NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Hello,

I would like to add that I know both Daz and Red Cairo (over the internet), have seen many of Daz's fine sessions, and believe they are two of the most knowledgeable and straight talking people in the field of RV you can find. (Simply a brief testimonial from a person new to the forum.) Naturally, I don't agree with every one of their opinions, but we are on the same page.

I hope that in addition to any test that is devised, people take the time to read the literature from the many links and references that have been given to the existing scientific and other work. That is, if one wants to have an informed opinion about it, as opposed to a few of the dismissive comments posted here.

In terms of testing remote viewing, I fully agree with their comments. Numbers and words are exceedingly difficult. Correct information has been obtained about them in some instances, but they are not the best test of remote viewing. People, place, events, etc. are better targets/objectives. And the viewer should know nothing about the objective selected ahead of time by the "tasker". (RV data does not come from the conscious mind.)

In my experience (about 9 years) remote viewing is definitely real, you can obtain useful data with it, it is by no means perfect, it is best used in conjunction with other modalities. And it is a puzzle - no one knows how it works (in terms of physics, biochem, the brain/mind, etc.).

KRG

<blockquote data-quote="KRG" data-source="post: 59699" data-attributes="member: 1587">Hello,I would like to add that I know both Daz and Red Cairo (over the internet), have seen many of Daz&#039;s fine sessions, and believe they are two of the most knowledgeable and straight talking people in the field of RV you can find. (Simply a brief testimonial from a person new to the forum.) Naturally, I don&#039;t agree with every one of their opinions, but we are on the same page.I hope that in addition to any test that is devised, people take the time to read the literature from the many links and references that have been given to the existing scientific and other work. That is, if one wants to have an informed opinion about it, as opposed to a few of the dismissive comments posted here. In terms of testing remote viewing, I fully agree with their comments. Numbers and words are exceedingly difficult. Correct information has been obtained about them in some instances, but they are not the best test of remote viewing. People, place, events, etc. are better targets/objectives.&nbsp; And the viewer should know nothing about the objective selected ahead of time by the &quot;tasker&quot;. (RV data does not come from the conscious mind.)In my experience (about 9 years) remote viewing is definitely real, you can obtain useful data with it, it is by no means perfect, it is best used in conjunction with other modalities. And it is a puzzle - no one knows how it works (in terms of physics, biochem, the brain/mind, etc.). KRG</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KRG, post: 59699, member: 1587"] Hello, I would like to add that I know both Daz and Red Cairo (over the internet), have seen many of Daz's fine sessions, and believe they are two of the most knowledgeable and straight talking people in the field of RV you can find. (Simply a brief testimonial from a person new to the forum.) Naturally, I don't agree with every one of their opinions, but we are on the same page. I hope that in addition to any test that is devised, people [I]take the time to read the literature [/I]from the many links and references that have been given to the existing scientific and other work. That is, if one wants to have an [I]informed[/I] opinion about it, as opposed to a few of the dismissive comments posted here. In terms of testing remote viewing, I fully agree with their comments. Numbers and words are exceedingly difficult. Correct information has been obtained about them in some instances, but they are not the best test of remote viewing. People, place, events, etc. are better targets/objectives. And the viewer should know [I]nothing[/I] about the objective selected ahead of time by the "tasker". (RV data does not come from the conscious mind.) In my experience (about 9 years) remote viewing is definitely real, you can obtain useful data with it, it is by no means perfect, it is best used in conjunction with other modalities. And it is a puzzle - no one knows how it works (in terms of physics, biochem, the brain/mind, etc.). KRG [/QUOTE]

Verification