More Remote Viewing

Decidedly_Unsure

More on Remote Viewers

I'm not sure if it's decent protocol to bring it up under a new heading
but I will anyway because:

1. It's 8 pages deep already
2. Seems to be a very interesting topic

I just wonder why the skeptics from the first pages have all gone silent now
that supposedly "qualified" RVers have come onto the thread and describing
evidence of real occurences.

It seems to me that one of the foll, should obtain:
1. The RVers are all lying or hallucinating
2. Under the circumstances quoted, the RVers guessed correctly by concidence
(What statistical likelihood can be associated with these events?)
3. Their is some evidence of extrasensory communication

I'd really like to figure out which of the above it is.
In the RV thread our resident skeptics say it's (1) or (2) eg.

JanH says:
.. It is well explained within the realm of human
superstition, and that happens to be the area of life where I am highly
educated.
You only need to know two areas of human knowledge to explain the alleged
supernatural: superstition and fraud.

ChuckD discounts any Govt. involvement as follows:
.. the government did investigate remote viewing. They found it to be of no
value and discontinued the research. The government looked into all sorts of
things in the middle of the cold war, and were always concerned that the
Russians had a leg-up on them in some area.

(Interestingly, the last quote doesn't suggest that Govt. disproved the
existence of RVing, simply that they didn't deem it to have value to
them.)

The experienced RVers, of course say it's (3)
Ralph Burton chuckles:
DIA credited psychics with creating accurate pictures of Soviet submarine
construction hidden from U.S. spy satellites, and a 1993 Pentagon report said
psychics had correctly drawn 20 tunnels being built in North Korea near the
demilitarized zone."
What the Pentagon said the psychics had "correctly drawn 20 tunnels"
.... hey are you guys reading this...?

......
In 1984, McMoneagle left the army to work as a civilian psychic consultant and
was awarded the Legion of Merit for "providing information on 150 targets that
was unavailable from other sources.""

Gee, they give the Legion of Merit award to people the are good guessers.
Especially since he guessed right at least 150 times. Yup... that's some
really good guessing.

Quote from your second link: "A particualrly talented viewer accurately drew
windmills when the sender was at a windmill farm at Altamont Pass in
California and "

Dang, it could have been anything and he not only guessed it he drew it
correctly.

Well skeptics, are these folks all lying, hallucinating or guessing?
If they aren't lying, then how do you explain these last circumstances?

ChuckD

I don't for a moment suggest that any of these people are lying. I am sure that they are completley convinced of this ability, and are very sincere. But I do think that once you really buy into ANY idea, it becomes very hard to consider it objectively.

As far as the quotes and evidence being offered in support of this ability, I have no idea what the source of these are. My contention is this; the claim of remote viewing seems to be a fairly easy one to test, at least on the surface. Someone picks a target, the remote person draws or otherwise accurately describes it, and then you see how they did. Sounds easy to verify one way or the other.

So, here is what I have done. I have selected a target quite nearby to me. The target can be seen at a distance and easily identified for what it is at a very quick glance from any angle. Someone describing it would be able to do so with very few words. I am hoping that ONE person who purports RV ability will view this target and describe it for those of us who are interested, and then I will post a photo of the target for comparison.

The reason I say one person should be clear from following the original thread. Multiple people made attempts, one of them reported a single correct facet of the target within other incorrect information, and suddenly all of the incorrect attempts are no longer mentioned while the closer guess is massaged and retrofitted to seem more accurate after the target was disclosed. This is not at all different than what a fortune teller or any kind of cold reader does. And, it is human nature to play along.

StifflersErSlayersBrother

Hmmm, Interesting Test...
This is only for the skeptics...

I have an object on my table, i want one of you three, or any other skeptic out there who wants to try, tell me what you think this object is. Just guess, and say the first thing that comes to your mind. Dont think too hard on it. Just the first thing in your head.

No prize involved, just an experiment in the name of science. Ill announce what it is Tomarrow afternoon at 7:00 PM.

rem

A computer monitor.

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

funkyderek

It's a cup

--
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire

julien

a potted plant

bboyneko

A flag :)

Decidedly_Unsure

Wondering here what the skeptics would accept. I wonder if the crux of the matter here isn't too much preoccupation with repeatability as a basis for testing a mere possibility!

Could the on-board skeptics say how they would qualify the foll.

( Just a hypothetical Eg. )
If I sit 3 alleged RVers in a room for a week and ask them to visualise stuff all week. Two of the Rver's have no hits at all (out of a possible 100 attempts each). The third RVer on his 95th attempt was asked to describe what he saw in a hotel room in Kingston ( a place he's never been). He "sees" a blue polka-dotted handkerchief in a drawer next to a silver pen and a yellow notepad. These items are found to exist at the specified location! The nect 5 attempts fail for thsi RVer.

Would the skeptics then say "That was a lucky guess, its not repeatable?!"

I for one may agree with them that, it's not significantly repeatable and therfore not useful, but isn't it dishonest to claim that RVing simply cannot occur because of this?

IOW if the probability of guessing correct object(s) is 100000000000000 and 100 RVers "see" the wrong thing even 99% of the time, then there is still a far greater likelihood of the RV phenomonon being real. Yet the so called scientists may very well discount these ocuurences as anomalies!

Are we being really objective?

rem

If remote viewing is true, why isn't everyone predicting the same objects? If there is anything to it, we all should be getting the same "vibe". When everyone picks different objects, that makes the chance of someone guessing correctly go way up. We've just seen in the other thread how believers will latch on to the most vague answers as a "hit". Really - how objective is that?

Decidedly - what you are forgetting in your example is that if the RV'er says he sees a blue polka-dot handkerchief and there happens to be a red striped one, then they will count that as a hit! Out of 100 attempts, it would be strange if at least a few were not somewhat close. Anyone can do that just by guessing – especially when you have multiple guessers and they are all making different guesses.

rem

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

StifflersErSlayersBrother

OMG!!!! 3 out of 4 are right! I do in fact of the following in front of me , but they are not the object im thinking of.

A Potted Plant, a Cup, and a Monitor... lol
sorry bboy no flags :)
Im actually very amazed at those answers though! Ill post a picture tomarrow night of my desk so you can all see.
IN YOUR FACE REM! lol

More Remote Viewing

Share this