Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.
Craig part of the reason long winded threads get started is along the lines of a discussion I once had with a gold panner. He was showing me how to pan. I was trying to learn how to do it efficiently. It's pretty easy to learn that gold is heavy and it sinks to the bottom and the rest of the material needs to be removed off the top. I asked the panner how he predicted places to pan. He told me that the gold is attracted to the black sand and he pans wherever the black sand is found because it has drawn the gold toward it. Talk about a mess after that. I tried to tell him that the black sand was hematite, the most common heavy mineral, and the gold and black were found in the same place due to the high specific gravities of both materials. After a bit of wrangling I realized that the panner was not interested in my scientific explanation. His "attraction" explanation worked and was more than satisfactory for what he wanted. I on the other hand was missing out on free and excellent lessons in panning. Once I dropped my explanation for the mechanism behind placer deposition formation we got back to finding the gold.
What I see here should be easy to unscramble. It shouldn't take too long to figure out what happened unless someone purposely gets off track. I think both daz and profwag will quickly figure this out.
There is another thread about this remote viewing. I have not been able to understand how the statements from the remote viewing match up to the target. Thinking back on a post made by NinjaPuppy in still a different thread I realized that part of the understanding is possibly related to my not knowing how to do the match. That's like the learning how to pan for gold.
Thanks for your post. It's good to keep us on our toes and on track.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
I will try to answer this but can only do so from my perspective and from knowing most of the remote viewers.
Psychic data is not clear. When we do a target we don't get clear vivd imagery in our heads like its represented in the movies.
What we get is random obscure imagery (sometimes) feelings and quick burst of words and feelings. Nothing concrete and in full sync whereby we can just report it like watching a movie unfold. Its not like that.
There are many reasons for this - my belief is that its a bandwidth problem. We are trying to access full HD video style information but using a 1996 4K per second modem, so the only way the information can get thru is in bits n pieces like a large image that unfolds online - line by line or like a fax. This is also where I believe part of the 'noise' creeps in during the reveal or put together process.
In remote viewing the psi-data usually comes in clusters: ie. cold, hard, solid, curved object.
Its the job of the remote viewer to try to describe and move around and record as much as possible WITHOUT coming to ANY solid conclusion - these are called AOL's or 'analytical overlays' and are a big no-no you can see these in my rv work - on the left hand side of the page - we mark these as the mind seeing the data come in then it trying to conclude what the data means - this is usually a wrong guess. it can be close to the real target but is generally part wrong. The mind and I guess the ego wants to succeed too much and this has to be tamed. The devised CRV process does this for us.
I'm sorry I've rambled - but the short answer is that what we get is a jumble of obscure quick/random imagery, words and feelings - not video like pictures. I don't see psi being the sole cause of soling a crime for many reasons but generally PSi isn't always consistent enough to do this. I'm not saying its impossible but for it to be so you'd have to have a unique and very favourable set of circumstances including;
1. an instance where the psi/rv data is 100% on - this happens but is rare there is usually always some 'noise'.
2. A person or persons confident enough in the possible ability of the psi data to act upon it accordingly.
Within RV this would be amazing but its hard to achieve - i am trying but its a work in progress.
This is why.
Remote viewers can only describe targets and cannot name them.
so for a missing person (and this happened in a case) I can say:
they are male,
they are dead,
they are beside a curved rd,
which dips down into a ravine
this is where they are located
this is a rd outside of a main town area
the landscape is covered in sparse vegetation
On looking around all i see and feel is undulating hills and terrain with a road going thru it.
give this info to the police and its no help in locating the missing person. Now was it accurate - completely, including all my sketches. But because I couldn't describe anything but the landscape which was like all the rest of the surrounding landscape - it didn't help much in locating the person.
Alot of the missing people are not conveniently located in buildings and places with unique features that make them stand out from the surrounding features in psi data. A psychic can describe a person in a house, but the house may be in the middle of a city of similar houses. When this was used by the US military and CIA they named it the 'search problem'. How do you with a description pinpoint a location - most of the time they couldn't. If the person is on a hill amongst 20 hills all looking the same what can we do?
Its a problem we are still working on. It doesn't help that remote viewing cant (easily or accurately) do numbers and words as they are intangible and don't exist. Its also why RV should only be used with other sources of information and not only on its own as it has its problems.
All the best...
I've shared this numerous times and I believe here as well...
1.)Take a good 2 hour film you've never seen or heard anything about ever.
2.)In under 2 seconds you see the entire film.
3.)Now, describe everything in a coherent and exactly accurate manner
NO ONE has the ability to pull this off, not even someone born with a "photographic" memory. The human mind simply cannot compile and digest all the information shown them under such conditions and yet, detractors of the psychic reality would insist on us being able to do just that... and this is before we get into the other facts about what psychic type people must likewise decipher.
