I'm going to regret this, I know, because this thread has long become the stomping ground of the delusional, the clinically insane and the downright dangerous (I recall catching a comment a while back from some psycho stating that he believed atheists should die. WTF?)
But, here goes, this is directed at Bl4kjaguar, a guy who bases his belief on the validity of "The Phoenix Journals" by way of stating how an old lady wrote a shit-ton of books during a short period, so, you know, totallymustbelegit, while he absolutely ignores the fact that the psychological disorder, Hypergraphia, is far more likely behind these writings and, asides from that, they are just rambling bullshit.
This entire site, the very crux of your belief, no, your insistence that SCIENCE has proven that our mind is capable of survival after brain death, is grossly flawed due to the fact that it is absolutely chock full of argument fallacies.
Why, for example do they put such stock in citing such irrelevance as,
"The importance of this discovery is revealed by the fact that this book was published by Elsevier, the world's leading provider of science and health information."
Elsevier has has been exposed a number of times for having published fake journals. But, in any event, it is an, 'Appeal to authority' fallacy. The publisher is irrelevant if the paper still fails critical analysis.
Other citations, such as articles from plosone.org, are also not immune from criticism:
PLOS ONE takes the hard work out of publishing. There's no stress waiting to find out if your article meets subjective acceptance criteria. As long as your work reaches a high technical and ethical standard, PLOS ONE will publish it - and make it freely available to a global audience.
Publication does not equal peer-review-approval. In fact it doesn't equal peer-reviewed anything, because it doesn't have to be peer-reviewed, hence the fact that plosone.org contains a great many 'research' papers that are simply appallingly bad science.
Let me give you an example of how easy it is to shred those absurd pieces of 'evidence' you like to insist are valid data. See
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a20 Mellen-Thomas Benedict, a guy who came up with an idea for improving the design of a fucking glass-cutter and claims to have assisted in huge scientific medical breakthoughs:
"It turns out that I was exactly right. I helped decode a genetic disease and the information was very accurate. Everybody thanked me and I went away. Then about three months later, I started getting letters and calls saying, 'My God, you hit it right on the head! This is astounding. There is no way you could have had this information in advance.' I did a fair number of projects like that and a fair number of think tanks, all of which you have to sign nondisclosures and promise to never talk about. I worked in a lot of think tanks with some very impressive world class scientists over the next ten years until I retired from all that in 1995."
Except, of course, outside of his book, they ALWAYS have a book to sell, there is no valid reference to him doing ANY of this. To save on thread space, here is a full debunking of that charlatan:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23994Bl4kjaguar, either you are genuinely wanting to establish the truth of the matter, in which case you will want to seriously consider the actual fact that the websites you base your 'knowledge' on are shockingly poor references for anything objectively scientific, or you are so far gone into full blown psychotic delusion that you will refuse to consider you may be wrong and that you have accepted the word of people for whom there is profit in convincing people like you to believe their stories.