More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure 40 Replies latest jw friends

Stiffy

EWWWWWW, Coffies disgusting man... Caffine kills
lol
Stiffy

C'mon ppl! Tell me what you see here! I promise there is somthing on my desk that hasnt been mentioned yet! IT IS MY TARGET!!!! C'MON SKEPTICS!!!! ITS IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE FOR GOD SAKES!!!!
lol
Ranchette

A Cat?
Ralph Burton

Chuck,
>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.
The same logic is true in the opposite situation. If you believe so
strongly that this is impossible, even if you are shown the
evidence you wouldn't believe it. You might say something
like "good guess". Because it might push hard on your personal
beliefs. Then you might have to question how something like
this is possible and what does it mean...
>As far as the quotes and evidence being offered in support of this ability, I have no idea what the source of these are.
Then you haven't done your homework.
I have.
I listed books, links, videos, radio shows.
I've met many of the military RVers.
I have seen RV done in controlled situations.
I have participated in double blind studies.
I quoted the statician who did the study that closed down
the army unit who said there was more to it than guessing.
Go do some research if you *really* interested in the subject.
> 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.
It depends, I think the picture of the car was a good example
of how people would disagree how simple it is the verify.
Because I believe both sides made valid arguments.
The skeptical side said, he didn't hit the target, he was
way off.
The more intelligent side (ha,ha,ha,) said, wait, look
at the perceptions that came through... he didn't quite
miss the target like everyone else on the list. He hit key
aspects of the target.
The skeptical side said, but he didn't hit it perfectly.
Look he missed all these main points of the target and
said things that weren't in the target.
The more intelligent side said, let me
explain to you how psychic perceptions come through.
I've studied this, you haven't.
The skeptical side said, we don't want to hear it. We know
that this is impossible, so the only way you could prove it
to us, is to have it work the way we think it should work.
We don't think it should work, so it won't.
>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.
You basically gave too much information.
Because you know what the target is, it's not a double blind
session. I could just read your mind. ;-)
Damn, what's going on in there!
I could contact a member of your family, etc., where you work.
How about if I just guess.
>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
I'll mention it. Most of you are lousy guessers.
> while the closer guess is massaged and retrofitted to seem more accurate after the target was disclosed.
No one massaged and retrofitted anything.
Tried to explain to you how perceptions come through and
you aren't getting it because it doesn't fit your perception
of how it should work.
> 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.
Again, you missed the point. There's a very big difference here.
1. A fortune teller can ask yes and no questions.
Attempts to read your future... generally using tarot, crystal
ball, etc.
RVers play poker and use bowling balls.
2. A cold reader reads a person.
They can read the expressions, body language and
subtle emotions in the voice,
that can passed from the person across from them.
They can ask yes and no questions.
A Remote Viewer can work a target with no information about
the target up front. A Remote Viewer can work a target with
front loading, as long as the front loading is minimal.
For example, the target is a location, describe the location.
The target is a person, describe the person.
That ends todays, Remote Vewing lesson.
Ralph
Tatiana

A bong......wait....I see...it's smoky....hmmmmm....what? Yessssss...nice....RV????? Of course.......RH????
April
April
"Love never dies." Voivodul Vlad Draculea (from Bram Stoker's Dracula-1992)
larc

Ralph,
I already asked you if your and your buddy wanted to participate in my experiement with bboy. I have sent a description of the target last Saturday via e mail to a poster here, which they can send to this thread, once you have sent your descriptions here. So far, I have not heard from bboy or you or your friend. Are you up for it?
rem

Ralph,
You are insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of all of the participants of this board.
The same logic is true in the opposite situation. If you believe so
strongly that this is impossible, even if you are shown the
evidence you wouldn't believe it.
This statement is false. A skeptic believes or disbelieves upon the basis of evidence. Where there is no evidence there is no belief. Show us the evidence and we will believe – there is no conspiracy against RV here.
I would like to ask you if there would be any way to disprove RV in your view? How bad would the tests have to turn out for you to finally say it doesn’t work or the phenomenon doesn’t exist? If you can’t fathom of such a test, then your theory or belief is useless because it is not falisfiable. A nonbeliever’s position is falsifiable. If there is evidence of RV, then the nonbeliever’s position is false. What are your criteria? Because it seems to me that there would be no way to convince you that the phenomenon doesn’t work – no matter what contrary evidence there is or will be. The fact is that all of the replicated evidence so far is negative – there is no positive evidence that has been replicated in the academic field.
Then you haven't done your homework.
I have.
I listed books, links, videos, radio shows.
I've met many of the military RVers.
I have seen RV done in controlled situations.
I have participated in double blind studies.
I quoted the statician who did the study that closed down
the army unit who said there was more to it than guessing.
Go do some research if you *really* interested in the subject.
Then you haven't done your homework.
I have.
I listed books, links, videos, radio shows.
I've met many of the military RVers.
I have seen RV done in controlled situations.
I have participated in double blind studies.
I quoted the statician who did the study that closed down
the army unit who said there was more to it than guessing.
Go do some research if you *really* interested in the subject.
I can’t tell whether you are being intentionally dishonest or if you are just ignorant of the facts. Utts, the statistician who reviewed the study, was involved in the RV experiments and is a known advocate of psi claims. It is interesting that a person involved in the experiments was used to review the process! This is hardly an impartial source.
The fact is that there are no published, replicated studies showing RV ability. No experiments have shown experienced RV’ers to be significantly more accurate than chance would allow. Your books, links, radio shows, etc. provide no evidence – only anecdotes. We have done our homework.
It depends, I think the picture of the car was a good example
of how people would disagree how simple it is the verify.
Because I believe both sides made valid arguments.
The skeptical side said, he didn't hit the target, he was
way off.
The more intelligent side (ha,ha,ha,) said, wait, look
at the perceptions that came through... he didn't quite
miss the target like everyone else on the list. He hit key
aspects of the target.
The skeptical side said, but he didn't hit it perfectly.
Look he missed all these main points of the target and
said things that weren't in the target.
The more intelligent side said, let me
explain to you how psychic perceptions come through.
I've studied this, you haven't.
The skeptical side said, we don't want to hear it. We know
that this is impossible, so the only way you could prove it
to us, is to have it work the way we think it should work.
We don't think it should work, so it won't.
The record stands for itself. If someone believes that that was a hit then his or her standard of evidence is pitifully low! Some education in critical thinking skills would be recommended for anyone who falls for this stunt. The fact that everyone’s answers varied wildly shows that no one latched on to a certain vibe or had in mind the same view. Just because someone got lucky and named an extremely common object does not a hit make.
Here is a falsifiable theory of RV that I just made up myself: If the RV phenomenon is true, you would expect to see many people making similar guesses – not a whole bunch of people making extremely different guesses and one person getting lucky. If they are really seeing something then there should be consistency across viewers. So far in the published studies this has not been shown and this has also been observed in our informal tests here.
From what I’ve seen so far, not many of us are saying that this claim is impossible – only extremely unlikely. The RV advocates are not allowing for any room that their perception may be wrong. Why not let the evidence fall where it may? But please, let’s have adequate standards of evidence. If we are to take the wrong guess mentioned earlier as a hit, then that person is willing to believe whatever will bolster his preconceived notions and is not looking objectively at facts. The arguments to defend that hit have amounted to special pleading. If you take that for evidence, then there is a bridge that I’m selling that I’m sure you’ll be interested in.
No one massaged and retrofitted anything.
Tried to explain to you how perceptions come through and
you aren't getting it because it doesn't fit your perception
of how it should work.
This is false. The record is there for everyone to see. You are the one with the perception that RV is a fact. I’m skeptical, but if there really is something to it, I’m open to that. But I require evidence before I believe. So far, all we’ve heard are over hyped claims in private studies, wild anecdotes, and rationalized misses, but no real evidence of any hits. I’m willing to accept strange things. Heck, Quantum Mechanics is weirder than this stuff, but I accept it because it is backed by evidence. There are some interesting implications in how things work on a subatomic scale. I’m not afraid of these implications – I accept them because they are real. I don’t presume to know everything about the universe, but I won’t believe something just because of how many times or how loud someone claims it. If RV is real, then I can accept those implications. But first I’ll need to see better than special pleading.
A Remote Viewer can work a target with no information about
the target up front. A Remote Viewer can work a target with
front loading, as long as the front loading is minimal.
For example, the target is a location, describe the location.
The target is a person, describe the person.
Then show it! Stop the bluster and provide some evidence. That is all we are asking for.
Rem, who has no financial stake in the success or failure of RV tests
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell
StifflersErSlayersBrother

In two hours I'll post my target, I wish i could get a picture, but my camera is funky and Im not sure it will work. Ill try it thought
bboynekosgirlfriend

This topic has been beaten to death. I'm sorry you don't beleive and you're sorry that i'm dilusional so lets leave it at that and MOVE ON ALREADY! The fact is noone OWES you or any one else any proof. Again, noone is on trial. This whole thing was just to bring lite to an interesting topic. Weather you beleive it or not is up to you but it's not up to me to change your mind.
StifflersErSlayersBrother

DRUM ROLL PLEASE!!!!
..............
My Target waaaaaas
A COPY OF THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES and no one got it. oh well. :P

More Remote Viewing

Share this