SCEPCOP Forum

Well,F.C.Dommeyer definetely had nothing to do with TV shows. And You are not familiar with J.Rhine's works? It was the major work on parapsychology by then!And Robert Almeder DOES mention F.C.Dommeyer's book in his "Death and the Personal Survival", so it is not the case that his book went unnoticed, he was not TV man, but philosopher and parapsycology researcher.
But again - no treatment of "drop-ins", ant the supposition that skills can be acquired by ESP from living is beyond me.Also C.Carter rightly says - how is that possible to acquire data from some books,objects and then impersonify it into the "spirit"?
Also,the book is definetely on-sided,unlike C.D.Broad,A.Gauld and S.Braude. "survival hypothesis"is all bad,and "esp" hypothesis is all good,without any critical approach to esp hypothesis

I give You re-print of Stephen Braude's article about "drop-ins" from his 'Immortal Remains':

http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/arti ... rop-in.htm

Let me know if You succeeded to open it, it doesn't open on every computer

"What are your personal thoughts on ESP vs. The Survival Hypothesis?"

That's the toughest question to be asked. For example,in one book,several authors discussed this topic and most of them stated that whatever survives is or the "pure consciousness" or kinf of "filed", not "person". But even without making any final conclusions,I'd best formulate my position this way: there SEEM to be cases that any NORMAL means cannot be applied(certain types of apparitions,some rcase suggestive of eincarnation ,and some cases of mediumship. and ,to narrow it: there SEEM to be cases where ESP or merely survival of "field" is inadequate to explain the evidence.

I can suggest You one article by Scott Rogo, and just now I got something extremely baffling for the case of survival,by 1908(by extremely skeptical magician)

I give You re-print of Stephen Braude's article about "drop-ins" from his 'Immortal Remains':

http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/arti ... rop-in.htm

Let me know if You succeeded to open it, it doesn't open on every computer

"What are your personal thoughts on ESP vs. The Survival Hypothesis?"

That's the toughest question to be asked. For example,in one book,several authors discussed this topic and most of them stated that whatever survives is or the "pure consciousness" or kinf of "filed", not "person". But even without making any final conclusions,I'd best formulate my position this way: there SEEM to be cases that any NORMAL means cannot be applied(certain types of apparitions,some rcase suggestive of eincarnation ,and some cases of mediumship. and ,to narrow it: there SEEM to be cases where ESP or merely survival of "field" is inadequate to explain the evidence.

I can suggest You one article by Scott Rogo, and just now I got something extremely baffling for the case of survival,by 1908(by extremely skeptical magician)

It opened with no problem and it was another interesting read. Thank you.

So a "drop-in" is someone/thing that the Medium doesn't know or didn't conjure up or is not their 'regular' spirit contact. Like a door to door salesman or the Jehova Witnesses in real life.

I do have some thoughts/opinions on the different situations regarding Mediums and their spirit communications. I'd like to copy and paste from the articles and put my $.02 in that way rather than try to paraphrase someone's writing. I'll have to go back and find it first.... give me a few minutes.

I'd say "drop-in" it is when communicator was initiated by the deceased,not by medium/sitters, kind of intrusion.
I wait for Your $.02, I'll stay here for another 30 mins...

This is interesting!
Lets continue tomorrow,gotta go now
Cheers!

I finished up reading "The Watseka Wonder" by E.W. Stevens (1878). It's a pretty amazing story and even I have a hard time believing many of the claims made. It certainly would provide proof of the Survival Hypothesis if it could be verified.

Let me know when you'll have some time to continue our original discussion. I've been making some notes.