Posts by rem

The same logic is true in the opposite situation. If you believe so
strongly that this is impossible, even if you are shown the
evidence you wouldn't believe it.

This statement is false. A skeptic believes or disbelieves upon the basis of evidence. Where there is no evidence there is no belief. Show us the evidence and we will believe – there is no conspiracy against RV here.

I would like to ask you if there would be any way to disprove RV in your view? How bad would the tests have to turn out for you to finally say it doesn’t work or the phenomenon doesn’t exist? If you can’t fathom of such a test, then your theory or belief is useless because it is not falisfiable. A nonbeliever’s position is falsifiable. If there is evidence of RV, then the nonbeliever’s position is false. What are your criteria? Because it seems to me that there would be no way to convince you that the phenomenon doesn’t work – no matter what contrary evidence there is or will be. The fact is that all of the replicated evidence so far is negative – there is no positive evidence that has been replicated in the academic field.

Then you haven't done your homework.
I have.
I listed books, links, videos, radio shows.
I've met many of the military RVers.
I have seen RV done in controlled situations.
I have participated in double blind studies.
I quoted the statician who did the study that closed down
the army unit who said there was more to it than guessing.
Go do some research if you *really* interested in the subject.
Then you haven't done your homework.
I have.
I listed books, links, videos, radio shows.
I've met many of the military RVers.
I have seen RV done in controlled situations.
I have participated in double blind studies.
I quoted the statician who did the study that closed down
the army unit who said there was more to it than guessing.
Go do some research if you *really* interested in the subject.

I can’t tell whether you are being intentionally dishonest or if you are just ignorant of the facts. Utts, the statistician who reviewed the study, was involved in the RV experiments and is a known advocate of psi claims. It is interesting that a person involved in the experiments was used to review the process! This is hardly an impartial source.

The fact is that there are no published, replicated studies showing RV ability. No experiments have shown experienced RV’ers to be significantly more accurate than chance would allow. Your books, links, radio shows, etc. provide no evidence – only anecdotes. We have done our homework.

It depends, I think the picture of the car was a good example
of how people would disagree how simple it is the verify.
Because I believe both sides made valid arguments.
The skeptical side said, he didn't hit the target, he was
way off.
The more intelligent side (ha,ha,ha,) said, wait, look
at the perceptions that came through... he didn't quite
miss the target like everyone else on the list. He hit key
aspects of the target.
The skeptical side said, but he didn't hit it perfectly.
Look he missed all these main points of the target and
said things that weren't in the target.
The more intelligent side said, let me
explain to you how psychic perceptions come through.
I've studied this, you haven't.
The skeptical side said, we don't want to hear it. We know
that this is impossible, so the only way you could prove it
to us, is to have it work the way we think it should work.
We don't think it should work, so it won't.

The record stands for itself. If someone believes that that was a hit then his or her standard of evidence is pitifully low! Some education in critical thinking skills would be recommended for anyone who falls for this stunt. The fact that everyone’s answers varied wildly shows that no one latched on to a certain vibe or had in mind the same view. Just because someone got lucky and named an extremely common object does not a hit make.

Here is a falsifiable theory of RV that I just made up myself: If the RV phenomenon is true, you would expect to see many people making similar guesses – not a whole bunch of people making extremely different guesses and one person getting lucky. If they are really seeing something then there should be consistency across viewers. So far in the published studies this has not been shown and this has also been observed in our informal tests here.

From what I’ve seen so far, not many of us are saying that this claim is impossible – only extremely unlikely. The RV advocates are not allowing for any room that their perception may be wrong. Why not let the evidence fall where it may? But please, let’s have adequate standards of evidence. If we are to take the wrong guess mentioned earlier as a hit, then that person is willing to believe whatever will bolster his preconceived notions and is not looking objectively at facts. The arguments to defend that hit have amounted to special pleading. If you take that for evidence, then there is a bridge that I’m selling that I’m sure you’ll be interested in.

No one massaged and retrofitted anything.
Tried to explain to you how perceptions come through and
you aren't getting it because it doesn't fit your perception
of how it should work.

This is false. The record is there for everyone to see. You are the one with the perception that RV is a fact. I’m skeptical, but if there really is something to it, I’m open to that. But I require evidence before I believe. So far, all we’ve heard are over hyped claims in private studies, wild anecdotes, and rationalized misses, but no real evidence of any hits. I’m willing to accept strange things. Heck, Quantum Mechanics is weirder than this stuff, but I accept it because it is backed by evidence. There are some interesting implications in how things work on a subatomic scale. I’m not afraid of these implications – I accept them because they are real. I don’t presume to know everything about the universe, but I won’t believe something just because of how many times or how loud someone claims it. If RV is real, then I can accept those implications. But first I’ll need to see better than special pleading.

A Remote Viewer can work a target with no information about
the target up front. A Remote Viewer can work a target with
front loading, as long as the front loading is minimal.
For example, the target is a location, describe the location.
The target is a person, describe the person.

Then show it! Stop the bluster and provide some evidence. That is all we are asking for.

Rem, who has no financial stake in the success or failure of RV tests

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

29

ghosts - UFO's?

by jolly_green_giant in

jw
friends

just wondering if anyone here has ever a supernatural experience.. whether it be seeing a ghost/angel/demon, ufo encounter.. etc..

rem

Whoah Stiffler,

You are making some extremely naive claims. I would suggest you do some research. You are expressing some pretty basic misconceptions about science and scientific theories. Why don't you do some research on Evolution and find out why scientists see it as both a fact and a theory?

Area 51? Give me a break - it's an airforce base where some top secret stuff was going on. There is no conspiracy there. What scientific advancement were they suppressing at Area 51? Do you understand why the government keeps certain secrets? It's called National Security. I don't see what this has to do with suppressing scientific progress in the academic sector, though.

You would do well to read some real science texts instead of getting all of your scientific knowledge from the SciFi channel or TLC.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

29

ghosts - UFO's?

by jolly_green_giant in

jw
friends

just wondering if anyone here has ever a supernatural experience.. whether it be seeing a ghost/angel/demon, ufo encounter.. etc..

rem

Gee it would be really neat if we could create an anigravity device. You could put if half way under a large wheel. The wheel would begin spinning since the Earth's gravity would be pulling down one side but not the other. Poof! Unlimited energy!

Unfortunately the laws of thermodynamics keep such a thing from happening. Even if we could create a gravity shield, the power we would need to run it would exceed any energy gains (we'd be better off using rocket power or whatever).

Alternative energy claims are not new. Perpetual motion machines and such are being pawned off on the ignorant public all of the time.

As far as the Hutchinson effect, I couldn't really find anything from a mainstreme scientist. Just a bit of info on his home page and some guy named Solis. If the effect is 20 years old, you'd think there would be at least something published to replicate his claims. So far I haven't found anything at all. Since it is all associated with free energy and such, I'm not inclined to take it too seriously.

Sounds like interesting stuff if it's true, though.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

40

More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

more on remote viewers.

i'm not sure if it's decent protocol to bring it up under a new heading .

1. it's 8 pages deep already.

rem

Stiffler,

Haha - Dude, you are a crack up. Almost as funny as your big brother! :)

Slayer,

You are beginning to worry me. I think I'm starting to get high just corresponding with you. ;)

rem, who loves American Pie

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

40

More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

more on remote viewers.

i'm not sure if it's decent protocol to bring it up under a new heading .

1. it's 8 pages deep already.

rem

If remote viewing is true, why isn't everyone predicting the same objects? If there is anything to it, we all should be getting the same "vibe". When everyone picks different objects, that makes the chance of someone guessing correctly go way up. We've just seen in the other thread how believers will latch on to the most vague answers as a "hit". Really - how objective is that?

Decidedly - what you are forgetting in your example is that if the RV'er says he sees a blue polka-dot handkerchief and there happens to be a red striped one, then they will count that as a hit! Out of 100 attempts, it would be strange if at least a few were not somewhat close. Anyone can do that just by guessing – especially when you have multiple guessers and they are all making different guesses.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

40

More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

more on remote viewers.

i'm not sure if it's decent protocol to bring it up under a new heading .

1. it's 8 pages deep already.

rem

A computer monitor.

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

rem

Stiffler,

The human brain also likes to be sceptical and unbelieving

I don't believe this to be the case. History has shown that humans are typically superstitious and credulous – especially the less educated they are. Only in the last few hundred years with the scientific method have we begun to make progress and improve our lives by not believing every spectacular story we hear.

True, there have been skeptics all throughout history (the definition of a skeptic was somewhat different in the past), but these were the extreme minority of free thinkers - people who were able to transcend the superstitions of their time and ponder clearly on facts and observations. These people had a higher standard for evidence and did not just flock to any idea that happened to tickle their fancy.

Why do we have to invent a fantastic phenomenon for Remote Viewing when all of the tests have shown it to be a psychological phenomenon? Is this just too prosaic of an explanation for some? Is it too ordinary or boring an explanation? Why do so many believe in the absence of evidence? How many more negative tests will it take?

It seems to me that RV defenders are embroiled in a priori reasoning. They start with the assumption that RV is not only possible, but is a fact and they interpret any bit of positive data in their favor and reject all negative data. Do we start with the assumption that Zeus creates lightening in our experiments and then interpret the data to fit that model?

And scientists are not building the experiments to disprove psi – they work together with psychics to create fair tests and let the data land where it may. Unfortunately, psi supporters cannot do that – they must interpret and massage the data to get even a hint of a positive result. These people are being intellectually dishonest with themselves and the gullible, uneducated public.

rem

P.S.: Stiffler - I have experienced strange things in my youth. Interestingly, ever since I stoped believing in such things (through much research) I have never experienced anything that could be interpreted as psi. I realize that my experiences as a youth were due to fright, belief in demons, and a faulty memory. I don't believe in a whole host of things that don't have any backing evidence as I have enumerated in posts earlier in this or another thread on RV (I think it had to do with Visions).

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

rem

Slayer and friends,

This is what you originally said you saw:

I'm seeing a car sitting on a feild, with a tall person standing beside it. The car is red.

Here is the picture:

This is your last statement:

So pretty much this is what I actually saw:
1. A car
2. The car was out of place. (unusual setting)I guessed a field
3. A tall person
4. The color red, which I assumed was the color of the car.
The actual pic:
1. A car
2. The car is surrounded by water. (unusual setting)
3. Three people, not one. The woman holding the helmet up high, is what stood out.
4. The car is white

This is what I mean when I say this is a psychological phenomenon. The human brain loves to see patterns - it is essential to our survival. Our brain is highly skilled in this way.

It is quite easy for us to have an experience and then reverse engineer something more than really happened after the fact. The brain doesn't record things like a VCR - we reinterpret our memories every time we recall them. We add details that were never present before, but make much more sense in the present context. The scary thing is that we don't even realize that we are doing this!

I don't see your description as being anywhere close to the picture. I think you got one lucky guess (a car) and lots of misses. It was inevitable since so many people guessed and there are only so many common objects (such as cars and people).

I think it is hilarious how much mileage people get out of the American government spending $20 million on this crap. The fact that the project was declassified and closed down since it was shown to be ineffective doesn't seem to phase true believers. Read some books and you will realize how many true believers there are in our government - senators, congressmen, lobbyists - all trying to get their agenda across. I am not surprised at all that my government has squandered my tax dollars this way.

From what I've seen so far (and I'm still waiting for more experiments online here) the phenomenon is interestingly close to cold reading. Hits and misses. Hits are capitalized on and misses are dismissed. It's psychology 101, friends! The remote viewers are making such vague statements that their descriptions could fit any number of sites or pictures, and then the rationalization machine begins and they turn their predictions into something more than they are.

I just feel like my intelligence is being insulted when I see certain statements such as seeing a car should count as a hit. WHAT??!! That is so ridiculous. If you can believe that, you will certainly believe anything because your standard of evidence is pitifully low.

Again – anecdotes are not evidence. Stories are altered over time. Why, if remote viewing is so successful, was it so unsuccessful in controlled environments? That could have been the smoking gun of RV, but no – the evidence was inconclusive at best. I can't help but think that the directors of the RV department were under pressure to show that their group was making a positive contribution, and small lucky guesses were turned into large, exciting successes. Remember – there was a lot of money on the line, and people are not always honest when it comes to money – especially when there is so much secrecy involved.

So let’s see some unambiguous evidence. I’m waiting. There have been several offers for tests.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

rem

bboy,

Dark matter is not mystical at all. It is just matter that is not illuminated. Stars are just illuminated because gravity has started nuclear reactions within them. If there is just a bunch of hydrogen atoms and heavier elements floating around that have not formed into stars, then that is dark matter. I'm not sure what is so mystical about that. Of course we could be totally wrong, but inferring dark matter is a simpler explanation then reinventing physics. If it turns out we have to, then we will. I think the fact that we were able to send spacecraft to the planets and beyond with great accuracy is a testament to how much we really do know about physics.

I don't think there is anything wrong with critical thinking. Do you believe our thinking should be uncritical? You seem to have a grasp of science, but I've noticed that you gravitate toward the fringes - almost to pseudoscience. Why do you put so much confidence in theories that have little to no support yet? Could that be why you have become dissappointed with science - your expectations are to high? Maybe you are not satisfied that current scientific thought does not conform to your favorite fringe theories? Science is not science fiction.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell