Bill:

Go on with you. We have been around this fire hydrant over and over, and yet you keep coming up and peeing on it as though you have never seen it before!! What breed of pup did you say you were? And aireheadale? (Just kiddin', my old amigo.)

The problem you are up against is using a map of New York to find your way around in the wilds of Nome. There is a rigid criteria for hard science involving replicability, peer-review, and "falsifiability" (an awful word), among other things. Within this environment, anecdotal is disallowed, or at best, looked highly askance.

However, if you are trying to achieve some scientific approach to the study of viewpoint, and are testing a model which says there is, in fact, a viewer independent of, seperable from, and qualitiatively different from the meshwork of mechanics involved in steering a body around, then you simply must find a way to take individual perception, self-determination, and creative acts into accout within the experimental framework. Absent an experimental framework, within the dataset being used for deduction.

It is completely understandable to want to discount subjective effects from completely non-agreed on realms -- fairy dust and pink ponies on the moon or some such.

But when a five-year old describes in details the connections and manner of death of a person who lived miles away, down to his name, with whom none of his present family has any traceable connection, you have to weigh the possibilities with a more open mind than the purely materialistic one or you doing yourself the extrenme disservice of prejudicial thinking.

A