More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure 40 Replies latest jw friends

rem

Stiffler,
A computer monitor is rectangular like the NWT. I think that deserves a hit. ;)
rem
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell
StifflersErSlayersBrother

Ohhhhhhh so sorry rem, but I was looking for Red, Thick, and Contradicts Itself. My Monitor is White, Glows, and hums....
bboynekosgirlfriend

Hey stiffler. Is it just words on the book or what? Just wondering
bboynekosgirlfriend

ohy!...e-mail locker (hehehe...says me)stiffler...please respondddddd.
julien

Ohhhhhhh so sorry rem, but I was looking for Red, Thick, and Contradicts Itself. My Monitor is White, Glows, and hums....

The monitor could be used to display the NWT on CDROM.. Therefore it is a direct hit.
StifflersErSlayersBrother

BBN's GF - Its got my name printed on the bottom of it. I've had it scince I was a lil kid.
julien- not so, I deleted that program last week :)
Ralph Burton

rem,
>You are insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of all of the participants of this board.
How could I insult your intelligence. You're obviously smarter
than Physicists and the Intelligence analysts that the CIA, DIA, NSA
had access too. ;-)
>This statement is false. A skeptic believes or disbelieves upon the >basis of evidence.
I could rip into that statement but I won't.
What you want to is someone to describe a target accurately
enough for you to believe that Remote Viewing is real.
My problem is that if it's close you'll say it was a good guess.
If it's a miss, you'll say it doesn't work.
I get the impression that you are looking for one
session to prove it works.
That's not realistic.
When I was showing people in North Carolina RV, my first
target wasn't even close... Second target, had good info intermixed
with bad info. At this point, no one believe it.
Third target was a direct hit.
Pay attention:
When doing a target, many times the drawing(s)
in the session are very important.
> 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've given you plenty to go look at... you haven't
even read the basic history. It's six bucks, if you
can afford it maybe you should do a little reading.
Remote Viewers - Jim Schabel
>I would like to ask you if there would be any way to disprove RV in your view?
I'm not the one asking if RV is real.
You are.
>A nonbeliever’s position is falsifiable. If there is evidence of RV, then the nonbeliever’s position is false. What are your criteria?
I told you I originally was skeptical about RV.
Unlike you, I did research it.
>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.
Why is this such an important point with you? Whether I believe
RV works or doesn't work makes no difference.
> 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.
Really? How would you know? You must be up on all the studies
the Universities are doing?
Explain to the list what Dean Radin was studying at the University
of Nevada?
>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.
Thanks for the insult.
Utts was assigned by the government to study the RV sessions.
She wasn't a member of the RV unit. I'd like know how and where she
was involved in psi before doing the RV study.
Since you know, please inform the list. This is the first I've
heard of it.
>The fact is that there are no published, replicated studies showing RV ability.
Try Stanford Research Institute - Russell Targ and Hal Putoff
> No experiments have shown experienced RV’ers to be significantly more accurate than chance would allow.
Really? That's quite a claim.
What studies are you quoting from, please list them.
> Your books, links, radio shows, etc. provide no evidence – only anecdotes.
Not true.
> We have done our homework.
If you have, then you should have no problem to specific
questions about Remote Viewing.
>The record stands for itself. If someone believes that that was a hit then his or her standard of evidence is pitifully low!
Explain to me what the term "hit" means.
> Some education in critical thinking skills would be recommended for anyone who falls for this stunt.
Define the educational approach to critical thinking.
>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.
I actually agree with you here.
> If they are really seeing something then there should be consistency across viewers.
I mostly agree with this statement too.
For example at a crime scene, If 3 people see
a crime they all may report it slightly differently.
> So far in the published studies this has not been shown and this has also been observed in our informal tests here.
Tests? You call these tests?
You can't be serious. You are saying your test proves if
RV works.
No one one was trained in RV who went after the target.
No one here was trained to analyze a RV session.
What you all did was guess. Guessing is fun, RV takes
time and effort.
BTW, What studies are you quoting from?
>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.
Not true.
There are going to be incorrect perceptions.
There are going to be complete misses on targets.
There are going to be direct hits on targets too.
I had a target that I said was the space shuttle, and it was.
That session, if you had watched it and seen it done would
probably convince you. But on the other hand, me telling
you about it, won't.
I've proven to many people like you RV is real.
I could invite them to this list.
But you wouldn't believe them.
> 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.
Why don't you explain to everyone on this list the
protocols of a Remote Viewing session.
List the type of RV you are explaining and how it works.
Since you made the claim you've done your homework...
this should be easy for you.
>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.
I did too... otherwise it's a bunch of stories...
> 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 think it was on ABC, "Put to the Test" with Joe McMoneagle.
He's one of the best, they do a live a RV session on the show.
>Then show it! Stop the bluster and provide some evidence. That is all we are asking for.
If you are truly interested in how RV works, you can
go to the www.HRVG.org site and look at the sessions.
You might get a better understanding how
perceptions come through.
Well folks, I need to get back to the lists I belong too.
Take Care,
Ralph
[email protected]
Ralph Burton

This was posted by Paul Smith a FT. Meade RVer,
I thought I'd post here for those who
are interested:
Folks--
According to the History Channel online schedule, "Hidden History:
Psychic
Espionage" will air at 8pm Eastern time on Thursday, 27 September. The
program includes interviews with Hal Puthoff, Skip Atwater, Joe
McMoneagle,
and myself. Lyn Buchanan and Dale Graff, among others, also
contributed in
various ways. I've had an advanced look at the program, and it's well
worth watching -- though not quite as good as I'd hoped (it gets a
little
"woo-woo" in places). Still, I learned a few things I didn't know, and
hopefully y'all will, too!
Enjoy,
Paul
rem

Ralph,
How could I insult your intelligence. You're obviously smarter
than Physicists and the Intelligence analysts that the CIA, DIA, NSA
had access too. ;-)
Apparently they are intelligent people. They determined the phenomenon was not real and was not effective. The twenty year long experiment was shut down. For some reason that fact doesn’t seem to sink in with some people. If it really worked, it wouldn’t have been declassified and abandoned.
When I was showing people in North Carolina RV, my first
target wasn't even close... Second target, had good info intermixed
with bad info. At this point, no one believe it.
Third target was a direct hit.
We’ve already discussed what you qualify as direct hits. I’m not impressed.
I've given you plenty to go look at... you haven't
even read the basic history. It's six bucks, if you
can afford it maybe you should do a little reading.
Remote Viewers - Jim Schabel
I’ve read up on this a bit more than you may think. I just might pick up that book for fun. Right now I’ve got too many others on my reading list, though.
>I would like to ask you if there would be any way to disprove RV in your view?
I'm not the one asking if RV is real.
You are
You don’t understand the value of a falsifiable theory then. I could say I have an invisible dragon in my garage. You don’t believe me. You suggest we put some baking soda on the floor so we can detect its footsteps. I come up with an ad hoc explanation that the dragon is constantly flying, so there will be no footsteps. This can go on and on and on. If my belief is not falsifiable, then it is worthless.
Again – how bad would the results have to be for you to disbelieve? There must be some point, otherwise your belief is not based upon evidence, but is rather based on emotion.
Why is this such an important point with you? Whether I believe
RV works or doesn't work makes no difference.
It is not your belief that is in question here. It is the fact that you are making an extraordinary claim without providing evidence beyond anecdotes and highly criticized studies – studies that have not been replicated. These claims are calling into question what we know about science and ultimately hamper progress by making people distrust the scientific method. That is dangerous because if too many people distrust science, then we can find that superstition reigns and knowledge and progress such as we have seen in the past few hundred years is halted.
Really? How would you know? You must be up on all the studies
the Universities are doing?
Explain to the list what Dean Radin was studying at the University
of Nevada?
Radin is doing autoganzfeld and random number generator experiments. Along with that he has been occupied with metaanalysis of parapsychology data over the last few decades. His research is very interesting, but it is not conclusive, has not been replicated, and is not beyond criticism:
http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/review.html
http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html
Thanks for the insult.
Utts was assigned by the government to study the RV sessions.
She wasn't a member of the RV unit. I'd like know how and where she
was involved in psi before doing the RV study.
Since you know, please inform the list. This is the first I've
heard of it.
I apologize if you took that as an insult. It was possibly a false dichotomy. The information about Utts involvlement in some of the studies was reported in Nature 12/7/95. Unfortunately Nature magazine’s archive does not go that far back, but it could probably be found in a library. Here is a reference to the Nature article’s report:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html
>The fact is that there are no published, replicated studies showing RV ability.
Try Stanford Research Institute - Russell Targ and Hal Putoff
Even Utts discounts the research done by Targ and Putoff in her evaluation of the SRI and SAIC programs. See section 3.2 in Utt’s paper AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR P SYCHIC FUNCTIONING:
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
> No experiments have shown experienced RV’ers to be significantly more accurate than chance would allow.
Really? That's quite a claim.
What studies are you quoting from, please list them.
I am talking about reanalysis of prior positive findings using metaanlysis techniques. Specifically the research done by Julie Milton of the University of Edinburgh and Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield, England. Some information can be found here:
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/7_31_99/fob4.htm
http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html
> If they are really seeing something then there should be consistency across viewers.
I mostly agree with this statement too.
For example at a crime scene, If 3 people see
a crime they all may report it slightly differently.
But there must be at least some consistency between witnesses or their testimony is worthless. Three people witnessing a car accident should all agree that it was indeed a car accident. One should not see a murder and another a bank robbery.
Tests? You call these tests?
You can't be serious. You are saying your test proves if
RV works.
No one one was trained in RV who went after the target.
No one here was trained to analyze a RV session.
What you all did was guess. Guessing is fun, RV takes
time and effort.
I do not claim that our tests are in any way scientific. I’ve noted this before in other threads that you have not participated in. I think they are just fun diversions, but it is interesting that even these informal tests seem to go along with my theory. Also, it didn’t seem to be so informal to you when you were defending a hit earlier. Which way do you want to play it? Was there some psi ability shown or was it just a lucky guess as most of us have agreed?
I had a target that I said was the space shuttle, and it was.
That session, if you had watched it and seen it done would
probably convince you. But on the other hand, me telling
you about it, won't.
If I didn’t know that magicians were just illusionists, I’d be convinced that they had magical powers too. What does that prove? I’ve learned that humans are very easy to fool. That is why rigorously designed double blind experiments are necessary. Then these experiments must be replicated. Even then we have found holes in protocol, and experiments have to be revamped and redone.
I think it was on ABC, "Put to the Test" with Joe McMoneagle.
He's one of the best, they do a live a RV session on the show.
I won’t even go into how bad radio and TV programs are when it comes to extraordinary claims. First, they go after ratings. Second, they have been shown to be extremely gullible – even being fooled by hoaxters. I don’t see such media shows as evidence but merely entertainment for the masses. I remember having to convince my brother that we really did land on the Moon and that it wasn’t just a hoax after he watched a ridiculous TV program. Also, remember such shows about finding Noah’s Ark? Sometimes such shows even air on Discovery, History, or The Learning Channel, giving them an air of authenticity and respectability.
I think some of the most damning evidence against RV is what type of people back it and what types of things some RV’ers claim to see. RV’ers have claimed to remote view the inner structure of atoms and even the planets and other galaxies. In most cases they have been shown to be completely wrong ( http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html and Occult Chemistry, Annie Besant and C. M. Leadbeater) and in others are completely unverifiable and unfalsifiable at this time. Interestingly Puthoff was an advocate for such claims (page 62, Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?, Martin Gardner) and is linked to ufology. Some have even claimed to see the insides of UFO’s (Cosmic Voyage, Courtney Brown).
To me it’s all a bit too far on the fringe and supported by too many wackos. It seems that many have a lot of financial interest in the phenomenon as Remote Viewing training classes are offered around the world and they are not cheap. I suppose as long as people are making money, there will always be studies done and analysis that attempts to support RV claims. We’ve seen such conduct before in the tobacco industry.
rem
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell
Glenn

Aloha Rem & Ralph,
Aloha Rem & Ralph,
Like most things in life there are degrees of value in an effect. What one man sees when looking at another may be different whether or not that man is a layman or a doctor.
I have spent so many years of my life in the RV world that it is now the majority of my life. I have become expert in the analysis of what perception is and what it can reveal to us. I was trained in analysis by the NSA and have worked over 20 years in the intelligence community. In that time I have seen some truly brilliant minds. Minds that defy the logical explanation of how we think things really are. Remote viewing is a cognitive skill that was developed primarily within the confines of the United States Army. The use of civilian contractors to do baseline research has helped, but in some cases hindered, our research.
One doesn't just accept a concept like remote viewing readily. It frankly scares many people. It scares the viewers far more. In the physics of consciousness there seem to be few Mozart's or Edison's. It is perhaps the most un-examined, under studied field of the human condition. We have waged an effort since the early 70's to identify and replicate the effect we call remote viewing. It is a product of cognition. It is not magic. Cognition is a veil for some and clarity for others. My mother was a cryptographic wonder. Philomena Evangeline Wheaton could read enciphered text without the aid of paper, pen or any other device. She simply saw what was there. I could write her a note in any number of cipher systems and she could read what I intended despite the encryption. My mother never attended high school she got to the 9th grade. We have spent trillions on equipment to decipher communications my mother could read like the Sunday paper.

Although I did not get her gift of cipher I did get a photographic memory. I learned a long time ago that it was not limited to just my memories. Cognition is the key to awareness. Most people do not train themselves to be aware. Most never even look up or could not tell you how many chairs there are in a room that they enter everyday. It wasn't until we began to skill ourselves in the ability to become aware that remote viewing evolved. It is non-local awareness nothing more.
No one is more distraught about the state of remote viewing than those of us in the community. At HRVG we simply attempt to make the case for remote viewing. We publish blind or double blind session work that displays the RV effect, or information gathered by the non-local awareness cognitive skills of the viewers. We actually cringe when we see or hear some of the less than believable claims or enterprises that surface from time to time.
It is not so important that you believe in remote viewing for the skill to be demonstrated. Skeptics indeed make the best students. I have seen many students sit in utter confusion after producing a body of work that was so good it rattled them to the bone. I always smile and tell them "don't worry its just an anecdote". I have also seen the strain it puts on them when they stop their work and can't continue because the target itself is too oppressive for their sensory awareness. The human mind is madhouse for some, a funhouse for others, and a large empty room for many.
Education about remote viewing is critical if one is to sit in judgment over its veracity. Ralph made some recommendations about books and papers, which are a good place to start. Please do not think a cursory review of a few articles pro or con will suffice. It won't. I would recommend the Kress Report. 99% of the documents you need to convince you are still classified. It is unfortunate but that's how it is on that one.
If you are a skeptic that is fine as long as you have a mind that won't shun or disregard the information you need to see the truth about a topic. It reminds me a bit about a new Colonel we got in the unit while I was serving in Special Forces Intelligence. He came back to our secure vault area where we worked to get a scheduled briefing on the Intelligence assets of the unit. He sat back in abject horror during the briefing about the remote viewing project. At the conclusion of the briefing he leaned back in his chair and said "What your telling me is that I have a bunch of Wizards back here in a room with no windows behind a two foot thick steel door?" "Just what side of the door is the lock on?"
I left the briefing podium and walked across the room to a large safe, spun the dial, opened the drawer and removed a package and handed it to him. He opened the double wrapped package and removed a first edition copy of Bob Hope's self-autobiography from 1954. It was autographed by Hope with a short message made out to the colonel. We had obtained the book, and with the help of Colonel Maggie (Martha Raye) gotten it signed. The colonel held the book and in a low voice said "you bastards better be the best Wizards I ever saw". He got up and quickly left the vault. My captain looked at me and said what was that all about. I told him simply, at a USO show in Viet Nam the Colonel then a 2nd lieutenant tossed his first edition copy of that book up on the stage to get it autographed, it was lost in the shuffle and noise of the show.
While still being only an anecdote the information was produced solely by remote viewing. It drove the point home with such finesse that although it could not be explained it could not be refuted. We had achieved détente.
What do you really need to see to obtain a level of détente?
Aloha Glenn

More Remote Viewing

Share this