free remote viewing magazine - issue 3

[Nostradamus]

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.

[dazsmith]

[really?]

Persons RV hasn't found let alone provided reliable info on approximate location(s) for where they could be found..

[NinjaPuppy]

Really? Welcome to the forum.

[Craig Browning]

[dazsmith]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[Craig Browning]

ProfWag

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.

[ProfWag]

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.

[dazsmith]

[ciscop]

daz
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?
truth is..
why you just dont do it for real?
lets make a test, whenever you want
lets use ninjapuppy as a judge

[dazsmith]

[ProfWag]

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.

[NinjaPuppy]

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?