Conference hydra::dejavu

    Well, they could use a glass cutter to get her out of there but I
    don't know what they will have to do to get her back to size again.
    B^) 

    Re .0 (John):
    
    _Which_ paper called the _Sun_?  Surely not that one published in
    Lowell, Mass. ...
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Hey John,  how did the jilted lover use the boa to commit suicide?

    John, you have made my day.  It's nice to get the "giggle of the
    day" so early.  It sort of sets a pleasing tone for the rest of
    the day.
    
    Marion

    Re Supermarket Tabloid headlines:
    
    Ny absolute favorite of these I read some time ago:
    
    NEW JERSEY WOMAN CAN MOVE CREAM CHEESE WITH HER MIND
    
    What a wild talent! :-P
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    My all-time fave:  I WAS BIGFOOT'S LOVE-SLAVE
    

    re: .6 (M.L.)
    
    	Was that your all-time fave *experience*, or your all-time
    	fave headline?????  =;*)
    
    						Carla
    

    RE: .5, .6
    
    Hahahahaha!  Those are as good as my two faves:
    
    CABBAGE PATCH DOLL STRANGLES ITS MOM
     
    I GAVE BIRTH TO 17 LIVE RABBITS
    
    John M.

People will pay for anything.


               ARTIST PAINTS PEOPLE LIVING BEYOND THE GRAVE
                              (Condensed by JM)

If you've ever wondered what your dearly departed loved ones look like after
they've died and gone to Heaven, you can now find out courtesy of a 22-year-old
psychic with the astounding ability to paint portraits of people as they
appear beyond the grave.

Nan had her first psychic experience when her dead grandfather spoke through
her from the great beyond to transmit a message to his widow.

Now Nan, who graduated from college last June, has combined her two
extraordinary skills in order to paint portraits of people who have died.
Nan studies a picture of the person when he or she was alive, meditates
until her mind is in a trance-like state and then puts brush to canvas as
her spirit guide gives her telepathic directions on how to paint the portrait.

..."I am given directions but make the actual brush strokes myself.  In
this way, I am allowed the artistic freedom to express myself while still
being able to render an accurate portrait."

"It's a great comfort to actually be able to see what your loved ones look
like after they die," notes one satisfied customer. 

Not surprisingly, most souls in the afterlife look almost nothing like they
did here on Earth.

"The main thing is the aura," Nan observes.  "In death it becomes radiant
and reflects a person's true beauty.  Most people appear much more alive
after they die."

*************************************************************************

John M.

    RE: .5
    Like effects like:-)
    			Geoff
    

    
    Hey John,
    
    Are you *SURE* it was this newspaper called the 'SUN' and *not* 
    'The Skeptical Inquirer'??????      
    
    It's OK - I will understand if you are trying to save face here.
    
    (;^)                                                  
    
    Cindy

    
    Re: .10
    
    A little side note.....

    There are genuine psychic artists.  I have two friends that are
    psychic artists.  What they do is tune in to what the person looks
    like and draw what they see in pastels.  In their cases, the portraits
    look exactly like the people as they looked in the physical...
    
    Pretty good proof & evidence of something paranormal...
    
    An acquaintance of mine met one of my artist friends and had her
    do a portrait of a relative who had recently passed on.  She did
    not tell the artist which relative, had never met the artist before,
    and I knew nothing about it at all.  My artist-friend drew a picture
    of an older man.  It turned out that the person that was drawn was the
    woman's father who had passed on the year before.  At a later time she
    showed several people who had seen the portrait a photograph of her
    father and it looked exactly like him....
    
    Linda

RE: .13
    
    By what process do they "tune in to what the person looks like"?
    Do they use psychometry, just the person's name, feedback with
    the client, or something else?
    
    					Topher

    
    
    Re: .last few
    
    I would think that they use clairvoyant faculties to see the
    person in spirit.
    
    Carole
    

    Do they ever draw relatives in hell?
    
    
    
    
    John M.

    Re:  .0
    
        Its obvious the Soviets have used their miniturazition process
    on her, simply have them deminiturize her.     
    

    RE: .17
    
    No, the shrinkage resulted from an overdose of Preparation H.
                                    
    
    John M.

    
    Re: .14, .15
    
    The person who wants a psychic portrait done fills out a billet
    card.  A billet card for a psychic drawing basically is an index
    card that has been "cleansed" in a cabinet.  The person who wants
    the billet can write down either the exact name of the person they
    want drawn, or some reference to the person (like some relative
    that is near me since they past on, or a spirit guide, or a master
    teacher).  The person then signs his name at the bottom of the card,
    folds the card in half, and puts their first name on the outside
    (if more than one person is having a drawing at a time).  Once this
    is done, the person holds the card at the solar-plexus for a couple
    of minutes, letting their vibration enter the card.  The artist
    will then take the card and hold it, or place at their forhead or
    the back of their neck, and tune in to the person.  They, usually,
    do not read what has been written on the card.  If the portrait
    is not being done in front of the person that has requested it,
    sometimes the billet card is placed in an envelope and sealed and
    marked so as you can tell if it has been opened....

    Billet cards are also used in psychic readings.  In that case, you
    would write down your questions on the card, sign it, fold it, write
    your first name on the outside, & hold it to your solar-plexus.  The
    card is then placed in a box (with other cards if more than one
    person is having a reading).  The psychic then will pick up the
    card, and will tune in to anything he/she picks up with the card.
    Once they have spoken all that they can sense, they then will open
    the card and try to answer any of the unanswered questions, if
    karmically allowed.
    
    This is the system that is used in the "church" or "school" (whatever
    you want to call it) that I go to.  It is called the "Aquarian
    Foundation".  It is the only church I know that is based on scientific
    proof & evidence....
    
    Linda
    
    P.S. Re: .16 
    In my belief system, there is no hell, so I don't know.

    
    
    Linda,
    
    Could you send me some information on the "Aquarian Foundation"
    off-line?  I would really appreciate it.
    
    Thanks, 
    
    Carole
    

    
    Linda,
    
    Yes - I'm interested in the Aquarian Foundation as well.  Perhaps
    would it be possible to discuss it here?
                           
    Cindy

    I'm also interested.

RE: .19
    
    Thank's, Linda, that's what I wanted to know.
    
    By-the-way, if you care about scientific evidence and/or proof (and
    I'm not saying that anyone should) the conditions that would have
    to be met in this case to qualify would be (at least):
    
    	1) The person who makes the request should not be known by the
    	   artist and should have no contact with the artist.  In
    	   particular they should not be present when the drawing is
    	   made.
    
    	2) They should choose who is to be drawn from a number of different
    	   people they have known who have passed on.  The choice should
    	   be made randomly by use of some appropriate device, such
    	   as by rolling a die.
    
        3) Nothing written on the billet should distinguish among
    	   the individuals who might be chosen, purely visually.  For
    	   example, the name should be equally likely to apply to all
    	   the people.  Any clue which could even help someone guess
    	   invalidates the test.
    
    	4) The picture should be compared to pictures or descriptions
    	   of all the potential subjects by someone who doesn't know
    	   which of them was supposed to be the actual subject.  This
    	   person (the judge) should not have had any contact with anyone
    	   who knows which person was the subject.
    
    If under these conditions the judge can reliably pick out the correct
    subject, then you have substantial scientific evidence.
    
    The hard condition to meet in practice, for this, would be making
    up the "target pool" (finding someone who had sufficient connections
    with enough no-longer-living people that condition 3 could be met).
    How hard this would be depends on how strong a connection needed
    to be made.  Another way, which might be simpler to arrange, would
    have a bunch of requestors (none of them known to the artist) each
    with a single possible request.  In this case the requestor is
    selected at random for the trial.
    
    Although I am sure it isn't relevant to your organization, when
    trying to figure out whether a particular "psychic" is "for real"
    keep in mind that any information on a billet should be assumed
    to be obtainable by the "psychic" by normal means.  There are literally
    thousands of ways known to magicians to find out what is on a billet,
    and there are whole books devoted exclusively to "billet tricks"
    (as these techniques are called).
    
    					Topher

    RE: .23
    
    Topher, I have a question.  Would this be classified as proof and
    evidence?...
    
    On several occasions when I have travelled, I have gone to the local
    branch of the Aquarian Foundation and had billets done by mediums I either
    do not know, or do not know well.  I have had questions answered that
    I had not written down, nor talked to any one anywhere about.  The
    medium would say "You've been wondering about such-and-such..."
    and it would be worded exactly as I had been asking mentally.  I
    stress that these questions where questions no one knew about (not
    even my dog.....).

    In order to do billets at the Foundation the person (medium) has
    to submit at least 4 affidavits regarding their mediumistic abilities
    to the board.  Once these affidavits have been verified, and the
    person seeking the "designation" of medium has shown a genuine desire
    to serve the people with their ability, the person becomes designated
    and is allowed to do billets officially for the organization.

    Linda

RE: .24

Hi Linda:

    I'm going to assume that you wished as straight an answer as I can
    give, so here goes -- 

    That's a much more subtle question than it appears. 

    I *can* give a clear unqualified partial answer: it is unquestionably
    evidence for something (I don't mean that sarcastically). 

    As for the rest: 

    First we have to think about what is meant by "proof".  If we look to
    rationality (e.g., accumulating evidence) to determine truth, than real
    "proof" in the mathematical sense does not exist.  There is always some
    degree of uncertainty, however small, in any determination of truth. 

    There is, however, a practical definition for proof.  At times the
    likelihood of any hypothesis significantly different from the one being
    considered is so small that it can be neglected -- life is made simpler
    with almost no risk by assuming that the thing "proven" is indeed true. 

    Notice, however, that proof in this sense is tentative.  That Newton's
    laws of mechanics and gravity were proven did not preclude Einstein
    from later disproving them.  It was required, however, that Einsteinian
    mechanics be indistinguishable from Newtonian mechanics under the
    conditions which the latter had been "proven correct". 

    Proof, even in this sense, is rather hard to come by.  What is much
    easier is disproof.  For example the events you describe serves much
    better as negative evidence against conventional beliefs than as
    positive evidence for any particular set of unconventional beliefs
    (including my own).  There are many modern philosophers of science (the
    first being Karl Popper) who don't believe that evidence *for*
    something can exist but only evidence *against* (I both agree and
    disagree: I think they're right but I think the concept of positive
    evidence can be given a practical definition just like the concept of
    proof can). 

    We also have to distinguish "scientific" proof/evidence from "rational
    personal" proof/evidence. 

    You are in a unique position in regards to the events you described.
    You bring a knowledge of yourself (and the inevitable self-delusions)
    and of the events which only you have.  You weighed what you observed
    against various possibilities of error and reached a conclusion.  Much
    of the basis of that conclusion is, however, personal.  It is based on
    your judgments about the likelihood of you making an error.  I am not
    in a position to judge but it seems quite likely that your conviction
    in the "truth" of what you observed was perfectly rational. 

    I am, however, in a different position than you.  Perhaps most
    important I am not in a position to evaluate your experience but only
    your *report* of your experience.  Automatically there is less detail
    and more ambiguity.  Also, I don't know a whole lot about you, only
    what I know from some notes in this conference.  The best I can *in
    fact* testify to is that you are at times rational enough and lucid
    enough to seem rational and lucid in your writing (let me add, to avoid
    any misunderstanding, that I have no evidence to make me believe that
    you are *not* lucid and rational virtually all the time and I would
    guess that you almost certainly are). 

    Also I look at these events with a different set of assumptions and
    background than you.  In particularly I am intensely aware of the
    fallibility of human observation -- any human's observation. 

    Therefore, this is weaker evidence to me than to you -- quite properly,
    and with no slight implied. 

    Others know even less about you than I do, and will -- quite properly
    -- evaluate the evidence as even weaker than I do. 

    The strength of evidence *for science* consists of what any reasonable,
    rational person would evaluate the strength of the evidence: science is
    about *shared* reality (of course, scientific controversy arises from
    disagreements about what this constitutes in any particular case, since
    there are no perfectly reasonable and rational people to ask). 

    Let's shift this from you to me for a moment.  Currently, I believe
    that the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation probably comes
    entirely from misinterpretation, delusion and (some) fraud (this topic
    is not the place to debate this).  If I walked out of this building
    this evening and a flying saucer landed and little green men came out
    and talked to me, I would likely change that belief (though I would be
    less sure than most people, who have what I believe is a naive belief
    in the infallibility of their own perceptions).  My personal conviction
    would change -- I would have personal rational proof of
    extraterrestrial visitation -- but I would *not* equate that personal
    evidence with scientific evidence.  I would then have a personal reason
    for believing that scientific evidence might be found, but my *report*
    of that experience would not constitute anything but a tiny piece of
    such evidence. 

    Another question that has to be answered is "proof or evidence for
    what?" One hundred years ago the Spiritualist movement made a very
    similar statement: that their beliefs were, unlike all other religions,
    subject to scientific verification.  The field of psychical research
    was founded essentially to investigate this claim.  There was a bit of
    disagreement because the psychical researchers made many rather strict
    requirements for scientific evidence which the Spiritualists did not
    feel was necessary. Eventually, however, the psychical researchers
    gathered what they felt was sufficient scientific evidence to indicate
    that *something* unexplained was taking place. In the process they
    discovered a whole lot about the strange quirks of the human mind and
    body which ended up as the foundations of modern psychology. 

    The psychical researchers then asked whether or not there was *another*
    explanation than discorporeal spirits for the evidence they had.  Such
    a possible alternate explanation was found: what we would now call ESP
    and PK.  After a number of years, strong evidence for these phenomena
    which could not be explained very well as the effects of spirits was
    gotten.  When psychical researchers started studying these phenomena
    rather than spiritist phenomena, the nature of the field changed and it
    became known as parapsychology. 

    There is now many orders of magnitude more evidence for psi (ESP and
    PK) than for spiritist phenomena. If we feel that there is sufficient
    scientific evidence to conclude that spiritualist mediums have done
    something which is not conventionally explainable then objectively we
    also have to accept the scientific conclusion of the existence of the
    non-spiritualistic psi phenomena.  But the latter alone, combined with
    the amazing abilities of the subconscious, is sufficient to explain
    spiritualistic phenomena.  Until we know more about the limits of psi
    it is unlikely that any phenomena will provide good scientific evidence
    for the existence of non-corporeal spirits as opposed to psi phenomena
    (personal evidence is another matter). 

    I do not know what claims the Aquarian Foundation makes, but I suspect,
    from its use of the term "medium", that it is at least spiritist and
    probably spiritualist (though presumably not affiliated with the modern
    Spiritualist Church -- N.B. my use of capitals).  If that is so, then
    the same status for scientific evidence applies to its claims -- we
    need to understand more about non-spirit mediated psi before we can
    take anything as *scientific* evidence for the existence of a spirit
    world. 

    As to how strong the evidence you present is for something paranormal
    taking place -- what you have presented so far has much too little
    information to constitute very good evidence.  Partially that's because
    you were being brief but could presumably provide more details. 

    But partially its because the requirements of good scientific evidence
    are tough to meet under more or less "natural" settings.  People's
    memories (*all people's*) are influenced by what later happens so a
    written record of (in this case) the question needs to be made.
    People's perception of what takes place (again, *all people's*) is
    influenced by what they expect so we need an objective record of what
    took place.  Billets are quite easy to read surreptitiously (you may be
    legitimately convinced that the people involved are sincere, but I am
    not in a position to reach such a conclusion; there *are* frauds out
    there and I can not rule out that your people are such.  Besides,
    people in a trance are quite capable of doing quite complex things
    which they are not consciously aware of), so the billet cannot contain
    the actual question or anything which may hint of it.  People can
    communicate (without being aware of it) amazing amounts of detailed
    information using body language which other people can read (either
    consciously or subconsciously) so no one who knows what the question is
    can have any contact with the medium.  People are frequently much more
    predictable than they are aware of so an element of unpredictability
    has to be introduced.  People are "designed" to find connections and
    therefore tend to find them when they don't exist, so the
    correspondences have to be judged by someone who doesn't know what the
    "correct" answer is. 

    So, in summary -- what you describe may well constitute reasonable
    *personal* evidence for the Foundation's claims, and may even
    constitute reasonable personal "proof" (may be sufficient to convince
    you, as a rational person, of the truth of their claims).  It does not
    constitute very strong *scientific* evidence for those claims, and only
    comparatively stronger scientific evidence for the paranormal.  If all
    the conditions I mentioned (and usually a few more less general ones
    also are needed) were met then it would constitute *fairly* good
    evidence for the paranormal, but still would not constitute scientific
    proof.  The real world is just too complex and the phenomena we are
    dealing with too subtle to get really strong evidence of the paranormal
    this way.  For that we need the simplified (and, unfortunately,
    artificial) environment of the laboratory.  Even then, no single
    experiment constitutes scientific proof -- for that we need a large
    body of consistent experiments. 

    One final clarification -- What I have been discussing is the status of
    your experiences as *evidence*, i.e., for its ability to shift a
    rational evaluation of the likelihood of existence of the paranormal.
    The evaluation of the likelihood that your experiences constitute
    examples of paranormal phenomena *given a belief* (presumably
    rationally arrived at by other means) in the existence of paranormal
    phenomena is a completely different issue.  To put it another way: I
    have answered the question "Do you think that these observations would
    help convince an objective, rational judge as to the existence of
    certain unconventional phenomena?" , and I have been rather negative.
    The question "Do you think that it is likely that these observations
    are of phenomena of paranormal nature?" is different and my answer is,
    as it happens, considerably more positive. 

					Topher

    re: 18...
    
    Preparation H was used in combination with cream that makes wrinkles
    disappear...!!!  wasn't much left after that...

    Re: .23 
    
     
    Topher,  An entire chapter or more on what is known as "Billet
    Switching"  can be found in "Annemann's Practical Mental Effects"
    By Theodore (Ted) Annemann written I believe in the 1940's.  
      I can look up the exact date and publisher if you need it.
    
    
    Magically
    
    Paul
    

RE: .27 (Paul)
    
    Thanks, Paul;  I'm familiar with it, it being *the* standard reference
    in mentalism.  I know the theory of many billet tricks and have some
    more in my small library of magic (which isn't to say I wouldn't
    love to learn more).  But as I said, there are thousands of them,
    and I doubt that anyone knows them all.
    
    So the important point, from the viewpoint of a parapsychologist,
    is that if a psychic has access to a billet, or has access to whatever
    is being used to conceal the billet, or has supplied the equipment
    used to produce or conceal the billet, then the possibility that
    the psychic has read the billet cannot be excluded from consideration.
    
    						Topher