I found this information about this scientist named Michael Roll who says that there is scientific proof of the Afterlife and has been for over 100 years.

I think his information is based on what Victor Zammit has documented about the scientific proving of Life after Death....

Here is his information:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/ (his site)

A related article: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/rational/rational.html

An interview with Michael about this information:

http://www.radiooutthere.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=27

Look 3/4 of the way down for: Program 29 week commencing 30th June to listen to the interview.


This seems very very interesting, and one thing that has stood out about this is that this scientist is an ATHEIST and shuns Religion on his web page, yet he says that science has proven that there is an etheric world where we go after death....

I think this is some excellent information to align with what Bruce and others are doing, and I will give a comment after some research into this information.....

Arthur Findlay arrived at much the same conclusion some 50 years earlier.
He is mentioned on that site, too.

Thank you so much for the links. The information was so very interesting and got me researching one more area I didn't know about.
How fantastic to be able to prove as clearly as that the existence of life after death.
Why is it that such a breakthrough has not been more publicised?.
Peace, Love and Light.

Sandra.

I reakon that all the major Governments know that the Afterlife exists, just like they know Aliens exist, along with fantastic technology that could end the use of fossil fuels forever.

However, if the whole world knew the truth of what they really are, Governments would lose a lot of power.

Millions of people live in C1 (I think that's the term).

I had a recent discussion with my Dad, about Hurricane Katrina and other such tragedies. I told my Dad that I felt assured, because the unfortunate victims haven't really perished, and have passed to a far better place.

He said rather abruptly "No Luke. Nothing happens when we die. We only get one life - that's it!"

It pains me to think that so many people have been more-or-less conditioned to believe this lie.

If people knew their true nature and potential, we wouldn't need such corrupt Governments and the so-called Police.

I truely believe that all the problems we have today are born out of ignorance and controlling Governments.

I'm actually looking forward to the paradise that awaits me in the next realm. Sad, but true.

- Luke  

Perhaps your Dad's perspective was also accurate.
We do 'only get one Life', but this one Life has an iinfinite number of chapters - determined and written by ourselves, of course.
The grave or crematorium is the scrap yard for the vehicle, not the occupant.
Our next vehicle will have been fashioned by ourselves - not our parents.
Wonderful, is it not?

Just a note here to say that Michael Roll has also been to TMI. We corresponded some about 3 years ago. He sent me pamphlets he had created on the proof but they have been lost in all my moving.

Love, Mairlyn ;-)

I love this kind of stuff it is really exciting. I've only read the first page but surly it can be publicised more? I mean it seems like no one really knows about it? Maybe publicity could be used as a way of funding to get the money required they were on about in the first page to get these experiements up and running.

I think even though there is proof people will still question/not believe and come up with excuses but there ya go, who knows what will happen. Maybe they could create a device which openly allows communication between such frequencies? Just like TV/radio, surly theres a way to transmit back and forwards??

Just some thoughts...

Ryan

Not to mention that if there were no life after death, living in the first place would be pointless.

Just ask any one who does not accept any possiblity of life after death:  "So, does that mean suicide is without consequence?"   ;)  (No disrespect intended.)

I agree steve.

This subject was acutally what brought me to search about it and read on the subject.

After all, if life was pointless, what would be the point ?

;D

Even if it was I'm here now so would wanna make the most of it and try everything before i cop it. Even if it was pointless...just be fun right now.

Ryan

Thanks JG for these articles.

I always thought but never
really knew for sure.

- C K Yap

I didn't want this one to slip away before sharing with more people....thanks.

Nice!  ;D

A large chunk of new and potentially interesting material to digest during the more boring times at work tommorrow.

Thanks mate! :D

JG,

Thanks for sharing this.  I note that the website speaks respectfully of the input of David Fontana.  If you liked JG's posted websites, you'll be blown away by Fontana's book, "Is There an Afterlife? A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence."  I am critical of Fontana's decision to omit key studies.  But if I could only recommend one book to convince skeptics about the reality of an afterlife, I'd recommend Fontana.   I say this, despite the fact that I'm a committed Christian and Fontana seems a certified New Ager.  Fontana carefully considers both sides of the argument for the cases he analyzes.  Too bad I can't entice skeptics like Chumley and Spitfire to read his book.  I'm confident that they would both come away believers in some version of a hereafter.

Don

Thanks JG  :)

Especially enjoyed the article...

"The Mode of Future Existence"
1933 Lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge FRS

Daff

That Einstein was wrong about the "luminiferous
ether" being non-existent (and even by 1933, the "ether" was considered a quaint, 19th-century idea by the vast majority of physicists.)
So Einstein was wrong then, and 19th-century "ether" physics is correct..? If so, why have we faced the daily threat of nuclear annihilation for the last 50 years???
Taking on Einstein (and cfpf.org seems to think it should be supplanted with an "update"(?) of NEWTONIAN theory, thus accomodating the "ether") is dangerous business... general relativity has stood tall against all comers for nearly the last 90 years. (My money is on it CONTINUING to do so...)

B-man

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2006 at 4:27am:

So Einstein was wrong then, and 19th-century "ether" physics is correct..? If so, why have we faced the daily threat of nuclear annihilation for the last 50 years??? Taking on Einstein (and cfpf.org seems to think it should be supplanted with an "update"(?) of NEWTONIAN theory, thus accomodating the "ether") is dangerous business... general relativity has stood tall against all comers for nearly the last 90 years. (My money is on it CONTINUING to do so...) B-man

Yes but I thought a lot of Einstein theories have been adapted and built on to take into account modern scientific theories. Quantum mechanics, string theory, holographic universe and the god particle for instance

He never thought he had the final picture, so why should we expect his theories to?

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

The problem is, Mattb - it is true that Einstein didn't believe he had the whole picture. BUT -
His theories (which exclude the existence of a pervasive "ether" as the medium in which light is propagated) are sort of like a Timex watch - "they take a licking and keep on ticking." For 90 years now (since 1919 when general relativity was vindicated for the first time) Einstein's theories have stood up MAGNIFICENTLY against every test physicists have thrown at it. The sole remaining problem in the theory, is how to mate it with quantum physics.
The ideas of Crookes, Lodge, ect. are however dependent on the existence of the above-mentioned "ether". To take up their cause is a bit like trying to defend the flat-earth theory in that case.
The best support that modern physics can give to the idea of Crookes and Lodge is (perhaps) the "Higgs boson" which some physicists think may form a sort of soupy "ether." (However, it is NOT the "source of all matter" that the 19th-century ether was imagined to be. The "Higgs field" is instead proposed as the source of gravitational effects, another function entirely.)
So, while it is true that Einstein didn't believe he had the whole truth, that's just more testimony to his humility (which set off his genius in such a winning way and is probably why he is not only considered the greatest, but possibly the most-loved scientist of all time.) I rather suspect that Einstein likely DID come as close to "absolute Truth" as any man has. The way I see it, this poses grave problems with the "secular case for survival" set out by the likes of William Crookes (who MAY have been lying, WAS he having an affair with that medium, or did he suffer from thallium poisoning as his detractors say? It IS a possibility) and Oliver Lodge...
And I'm not big on conspiracy theories either - and cfpf.org, Michael Roll, ect. seem to think there is a vast Catholic-materialist conspiracy to misinform the public as to the "scientific case for survival." This seems a bit far-fetched, Mattb. (WERE I to accept that, what next? - Should I start believing that the government is looking the other way while aliens are busily abducting rednecks from trailer parks and sticking probes up their heineys???)
See where I'm coming from?

B-man

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2006 at 10:59pm:

The problem is, Mattb - it is true that Einstein didn't believe he had the whole picture. BUT - His theories (which exclude the existence of a pervasive "ether" as the medium in which light is propagated) are sort of like a Timex watch - "they take a licking and keep on ticking." For 90 years now (since 1919 when general relativity was vindicated for the first time) Einstein's theories have stood up MAGNIFICENTLY against every test physicists have thrown at it. The sole remaining problem in the theory, is how to mate it with quantum physics. The ideas of Crookes, Lodge, ect. are however dependent on the existence of the above-mentioned "ether". To take up their cause is a bit like trying to defend the flat-earth theory in that case. The best support that modern physics can give to the idea of Crookes and Lodge is (perhaps) the "Higgs boson" which some physicists think may form a sort of soupy "ether." (However, it is NOT the "source of all matter" that the 19th-century ether was imagined to be. The "Higgs field" is instead proposed as the source of gravitational effects, another function entirely.) So, while it is true that Einstein didn't believe he had the whole truth, that's just more testimony to his humility (which set off his genius in such a winning way and is probably why he is not only considered the greatest, but possibly the most-loved scientist of all time.) I rather suspect that Einstein likely DID come as close to "absolute Truth" as any man has. The way I see it, this poses grave problems with the "secular case for survival" set out by the likes of William Crookes (who MAY have been lying, WAS he having an affair with that medium, or did he suffer from thallium poisoning as his detractors say? It IS a possibility) and Oliver Lodge... And I'm not big on conspiracy theories either - and cfpf.org, Michael Roll, ect. seem to think there is a vast Catholic-materialist conspiracy to misinform the public as to the "scientific case for survival." This seems a bit far-fetched, Mattb. (WERE I to accept that, what next? - Should I start believing that the government is looking the other way while aliens are busily abducting rednecks from trailer parks and sticking probes up their heineys???) See where I'm coming from? B-man

Good responce.

But to my knowledge did'nt he struggle to mesh quantum mechanics into his theories?

Alain Aspects experiment also demonstrates a cause and effect that defies the reality model which Einstein's theories construct.

Since, in half a century, scientists are already building on and asking more questions of Einsteins excellent work (And credit to the guy, he was a genius), I believe that the picture isnt complete.

Frontier scientists have also produced empirical evidence that Einsteins work has much to be expaned upon.

It also amuses me that "Fields" are used in science alot at present and are so mainstream in a scientists vocabulary. Yet a "field" can be just as mysterious as ether, may be even more so.

Nice reply though chum, pleasantly surprised!  ;D