From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:20:16 +0000, LH wrote:   
   > snip   
   >   
   > > It's not "solid evidence", and you're being a little naive to think so.   
   > >   
   > > Or perhaps I'm being too cynical; but just because something is written   
   > > in a book, does not mean it's true.   
   >   
   > And where do you get your information, from books and articles or your own   
   > research???  :-)   
      
   There's a big difference between respected peer-reviewed journals, and the   
   "New Age" section of your local bookshop.   
      
   > > Look at the Casteneda books, for example.   
   >   
   > Let's talk about Castaneda.  Where's your proof that what's in his books is   
   > BS.  Sure critics have made accusations and he never did much in his own   
   > defense that I'm aware of, but I haven't seen anything other than   
   > accusations.  Did Castaneda himself say it was all lies or did someone else   
   > say it?   
      
   Lots of other people said it.  But he's just one example - I can find   
   others ;-)   
      
   > Let's talk experience, have you ever adjusted someone's assemblage point?   
      
   Nope.  When I attempt to perceive it, I feel nothing.   
      
   > I've done it dozens of times and I've seen the instantaneous results of   
   > doing it.  So if it were all bullshit, it shouldn't be possible to find the   
   > assemblage point let alone adjust it. (We've been down this road before so   
   > I'll stop now.)   
      
   Being right once, about the assemblage point (which is nonsense,   
   scientifically, as I'm sure you realise, being an engineer) - does not mean   
   that everything he ever wrote was true.   
      
   More to the point, your feelings about the veracity of the assemblage   
   point are not based on reasonable evidence.  Even you would concede it's   
   hardly good science.   
      
   >   
   > >> Robert Monroe had several verified OBEs, confirming the dress of those   
   > >> present, who was there, their look, and in one experience even leaving a   
   > >> physical mark on a person present.   
   > >   
   > > Or did he just make it up?   
   > > There is no way to tell.   
   >   
   > Do scientific researchers ever just "make it up"?  You bet your ass they   
   > do. Do people then believe the results, you bet they do.  It can take years   
   > to find out that it was all BS.   
      
   Perhaps, but it doesn't happen very often, and, more to the point, people _do_   
   find it out.   
      
   I can only think of one recent major mainstream scientific fraud, and that one   
   only worked for about 18 months.   
      
   Science is, generally, self-correcting.  Mystical science is not.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)