remote veiwer challange

[tyder001]

Does it start with an a? How about a B? Is it round? Soft? Hard? (That's what she said) Sorry, I'll stop now.

 

[trainedobserver]

I see a rectangle. On this rectangle is a liquid in a glass. Yes, it's a beer. The rectangle is a coffee table. There is a book. A picture of the moon is on the cover. Wait a minute, wait a minute. That's my coffee table. This isn't how this is supposed to work. I guess I should close my eyes. Let me see the instructions again ...

 

[Bob Watson]

Hmmm ... I'm getting an image in my head .... it's small and sculpted ... got it! It's a doll or action figure ... or a toy car ... someting with wheels, something round ... maybe a coin, or possibly spherical like a signed baseball or related to baseball or sports or heroes ... that's it ... a baseball card ... or maybe a superhero collectors card ... or I think I've got it ... it's coming in now ... a rare comic book! Or possibly just a book ... geese I just know it's something with rare historical value ... I can just feel it.

LOL wow... thats good! damn close give the man a cookie!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Ok you asked me to "do my homework" well here we go Just the start. McMoneagle was in the military he was in "project stargate" how ever the army cancelled project stargate...WHY read here to find out...
Wikimedia Error

For a start you could have gotten that information without resorting to your father. It's all common knowledge but now since you have verified it to your own satisfaction...

Ahh yes the 1995 report.The "AIR" report titled:"An Evaluation of Remote Viewing:Research and Applications" (Mumford,Rose and Goslin). This review contained an Executive Plan, Research Reviews, by Dr.Jessica Utts and Dr. Ray Hyman. It is interesting to note that "Scientists" were used to review what was a "Miltary Intelligence Program" Isn't it. What business does a "scientist" with no background in Military Intelligence have with assessing a Miltary intelligence program? If the roles were reversed and an Intelligence officer was making assessments of a "scientific Program" he would be laughed at and no credence would be placed in his work whatsoever. So what credence do we place in their study, i ask?
Apart from the fact that when compiling the report DR.'s Utts and Hyman were NOT allowed access to the "operational" Military files in regards to the program so how could any qualified assessment be made in the first place. Out of approximately 100,000 pages of classified material, Utts and Hyman had access to less than 1%.
It is widely known that factions within the US Government and Military were keen to shut down the program despite the fact that it had provide valuable information to various department and operations. The AIR report has been criticised for the fact that it only interviewed departments that had provided tasking for the final year of the unit's operation (the worst year for that unit from an operational perspective).
They did not speak to any of the previous viewers or project managers. In fact they cherry picked their conclusions without revealing any methodology for this cherry picking.

Also, there are any number of commercial applications for CRV if actually worked as advertised, but what do we have coming out of the CRV cottage industry? Instruction courses. Is anyone employing CRV in any consistent manner to locate rare natural resources, lost children, wanted criminals, sunken vessels, etc., etc.?

Read through the links to the threads i provided. A lot of Remote Viewers work or are hired by companies and the results of this work is proprietary to those companies. Some RVers do work for law enforcement etc. I remember seeing a TV interview with a retired English Wing Commander who was employed by BP (i think) as a dowser looking for oil deposits.(I believe Pixelsmith knows all about dowsing or the use of divining rods)

I would think that anyone actually possessing real psychic abilities would do everything in their power to keep them a secret.

Exactly because then you get the moron types like ufology and vesvehighfolk with their childish attempts at humor.

Hmmm ... I'm getting an image in my head ....

This coming from a guy who argues for 5 pages about what the acronym UFO means. And to think he runs an entire website lol

I will simply conclude by asking this why is we never see this headline: "renowned Remote Veiwer/Psyic forsees lottery numbers wins big!"

Probably because there is no such thing as a Remote VEIWER/PSYIC.

vesvehighfolk. You have clearly demonstrated that you have no desire to obtain knowledge, regarding Remote Viewing other than to cherrypick info based on your preconceived notion that it is bullshit. That is fine. You can think that if you like. But i'l be fucked if i am going to spend any more time and effort in trying to enlighten you with any information about the subject . You are a time waster and a moron. Aprt frum thee fuct thet you carnt spell for sheet and that it takes a long time just to decipher anything that you have to say, you have to rember that you are not texting peeple via thair phoanes. This is the last i will communicate with you . You are a complete ignoramus and you can wiki that if you like!!!

As for the rest of the guffawing and sniggering go ahead laugh it up. I have done much the same using the same tired old material. In the end for those who genuinely want to learn more about the subject, the material is there for the taking. Maybe take the time to learn something for yourselves instead of taking the piss out of it. The choice is yours. I have at least tried to steer some of you in the right direction.

 

[Bob Watson]

ok cats...maybe I do need a spell checker but the fact remains that NO so called remote viewer has EVER passed any test of any kind even your NO 1 Mr Mc moneagle NO ONE... and that sir is a FACT...
OK cats I was nice I was willing to play your game of fetch the info. BUT YOU SIR have resorted to Juvinlie name calling of not just myself but others on the fourms. I may have issues spelling but YOU SIR are the one who is acting in a very childish manner...act your age not your shoe size...Hmmm I think im talking to my 4 year old here...as for this being the last I hear from you well...Im truly sorry but You won't listen...one last time...
100% fact;NO REMOTE VIEWER HAS EVER PASSED ANY KIND OF AN OBJECTIVE TEST!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

OK for those of you genuinely interested i have provided some links to articles and info on RV. The first (immediately below) is from a Paracast thread in whicj an RV experimebnt was conducted featuring a viewer named "Gulliver" and David Biedny. Interesting results indeed.

remote viewing - Page 6

Remote Viewing Results RV Sessions

Ingo Swann
Ingo Swann: A research overview

Remote Viewing Results RV Sessions

CIA Document that reports then beginnings of the RV program.
http://www.aestheticimpact.com/_pdf/AAestheticImpactCIABiofieldMeasurement.pdf

eight martinis - Remote Viewing magazine
eight martinis - Remote Viewing magazine Issue 2
Go to page 27 of the above link (8 Martinis issue #2). There is an article there titled "Find Me..the Missing".

 

[tyder001]

OK guys, both of y'all are a little hot under the collar. First, any dogmatic statement such as "No remote viewer has ever passed a test" is already false before it gets out of your mouth or keyboard. Again, Pair makes a good point about cherry picking and the will to "not" believe. Still, as I said before no test will ever replace your own life experience. Second, I have to say Phil I understand your frustration but I don't spell so good either. It's hard in the heat of writing to spell check. Also, I gotta tell you that arm chair skeptics who simply regurgitate people like Hyman or Shcermer or Randi are the most boring and lazy folks on the planet. Sorry, it's just true. Fact: Paranormal experience is said to be a "human" abiltiy. Fact: If and remember I said IF it's true and You are a HUMAN BEING and are really interested. Then you owe it to yourself to try and do your own legwork on the subject. Finally, I don't care what you beleive or don't believe. I get in trouble with Christians and Athiest all the time because I don't buy either of the fundi attitudes. ON the other hand I never have a problem with a "personal" honest religious expereince. I never have a problem with a person who simply doesn't believe in any kind of supernatural reality. It's the "dogmatic" condesending and ignorant statements that I find offensive. So, either try and do your own experiment or at least understand that pulling up your own experts is just not that impressive. This isn't something you need research grants and lots of money to try for yourself.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

By the way Vesevehighfolk there was and is a scientist who won the Noble Peace Prize. I think his name is Joesphson but I will have to go and double check or you can google it. Anyway, very highly thought of and even Scientific American speaks highly of him. Anyway, he came up with some "theories" that Jimmy Randi considered Woo woo. (Big Suprize huhh?) But, the fact is that Randi and his ilk absolutely attacked this man. So, his results (to them) were simply bunk. So, finding a committed skeptic to call something bunk isn't very hard to do. As I've said before, follow the money or in this case the agenda. As I've said before in other threads:
Don't ask Richard Dawkins about the grace of Christ.
Don't ask Pat Robertson about the benifits of Buddist meditation.
I could go on and on but hopefully you get my drift. All Gods/Darwins/Goddess/Universe/Natural Selection Children have an agenda. Ya gotta separate Signal from noise. Actually, I can read the bible and prove to you that the athiest is right "Everything returns to dust." Or that afterlife is right "Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." Reincarnation is right "Who sinned that this man was born this way?" I'm not a fundi or a bible thumper by the way. I'm just trying to say that everybody heaps up the stats to their own satisfaction.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Everyone, please do not resort to name calling or making fun of how people spell. It's really necessary - everyone is allowed to have an opinion as long as it's kept civil.

Thanks.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

OK guys, both of y'all are a little hot under the collar. First, any dogmatic statement such as "No remote viewer has ever passed a test" is already false before it gets out of your mouth or keyboard. Again, Pair makes a good point about cherry picking and the will to "not" believe. Still, as I said before no test will ever replace your own life experience. Second, I have to say Phil I understand your frustration but I don't spell so good either. It's hard in the heat of writing to spell check. Also, I gotta tell you that arm chair skeptics who simply regurgitate people like Hyman or Shcermer or Randi are the most boring and lazy folks on the planet. Sorry, it's just true. Fact: Paranormal experience is said to be a "human" abiltiy. Fact: If and remember I said IF it's true and You are a HUMAN BEING and are really interested. Then you owe it to yourself to try and do your own legwork on the subject. Finally, I don't care what you beleive or don't believe. I get in trouble with Christians and Athiest all the time because I don't buy either of the fundi attitudes. ON the other hand I never have a problem with a "personal" honest religious expereince. I never have a problem with a person who simply doesn't believe in any kind of supernatural reality. It's the "dogmatic" condesending and ignorant statements that I find offensive. So, either try and do your own experiment or at least understand that pulling up your own experts is just not that impressive. This isn't something you need research grants and lots of money to try for yourself.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

By the way Vesevehighfolk there was and is a scientist who won the Noble Peace Prize. I think his name is Joesphson but I will have to go and double check or you can google it. Anyway, very highly thought of and even Scientific American speaks highly of him. Anyway, he came up with some "theories" that Jimmy Randi considered Woo woo. (Big Suprize huhh?) But, the fact is that Randi and his ilk absolutely attacked this man. So, his results (to them) were simply bunk. So, finding a committed skeptic to call something bunk isn't very hard to do. As I've said before, follow the money or in this case the agenda. As I've said before in other threads:
Don't ask Richard Dawkins about the grace of Christ.
Don't ask Pat Robertson about the benifits of Buddist meditation.
I could go on and on but hopefully you get my drift. All Gods/Darwins/Goddess/Universe/Natural Selection Children have an agenda. Ya gotta separate Signal from noise. Actually, I can read the bible and prove to you that the athiest is right "Everything returns to dust." Or that afterlife is right "Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." Reincarnation is right "Who sinned that this man was born this way?" I'm not a fundi or a bible thumper by the way. I'm just trying to say that everybody heaps up the stats to their own satisfaction.

Does it really matter what other people think? What you think is more important and if it works for you, so be it. In case you're wondering, until he proves them, and he hasn't, I will think that Brian Josephson's ideas that you're referring to are woo-woo. When he shows that there is something tangible to them, I'll believe it.

 

[tyder001]

Well, Angel just which part of his work do you find woo woo? Have you researched it? I mean I think Carl Sagan was nuts on some stuff. But, I'm no scientist and I can't honestly challenge his work on a professional basis. As I said before we all heap teachers to our own ears. By the way, I do appreciate the civil way that we can discuss things. I keep trying to teach you. But, you are stubborn.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, Angel just which part of his work do you find woo woo? Have you researched it? I mean I think Carl Sagan was nuts on some stuff. But, I'm no scientist and I can't honestly challenge his work on a professional basis. As I said before we all heap teachers to our own ears. By the way, I do appreciate the civil way that we can discuss things. I keep trying to teach you. But, you are stubborn.

The stuff that isn't possible - I think that stuff is woo-woo.

 

[tyder001]

Ohhh that stuff!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Ohhh that stuff!

And that folks is how you don't take each other too seriously and have a good time!
Thanks Tyder.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Angelo and Steve, thanks guys
Yes i was indeed overly harsh on the spell checker thing and vesvehighfolk, I apologise for that. But as for the ad hominem, I make no apologies. Over the course of several posts i provided him with information and links so as to broaden his outlook or at least be able to argue from a more educated standpoint, but it seems he had no intention of ever doing so. I think he got as far as Wiki and his father, which at least was a start, i suppose. But as soon as he found what he was looking for to bolster his argument that is where it ended. I think he created this whole thread as a thinly veiled attempt at attacking the subject. Now i don't have any trouble with his opinion as such as i know that Angelo and many others here would share his opinion of RV and any psychic functioning. But if your are going to argue about a subject, then at least do a modicum of research and get your facts right. If you do the research and you still are of the same opinion, then fine i have absolutely no problems with that. Indeed i have a greater respect for you having done so.
I don't suffer fools lightly and personally i would never enter an argument and have zero knowledge of the subject at hand. Would any of you? Have any of you looked at the links to material i provided?
The forum experiment was at least an attempt at some sort of validation of RV and Gulliver did a commendable job. Even Biedny was impressed.
Anyway, thanks for the attempt at trying to lighten up the thread.

 

[tyder001]

This is why I am careful about attacking a subject even if I disagree with it. For instance I truly feel that the "science" of evolution is clean but the dogma of Dawainism is wrong. But, I never come on here and act as if I am qualified to judge a scientist and his/her work. Carl Sagan is a great example. I saw a clip or two and watched him (Man, I must be getting old) back in the day when he first started to appear on national media. I just never bought him and at times thought he was a self inflated turkey. But, he was a brilliant scientist and I would never say "Sagan, has his science wrong." Not, because I don't think he was wrong on some things. But, because I am in no way a scientist and certainly not a physicist. So, I don't open my big trap and attack work that I either have not heard of or don't have the credentials to judge. However, I do judge and disagree when a physicist or biologist or anybody else leaves the realm of science such as Dr. Kaku and enters the realm of philosophy such as Richard Dawkins. Both are scientist but the former talks about what he knows. The latter tries to attack things that he doesn't know anymore about than I do. Maybe not as much if, he's never taken the time to be quiet before God/Universe/Being/Goddess. Not being flip here because I have a conception of Deity, it's just that I am trying to talk in a way that veers away from religious dogma since that is a personal issue to me. When I talk about heaping teachers I am talking about people who hear about a scientist who is out of the box. They would rather (No, my friend Angel this is not a shot at you) Run and pull up the opinion of an old cranky magician than to consider the scientist may have actually done legitimate research. The flip side are the folks who take somthing from the "Creation Institute" and then run to prove evolution false. I will be honest guys. I honestly have a bias. I do hope that Rupert Sheldrake is right and Michael Scheremer is wrong. I do hope that Pin Von Lomel and the NDE researchers are on to something. But, that in and of itself doesn't invalidate the concepts themselves or my opinion of them. But, it does mean that when I tell you "There is more than likely life after death" or a skeptic tells you "It's more than likely a dying brain" we both have a worldview that we come from. Science is not religious or atheistic. Science is a multitude of human research and diciplines and no certain group or authority answers for science and no certain "entity answers to the name science." God, is a concept that humans have tried to place on the first cause or conscious reason for being. Religion is an attempt at best to understand and contact that first cause. At worse to control and keep people in ignorance and bondage. Anyway, that's my ramble for the day.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

OH yeah, RV. I am going to try and get quiet and do some research on my own.

 

[bbridges]

If the AIR report is based on a small 'sampling' provided by the military, it suffers from the same bias as BLUE BOOK-an intentional withholding of consequential data to achieve a less than forthright conclusion. Perhaps the real successes of such an 'on the fringe' program were not provided; and perhaps the assigned investigators were picked to ensure a seemingly legitimate conclusion, like the LOW MEMO. Perhaps certain parties were not keen on encouraging other parties-private or {foriegn} governments, for example-from undertaking the development of RV. THis is in its infancy, so to speak. As such, much more research needs to be done. The failure or success of a particular tasking may depend on variables that are difficult to quantify at this point. Uniquely 'gifted' Rvers are not common, and are still far from perfect at this point. There also may be truly esoteric reasons for some 'failures.' We are a long way from understanding the 'science' behind this stuff. I know in my own experience, that I have absolutely no control over when, or for what intention that prophetic 'dreams' or 'anticipatory' dreams occur. But they happen from time to time. I have learned a lot about myself, though, in the process of wrestling to decipher the significance that these experiences might have in my 'inner' life, and I find meaningful insights into myself from the effort. The term 'quale'-wiki it-seems to relate to this subjective yet individually meaningful perception set. I totally get the mindset of those who can find no reality in these areas. I marvel at people with perfect pitch, or extraordinary artistic talent. HOW do they have this talent when others like myself do not? Genetics? Although, when I reduce it to some mechanistic, mindless evolutionary process, it just isn't a 'round' enough answer. Physical reductionism can always quash any 'meaning' since in that mindset, the lack of verifible results or repeatable results allows them to categorically dismiss any deeper, unexplainable elements of people's experiences. Ultimately, as has been stated earlier in this thread, we are bound by our personal reality mindsets that are poles apart. I do know this: my 'personal reality mindset' has produced a larger and deeper set of experiences for me as my life has progressed, and still I can't draw very well, though somrwhat better than I once did. I improved by studying and working at it but at this point, I don't even come remotely close to the kid in my class who produces astoundingly detailed and lifelike sketches of whatever interests him without 'working' at it. I have long ago accepted that we can have vastly different levels of ability in all areas of human activity. But none seems to trigger the hostility than that that is directed at people who claim unconventional 'knowing' of something unprovable and unpredictable by known methods. Bad religion and con artists have seen to that-and those without the ability or 'mindset that permits these experiences' will perjoratively march out derisive and uber rational statements and challenges to dismiss any possibility that these things DO happen to some of us, and we are no more delusional or attention seeking than they are. These experiences can be subtle, personal and transitory, and unlike the talented artist, not available necessarily when we 'feel' like 'doing it.' So I guess with this being the state of affairs, I must suffer the 'superiority' of the 'rationalists' and material reductionists while they must suffer with my 'claims' of unpredictable and unprovable experiences. In this society, they can maintain their stance without fear of being proven wrong, and get on with the 'real' things that support their mindset. After all, they can always trot out super rationalists like Stephen Hawkings, or Bertrand Russell or Milton Gardner(whom they examine selectively, I might add) to bolster their superior understanding of the[ir] 'real' world. I don't consider these people to be any smarter than me or any dumber either. Just different. Call it tit for tat arrogance, if you will.

 

[dyingsun]

Insectoids!

I like Tyder more and more

 

[bbridges]

Yeah, me too, my fellow delusional, wishful thinking, pinko, new age, socialist, liberal, hippy freak!

 

[dyingsun]

I wanted to a say something entirely different here. Less Beers (but who am I kidding).

 

[Golemfrost]

is the item a small purple piece of pottery ? :question: