Remote Viewing

[Teresa]

I'm glad to hear that he is still involved, albeit in a minor way. I believe he was a very talented viewer.

The conference, the occasional teaching projects some mentoring are all that I have heard about and maintaining his health is a key issue.

I've read in more than one place that Mel came to the unit because he was in a plane and someone wanted to know what was under a tarp(?) on the ground. Mel told them he could tell them what was under it and proceeded to sketch it. Lyn says "if Mel says it's there you can take it to the bank."

It was an honor to meet Mel Riley and I met George McMullen, One White Crow too. George passed away last year. People like Lyn and Mel and George are jewels. You can't help but learn something every time you're around them.

~Teresa

 

[magican2009]

If you'll pardon my immodesty for just a moment, I've been a professional magician for over thirty years. Remote Viewing, Uri Geller, John Edwards, et al., is a farce, plain and simple.

Furthermore, it is not the fault of the viewing audience. It is not that spectators are idiots. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In all matter of deception, it is a well-known fact in magic circles that the smarter the audience, the easier it is to fool them (I will be happy to expand on this should there be any interest in my comment).

Cold reading and warm reading, when done correctly, is fabulous entertainment, but is it not evidence any special ability. As for remote viewing, you'll find that those in the field who claim such abilities tirelessly advertise their "hits" and play down their misses.

Uri Geller once subjected himself to a series of serious, controlled experiments at Stanford University. Some of the brightest, most educated scientists in the world were flabbergasted at his ability to demonstrate his powers, despite the highly controlled environment. It was embarassing for those distinguished and lettered men to discover later that what they wittnessed was nothing more than parlour tricks. Anyone interested should check out YouTube and you will see first hand what a fool Uri made of himself when he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johny Carson

When I was nine years old and just getting emersed in the art of magic as entertainment, I thought I would never have the ability to direct an entire audience to look in one direction, to effectively misdirect a large group of people. Yet over the years it became an aquired skill.

UFO's are a different matter entirely. But as the Paracast constantly reminds us, there are those in the field who move toward knowledge and understanding, and then there are the hucksters.

Trust me. Remote viewing is a whistful and wanton fiction.

 

[Gareth]

Couple of questions...

Why should we take anything you say on remote viewing as some sort of truth? You provide nothing in that post that suggests you are an authority on remote viewing.

Is Uri Geller the dude that David Biedny always talks about? The guy who was slicing peoples eye balls or something? If so, then David seems pretty convinced of his ability.

I will seek out that Johnny Carson interview.

EDIT


lol well clearly this guy is a fraud. Maybe its not him that David always talks about.

 

[mattdeacon]

Uri Geller is most definitely not the eyeball slicer Dave has referred to.
Funnily enough, I reckon Uri has some ability, but has disqualified himself from any credibility due to his ridiculous ego and attention seeking bullshit.

Ze Arigo (sp?) is the guy you are thinking of.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

If you'll pardon my immodesty for just a moment, I've been a professional magician for over thirty years. Remote Viewing, Uri Geller, John Edwards, et al., is a farce, plain and simple.

Furthermore, it is not the fault of the viewing audience. It is not that spectators are idiots. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In all matter of deception, it is a well-known fact in magic circles that the smarter the audience, the easier it is to fool them (I will be happy to expand on this should there be any interest in my comment).

Cold reading and warm reading, when done correctly, is fabulous entertainment, but is it not evidence any special ability. As for remote viewing, you'll find that those in the field who claim such abilities tirelessly advertise their "hits" and play down their misses.

Uri Geller once subjected himself to a series of serious, controlled experiments at Stanford University. Some of the brightest, most educated scientists in the world were flabbergasted at his ability to demonstrate his powers, despite the highly controlled environment. It was embarassing for those distinguished and lettered men to discover later that what they wittnessed was nothing more than parlour tricks. Anyone interested should check out YouTube and you will see first hand what a fool Uri made of himself when he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johny Carson

When I was nine years old and just getting emersed in the art of magic as entertainment, I thought I would never have the ability to direct an entire audience to look in one direction, to effectively misdirect a large group of people. Yet over the years it became an aquired skill.

UFO's are a different matter entirely. But as the Paracast constantly reminds us, there are those in the field who move toward knowledge and understanding, and then there are the hucksters.

Trust me. Remote viewing is a whistful and wanton fiction.

So if a magician says that remote viewing is bunk then that is the final, definitive word on the subject is it?
Sounds like whistful and wanton misdirection to me.
If you read any of the posts from the remote viewers you will see that they do not claim 100% accuracy but somewhere between 60-80%, which means they "miss" 20-40% of the time. If you had bothered to look at any of the RV sites where results are easily obtained you would see that , the misses, warts and all.
The remote viewers would be the first to tell you that they don't always get a "hit" , in fact it may take a team of 5 or 6 viewers many attempts to get good data on any given subject.
So please tell me, when did the magic circle club start practicing remote viewing? And how many hours have you spent researching the subject as it appears that you are only making pronouncements because you think that RV could not possibly exist.
Trust you? Why should we trust anyone who is trained in trickery and mis-direction? Wait a minute its because only a magician would know what to look for or some other pompous pronouncement.

 

[Teresa]

If you'll pardon my immodesty for just a moment, I've been a professional magician for over thirty years. Remote Viewing, Uri Geller, John Edwards, et al., is a farce, plain and simple.

Furthermore, it is not the fault of the viewing audience. It is not that spectators are idiots. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In all matter of deception, it is a well-known fact in magic circles that the smarter the audience, the easier it is to fool them (I will be happy to expand on this should there be any interest in my comment).

Cold reading and warm reading, when done correctly, is fabulous entertainment, but is it not evidence any special ability. As for remote viewing, you'll find that those in the field who claim such abilities tirelessly advertise their "hits" and play down their misses.

Uri Geller once subjected himself to a series of serious, controlled experiments at Stanford University. Some of the brightest, most educated scientists in the world were flabbergasted at his ability to demonstrate his powers, despite the highly controlled environment. It was embarassing for those distinguished and lettered men to discover later that what they wittnessed was nothing more than parlour tricks. Anyone interested should check out YouTube and you will see first hand what a fool Uri made of himself when he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johny Carson

When I was nine years old and just getting emersed in the art of magic as entertainment, I thought I would never have the ability to direct an entire audience to look in one direction, to effectively misdirect a large group of people. Yet over the years it became an aquired skill.

UFO's are a different matter entirely. But as the Paracast constantly reminds us, there are those in the field who move toward knowledge and understanding, and then there are the hucksters.

Trust me. Remote viewing is a whistful and wanton fiction.

Hello,

I'm glad to meet you. I've never chatted (or in your case, perhaps you think we are talking shop?) with a professional magician before. Took care of a world reknown professional magician in the hospital once, but that was different. He definitely was not interested in tricks at that point, he needed help and he wanted the real deal.

I agree with you, maintaining the attention of a gymnasium full of people is no easy feat (past public speaker, I've done it), but that is not remote viewing, and certainly not controlled remote viewing. Remote viewing is the accessing of the nonlocal environment, information known to the mind at the subconscious level and bringing it to the conscious level (see concept / theory with specific attention to limen). Again, we're talking quantum physics and psychology here, not sleight of hand. http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/answers/crvmanual/crvmanual-03.html

Unfortunately, no group (?) is immune from individuals who are prone or apt to grandstanding and the bad PR as a result of same. Also, as a professional magician you will also understand that anybody can probably master one or two sleight of hand maneuvers but does that make them a professional magician? No, it does not and you would be insulted if they professed to be.

People can learn the rudiments of remote viewing by watching a DVD or sitting in an auditorium but there is much more to it than that. Not everyone can afford to be trained by professional, military intelligence. Does that make them a "bad" remote viewer? No, but it does mean they have to work a helluva lot harder to understand all the pieces and parts when they're learning on their own (imho). Tasking. Viewing. Monitoring. Analysis. Summaries. Report writing. We're all stuck with trial and error but they have no follow-up to help them figure out what they did right or wrong to help them interpret their "hits" or "misses" or how they got them.

Matter of fact, I'm in the process of updating the research timeline for intuition on my website. It has already been fourteen years (1995) since Carl Sagan stated that ESP needed to be looked into further. Professor Jessica Utts (statistician, UC Davis) and Ray Hyman agreed that remote viewing was proven beyond chance and that something is going on in the nonlocal environment. They further recommended that it had already been proven and all further research efforts be directed toward trying to figure out "how." There are two, possibly three speakers at the 2009 IRVA Conference (tenth anniversary) who are presenting findings regarding working with REG and RNG technology w.r.t. remote viewing.

Again, I've never chatted with a professional magician about nonlocality before. Do hot or cold readings apply?

Another group working with nonlocality and measurable data are the Global Coherence Initiative and the Global Coherence Project. I belong to GCI, and if you explore their site they explain that they are working with data. A constant stream of measurable data. Then one day they noticed a blip in their data. Then they noticed more. When did these blips appear on their stream of data? Just before and during very large global events. Princess Diana's funeral. Nine eleven. President Obama's inauguration. So what do these blips mean? At the moment they mean we need to watch for more blips and a few years down the road if a large group of people focus their attention nonlocally it could affect change. (Sorry, I am now branching out into sociology as well as psychology and physics.)

Pushing fourteen thousand members, numbers are nice but these GCI folks are positive thinkers and stepping out on faith. They already believe that they might be able to affect randomness and be agents for change so they're researching it further. They're in the planning stages right now and asking for member participation to see just what, if any, measureable changes can be noted w.r.t. human interaction with the environmental fields over a specified length of time. http://www.glcoherence.org/

Another friend of mine, an electrical engineer, gifted in advanced math and IT specialist of twenty years, is reading quantum kinetics and says understanding that will be a huge pivotal marker for science. As an ER nurse, I'm excited that magnetocardiograms have been in FDA clinical trials and have several peer reviewed articles published w.r.t specific cardiac diagnosis. MCG's have moved beyond the need for a SQUID environment to give a sixty-three marker, 3D view of cardiac electrical activity by measuring through the magnetic field outside the thorax. We're losing the woo-woo word "aura" and all the baggage that goes with it and moving into science. We call it Biofield. HeartMath is measuring interaction of intuition in the emerging field of Neurocardiology. www.aestheticimpact.com

If I could have made the 2006 IRVA conference I would have met Dr. William Tiller (Stanford U.). His measured experiments in "Science and Human Transformation" were published in 1997, and since I have PK I'd like to know if he has anything new w.r.t. subtle energies and biofields in 2009. I would have liked to see him and the technology of today work with Nina Kulagina. With today's technology (and yes, it is my opinion) she would have made machines go "tilt" -- once they figured out how to build the machine. It's the machines that are behind but they're only as smart as the people who design and program them. Argh. That leads us into Kurzweil and Singularity but that's a whole new topic. http://www.tillerfoundation.com/

Thanks for posting your thoughts,
Teresa

 

[KRG]

Hi Teresa,

An interesting post on many facets of remote viewing, adding additional reference points in the field of RV.

You wrote:

People can learn the rudiments of remote viewing by watching a DVD or sitting in an auditorium but there is much more to it than that. Not everyone can afford to be trained by professional, military intelligence. Does that make them a "bad" remote viewer? No, but it does mean they have to work a helluva lot harder to understand all the pieces and parts when they're learning on their own (imho). Tasking. Viewing. Monitoring. Analysis. Summaries. Report writing. We're all stuck with trial and error but they have no follow-up to help them figure out what they did right or wrong to help them interpret their "hits" or "misses" or how they got them.

I would like to point out that the two people who had the courage to accept the challenge to remote view on this forum - Daz and Gulliver - were not trained by "(ex) military intelligence". Their second target was very clearly a hit, Gulliver's session most clearly so. (I haven't seen anyone from among the ex-military people accepting the challenge here, or indeed such a challenge anywhere that I am aware of.)

Both Daz and Gulliver learned versions of CRV, one from a trainer who is not well known and the other on his own. I know from a lot of experience working with them that each is a very fine viewer. And they certainly paid a lot less to train than do many who study with the ex-military trainers.

There are many who offer training besides the ex-military intelligence people and the ex-military people do charge quite a bit (in the $ thousands). Of course the quality of training will vary depending on the teacher. Two such trainers I recommend when someone asks about learning remote viewing are Angela Thompson Smith (teaches CRV) and Simeon Hein (teaches a variant called Resonant Viewing), both are in the Colorado area.

CRV is not the only method that works. Others include TDS, ERV, and free form. (See the viewing forum at Tenthousandroads, for example).

Russell Targ and Stephan Schwartz, both pioneers in the field, teach a less structured, simpler but evidently workable form of remote viewing. Targ teaches occasionally on the East Coast. Stephan Schwartz is responsible for some of the best-documented field work utilizing remote viewing (e.g. in archaeology). He teaches occasionally on both coasts.

Further, let's note that the viewer who is widely acknowledged to be the best practicing professional, and most consider, by far the best - and one whose current work is available to see - Joe McMoneagle does not utilize CRV, although he was at Ft. Meade and did learn CRV at one point, as I understand it. Joe McMoneagle does not teach formally but he has given workshops at the Monroe Institute.

There are many options for anyone who wants to learn RV. One good resource is the link to open source CRV and other options, on the Tenthousandroads forum.

Cheers,
KRG (Jon)

P.S. For those interested, there are links to all of the above viewers and trainers on my web page:

RV links for blog

Link to Tenthousandroads:
TKR Remote Viewing Forum - Index

 

[Teresa]

Hi Teresa,


You wrote:
I would like to point out that the two people who had the courage to accept the challenge to remote view on this forum - Daz and Gulliver - were not trained by "(ex) military intelligence". Their second target was very clearly a hit, Gulliver's session most clearly so. (I haven't seen anyone from among the ex-military people accepting the challenge here, or indeed such a challenge anywhere that I am aware of.)

Both Daz and Gulliver learned versions of CRV, one from a trainer who is not well known and the other on his own. I know from a lot of experience working with them that each is a very fine viewer. And they certainly paid a lot less to train than do many who study with the ex-military trainers.

There are many who offer training besides the ex-military intelligence people and the ex-military people do charge quite a bit (in the $ thousands). Of course the quality of training will vary depending on the teacher. Two such trainers I recommend when someone asks about learning remote viewing are Angela Thompson Smith (teaches CRV) and Simeon Hein (teaches a variant called Resonant Viewing), both are in the Colorado area.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your post and giving people the reference links for training. Apologies for only posting part of your quote, but I agree with you 100% and am supporting remote viewing across the community, including independent viewers and other trainers as well. Just for the sake of adding information, Angela (for sure) and Simeon (I think) are both descendents of training from military viewers.

Daz and Gulliver both stepped up and they both did good work. I'm sorry that my work isn't good enough because I haven't been practicing or I would have. One of my targets last week was Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday to JFK and him thanking her. My subconscious tends toward people and it evidently didn't give a dang for Marilyn's backside but I loved PT 109 since I was a kid. It latched onto Jack and overlay and next thing I knew I was drawing pictures of a boat etc. etc. but that's just me. At least I'm predictable. Another target I'm supposed to be viewing an indoor kite festival and what am I doing? Checking out the memorial to the serviceman located just outside the school where the event was held. He died at the Pentagon in Nine Eleven. How do I know? I researched that site because I wondered what the heck I was viewing and why I wasn't getting colorful kites like everybody else. This helps me learn about what I need to work on with cues and move commands, etc.

Per Lyn: "every time we work a target it isn't to learn something about the target, it's to learn something about ourselves." I'm not sure my work will ever be good enough because I'm an ER nurse and I'm not sure I want to tell my subconscious to ignore people and go for structures. Nurses are known to be intuitive. One of nursing's icons, Patricia Benner, identified that nurses who work in a role utilize their subconscious in patient care and our research has been leaning that direction for several years. That's why I laid off practicing targets for awhile but that's just me.

Anyway, like I said above, I agree with you and am supporting remote viewing community wide, including the folks who are learning on their own. I think that they may have to work a lot harder than some others and I commend them for that.

Thanks,
Teresa
Welcome to Aesthetic Impact

 

[NSA]

I was looking to see if any description of the actual event of the sinking of the Titanic would surface, and remember, NO ONE saw this target description beforehand. Perhaps I'm still not totally clear on the parameters of how this all works, I was originally just going to have the target description be the name of the ship, but I didn't think that was enough. Remember, this image could be absolutely anything. The description supplied by Gulliver is pretty darned good, IMO.

dB

Glad to see an honest, sensible and intelligent response to a remote viewing session.

Thank You

NSA

 

[Gulliver]

WOW.

Man this thread has evolved since I last looked at it several weeks back. I basically washed my hands of it all the minute people started cropping up claiming that my description and sketches of the large ship with which I was tasked could apply to anything (eg could equally be a description of a camel or the Sphinx or the runners in the London Marathon).

At this point I decided that having taken the time to provide two public demonstrations of remote viewing (one distinctly average, one a decent hit) I was buggered if I was going to stick around to be called a cheat and a liar. So off I went.

Having popped back to see how things develop I read with mild hilarity the postings of Magician2009. Oh man....

<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 60778" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1>

If you'll pardon my immodesty for just a moment, I've been a professional magician for over thirty years. Remote Viewing, Uri Geller, John Edwards, et al., is a farce, plain and simple.

I fail to see why these two sentences have been submitted in the same paragraph. Quite what your having been a professional magician has to do with the validity of Remote Viewing escpaes me. The latter is a scientific protocol based on years of experimentation and supported by current theories of quantum physics (notably that of non-locality, the zero-point field and Bohm's holographic universe). The other involves tricking an audience and making them laugh. The connection, please?

Furthermore, it is not the fault of the viewing audience. It is not that spectators are idiots. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In all matter of deception, it is a well-known fact in magic circles that the smarter the audience, the easier it is to fool them (I will be happy to expand on this should there be any interest in my comment)

I would guess that in your particular instance the smarter the audience considers themselves to be the easier it is for them to fool themselves.

Cold reading and warm reading, when done correctly, is fabulous entertainment, but is it not evidence any special ability

Have I missed something here? This is a thread about Remote Viewing, not cold reading.

As for remote viewing, you'll find that those in the field who claim such abilities tirelessly advertise their "hits" and play down their misses.

Have to agree with you here, which is one of the reasons why I was happy to submit myself to an online public tasking. Not enough viewers out there putting their balls on the line...too worried about preserving their public image and/or DVD sales figures I guess. Makes me mad.

Uri Geller once subjected himself to a series of serious, controlled experiments at Stanford University. Some of the brightest, most educated scientists in the world were flabbergasted at his ability to demonstrate his powers, despite the highly controlled environment. It was embarassing for those distinguished and lettered men to discover later that what they wittnessed was nothing more than parlour tricks. Anyone interested should check out YouTube and you will see first hand what a fool Uri made of himself when he appeared on the Tonight Show with Johny Carson

What has Uri Geller got to do with any of this? You seem to think that simply by quoting instances where intelligent people have been hoodwinked you are in some way dismantling the case against Remote Viewing. You aren't. I could come back at you with various examples where Remote Viewers have accurately described distant objects, located missing people etc etc, all under strictly observed independant controls. Go check out Joe McMoneagle's work on live Japanese TV if you're interested in what the best can do.

When I was nine years old and just getting emersed in the art of magic as entertainment, I thought I would never have the ability to direct an entire audience to look in one direction, to effectively misdirect a large group of people. Yet over the years it became an aquired skill.

Sounds like a great blurb you got there for the autobiography.

UFO's are a different matter entirely.

To what...remote viewing and cold reading? Surely this statement is self-evident. I don't see what on earth UFOs have to do with either.

But as the Paracast constantly reminds us, there are those in the field who move toward knowledge and understanding, and then there are the hucksters.

And then there are those who simply refuse to budge their limited world-views for fear of having to reshape their belief systems. People used to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the earth was flat, that illness was caused by imbalance of the humours. In time they were proved wrong and a more accurate conception of reality was gained. Such will eventually happen with theories of non-locality, an area with which Remote Viewing is intrinsically linked. Knowledge progresses, the species evolves....

Trust me. Remote viewing is a whistful and wanton fiction.

I trust you, but only in the knowledge that you don't know what you're talking about. In that sense I trust you to continue not knowing what you are talking about in future posts here and in your general day to day existence.

Best of luck with the magic tricks...I hope you keep your audiences entertained. You are certainly doing a fine job here.

Lovely tag-line by the way:

Those who say it can't be done are usually interupted by others who are doing it." <!-- / sig --><!-- edit note -->

You said it, bucko.

Gulliver

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=thead colSpan=2>2009 06:13 AM</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Gareth]

<table class="tborder" style="border-top-width: 0px;" width="100%" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr title="Post 60778" valign="top"><td class="alt1">
Lovely tag-line by the way:

You said it, bucko.

Gulliver

</td></tr><tr><td class="thead" colspan="2">2009 06:13 AM</td></tr></tbody></table>

lol

That tag line is perfect.

 

[Teresa]

<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 60778" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1>



And then there are those who simply refuse to budge their limited world-views for fear of having to reshape their belief systems. People used to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the earth was flat, that illness was caused by imbalance of the humours. In time they were proved wrong and a more accurate conception of reality was gained. Such will eventually happen with theories of non-locality, an area with which Remote Viewing is intrinsically linked. Knowledge progresses, the species evolves....

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=thead colSpan=2></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You, Sir, are simply Mahvellous.

I came into this party late. Somewhere in these forty pages I think I saw your sketches. Can you direct me to wherever your session is posted? I've been wanting to take a look.

Thanks,
Teresa

 

[Gareth]

You, Sir, are simply Mahvellous.

I came into this party late. Somewhere in these forty pages I think I saw your sketches. Can you direct me to wherever your session is posted? I've been wanting to take a look.

Thanks,
Teresa

Do a search for his name. He hasnt posted too much so it should be pretty painless.

 

[Blacknight]

I don't get it! Why is the OPINION expressed by Magician2009 less entitled to respect and consideration than the OPINION of Gulliver.

On the one hand Magician2009 simply states a well-known fact...magicians practiced in the "art" of cold/hot readings appear, in every aspect, to duplicate the efforts of psychics and remote viewers. Anyone who has witnessed both knows that to be true. On the other hand, Gulliver states that he will achieve 60% accuracy in remote viewing, a "fact" without a single reputable shred of scientific verification. Yet all the derision is directed at Magician 2009 who, as far as I can tell, did nothing more than express an opinion based on his own expertise and experience. And, ironically enough, one of the reasons for which he's derided is for not being open-minded. I will never understand why the self-proclaimed open-minded rush to close down any point of view which doesn't fit their own positions or preconceptions.

Magician2009 can bring a valuable viewpoint and insight to any discussion here and should be not only welcomed but encouraged. Of course, that assumes truth--and not simply validation--is the ultimate shared objective here.

 

[fahrusha]

Just because someone (ie. a magician) can perform a act, such as say, moving an object across a table without touching it, through artifice (maybe magnets), doesn't mean that an object cannot be moved across a table using the power of psychokinesis. Please apply this example to remote viewing also.
Best,
Fahrusha

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Magician is welcome to his/her OPINIONS whatever they may be but that doesn't mean they are correct or warranted.
Just because someone can replicate a "method" does not mean the "method" is wrong or false in any way!

"Facts" on the validity of remote viewing can easily be found if one takes the time to research the subject and not just make ill informed pronouncements.

Another "fact" that seems to be overlooked is that RV was commissioned by the US military, hardly an entity that would persevere with a method of intelligence gathering for 2+ decades, spending millions, if there were no significant results.

The results posted by Gulliver, while not definitive in any way, at least shows that there is some validity to RV and needs to be examined further by the paranormal community.
Magician has "expertise" in the area of magic or deception but what expertise or study of remote viewing has he done or for that matter any research into the subject.

 

[Teresa]

I don't get it! Why is the OPINION expressed by Magician2009 less entitled to respect and consideration than the OPINION of Gulliver.

On the one hand Magician2009 simply states a well-known fact...magicians practiced in the "art" of cold/hot readings appear, in every aspect, to duplicate the efforts of psychics and remote viewers. Anyone who has witnessed both knows that to be true. On the other hand, Gulliver states that he will achieve 60% accuracy in remote viewing, a "fact" without a single reputable shred of scientific verification. Yet all the derision is directed at Magician 2009 who, as far as I can tell, did nothing more than express an opinion based on his own expertise and experience. And, ironically enough, one of the reasons for which he's derided is for not being open-minded. I will never understand why the self-proclaimed open-minded rush to close down any point of view which doesn't fit their own positions or preconceptions.

Magician2009 can bring a valuable viewpoint and insight to any discussion here and should be not only welcomed but encouraged. Of course, that assumes truth--and not simply validation--is the ultimate shared objective here.

Hello Blacknight,

Magician2009 can bring his viewpoint to any discussion but he made some critical mistakes before he stepped to the podium and gave his opinion as fact. No room for discussion, fact. He didn't do his homework and your statement "as far as you can tell" shows me that you may be following him down that road without doing any independent research of your own.

1. The thread is about remote viewing and based on his post, his current working knowledge of remote viewing appears to be zero. He offers no supporting statements regarding theory, concept, modality or any current knowledge even hinting at nonlocality.

2. He explains magic as being nothing more than lying to an audience, albeit done skillfully and uses an old Uri Geller video to support his claim.

3. He then erroneously proceeds to place remote viewing in the same context as magic.

4. Lastly, after building on his mistakes of 1, 2 and 3 he closes his post by stating that remote viewing is wanton fiction. That translates into calling anyone present giving opposing viewpoints a liar and in my observation that usually doesn't go over very well. Especially when you haven't done your homework and you're wrong.

Here are the beginnings of one government's program not founded on magic but as you requested, scientific verification:

CIA Biofield Measurement Program 1972

CIA StarGate Files: Neuropsychology 1975

CIA StarGate Files: RV Reliability / Stages 1982

CIA StarGate Files: CRV Methodology 1985

CIA StarGate Files: PK & ESP

CIA StarGate Files: USSR Biofield Studies

CIA StarGate Files: Purchase
12,000 files / 89,000+ pages

www.aestheticimpact.com

Hope this helps,
Teresa

 

[fahrusha]

Teresa,
Good logic! Good research! You go, girl!
Fahrusha

Hello Blacknight,

Magician2009 can bring his viewpoint to any discussion but he made some critical mistakes before he stepped to the podium and gave his opinion as fact. No room for discussion, fact. He didn't do his homework and your statement "as far as you can tell" shows me that you may be following him down that road without doing any independent research of your own.

1. The thread is about remote viewing and based on his post, his current working knowledge of remote viewing appears to be zero. He offers no supporting statements regarding theory, concept, modality or any current knowledge even hinting at nonlocality.

2. He explains magic as being nothing more than lying to an audience, albeit done skillfully and uses an old Uri Geller video to support his claim.

3. He then erroneously proceeds to place remote viewing in the same context as magic.

4. Lastly, after building on his mistakes of 1, 2 and 3 he closes his post by stating that remote viewing is wanton fiction. That translates into calling anyone present giving opposing viewpoints a liar and in my observation that usually doesn't go over very well. Especially when you haven't done your homework and you're wrong.

Here are the beginnings of one government's program not founded on magic but as you requested, scientific verification:

CIA Biofield Measurement Program 1972

CIA StarGate Files: Neuropsychology 1975

CIA StarGate Files: RV Reliability / Stages 1982

CIA StarGate Files: CRV Methodology 1985

CIA StarGate Files: PK & ESP

CIA StarGate Files: USSR Biofield Studies

CIA StarGate Files: Purchase
12,000 files / 89,000+ pages

www.aestheticimpact.com

Hope this helps,
Teresa

 

[Teresa]

Teresa,
Good logic! Good research! You go, girl!
Fahrusha

Thank you. Thankyouverymuch.....


Teresa

 

[wicro]

Hello Blacknight, >snip< Hope this helps,
Teresa

Just to add another point of view to the debate, whatever 'scientific verification' there has been in RV, its is still highly contested knowledge. Independent examination of the topic requires acknowledging the problematic aspects of the interpretation of RV sessions as well as other aspects of the phenomena. I will suggest this article and following the links provided at the bottom (as well as the referenced articles), just to put an opposing view point for those following the thread. Of course the url quoted is from a site with an 'agenda'; but no more than one that is 'pro RV' in its selective interpretation of 'facts'.

While I am no way qualified to give a definitive answer (my main areas of interest are the nature of the debate, and how 'facts' are constructed rather than the objective 'truth'), it should be noted that there are opposing 'scientific' viewpoints as well as supporting evidence as with any contested knowledge.

Regards

Ewen