People really do exist that can read your mind.

[De_Bunk]

Use 'Google'....

Find out if Plumjam is wrong...

Make your own mind up...

If you 'bleeeve' in a persons claim without finding out the truth for yourself...You're no better than the loons who believe in mediums and psychics...

DB

 

[plumjam]

I have heard of the CIA experimenting with such things, but what plumjam conveniently leaves out is that by all sane accounts the program(s) were utter failures and were canceled. If he can provide legitimate evidence of a SUCCESSFUL CIA program dealing with "paranormal" topics such as telepathy or remote viewing, I will kiss his butt... in public.

just a point to ponder here,

if you were the head of an intelligence agency that found a good and reliable psychic would you:

a) tell the world about him/her, reveal his/her identity, subject him/her to independent lab studies open to the media?

(thus risking the psychic to kidnap by another intelligence agency, and also encouraging other intelligence agencies to find and use their own psychics)

or

b) make it public that psychics were tried out in your intelligence agency, but proved ultimately fruitless. reveal the identities of the ineffective psychics to the media. Continue employing the more successful psychics, keeping their identities secret, and claiming that all such use of psychics ended some years ago?

(thus keeping your genuine psychics safe and discouraging competing intelligence agencies from developing their own psychic programs)

Ok, call me a cynic... but when it comes to intelligence agencies this kind of tactic would be pretty standard procedure.

 

[Slimething]

Use 'Google'....

Find out if Plumjam is wrong...

Make your own mind up...

If you 'bleeeve' in a persons claim without finding out the truth for yourself...You're no better than the loons who believe in mediums and psychics...

I appreciate what you're saying, DB, but I can't agree with you that someone making a claim should be responsible for providing their underpinning evidence. The reason for this is that discussion is greatly facilitated if both the claimant and the skeptic are working off the same information. Using two different accounts of the same phenomenon can and does lead to misunderstanding needlessly.

Plumjam's claim is quite broad. He states that Soviet and US intelligence services (each country had a number of such services) and "police forces around the world" employ psychics. Really, his claim is so unspecific that I feel he should cite his sources/events so that they be discussed in detail. I find his reluctance very suspicious, don't you?

 

[Normal Dude]

just a point to ponder here,

if you were the head of an intelligence agency that found a good and reliable psychic would you:
a) tell the world about him/her, reveal his/her identity, subject him/her to independent lab studies open to the media?
(thus risking the psychic to kidnap by another intelligence agency, and also encouraging other intelligence agencies to find and use their own psychics)
or
b) make it public that psychics were tried out in your intelligence agency, but proved ultimately fruitless. reveal the identities of the ineffective psychics to the media. Continue employing the more successful psychics, keeping their identities secret, and claiming that all such use of psychics ended some years ago?
(thus keeping your genuine psychics safe and discouraging competing intelligence agencies from developing their own psychic programs)
Ok, call me a cynic... but when it comes to intelligence agencies this kind of tactic would be pretty standard procedure.

So then how do you assert that they are using psychics so confidently (I don't consider exploratory or experimental programs as "using psychics", since it wouldn't be yet proved that they were in fact psychics).

 

[plumjam]

I find his reluctance very suspicious, don't you?

lol.. bit paranoid.
my point was a general point that is a matter of historical record, therefore there was no reason for me to zoom in on one particular intelligence service, police force, program or study.
It really is that simple.

 

[Mashuna]

just a point to ponder here,

if you were the head of an intelligence agency that found a good and reliable psychic would you:

a) tell the world about him/her, reveal his/her identity, subject him/her to independent lab studies open to the media?

(thus risking the psychic to kidnap by another intelligence agency, and also encouraging other intelligence agencies to find and use their own psychics)

or

b) make it public that psychics were tried out in your intelligence agency, but proved ultimately fruitless. reveal the identities of the ineffective psychics to the media. Continue employing the more successful psychics, keeping their identities secret, and claiming that all such use of psychics ended some years ago?

(thus keeping your genuine psychics safe and discouraging competing intelligence agencies from developing their own psychic programs)

Ok, call me a cynic... but when it comes to intelligence agencies this kind of tactic would be pretty standard procedure.

I've just had an Interesting Ian flashback. Didn't he use to claim that the existence of fake and failed psychics made it more likely that psychic powers were real?

 

[plumjam]

So then how do you assert that they are using psychics so confidently (I don't consider exploratory or experimental programs as "using psychics", since it wouldn't be yet proved that they were in fact psychics).

I would use the common sense reasoning that any program that endured for a matter of decades would not have received such protracted funding if it had produced no useful results.
A program producing no useful results would have been discontinued after a year or two at most.
So, it seems more likely to me that useful results WERE produced, yet these were kept concealed from public view, and programs are probably still going on.

 

[Slimething]

Such overwhelming unanimity of belief (prompting so many default responses that any such examples of mind-reading must be, a priori, fraudulent) is pretty remarkable.
I'm sure any practitioners of "brain-washing", mind control, or religious indoctrination would feel astoundingly successfull if they could get similar results.

The other possibility is that the claims have been examined and found to be worthless, yes? Why don't you ask about claimed conversion of lead to gold? You'd get the same response.

To give some people credit, they did ask for more details on it, before confirming their original belief.

Just ax they asked you for citations for your claims about law enforcement and spy agencies using psychics later on. Why are you praising here and refusing there?

Here's what I mean:

I don't know why you insist in using the standard lazy demand for evidence. Google it and you'll see there's loads of stuff detailing the history of it. Try "CIA psychics"

If you can't show us the money, you can't play.

someone argued that if mind readers exist why weren't they making a load of money from government etc.. (no evidence supplied for this claim, and note how I didn't lazily demand some)

You have problems differentiating propositions and claims? You are not going to do well here.

I replied that psychics indeed have been employed by governments, and by police forces. I'm sorry, but when the historical evidence is so overwhelming for a particular point I'm not going to waste my time locating particular links for you to explore. I assume that people are capable of typing a couple of words into Google themselves, if they don't take my word for it.

Perhaps those people have studied this very claim and wanted to find out exactly which cases you had in mind. You've made it impossible to do so for them. A claim based on overwhelming evidence should be easy to support with citations. I suspect you know little of what you write and, therefore, can't provide credible evidence. That's a claim. I cite your very words as evidence.

just a point to ponder here,

if you were the head of an intelligence agency that found a good and reliable psychic would you:

I'll go for:

(c) maintain a highly successful spy program that other governments would find impossible to stop. Such agency would be pretty much a "hands off" operation that would be extremely well funded and would never be dismantled.

I think that would be the most probable result of a government finding a true psychic. A government with such a spy agency could veritably rule the world.

 

[De_Bunk]

If anyone wants to trawl thru the archives...you'll find me posting links to a police chief who claimed to use psychics...and the following emails that ensued...

DB

 

[Slimething]

lol.. bit paranoid.
my point was a general point that is a matter of historical record, therefore there was no reason for me to zoom in on one particular intelligence service, police force, program or study.
It really is that simple.

No, not paranoid at all. Your claims are not new. They've been thoroughly debunked before and we want to know specifically what you have in mind before playing the whold five hour tape for you.

I could also say that some of us doubt your motives because you have yet to mention that all the known instances of psychic spying were wastes for time and money. Why didn't you mention that if you've studied the situation? (That's right. Some of us think you're not truthful! )

 

[Slimething]

If anyone wants to trawl thru the archives...you'll find me posting links to a police chief who claimed to use psychics...and the following emails that ensued...

DB

You're not the one making the claims, DB. We need to know what pj has in mind to deal with his claims.

 

[plumjam]

Perhaps those people have studied this very claim and wanted to find out exactly which cases you had in mind. You've made it impossible to do so for them. A claim based on overwhelming evidence should be easy to support with citations. I suspect you know little of what you write and, therefore, can't provide credible evidence. That's a claim. I cite your very words as evidence.

Can you see that it's possible to make general points about what is known to have happened in history, without having to specify one particular example or aspect of the phenomenon?

I mean, for example, if I were to make the general historical point that WWII ended in 1945, would I have to provide citations for that on here? And if I didn't would my general point be dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence?
This is where the discourse on here spirals down into pedantry.

The fact that intelligence agencies and police forces have used psychics is well known, and to focus in on one particular case is unnecessary to support the statement.
Anyone on here can verify the point by, as I have already said, Googling it.

 

[Ersby]

Intelligence forces researched psi, certainly. That's the Star Gate Project (it had lots of names, but that's the one it's generally called). But how often was it used is unsure. And if it was used, was it successful? So we would indeed need a specific example before we can discuss the matter in any depth.

 

[Locknar]

Can you see that it's possible to make general points about what is known to have happened in history, without having to specify one particular example or aspect of the phenomenon?

I mean, for example, if I were to make the general historical point that WWII ended in 1945, would I have to provide citations for that on here? And if I didn't would my general point be dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence?
This is where the discourse on here spirals down into pedantry.

The fact that intelligence agencies and police forces have used psychics is well known, and to focus in on one particular case is unnecessary to support the statement.
Anyone on here can verify the point by, as I have already said, Googling it.

If you offer something as fact or otherwise make a claim, you should be prepared to back it up with some type of supporting reference.

So...that in mind, a few posts back you made the claim "So, it seems more likely to me that useful results WERE produced, yet these were kept concealed from public view, and programs are probably still going on."

It's your claim - do you have anything that supports this, or are you just offering opinion?

 

[plumjam]

If you offer something as fact or otherwise make a claim, you should be prepared to back it up with some type of supporting reference.

So...that in mind, a few posts back you made the claim "So, it seems more likely to me that useful results WERE produced, yet these were kept concealed from public view, and programs are probably still going on."

It's your claim - do you have anything that supports this, or are you just offering opinion?

as I made clear in the post by writing "so, it seems more likely to me" I was just offering opinion.
If, as is my opinion, such programs would be kept concealed from public view, it would logically follow that I couldn't possibly supply references, due to the programs being kept secret.

 

[JJM]

{snip} my point was a general point that is a matter of historical record, therefore there was no reason for me to zoom in on one particular intelligence service, police force, program or study.
It really is that simple.

No, you should supply the source of your claim, for reasons stated, by others, above.

I would use the common sense reasoning that any program that endured for a matter of decades would not have received such protracted funding if it had produced no useful results.
A program producing no useful results would have been discontinued after a year or two at most.
So, it seems more likely to me that useful results WERE produced, yet these were kept concealed from public view, and programs are probably still going on.

Common sense isn't so common, especially with the psy crowd. Even after 130 years of negative results, they are always on the verge of a breakthrough.

Can you see that it's possible to make general points about what is known to have happened in history, without having to specify one particular example or aspect of the phenomenon?

Still, no.

{snip} This is where the discourse on here spirals down into pedantry. {snip}

"Pedantry." Is that what you call your inability to support your end of the discussion?

 

[plumjam]

"Pedantry." Is that what you call your inability to support your end of the discussion?

Pedantry, for example, is when people on here demand citations and references to support general, uncontentious matters, that are well known, and of historical record. Such as use of psychics by intelligence and police agencies.

My original point was that, indeed, this has happened. The only people disputing with me are those demanding references for it, when if they just google it they'll see it is so.
I feel these people are wasting both mine and their own time. In the time they spend demanding evidence they could have already enlightened themselves greatly on google.
No one, yet, has disputed the real essence of my point, because my point is correct.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Ok, call me a cynic...

I don't think you need to worry about that.

 

[plumjam]

I don't think you need to worry about that.

lol

btw, who is punching who in your avatar thingy?

 

[Locknar]

as I made clear in the post by writing "so, it seems more likely to me" I was just offering opinion.
If, as is my opinion, such programs would be kept concealed from public view, it would logically follow that I couldn't possibly supply references, due to the programs being kept secret.

Opinion is fine; but don't expect it to be blindly accepted by folks here.

Logically speaking, lack of evidence does not equal things being true. That is to say, lack of public knowledge related to government sponsored "psi-ops" programs success does not mean they ("psi-ops" programs) exist or otherwise had any success.

That said, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that such efforts within the public forum have failed to produce any statistically relevant success (beyond random chance).