Information is not always presented as being a specific thing but frequently in metaphor; a symbol that means a certain kind of thing to the sensitive receiving the impressions.
As with the analogy of Gold Panning so we find a correspondence to the element of psi phenomena; there are some very tangible and logic based reasons behind the how & why of it all but such "folk" understanding is too basic for the analytical mind to fully appreciate -- the less is more perspective held by the old prospector is all that's needed in some cases when "faith" is built upon experience.
This is a pretty good match to what we do as remote viewers.
We receive form the project manager a random number ( no other information).
We then write this number down and within 1 second go into an instant sketch - which is called an Ideogram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideogram)
In today's terminology this is like a big Winzip file. This small sketch has within it the entire information data for the hidden target.
We then spend the next hour or so trying to decompress this information into something more detailed.
This process also generates noise and errors - the process we use (I use CRV) has been created to try to minimise this noise.
Its rarely 100% successful at doing this.
Seems to contradict this statement:
If what you get is random, obscure imagery that is nothing concrete, then how were you able to give the police a GPS reading that ended up just 200 ft away which is, actually, pretty specific and quite amazing?
What are you really trying to say here Craig? It appears that you're saying it ticks you off when skeptics (me, in this case) cop an attitude and nit-pick because a person who claims psi abilities states they solved a case due to their assistance and I question it because I am unaware of any such success in the anals of crime solving history?
I hope that's not what you're saying and that I misunderstood your post. I tried in my response to Daz to be professional and mature in my questioning as I am sincerely here to learn and understand my own skeptical attitude. If this forum is really only about providing a sounding board for Randi haters, then perhaps I'm in the wrong place.
Firstly, I'm pointing out how predictable folks with your frame of mind are... I can write out a complete scenario using the exact lines, phrases and innuendos cynical types lean on time and again, including their favorite outs like "Coincidence" and "self-fulfilling prophecy"... in fact, I'm including this model in a book I've been developing the past couple of years because it is such a perfect parrot regardless of which "skeptical mind" or "critical thinker" is involved. IT'S SCRIPTED! Which is why I infer a "Cult-Mind" mentality placing the blame squarely on the JREF and of course CSICOPS (but to a lesser degree) along with various egos like Shermer, Nichols, etc Hell, the way those two stand you can practically see the rod shoved up their ass... if it's carbon based you'd have diamonds!
Skeptics will question things. Cynics on the other hand, want proof that goes beyond rational grounds, refusing to accept anything that does not fit into their idea of what is what. Part of this is due to fear... two types of fear in fact; the fear of being wrong and subsequently, the fear of having to live down their own folly... a chink in their ego (which is typically waaaay over-inflated because they believe Intellectualism trumps anything spiritual or faith based... which I promise you, ain't the truth.)
That motion picture analogy I gave earlier... I've yet to see a single cynical mind take me up on that challenge and deliver the kind of explanation and unquestionable accuracy of detail they would demand of a Psychic/Remote Viewer or whatever. The won't because they can't. Like any good bully, they shoot for the soft underbelly and prey on those they feel to be "weak" and an easy mark. 90% of their questioning isn't for the sake of their personal understanding but rather the ego-boost they get buy victimizing and belittling the person they earmark... kind of like Randi slapping that kid around a couple of years ago with the blindfold experiment but not as literal.
A genuine skeptic don't strive to belittle or, as the case were, "Win" the argument. Rather, they seek to learn and evolve their understanding based on said in-put as well as observation, which is exactly why so many that start off a skeptic and actually get involved physically and WILLINGLY to learn and discover what's what, end up like me; leaving that door open by a good 3-7% because the detractors of faith do not have "all" or the "complete" answer to said scenarios
My "attack" is not towards you specifically, just how you are parroting the script that's so common to folks of your ilk, rather than seeking to learn and doing so with the willingness to be willing to actually do such.
Thanks for the explanation.
I think where we differ is that I believe that if someone states they can do something unusual, then I believe they should have to prove it. Sure, maybe it sounds like a broken record from us, but there's a reason for that. There just hasn't been any proof out there. I've read some of the scientific studies that show what appears to be a possibility of paranormal events, but as of now, it's never been proven.
If I tell someone I can walk on water, I should have to prove it. And not by putting a sidewalk made of glass right under the water. I should have to put my ability up for inspection, studied, and then replicate it. It's really that simple. Feel free to continue writing your book, but it's not going to change the minds of people who need proof of things. If we didn't question the paranormal, people would be getting away with all sorts of crap. So, I'm still not sure what it is you want from us skeptics. Do you want us to say "Oh wow, that person can really read minds!" and then not ask for proof? It's not going to work that way. As I've said before, I believe that psychics, mediums, tarot readers, etc. do more harm than good so until someone can show that their skill is helpful, I'm throwing up the red flag. That's my opinion and, of course, I'm entitled to it just as you're entitled to yours.
well you just haven't looked then - the CIA released Stargate archives contain thousands of double blind remote viewing trials that shows a significant effect. On my site I have posted over 100 FOIA release training sessions done blind by the military remote viewing unit.
even in the final CIA review of a very small PART of the CIA/DIA RV projects final years Dr Ray Hyman said:
Now we know taht Hyman also didn't think the evidence proved that psi was in effect - but he didn't say there was no effect or that this was bad experiments or misleading. Hyman admits the data shows an effect, he wants to keep the door open indefinitely—never admitting that psi may be involved—in hopes that eventually an alternative explanation to psi can be discovered to account for these effects.
Jessica Utts as we know totally believe from her research that en effect was proved and in effect.
jessica utts statement - http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
Ray Hymans statement - http://mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/ ... hyman.html
response to hyman from utts - http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/response.html
commentary on this by Dr Edwin May - http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/air_mayresponse.html
What exactly are you wanting to constitute proof?
once i met a pickpocketer from south america
he said he was good at what he do, but when we did gigs together
he only used cards and standard magic tricks.. never pickpocketing
but he liked to explain to every magician he met how to pickpocket and the theory behind it
but never did it.. so after a while neither me nor any magician take his claim as real since he never did it
so you get my drift?
why you just dont do it for real?
lets make a test, whenever you want
lets use ninjapuppy as a judge
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
I do it for real three times a week+ and have done for thirteen years. I've done it for real for sceptics on para cast and given you the link to this.
I have also supplied links to my doing it for real every month for the last 2 years - heres one exmaple:
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Multiple_U ... h2009.html
or this one done a year before: http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/11.4. ... sydney.pdf
all done and posted in public and online for anyone to see, download and review.
and even to a newly starting project - doing it real for this next year (although I think this one isn't as well done) but we'll see.
I can offer you documented experiments (in labs) scientific test of RV over thousands of trials - then peer reviewed by sceptics and believers, who both agree an effect took place - yet you only ignore this and want a personal test.
What will this achieve that peer reviewed and documented analysis that reports 'an effect that is not from scientific error' create?
What can you bring to the table for a test that will trump the already done tests in a lab environment and already peer reviewed?
Or is this just a slight of hand on your part - lets have a side show - i asked what constitutes as proof for you guys and ill see if i can get it for you - i have access to great amounts of science trials going back to 1972 and most of this independently peer reviewed - so don't slight of hand out of this. what will you accept as proof?
why would one test from me dispel your scepticism - it wouldn't - if you cant accept scientific, peer reviewed experiments and results then you will never accept anything?
What exactly are you wanting to constitute proof?
Daz, I'm nnot sure I, or anyone else, can really answer your question about what constitutes proof. I will say this about myself, however. I am not a scientist nor am I trained in conducting experiments. As such, I must rely and trust the judgements of those that I consider experts in that field. Where I live, that would be the National Academy of Science. (www.nationalacademies.org) In 1988, they concluded that parapsychology does not warrant further study as the data shown to date points to parapsychology not having validity. I guess, to answer your question, proof for me would come from the Academy saying that parapsychology does have validity. Is that fair? I don't know, but from where I sit, it's the fairest way for me to form my opinion as it is them that sets the standards for generally accepted scientific principles (in the United States). If RV had validity, I trust that they would say so. They haven't said it so I won't say it.
Daz - As usual, the 'got proof?' question will always come up with skeptics. It's their nature, they can't help themselves. They gotta ask!
You know what you are trying to explain to them. Heck, I really know nothing of RV, yet I know exactly what you are explaining, so it's not you. I'm sure the skeptics will correct me if I'm wrong but they have this way of judging success by the scientific method only. Unless the subject matter fits into certain scientific parameters, they can't give it two thumbs up. I can understand their POV in that respect as well but I'm not of the mindset to debunk or debate topic material. Skeptics will debate an issue until they are completely satisfied with your explanation and proof or until you finally give up trying to explain.
Meanwhile we all go around and around in a happy little circle without going anywhere. Now if we can get the skeptics here to confirm any positive possibilities rather than bring forward the opposite negatives to your subject material, we might actually all learn something.
I'd like to ask the skeptics if they can tell us why they don't consider if/what has already been supplied here as proof? Granted it's not conclusive proof but I see plenty of excellent information provided that a more scientific mind should be able to add to help get to a more conclusive theory. Skeptics need to use their superpowers for good rather than evil. How about each of you skeptics give Daz a positive comment about what he's already posted? What did you like in all of his comments?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests