free remote viewing magazine - issue 3

[Nostradamus]

I was going over the dates here to check things out.

Dec 10 2008 - reported missing
Dec 13 2008 - first reported use of a sonar device in the river
Mar 19 2009 - found floating in river

The known river search was done 3 days after going missing. It is possible river searches were done before that time. Nothing to tell us one way or the other, but the river was definitely an important search area from the start.

[Nostradamus]

I was searching for information on missing persons and drownings when I came across this article which I thought was interesting.

The article is about experiences in which the company deals with the application of their technology to finding people that have drowned.

My search was about the statistics of missing people and the locations where they are found. I wanted to know that if there was a body of water nearby, how often is drowning found to be the reason for the disappearance?

[Craig Browning]

[dazsmith]

[Nostradamus]

[dazsmith]

[ProfWag]

[dazsmith]

[ProfWag]

I sincerely desire for things such as RV, psychics, etc. to be a valid method of solving crimes. My research has led me to believe, however, that this has never happened, at least in recent, verifiable history. I've read of several instances where a psychic may have been fairly accurate in where a body was found, but I have yet to find a case where the case would not have been solved without the use of a psychic. My feeling is that psychics do much, much, much more harm than good. Why do I say that? Take the case of Caycee Anthony (murdered child in Orlando). There were well over 300 psychics who volunteered their services and provided tips as to where/what/who. The police had to look into every one of those tips. It appears that 1 MAY have been accurate, but the details of that are sketchy at best and the truth of that tip has yet to be completely brought into the public's knowledge. But essentially, the police wasted thousands and thousands of dollars and hours and hours of manpower going on a wild goose chase. As such, I am searching for that one verifiable case that a crime was solved because of a psychic. When you said you had one, I became excited only to subsequently become disappointed in that it was just an example of another case where a psychic's use was not needed in solving the disappearance/crime. (Okay, maybe deep down I wasn't that excited as I had already figured that would be the story.) In this case, the bottom line is that a man out fishing found a dead body, not a psychic. Sorry, but I'm just being honest.
I might add that I don't know you and your intentions might very welll be honest and sincere. I do know that some aren't so honest and sincere.

[dazsmith]

[dazsmith]

[NinjaPuppy]

Go daz! I am really enjoying this thread. Thank you for bringing it here.

[ProfWag]

I appreciate your honesty and I'll be interested in the Chief's words as well.
I realize it's not fair to those that may have actual paranormal abilities (psychics, RVers, etc.), but my distaste in that practice all started with me watching Montel and Sylvia told the parents of Shawn Hornbeck that he was dead when he was found very much alive a few months later. I just found that so incredibly inhumane that I now spend far too much time weeding out the bull crap. Please don't take it personally. As I've said before, many people involved in what I consider paranormal (everyone from astrologers and tarot readers to psychics and mediums) actually believe that what they are doing is helpful or "real." I just haven't reached that same conclusiion. Yet.

[ProfWag]

[Craig Browning]

For some reason the style by which Daz loves to "contend" things seems very Deja Vu... but as I've pointed out before EVERY SINGLE SKEPTIC/CYNIC uses the same nit-pick tactics along side the "I can pee higher on the tree than you can" attitude. No matter what solid documentation you hand them, they refuse to accept it and constantly look for a way out... a way to avoid accepting that there may be things "out there" greater than we mere mortals and our arrogant intellect.

On another forum this pattern of "The police chief says this" while the believer and pointing out related truths filled up over a dozen pages of forum space and ultimately created a rift within the group. The cynics (two in particular) had to prove (on most any topic) that theirs was always bigger and the better and thus, never yield to, or even remotely consider an alternative perspective... it's much akin to those fanatical Veegans or born again zealots for Jeezzus that insist on cramming their beliefs down the throats of all of us who simply don't give a damn; Evangelism being a spirit prejudice to none when it comes to the path of fanaticism... as well as the outward expression of personal anger... False Evidence Appearing Real.

What I'm saying is, we don't need another 12 page ping-pong game do we?

We don't need to see rhetoric and banter taking away from the rather comfortable sense of exchange this forum seems to have... at least that's what I've felt since showing up here a few weeks back... or, is that part of some knew agenda?

There is a HUGE difference between Intelligence and Wisdom; the latter is when one couples the lessons of life along side intellect, common sense and what some might call the "soul's voice"... that distant essence of each of us that so often gets shoved under the nearest convenient carpets during our younger days. Nonetheless, Wisdom can become our reality and when it does it is composed of all these things and then some. It is knowledge coupled with experience and nurtured by way of spirit... "enlightenment" -- not so much the New Age idea of "Enlightenment" as the Buddhist or Gnostic point of view in which one becomes "aware" and capable of understanding all things as they are from all points of view.

Living one's life based on nothing other than dry "facts" and "numbers" is to but exist, not live. But similarly, to blind one's self by not paying attention to what the analysts say and what the data supports, is to be just as blind and incomplete. The answer will always be found when you merge these two frames of view into one. This is the purpose of debate, not creating greater tension or to beat the other down for sake of ego-based superiority.