.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 144
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 244
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 89 22:55:57 EDT
From:         "Homer W. Smith" 
Subject:      Re: Alright!  Now *this* is fun!
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Tue, 28 Mar 89 21:30:27 EST from 

>
>Ah!  This is what I've been begging for in the past few mesages!
>All I've been asking for is an account of some experience you have
>had in which you exteriorized.  I do this out of curiousity, not
>because I want you to "do the work" for me.

     Curiosity killed the cat.

     At no time and under no circumstances am I ever going to go into
specific experiences I have had.  I have already explained why
5 or 6 times and if it has not sunk in by now then it never will.

     Sorry, you are out of luck with this one.  If others want to
blow their cover and talk about what they have experienced that is
fine with me.  If they have some serious powers though they will
assuredly not tell you too much.

>
>Of course nothing you tell me will proove anything, nor will it
>change my "certainty" on anything.  However, a description of
>a specific exteriorization you have had will allow me to understand
>more fully where you are coming from.  As I have said over and
>over again, I know what your conclusions are, but you haven't yet
>described even one event that brought you to those conclusions.

     Thats right, and I never will.  So give it up.

     One of my conclusions was to reveal methods and conclusions,
not experiences which act as proof of power attained.

>
>Now, let me get this out of the way.  I've asked this before in
>many messages, and I guess you either overlooked my requests or
>forgot to respond to them:

     You obviously have not been reading my responses.  I have said
no many times and will continue to do so forever.

>
>*** Homer, please, describe one exteriorization you have
>*** experienced.  If possible, give an account of one in which
>*** you were absolutely certain you weren't hallucinating.
>*** (For instance, to use your example, when you moved matter
>*** or learned a new fact that was later verified.)
>
     If I HAD ever done such stuff, I would NEVER post it here.

     You can be SURE of that.

     What is it, Jim, you work for the Government or something?
     Is that why you are so persistent is asking about these matters?

>Now, you ask me to devise an experiment that would prove it to
>me that exteriorization is possible.  Hmm.  There are many ways.
>I've been thinking about this for a long time, hoping that one
>day I'll be able to try some (if not on myself, on someone else.)
>
>I'll describe a few good tests below:
>
>    a) Exteriorization & Telekenesis
>
>       Two rooms, A and B, are set up.  In room A is the subject
>       who can exteriorize.  In room B is someone (or a group of
>       people) who are witnesses to the test.  In room A, there is
>       also someone who makes sure that the subject stays in that
>       room, and is not physically affecting things in room B.
>
>       Then, place a random object, say, a tennis ball, in room B.
>       If the subject in room A can exteriorize to the point you
>       say is possible, such that s/he can move objects without
>       directly using their physical body, then they should be
>       able to move the tennis ball.  Levitation of the ball would
>       be a good one, since one couldn't attribute the motion to
>       wind or air currents.
>
     In the first place, SEEING things once out of your body is
much easier than DOING things to objects at a distance.

     Remember anyone who can move a tennis ball in another room
would also be able to stop the hearts of all the witnesses.
Or rip their eyes out and pop them.
The army would be VERY intersted in such a person.

     You can be sure that before people get to such a power level
they shut up for good.  The amount of energy needed to levitate
a tennis ball could easily damage a persons brain if applied to
its center or any other organ.  Any person who could do these things
would be a terror to be around as he might turn his power on YOU
if you piss him off too much, or he just decides to enslave you for fun.

     Do not assume that just because a person gets his power back that all
the anger is gone from his life.

>    b) Remote observation
>
>       Same two-room setup as above, but this one will test
>       simple exteriorization alone, not exteriorization AND
>       telekenesis.
>
>       This time, instead of having a tennis ball as the object,
>       place a book in room B that the subject (in room A) has
>       never seen before.  Ask the subject to exteriorize and
>       then examine the book.  When the subject is back in his
>       body, have him describe the book (title, author, # of
>       pages, etc...)  Simple stuff.
>
>       Your Pentagon example is elaborate, but unverifiable.
>       There is no way for us civilians to find out if what
>       you claim was inside the safe is really there.  By the
>       way, my father worked in the Pentagon for a couple years.
>       Maybe you've run into him before (or, should I say, run
>       THROUGH him...  Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. ;)

     I DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO EXTERIORIZE FREELY and IF I DID
I WOULD NOT TELL YOU.

     Do not assume that I have all these powers we talk about.

     If I did would I be talking about them?

     Some yes.  But I am much more interested in a healthy body,
with no drug addictions and no eyeglasses, and a clear memory
of THIS life.  No headaches, no colds or flu and no psychosomatic
ills or ailments.  THAT would be a great accomplishment.

     But this would involve running out all the sorrow about
death and loss on one life time.  All the anger too.  All the FEAR
also.

     THEN we could work on getting a person to tentatively take
a look at the center of the sun.

     Get it?

>
>    c) Exteriorization and navigation
>
>       I don't know how easy this is.  I'm sure you'll let me
>       know...   Anyway, have the subject (and a witness again)
>       somewhere, it doesn't have to be a room.  It could be
>       in the bathtub for all that it matters.  Then, have
>       another person, say, me, that the subject has never seen
>       before.  (Nor has he any knowledge of what that person looks
>       like.)
>
>       If the subject is able to go at will to any other location,
>       he should be able to describe the person if he has good
>       enough directions telling him where the person is.
>
>I think the "best" experiment is B.  Simply because that would
>prove the existance of exteriorization without any extra baggage
>like telekenesis.
>
     Yes I agree.  And you are thinking clearly.  How about
tests for past track memory and past deaths and births?

>Now when/if I ever feel I can willingly exteriorize, I will
>most certainly try some of these tests, just so I don't feel
>like I am loosing any objectivity.  If I fail my own tests, then
>I'll know that I'm hallucinating some very vivid hallucinations,
>not really exteriorizing.  Of course, I hope it doesn't come down
>to that.  I'd prefer to pass my tests. :)

     This would be an error.  You have a memory chock full of
past exteriorizations during past lifes.  If only when you
die out of each body.  Thus it is very common to hallucinate
being out of your body well before you actually attain it.

     Thus you should EXPECT to fail tests repeatedly in the
beginning.  This would be a very good sign that you were
progressing.  You would be reliving memories where you finally
decided it was too dangerous to exteriorize and stopped doing so
altogether.  Soon after you forgot you were immortal and the world a dream,
a crystalization of conscious pictures.

     This happened somewhere in the past 100,000 years.  Not all of it
on Earth.  Earth is actually a very spiritual place.  It was
on other planets where we came from that exteriorization was
hated most of all.  It made the government crazy to know it could
not control and tax and lie to itss civilians.

>
>This doesn't make any sense at all.  You say, and I agree, that
>people have fooled themselves into believing they aren't gods.
>In effect, they've been telling themselves all their lives that
>they are not indeed gods.  But you say we can erase this brainwashing
>by doing it again?  So, if I continued to tell myself that I'm
>not a god I will eventually realize I am one?  Is there something
>here I'm missing?

     Yes, you are missing WHY the person is telling himself he is not
a God.  In the first case he tells himself he is not a God and then looks
around himself for proof.  He then finds much proof about how he is
only a human and says that he was right after all.  Thus he gets STUCK
with being a human because he is not saying he is a human BECAUSE
he is saying so.  Instead he is saying he is a human because thats
just the way it is and look how obvious it all is anyhow.

     In order to free a situation that you have created you must
create it again but keep the thread of an idea that YOU are creating it.
It has to do with WHY you think you are human.  In the first case
you think you are human BECAUSE you look around and SEE you are limited.
In the second case you think you are human BECAUSE you KNOW you are chosing
to delude yourself.

     The second case becomes the first case by choice.  You choose
to forget that you are causing the situation and you move into looking
at all the evidence that you are right that you are human.  Evidence
that is all wrong because you PUT it there to prove to yourself that
you did not put it there.

     Once you fall for your own evidence that you did not create something
you can get that something to persist forever.  That is the way
you do it.  Create something and then create some evidence you did
not create the something, and then forget you did this, and continue
to learn from the evidence (you created) that you did NOT create
the something AND the evidence.  Practice moving from the
second case of awareness of creation into the first case of being
assured by evidence you did not create something is what I refer
to as reoperation of forgetting.

>
>Just a reminder:  don't forget the text I emphasized above
>with asterisks!
>

     I have not forgotten.  I have forbidden myself from
talking about.

     Further from now on I am going to ignore all such requests
as if they did not happen.

     Try me.  You will see I am very serious about this.

>                                                Jim McCabe
>                                                MCCABE @ MTUS5.BITNET

 Homer W. Smith      Adore-l list         4/10/89*Alright!  Now *this* is fun!