• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

‘Remote viewers’ in Nevada help solve California murder

S.R.L.

Paranormal Adept
This is a small portion of dialog between Ray Villard of MSNBC Discovery News, and myself that speaks to what is being discussed here. Perhaps the forum administrator can tell us if a Photon presents itself as a particle or a wave.



Dear Mr. Villard:

I would be more than pleased to cite references for your consideration. In the first link below you will find an article written by a colleague, (or perhaps a former colleague),Tim Folger. The article was published in Discovery Magazine on June 2nd, 2002 entitled, “Does the Universe Exist if we’re Not Looking?” There you will find information as what I am relating. In the second link, you will find an article published in Physics World. Com. . This article was published on June 30th, 2006. and is entitled, “From the Present to the Past.” The article speaks to Stephen Hawking’s “Top Down Theory”, which also relates to the statement in which I made, and the question which you have posed. I also refer you to the thoughts of Dr. Robert Lanza.

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking? | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine



From the present to the past - physicsworld.com


Now in all fairness, a little quid pro quo would be appreciated. Quoting the article In Discovery News entitled, “PSYCHICS SAY APPOLLO 16 ASTRONAUTS FOUND ALIEN SHIP”, you make the following statement:

”The roots of remote viewing can be traced to several U.S. Government sponsored parapsychology studies from the 1970s to 1990s. When funding was canceled in 1995, an executive summary concluded that the remote viewing test results were at best "vague and ambiguous."
Government involvement (and gullibility) alone doesn't legitimize what is clearly a pseudoscience that ranks alongside astrology, ghost hunting, and "telekinetic" spoon-bending.
As with any pseudoscience, there are no physical underpinnings to the outlandish claims of remote viewing. In other words, no natural particles or fields capable of carrying information into the human brain, independently from the five senses, have ever been quantitatively measured in a physics laboratory.
And, as is typical of a pseudoscience, remote viewing claims contradict fundamental physics such as the speed of light barrier and causality.”

In your first response, three links were included with Richard Wiseman's thoughts offered in the article entitled “Paranormal Investigations: Why you want to believe.” The article I have read, and found it of interest, thank you. However when viewing Mr. Wiseman's website a curiously different picture emerges. Allow me to quote from Mr. Wiseman's website:


”Although Prof Wiseman does not think that the results of laboratory-based parapsychology studies provide convincing evidence of psychic ability, he does believe that they do justify further work in this area. For this reason he has carried out various projects assessing extrasensory perception, including work examining the ganzfeld procedure and remote viewing.”


The following is an excerpt of your opinion taken from our dialogue which relates to the research of Parapsychology:

“Neurochemistry is making strides in establishing a purely biochemical basis for consciousness. And, I imagine we will have a mechanistic basis once computers are constructed that are self-aware. Let me add that so-called out of body "near-death" experience have been explained purely neurologically. And Uri Geller was exposed years ago as a con-man and fraud.

These discoveries are revolutionizing their respective fields. I'm not aware of such a revolution in parapsychology. In other words, there are no data that are so extraordinary that that are a catalyst for new scientific inquiry.”


Now if not mistaken, the empirical scientific community acknowledges Mr. Wiseman as credible, or otherwise you would not have lead me to his thoughts, am I not correct? Mr. Villard did you read what his impression of the advancement of research in relation to Parapsychology are? Let me quote: “HE DOES BELIEVE THAT THEY DO JUSTIFY FUTHER WORK IN THIS AREA.” So just let me say that you and Richard Wiseman have a difference of opinion, and one in which I find ironic. Mr. Wiseman has twenty years in his respective field, and apparently is respected by the scientific community. Would you please explain the differences of opinion? Because you just may want to reconsider your position.


I would like to share a quote from arguably one of the brightest men to have existed. This comes from Carl G. Jung, and from a work of his entitled, “The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.” Page 142, Paragraph 249.


“The intuition of immortality which makes itself felt during the transformation is connected with the peculiar nature of the unconscious. It is, in a sense, non-spatial and non-temporal. The empirical proof of this is the occurrence of so-called telepathic phenomena, which are still denied by hypersceptical critics, although in reality they are much more common than is generally supposed. [20]. The feeling of immortality, it seems to me, has its origin in a peculiar feeling of extension in space and time, and I am inclined to regard the deification rites in the mysteries as a projection of this same psychic phenomenon.”

[20]: Rhine, “New Frontiers of the Mind. [Ct. also “Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle.”


I would just like to add that, “I believe”, should not be used in science, and reserved for faith. I would also like to point out that these thoughts can be acutely counter intuitive, disorienting the psyche, especially in the empirical scientific community. That is why it is not uncommon that highly credentialed researchers have left their respective fields in order to decompress. The thoughts thus far in our dialogue have not necessarily been of my own, however related from some of the brightest scholars in varied disciplines.

Cheers.

S.R.L.
 

tyder001

Paranormal Adept
The only thing I would add to this is the following:
Be skeptical of the skeptics and the believers. Wiseman for one has been shown to be less than honest. Smart and even brilliant but not objective. Still, I do agree that he is well thought of in his field. On the other hand so was John Mack but that didn't stop the "skeptics" from savaging his reputation the minute he got outside the box. As for the "they don't make money" argument that's just silly. That kind of statement doesn't add to the conversation in any real way. Science has not advanced at all with that kind of mindset. Now, is RV true? Let me say this. I remember doing a little unscientific esp test once. I was clicking along and doing quite well. Then I thought "What am I doing?" That was it. It was like the old cartoon characters from Looney Tunes. They run off the cliff and then look down and realize they are in the air. Then they fall. :p Of course some of you will say that cartoons and paranormal have a lot in common. ;) Maybe they do. I'm kind of tired of trying to explain how there are times when I know a thing or had a certain kind of dream but yet can't do it on que. All I'm really saying here is this. Be skeptical but don't simply follow link after link to one kind of mindset and then expect to be well read or well informed. Yes, that goes for me too and all believers and non believers in the "paranormal."
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
In my personal experience this method has proven to be notoriously unreliable providing wildly varying results from individual to individual and subject to subject. While I personally try to listen to my intuition as another data point, I've learned that it is unreliable and can differ greatly from someone else's intuitive notions.

I've listened to the subject of Remote Viewing discussed on different podcasts and radio shows by the various people who claim some involvement in it one way or another over the years. I've read a little bit on it but not extensively. I have a rudimentary understanding of the protocols. My reaction is much like Angelo's, if there was something that could actually be harnessed and exploited it seems that the free market would have developed it into a marketable commercial product or service in some form other. At best all you can get are lessons and materials designed to allegedly show you how to it.

Stories like this one are interesting and provocative but what do they really tell us about how that information was actually obtained? We're left guessing.
Yes it is unfortunate that there are some people with an under developed sense of "gut instinct". This must be very frustrating for them. Especially when meeting someone for the first time or working out basic things like right or wrong. But then there are others who are very good at trusting their instincts. This doesn't make them better or superior in any way just more in tune with themselves or at least more practiced at recognizing whats going on in the world around them. Successful business people are generally types who use their intuition to succeed in their chosen field. Some Policemen, firefighters etc. also are known to have heightened intuitive senses.
Some people, though, are happy to plod on through life not really being aware of what's going on around them.
As for RV being exploited in the market place, i think that it has to some extent. Leaving out people like Ed Dames, who widely shunned and condemned by most in the RV community, there are many others who offer services to the public as well as law enforcement and business organizations. These are well documented if one cares to look.
Most who are indifferent to the subject and including the naysayers, generally have a rudimentary interest in the subject and unsurprisingly have nothing insightful to add to the subject. The fact that Ed Dames keeps being mentioned is usually a clue to this.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
I'm glad you have calmed down a little, Pair. So you think I have a rudimentary interest in the subject just because I don't think that there's anything to remote viewing? You have to admit that it's not that simple. I've looked into it, along with most paranormal stuff, and concluded that the rational explanations are usually correct. You think there's more to it than that, and you may be right. For now though, I would need someone to show me more compelling evidence.
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
I'm glad you have calmed down a little, Pair. So you think I have a rudimentary interest in the subject just because I don't think that there's anything to remote viewing? You have to admit that it's not that simple. I've looked into it, along with most paranormal stuff, and concluded that the rational explanations are usually correct. You think there's more to it than that, and you may be right. For now though, I would need someone to show me more compelling evidence.
For a start Angelo, i was always calm. I actually think you have less than a rudimentary interest in RV or psychic functioning. More like a greater interest in finding evidence that reinforces your now changed attitude towards the paranormal subjects that you once thought of as having some substance to them.
I have also looked into them, indeed as a psychic, practiced them. I found compelling evidence by trying it. I, like you wondered if there was any substance to psychic abilities and instead of believing in what others told me or what i read, whether or not this advice was for or against it, i tried it first hand. I found some very compelling evidence by actively seeking the knowledge myself. As for RV, i have never tried true RV as practiced by the Military viewers and applying the strict protocols they did but after studying those same protocols i found some similarities to the methods i used. The basic principals are the same. The military RV protocols are way more scientific and structured. Hence i have no reason to believe that RV is BS and that the results that they achieved are reasonably accurate and have provided a greater then chance result.
Believe me if i had tried it and got nothing from it i would probably not be as quick to endorse it as i am. Although i wouldn't necessarily dismiss it out of hand either.
I have never seen a UFO either but i believe it is possible that they exist and a variety of possible explanations of their origins is also possible.
I believe in the possibility of these paranormal subjects and give each individual genre a chance to prove itself. I take note of the true skeptics and their opinions even the hard core, snake eyed debunkers like Randi, Shermer, et al. But when people start talking in absolutes like you have Angelo, then that's when they lose me. Randi, the JREF, Shermer etc. have no interest in finding evidence for the proof of any of this. It's so obvious i am surprised that a intelligent person like you doesn't recognize that.
You counter claims of evidence of RV with childish and puerile videos by washed up hack magicians and criticise me for rubbishing Randi & the JREF! You act just like they do and then claim to be truly skeptical. Very hypocritical.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
First of all, I would not call Penn and Teller washed up or hack magicians. Far from it, they are at the top of their profession, but that's besides the point. And I thought Penn was great on the Celebrity Apprentice - he even managed to say the work atheist on American TV on Easter Sunday!
I'm not talking in absolutes - I've clearly said that although it may be possible, it seems to be that there is nothing paranormal going on with remote viewing. I'm not talking in absolutes here. I think it would be amazing if it was true. Did you not read my post on how I psychically forced a reset of my router? If that would have happened to you, would you have thought it was an actual psychic occurrence or thought of it as a coincidence? That's the difference here - we see the exact same things but label them differently. Is that such a bad thing?

How have you come to the conclusion that you have psychic powers? Forgive me if you have discussed this before, I can't remember.
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
GO to 9:20 to see the part about remote viewing. Watch the rest of it if you want to see how ALL psychics are B.S. Well not all - the ones that admit that it's all a trick are at least honest with people.
I don't know Angelo, seems pretty absolute to me!
The difference here is that i accept that not every event can be credited to being psychic. Most are easily explained away as mundane and explainable. You want to treat the subject as laughable and just us silly old humans being deluded and not wanting to accept that everything can be explained by rational and logical means. And then use video examples that mock and demean those that think otherwise. Youn need to have a good hard look at yourself and your actions here. You might then find out why you receive so much flak when you charge off blindly and post the stuff that you do.
So now you are saying you "psychically" reset your router? Well according to your above statement that must be BS!!! What i am saying is that being psychic is natural and common to EVERY human being on this planet. It is every much one of our senses as sight, sound, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Every one of us at times in our lives has had a psychic moment. And if true you possibly did with your router experience. Forget the "Hollywood" movie psychics where being psychic is made to appear fantastic and magical, think more mundanely and simply and then you are getting there.
RV is a method of harnessing our natural abilities by the use of rigid protocols, not unlike using methods to play the piano or play sport. Each has certain specific and learned actions involved to accomplish a goal.
 

Goggs Mackay

Administrator
Staff member
I think there is cause here to bring up a thought I have all the time regarding skeptics/debunkers.

It seem to me that virtually ALWAYS, if there is a possible explanation that is mundane, the skeptics assume that must be the answer. Of course many times it will be but just because you can find AN explanation for something, it does not make it THE explanation.

For example: A spherical, orange UFO is seen moving across the sky at 9pm from East to West. It is reported as unknown.
An enterprising debunker finds from meteorological records that on that same night, a meteor was observed at 10pm going from West to East.
Despite that fact the direction is wrong and the time is an hour off, you can guarantee the debunker will say that initial UFO report is in error and the object seen must have been the meteor.

In the argument against psychics I can say I have zero experience of psychics myself and am aware of 'cold reading' and other methods utilised by stage psychics. Just because plausible explanations have been found to explain away all psychic behaviour, I am saying that it is impossible to be 100% sure that every person who claims psychic ability is untruthful or mistaken. It might be something real that is so, so rare, that indeed most claims are bogus. But until you test every single person you cannot 100% dismiss every claim.

I think a similar thing happens with UFOs. A couple of famous cases are solved after a time, or it becomes known they were hoaxes and the debunkers seize the moment to extend that fact to cover every instance of a UFO sighting.
I think the Lonnie Zamora case is a good one. Whether it was a 'real' ufo or not, I certainly think it was no prank by disgruntled students. Really? How did they make a craft that takes off with two short humanoid pilots etc. No matter how ridiculous the explanation, as soon as there is any mention of 'hoax' the debunkers think the case has been put to bed. I disagree.

My point is this: Just because you find AN explanation, be it paranormal or mundane, it does not mean it has to be THE explanation.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
I don't know Angelo, seems pretty absolute to me!
The difference here is that i accept that not every event can be credited to being psychic. Most are easily explained away as mundane and explainable. You want to treat the subject as laughable and just us silly old humans being deluded and not wanting to accept that everything can be explained by rational and logical means. And then use video examples that mock and demean those that think otherwise. Youn need to have a good hard look at yourself and your actions here. You might then find out why you receive so much flak when you charge off blindly and post the stuff that you do.
So now you are saying you "psychically" reset your router? Well according to your above statement that must be BS!!! What i am saying is that being psychic is natural and common to EVERY human being on this planet. It is every much one of our senses as sight, sound, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Every one of us at times in our lives has had a psychic moment. And if true you possibly did with your router experience. Forget the "Hollywood" movie psychics where being psychic is made to appear fantastic and magical, think more mundanely and simply and then you are getting there.
RV is a method of harnessing our natural abilities by the use of rigid protocols, not unlike using methods to play the piano or play sport. Each has certain specific and learned actions involved to accomplish a goal.

What I was pointing out is that if I were so inclined, I would think that I did actually have a psychic event because I thought of how long it had been since I had to reset my router and the next morning I had to. Instead, I chose to believe that it was coincidence. Is that so wrong? Phil, you LOVE to admonish skeptics as being evil and horrible, where instead we're just trying to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone else.You have come off as aggressive because of my dismissal of psychics. I must admit I am biased because I see the harm some people that claim to be psychics cause, by playing on the emotions of people who have lost someone. That makes me so angry that it's hard for me to look past that. Perhaps I am wrong - please point me to someone you consider to be a good psychic. Or how about you explain why you feel you are psychic.

Goggs, you bring up a fantastic point, and it is along the same lines as what I have been saying. We all see the same event and we will explain it in different ways because of our own personal beliefs. Some are outright charlatans, such as Sylvia Browne. Other psychics may actually believe that they are doing something good. I don't see there being enough evidence to prove that anyone has any psychic powers in the paranormal sense.
In my job, I can get a pretty good sense of what someone wants to study in university even before they tell me - that does not make me psychic, it just makes me good at reading people and knowing a lot about what people want as higher education. Some may think its a psychic power - I don't think it is. I could be wrong though.

EDIT: Removed a statement that was pointed out made no sense. Thank you to Pair of Cats
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
Angelo you have so many things in your post mixed up it almost unbelievable.
I don't admonish sceptics, true sceptics. Just debunkers and those who who make a mockery of things they do not understand. If it was just a case of you having an opposite opinion from mine then it would be ok. But you continue to make childish statements, which i have pointed out, and you then wonder why you get "admonished". Worse still is that you won't own those comments rather you try to steer the conversation towards how you just see things differently. Your posts say otherwise. This happens time and time again with you. A true sceptic would not say "All psychics are BS etc." You conveniently avoid that statement, i assume because you know that i am right about it being a sweeping and incorrect statement. That's what stared this in the first place.
Secondly there is this:
In my job, I can get a pretty good sense of what someone wants to study in university even before they tell me - that does not make me psychic, it just makes me good at reading people and knowing a lot about what people want as higher education. Some may think its a psychic power - I don't think it is. I could be wrong though.
The trouble is in your use of the word psychic. The word psychic is really a terrible word to use. It has so many differing meanings although its root is from the word "psyche" which means "of the soul' or pertaining to the soul. I noted that you used the word "sense" which, if you look at my previous post, was what i was referring to as being what being psychic really means.
Of course it is one of our senses. We are all born with them. You are using a non physical "sense" to read people. Non physical in the sense (sic) that it is unlike the other senses which are physical in nature. Psychic really means using the non physical senses. It is also known as "intuition or a "sixth sense". And you are right, there is nothing particularly amazing about it. It is as natural to us as the other 5.
Forget for one moment that being psychic means something superhuman or special, magical or paranormal and think more along the lines of it being natural, inherent and as much a part of being human as tasting, hearing or seeing
Psychic is as incorrect a term for what is happening as UFO is to describe that phenomena. As you use your sense to "read" people in the course of your job or, indeed, your life in general, so does a good "psychic" (for want of a better word) when consulting. They have learned to extend that natural and inherent gift to be able to ascertain information in regards to the person they have before them. It's not infallible or perfect and the figure of 60-80% accuracy is fair in my view. Although at times that figure can be higher or lower. Anyone can learn to be a medium, psychic, channeller or whatever word you wish to use to describe it. Just as anyone can learn to draw, sing or play sport. And as with any of those pursuits, some people are better at it than others.
Indeed being "psychic" is not paranormal. It is human. As for the people who say they haven't got a psychic bone in their body? They too are guilty of the misuse of the word or meaning of the word. They use their "psychic" ability or "intuition" or "sixth sense" every day, Every time they use a non physical means to read a situation, a person or get a good or bad feeling about something. That, my friend is just being human. Being "psychic" is just being human.
Please stop trying to turn it into something special or paranormal. It is NOT. Neither is RV.
It is also because we are human and fallible that the accuracy rate isn't a constant 100%. Just as it was with RV.
The people involved with RV, especially the military viewers and monitors aren't the ones alluding to it being some miraculous or magical power which can provide the person doing it unlimited access to a persons mind or ESP. RV was ALWAYS used as an adjunct to OTHER intelligence gathering methods. It was never a stand alone procedure.

You say you don't have enough evidence. Then go out and find it. I can't tell you who would be a good "psychic" to go and see, obviously, because i live 20,000 kms away from you. There would be psychics in you city or even in your area who would be able to fulfill that need. Ask your female friends. Find out if there are any who are consistently mentioned by people you work with or in your circle of friends. Do your home work. Usually the good ones don't advertise, although that is not always the case. Word of mouth is the best indication. The charlatans generally don't last long as word of mouth also sorts them out.
I agree with you in regards to the charlatans. Yes they are a blight on our communities as a whole. As with any charlatan of any ilk. But to say that ALL "psychics" are BS because of people like her is as bad as saying all priests are evil because some have been found to be rapists and pedophiles. Or that all politicians and policemen are corrupt etc.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
The whole reason we're talking about this is because I don't think psychic powers are paranormal, and they can be attributed to non-paranormal sources, like coincidence and being able to read people. That's why, if I can state it more clearly, all psychics that claim they have paranormal powers are BS.
Also, I really hate it when people throw out the "do your own homework" garbage. I have, and no matter how much you want to say I don't know what I'm talking about, I actually do. Nothing I've found says that RV or psychic powers are proven. The best I could find was that they need further study. I'm fine with that because it leaves the possibility that I could be wrong, and I have no issue with that. The thing is, you could be wrong too, so hopefully you can admit that to yourself.
At least we can agree that it isn't paranormal.
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
GO to 9:20 to see the part about remote viewing. Watch the rest of it if you want to see how ALL psychics are B.S. Well not all - the ones that admit that it's all a trick are at least honest with people..
That is what you posted. Nothing there about how psychics who claim paranormal powers are BS. I don't know any, personally that do claim paranormal powers. That seems to spring from the debunker's camp or your typing fingers it seems. Now stop wasting my time with your constant denial of the words that you have posted. It's there for all to see. And compounding the issue is the silly video you posted with it. You should just stop squirming around like a fish on the hook and just admit to it.

All of the "psychics" i have met say the same thing. That they are only using the senses that they were born with when doing readings.
Nothing I've found says that RV or psychic powers are proven.
You have. You proved it yourself. In both your previous post and the one about the router. You are the only one between the two of us who thinks that the word psychic means something special. You have selectively omitted proof that does not fit your parameters that denote the use of human, non physical senses
We both agree that being psychic is not paranormal. The tool that a person needs to use to be considered "psychic" is a innate human sense or in other words a non physical sense that ALL humans have. What sense are you using when you do this:
In my job, I can get a pretty good sense of what someone wants to study in university even before they tell me - that does not make me psychic, it just makes me good at reading people and knowing a lot about what people want as higher education.
For sure your eyes, as you may read their body language. Your hearing-you may detect something in the tone of their speech. But what is it that ties all of it together? What does all of your observations tell you about them? How could you possible tell just from looking at them or talking to them? Do they make you FEEL something about them? Think about it Angelo. I mean really think about it. What is it that gives you the ability to "read" people? Which one of your senses are you ultimately using?
The thing is, you could be wrong too, so hopefully you can admit that to yourself.
What am i wrong about, Angelo? That you posted something and you won't admit to it? Am i wrong about Humans having non physical senses? Of the two of us, I have practiced as a "psychic" (to use your word). I have encountered enough proof in the nearly 20 years of it's study to show me that it is real. In that time I have also practiced methods of scepticism and
discernment to help me determine what was "real" proof and what was not. Probably not dissimilar to methods you use.
I think that somewhere along your journey you took a wrong turn. You seem to have travelled down a road that changed you from someone who was once a believer in the strange and weird subjects that are discussed here, into a person who is completely dismissive of them. That's a pretty big turn. And pretty sad, You WERE on the right track. What really changed your mind? Was it fear? Fear of being ridiculed or laughed at?
Anyway, it seems that you prefer to listen to the hard boiled scepto/debunkers and scientists over a person or persons who have actually seen this alternative side of life. And yes you are quite welcome to have an alternative position or opinion of it all, absolutely.
Just don't post stuff and then try to put a spin on it because it is there for all to see.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
You've completely lost me. I have been talking about the psychics that claim they have some sort of paranormal power. They do not exist and you seem to agree - great, that's common ground.
Skeptics, like Shermer and Randi agree that anything resembling psychic power can be attributed to coincidence (like my router example) or the law of large numbers (a prophetic dream). That's how I am looking at this. If that's how you look at it, then fine. Am I missing something? Seriously Phil, I'm wondering what you think I'm afraid of - admitting that psychic powers can be attributed to mundane occurrences, or people being good at reading others? That is not what most people think about when they hear the word psychic, and that is not how most psychics market themselves. Those are the psychics I was referring to, and I stand by what I said. Those psychics are BS. You seem to agree which means that there's no reason to argue.

It's like you come out of hiding to disagree with me just for the sake of disagreeing even though you actually agree. We can establish that psychics that claim they have PARANORMAL powers are full of it.
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
You've completely lost me. I have been talking about the psychics that claim they have some sort of paranormal power. They do not exist and you seem to agree - great, that's common ground.
Skeptics, like Shermer and Randi agree that anything resembling psychic power can be attributed to coincidence (like my router example) or the law of large numbers (a prophetic dream). That's how I am looking at this. If that's how you look at it, then fine. Am I missing something? Seriously Phil, I'm wondering what you think I'm afraid of - admitting that psychic powers can be attributed to mundane occurrences, or people being good at reading others? That is not what most people think about when they hear the word psychic, and that is not how most psychics market themselves. Those are the psychics I was referring to, and I stand by what I said. Those psychics are BS. You seem to agree which means that there's no reason to argue.

It's like you come out of hiding to disagree with me just for the sake of disagreeing even though you actually agree. We can establish that psychics that claim they have PARANORMAL powers are full of it.
Watch the rest of it if you want to see how ALL psychics are B.S. Well not all - the ones that admit that it's all a trick are at least honest with people..
You continuously refuse to acknowledge what you have written. Where in that statement does it say that you were talking about psychics that claim paranormal powers? What is wrong with you? All psychics, Angelo.
I came out of hiding when you posted that ridiculous statement. If you had written: "ALL psychics who claim paranormal powers are B.S." I probably would not have even replied to it. I don't know what you MAY have written in other threads about this subject, but my response is to what you wrote in this one.
Admit it, you got caught out making a condescending, sweeping pronouncement and you are not even man enough to admit it.


I am one of those "psychics" you are talking about and i have never claimed to have paranormal powers. Nor have any I have met. Neither have ANY of the Remote Viewers, military or civilian.

Sorry but i don't know of any "psychics" who claim "paranormal" powers. Who are these people? What constitutes "paranormal" powers?
Seriously, please enlighten me as to what you mean by any of this.

Seriously Phil, I'm wondering what you think I'm afraid of - admitting that psychic powers can be attributed to mundane occurrences, or people being good at reading others?
I'm sure i do not know what you are afraid of here. For a start being
"psychic" is merely a human sense, one of 5 others. So yes it is a mundane occurrence. As mundane as being human. Even you are blessed with this non-physical sense.
Please tell me what processes are involved in being good at reading others. What senses are involved? How is it actually done?
Overall i think you are afraid of admitting that you made an inaccurate and misleading statement and compounded your embarrassment with adding an equally condescending film clip. Do me a favor and re-read you original statement.
Skeptics, like Shermer and Randi agree that anything resembling psychic power can be attributed to coincidence
Shermer and Randi, especially, are not true sceptics. They are debunkers and should be afforded very little in credence as they are far too biased to be considered impartial commentators. Is that why you like then so much? You share their mocking, dismissive attitude?

That is not what most people think about when they hear the word psychic, and that is not how most psychics market themselves. Those are the psychics I was referring to, and I stand by what I said.
But it's not what you said, is it? How many times do i have to re-post your statement before you admit to what you really said? Oh i suppose if i was a psychic claiming paranormal powers i would have been able to read your mind and discover what you really meant!!!
What i have been attempting to do is help you realise that like your pseudosceptical mates that you may want to look at all of this from another perspective. One that i have previously posted if you would care to re-read those posts. But of course you don't need to, do you?
And that is your right. If you wish to believe that the word "psychic" equates to "paranormal powers", then knock yourself out.
Beside that, the reason psychics still exist in society to this day is because their clients have been given compelling evidence by them. If they were ALL bogus then psychics would barely exist at all.

 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
I specifically wrote what you said I didn't. Go back and read what you quoted - I'll wait. I'm not referring to any other thread. I clarified it for you. PSYCHICS THAT CLAIM TO HAVE PARANORMAL POWERS.

And you've come to that point where you're arguing semantics. In my original statement, I was referring to the psychics that are being discussed in the video - psychics that claim to have paranormal powers.

Seriously, it's like you're trying to start some sort of argument just for the fun of it.
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
This was your original statement. Show me how me or anyone could mistake this:
GO to 9:20 to see the part about remote viewing.Watch the rest of it if you want to see how ALL psychics are B.S. Well not all - the ones that admit that it's all a trick are at least honest with people..
For this:
I was referring to the psychics that are being discussed in the video - psychics that claim to have paranormal powers.
I think you realised your mistake and are now trying to make it disappear like a bad Penn and Teller magic trick.
Are you now denying that you wrote the original post? How was i supposed to know that your original post really meant something else. Sure you now say that you meant something else, but my whole reason for posting was what was written in the OP. How else am i supposed to take it? To me the video was added to reinforce your original statement. I find it hard to believe that you would have written one thing and then claim to have meant something else. I think you indeed meant it that way.
But then again there are these conflicting statements from 2 separate posts:
I have come to the conclusion that no psychic is psychic in the paranormal sense of the word. (post #15)
and this:
My personal belief is that all psychics are paranormally psychic. (post #29)
What's that all about?
It just reinforces my belief that you really aren't aware of the stuff you post sometimes.
 

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
You're right, I went back and edited that - it made absolutely no sense and I thank you for pointing it out.

So how many ways do you want me to say it? In that statement (the one you keep harping on where I referred to the video), I was talking about psychics that think they use some sort of paranormal power to see the future. I did not explicitly state it. I'm pretty sure that most people understood what I meant. If not, well I've clarified it several times. If that's not good enough for you, well then there's really not much more I can say.
 

The Pair of Cats

a.k.a Philip Deane
Then that was the mistake that you made. I took it literally, word for word. I had no reason not to and that's what i reacted to. Please be more careful what you post next time or at least re-read and comprehend it before hitting the post button.
 


Top