Remote Viewing

by funkyderek 161 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  julien

  Wait what did that say? CIA evaluators said the program
  worked really well? What.... I thought they were just guessing!

  No. Reread the quote or remote view it if that is more comfortable for you:

  Psychics later interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked really well--as long as it was run by officials "who accepted the phenomenon."

  It was *psychics* who said the program worked really well, and then only when run by officials who accept the phenomenon. Of course psychics are going to say the program works really well. But they openly admit that it has to be run by people who accept it.

  As to your examples of correct viewings all I can say is 20 years is a long time ... What would be more astonishing is if there were not any correct guesses in all that time. How about we see a list of ALL* the viewings, hits and misses. Then maybe we can evaluate how worthwhile it is. If I told you GO TO VEGAS!!YOU CAN GET RICH!! you would say "how so".. I would say I have been going there every day for 20 years and I have won several times!

  I could guess what happened to the unit.... I could guess
  the reason why there's a spin on it... I mean what if it
  did work and everybody started doing it.

  Now I am convinced! There is a sinister plot by the US Govt to keep the power of Remote Viewing from the American people!!

  Listen anyone who wants me to shut up about this, all you have to do is remote view the pictures on my office wall at home, or something specific I have placed in a box in my office at work.
• 

  rem

  Stiffler,

  The human brain also likes to be sceptical and unbelieving

  I don't believe this to be the case. History has shown that humans are typically superstitious and credulous – especially the less educated they are. Only in the last few hundred years with the scientific method have we begun to make progress and improve our lives by not believing every spectacular story we hear.

  True, there have been skeptics all throughout history (the definition of a skeptic was somewhat different in the past), but these were the extreme minority of free thinkers - people who were able to transcend the superstitions of their time and ponder clearly on facts and observations. These people had a higher standard for evidence and did not just flock to any idea that happened to tickle their fancy.

  Why do we have to invent a fantastic phenomenon for Remote Viewing when all of the tests have shown it to be a psychological phenomenon? Is this just too prosaic of an explanation for some? Is it too ordinary or boring an explanation? Why do so many believe in the absence of evidence? How many more negative tests will it take?

  It seems to me that RV defenders are embroiled in a priori reasoning. They start with the assumption that RV is not only possible, but is a fact and they interpret any bit of positive data in their favor and reject all negative data. Do we start with the assumption that Zeus creates lightening in our experiments and then interpret the data to fit that model?

  And scientists are not building the experiments to disprove psi – they work together with psychics to create fair tests and let the data land where it may. Unfortunately, psi supporters cannot do that – they must interpret and massage the data to get even a hint of a positive result. These people are being intellectually dishonest with themselves and the gullible, uneducated public.

  rem

  P.S.: Stiffler - I have experienced strange things in my youth. Interestingly, ever since I stoped believing in such things (through much research) I have never experienced anything that could be interpreted as psi. I realize that my experiences as a youth were due to fright, belief in demons, and a faulty memory. I don't believe in a whole host of things that don't have any backing evidence as I have enumerated in posts earlier in this or another thread on RV (I think it had to do with Visions).

  "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
  ..........Bertrand Russell