she found a room where she pressed her face against the glass and looked down and saw the tennis shoe. Still, from her vantage point she could not tell if the little toe had worn a place in the shoe or if any of the other details Maria had described were correct. It wasn't until she retrieved the shoe that she confirmed Maria's various observations. "The only way she would have had such a perspective was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe," states Clark, who has since become a believer in OBEs. "It was very concrete evidence for me." (Footnote 8)

Bruce Greyson and C. P. Flynn, The Near Death Experience (Chicago: Charles C. Thomas, 1984), as quoted in Stanislov Grof, The Adventure of Self Discovery (Albany, N.T.: SUNY Press, 1988), pp. 71-72.”
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby Scepcop » 22 Aug 2009, 20:51

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:ProfWag,
Nice article, but it makes pompous assertions when it says that Pam's NDE could not have occurred during the flat brainline. The author wasn't there and can't know that. It's another case of skeptics pretending to know more than the people who were there. Totally pompous.

It also speculates and then takes those speculations as facts. Dr. Sabom is no idiot.

I disagree that it's a "pompous assertion." If it did occur during a flat brainline with absolutely no brain activity, then that might be considered paranormal. Since there's no proof of the paranormal as we can tell from this study, then it's not pompous to assume that it didn't happen.
You're right though, I wasn't there. But both sides of the debate have clearly stated they can't verify one way or another when her "OBE" occured so it's more than feasable to rationalize that it didn't occur while flatlined. From my standpoint, it's totally pompous to say that it did and another example of a non-critical thinker to say a case is irrefutable when, in fact, it is not.


Then logically you should say that it's not clear or unknown. But the writer of your article said that it was clear that the NDE didn't occur during the flat brainline. He has no proof of that. You are using circular reasoning when you say that there is no proof for the paranormal so she must have not had the NDE during the flat brainline. Isn't that very circular, like the kind that Christian fundies use?

If it wasn't clear when her NDE occurred, the doctors there would not have been astonished. Obviously there must have been a good reason why they were astonished and believed that her NDE occurred during a flat brainline. You underestimate them.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 22 Aug 2009, 23:13

Scepcop, if you'll notice, I never said I was an expert in this field of study. Anyone who claims to be in all facets of the paranormal has much more time on their hands than I do. However, as you mention, there may not be substantiative proof that her OBE didn't happen while flatlined. Consequently, there is not substantiative proof that it did. Hence, your title of this thread states that it is "Irrefutable!" That is not factual and since you claim that you are so fair, then you should admit that fact. It is refutable.
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 24 Aug 2009, 05:35

I agree: the professor is obviously biased. This is most evident in how he tends to ignore the really compelling evidence which in the very least demonstrates a non-local conscious awareness/perception. Yes, we cannot know for sure, for the most part, when the OBE or NDE occurred in terms of an exact time, but then again, psi experiments have demonstrated that precognition has empirical support which further allows one to theorize that perhaps we are non-local conscious "beings" during our NDE state(s), but that's highly speculative, and I admit that. However, and getting back on topic, if it's true that Pam "heard" the conversation regarding her small veins/arteries after having had the earplugs inserted into her ears, then that's compelling evidence that she experienced auditory-like perception during a time in which she shouldn't have; speech she most likely would not have heard via her ears, wherein several one hundred-decibel-per-second clicks were played--very loud and fast sounds (Tart 2009; pg 232). While it's not proof that consciousness can perceive, or even continue its existence, while the brain is clinically "dead," it at the very least provides evidence in support of a form of psi, in this case it being a form of telepathy (i.e., she psychically perceived their "speech" about her veins/arteries being small). So, unless one or more persons is/are lying about the events in this case, I believe her case provides good anecdotal evidence in support of human psi faculties, at the very least.
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 24 Aug 2009, 05:55, edited 1 time in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 24 Aug 2009, 05:44

ProfWag wrote:... It is refutable.
Wag


I'm afraid that's a false statement. Since we don't have a "time machine" that can take us back to that time to analyze & study the entire situation & events, in detail, as they transpired during that time span, all we can do is base our conclusions on largely anecdotal evidence, data which might be non-factual or non-accurate. What many ultimately conclude is, unfortunately, based on biases, not logical reasoning. We cannot refute Pam did NOT indeed "leave" her body and have a genuine OBE, just as we cannot refute Pam DID indeed "leave" her body and have a genuine OBE. Those two statements are the facts. We do not have enough facts to substantiate a belief in either theory either way (i.e., paranormal vs. non-paranormal).

If you believe you have evidence that can refute various claims, please post them.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 24 Aug 2009, 22:40

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:... It is refutable.
Wag


I'm afraid that's a false statement. Since we don't have a "time machine" that can take us back to that time to analyze & study the entire situation & events, in detail, as they transpired during that time span, all we can do is base our conclusions on largely anecdotal evidence, data which might be non-factual or non-accurate. What many ultimately conclude is, unfortunately, based on biases, not logical reasoning. We cannot refute Pam did NOT indeed "leave" her body and have a genuine OBE, just as we cannot refute Pam DID indeed "leave" her body and have a genuine OBE. Those two statements are the facts. We do not have enough facts to substantiate a belief in either theory either way (i.e., paranormal vs. non-paranormal).

If you believe you have evidence that can refute various claims, please post them.

Quantum,
What is the title of this thread? It states "......, Irrefutable!" My argument is that it IS refutable and the title of this thread is misleading (as are many of the titles in this forum). I haven't stated uncategorically that it was not paranormal (even if that's what I believe), I have merely provided information that COULD lead one to conclude that it was not an out-of-body, paranormal event that happend that day. Hence, that makes the title of this thread incorrect. It is refutable. If it has been proven that a paranormal event occured, then the world needs to know about it. You stated yourself in your last line that we do not have enough facts.... That statement alone makes her NDE case refutable.
Tell me again, who is the biased one?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 25 Aug 2009, 11:41

ProfWag wrote:It is refutable.


Refute: Overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof

Please provide, here, the argument, evidence, or proof. Thanks.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 25 Aug 2009, 19:59

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:It is refutable.


Refute: Overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof

Please provide, here, the argument, evidence, or proof. Thanks.

Main Entry: ir·re·fut·able
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈfyü-tə-bəl; i-ˈre-fyə-tə-, ˌi(r)-\
: impossible to refute : incontrovertible <irrefutable proof>
Please refer to my post at the top of the second page of this thread for the argument. The fact that Pam Reynolds had a NDE during a flat brainline has not, and cannot, be proven one way or the other. Not from me, the doctors that were there, or the dude who wrote the book about it. Hence, the comment that she had a NDE during a flat brainline is most certainly refutable.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby quantumparanormal » 25 Aug 2009, 21:59

ProfWag wrote:The fact that Pam Reynolds had a NDE during a flat brainline has not, and cannot, be proven one way or the other.


There's a contradiction in that statement in that it's a "fact" she had the NDE during a flat brainline, but I'll leave it that as a possible semantic mistake.

Wrong again: it's not refutable that she DID or did NOT have an NDE during a flat brainline, as there's no evidence to substantiate either theory/hypothesis either way. To conclude either way is speculative at best. Saying it over and over again, either, doesn't make it so.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!

Postby ProfWag » 25 Aug 2009, 23:15

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:The fact that Pam Reynolds had a NDE during a flat brainline has not, and cannot, be proven one way or the other.


There's a contradiction in that statement in that it's a "fact" she had the NDE during a flat brainline, but I'll leave it that as a possible semantic mistake.

Wrong again: it's not refutable that she DID or did NOT have an NDE during a flat brainline, as there's no evidence to substantiate either theory/hypothesis either way. To conclude either way is speculative at best. Saying it over and over again, either, doesn't make it so.

Uhhhh, yes. Your statement "there's no evidence to substantiate either theory/hypothesis either way." is absolutely correct and I agree 100%. I believe we are falling victime to obvious miscomunication that can happen in writing.
Now, as I've said all along, if there's no evidence to positively substantiate a statement, then the title of this thread cannot be correct. Mr. Wu states in the title: "Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline, Irrefutable!" If it was "irrefutable," there would be no counter argument. As I have shown, there is a counter-argument. That means it is not irrefutable, thus an incorrect title. If something is not irrefutable, that makes it refutable. True?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron