-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus 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! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
using remote viewing to find missing people
- Thread starter 3inchThundr
- Start date
Stillborn
Skilled Investigator
K, take your time, no rush.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
I see that this thread is basically split into two camps; those that are genuinely interested in experimenting with remote viewing and Tommy Allison sitting there with a hard-on waiting for me to fail so he can wank off into a sock.
Ignoring Tommy, I trust those of you interested in trying this out to think carefully before choosing a target. Bad choice of target = higher chance of failure. Sorry folks, but it does.
I have already been asked whether it is okay to put a target 'word' or a drawing in the enevelope. Whilst this is a totally legitimate question, I am going to post my answer to this (sent as a PM) here so that everyone is clear about how this experiment is being run.
Bad choice of target = higher chance of failure. Sorry folks, but it does.
If you're a TRAINED REMOTE VIEWER, a target is a target. The guy you should be talking to is DerekCBart.
For Remote Viewing or ANY kind of psychic ability to be useful, it has to be consistent, and it has to be quantifiable.
Stillborn
Skilled Investigator
People will get to see the photo being used and judge for themselves if the target is bad or not. People can make up their own mind if Gul is just making excuses etc.
Well Tommy, it's been shown in the lab that the phenomenon of target dynamics affecting the outcome is a consistent and quantifiable effect. For more information and the results of one such study, check out this research paper:
Shannon Entropy: A Possible Intrinsic Target Property
[SIZE=-1]Edwin C. May, S. James P. Spottiswoode, and Christine L. James[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 58, pp. 384-401, 1994)[/SIZE]
Or just ignore all scientific evidence and continue to spout conjecture. Your choice.
I think you'd better read my post again. I didn't say anything about other skeptics and scientists. I said that you are only spouting conjecture. I've provided references and links to research papers relevant to the discussion. All you've provided is sarcasm and venom.
I'm not even sure what your argument is at this point. Is it still that no real psychic would talk about being psychic?
("Rule #1 of Psychic Fight Club - You Do Not Talk About Being Psychic!" LOL.)
What does that have to do with anything? I haven't made any personal claims and I'm not here to convert you Tommy.
I think if you were really interested as a healthy skeptic, you might take the time to study some of the research papers I provided links to and, better informed, make intelligent debate points, rather than foam at the mouth because this is my 4th post on the forum.
Let me know when you want to make a clear point and perhaps debate it like an intelligent adult rather than waxing emotional, misquoting and slinging barbs.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
I think it's funny that you'd just assume that I know absolutely nothing on this topic, as if you held the corner on all of the information about it.
If you had actually gotten out of your parent's basement and lived a little, you'd know that sometimes other people come to the table with MORE experience in certain fields, and know some of the inner workings of some of this stuff.
You can't convert someone who doesn't believe it when people make claims, and then make excuses as to WHY they can't perform.
It's the same kind of cold reading that James Van Fraud, Sylvia Brown, and various other shysters have been doing for decades. I have YET to read anything convincing on remote viewing, save for ONE guy, and unfortunately he was poisoned back in the 1960's. RV has been around well before the 1970's. In fact it's been around since the 1930's in certain circles.
I'll let you ponder on that. I'm skeptical of certain people. RV itself is interesting. It's unfortunate that there are so many liars in the field pretending to have gifts.
If you had actually gotten out of your parent's basement and lived a little, you'd know that sometimes other people come to the table with MORE experience in certain fields, and know some of the inner workings of some of this stuff.
You can't convert someone who doesn't believe it when people make claims, and then make excuses as to WHY they can't perform.
It's the same kind of cold reading that James Van Fraud, Sylvia Brown, and various other shysters have been doing for decades. I have YET to read anything convincing on remote viewing, save for ONE guy, and unfortunately he was poisoned back in the 1960's. RV has been around well before the 1970's. In fact it's been around since the 1930's in certain circles.
I'll let you ponder on that. I'm skeptical of certain people. RV itself is interesting. It's unfortunate that there are so many liars in the field pretending to have gifts.
If I assumed you know little about the subject, it's only what I can infer from your curt remarks. Although, it is apparent from your own comments that your knowledge of remote viewing is rather limited. For example:
This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of remote viewing. In fact this is exactly what remote viewing is not.
Contrary to popular belief, remote viewing is not just a fancy new word for being psychic. Remote viewing is an attempt at psychic action performed withing a strict protocol, to ensure that any information transfer that may happen is not possible in any way other than psychic means. One of the most important parts of this protocol is that it be double blind.
A target is to be selected by a "tasker." The remote viewer then does a "session" or records (through writing or tape, usually writing) their impressions about the target. Being double blind means the tasker, or anyone else who has knowledge of the target, may under no circumstances be physically present while the session is in process. It's designed to specifically rule out any possibility of cold reading. After the session is complete, the session records and the target feedback may be evaluated for possible accuracy.
Granted, there are many who don't understand this and believe they are remote viewing when they don't even understand the basic fundamentals. Those people are often cold reading. Though it's usually unintentional on the part of the misinformed person, still invalidates those results nonetheless.
I don't fault anyone for their misunderstanding of this. The term remote viewing has been bastardized from it's original intent and meaning in the lab where the term was coined. It has been slapped on "training programs" and "psychic methods" and just about everything under the sun, yes, usually to make it sound cool and sell whatever the individual might be hocking. Worse, it's been done mostly in giant mainstream media, late night radio and top ranked google sites, so that's what most people see when they go looking for information on it. They usually don't find the legitimate research papers and true intent of remote viewing as a practice. They find ads for programs that will make you outrageously psychic for a few thousand bucks. People like Ed Dames and Aaron Donahue (whom I despise) have ruined the publics perception of what real remote viewing is.
Interesting. What was his name?
You don't find any of the research done under strict double blind protocols, with oversight, that shows statistically significant and repeatable results convincing? If not, then why? Did you find something wrong with some of the protocols used, or is it just blind disbelief?
Similar experiments may have been done in the past, but the term "remote viewing" wasn't coined until the late 70's at Stanford Research Institute. Your ref to the 1930's brings to mind Mary Craig Sinclair, who did something very similar to remote viewing in the "target practice" sense (Mental Radio, Sinclair - Albert & Charles Boni, 1930.) But again, remote viewing is a protocol, a set of rules for a psychic action to be attempted in to help ensure what one thinks is happening, is really happening.
Well at least that proves that you're not psychic. Haha!
Well, like I said, that's not what I'm here for. Although your allusion to making excuses why a person can't perform is reminiscent of the earlier discussion that certain types of targets work better than others. You know, scoffers are often fond of saying, "If you're psychic, why haven't you won the lottery?! Ha!" That's akin to saying, "If you really have legs, why can't you jump over my house?! Ha!" Every human faculty has limitations.
The fact is, numbers don't seem to come through well psychically. In my last post I provided a link to a white paper on a study that found targets with high entropy seem to come through best. Numbers are low-entropy. We don't know why it works like that but it seems to. You can cry excuse at that if you want, but if so, I'd like something other than an excuse about physical limitations as to why you can't jump over my house if you really have legs.
So am I. Many certain peoples, in fact. I don't let those certain people shape my opinion of an entire practice and everyone involved with it though. I let them shape my opinion of themselves.
We're in full agreement on that one at least.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
If you don't know the name of the man who worked for our government as not only a remote viewer, a psychic spy and one of the best counter intelligence agents in our nation's history, then you probably aren't as knowledgable as you think.
When it comes right down to it, there is some kind of phenomena. We live in too big of a universe for it to be completely mundane. The problem is with those who claim to be able to do things, and then when tested have NO ability what so ever.
RV, and other brands of psychic warfare have been tried and tested for the last 70 to 80 years. You have people like Edgar Cayce who seemed to be more on than off, and a few other notables through the last 50 years, but in the last 20 or so, we've seen psychics coming out of the woodwork like termites, each one claiming to have a gift, and more often than not, the ability to fleece people out of their money.
My outbursts of contempt for those who claim to be psychic, are no different than my contempt for people who call themselves artists, politicians, car mechanics, and the like. If you are a Psychic, your game should be on much more than off. We're talking 90% or better for it to be convincing, because like anything else in life, if you're not proficient, you're just lucky.
That might sound like conjecture, but it's not. It's common sense, and I'm pretty sure that you'll agree, that if you're right only 50% of the time, it's because that's pretty much random chance.
I'm currently trying to work out a time to get with Derek and do a test, but with my schedule lately it's been unbelievable. That and my cat is ill which is throwing a serious monkey wrench into the mix.
I didn't mean to come off like a braying jackass, and I do see your points. I just do not believe that psychics are as common as pigeons, and I do not believe anyone who comes out and says they're a trained psychic who abysmally fails.