Calling All Remote Viewers

[Darat]

Can any of the posters on this forum who say they can RV find the girl?

Aschliee Everett
15 years old, disappeared from Elyria, Ohio, August 18.
She is believed to have run off to meet a 40-year-old man she'd met online -- whose name the police and her parents don't know -- living in Pennsylvania
Contact: Elyria PD at (440) 322-3465 or


She is still missing, perhaps even one word could help the FBI or local police to locate her.

Why can't she be found by the RVers?

 

[Lucianarchy]

I can’t say how angry I am at the moment, knowing there are these liars these inhumane fools who strut around here claiming the ability to RV, claiming it has been proven, claiming it can find people.

I'm sure you'll get over it.

 

[billydkid]

Hmmm.

I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.

So after the many thousands of years of man's existence this remarkable ability was somehow overlooked and now we're going to discover it? The truth is most of us aren't even looking for scientific proof, which is a very particular thing, we're looking even one shed of credible evidence that such an ability exists - some reason even to believe there is something to investigate. If it does exist it is simply astonishing that such an amazing secret could be kept for so long. I submit that it is astronomically unlikely that some fundamental human ability would have been overlooked after all this time.

 

[billydkid]

thanks

I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways. I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people. My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion.

I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long. The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist.
There is no such evidence. I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise. [/B]

Thanks, I agree. All this pussyfooting is really tiring. There is no reason whatsoever to believe in the "paranormal" and those who do should have the grace to admit that they are believing irrationally. Fine, I guess, if one wants to believe such things. Just don't pretend one has a good reason to do so.

 

[Ed]

Sure they do. Sooner or later the reality that they're ignoring will bite them in the ass.

The problem is, the tests devised so far tend to take unnecessary convoluted twists and turns. What should be a simple demonstration of ability under carefully controlled conditions always becomes secondary to intricate protocols and/or meta-analyses that require true experts to decipher, and even then, no two experts can agree. We're left with unavailable data, ambiguous evidence, unfalsifiable hypotheses, and a few temporarily popular books which the authors and their fans tout as the foundations of bold, new, world-changing paradigms. Nothing ever moves past that point.

With respect, you are absolutely wrong. The only chance of any support for paranormal claims resides in obfuscation. Research in this area is simply a rorshach test for believers. The point of the research is to muddy the water so that the debate goes on, witness Schwartz. Experiments designed for ambiguity.

If you take a real physical process and design a kitchen sink analysis of it and do enough trials you will, through data mining, get some series of results that deviate from expected by a more or less significant degree. Look at the lunacy of PEAR for a sterling example. The point is that to believers, there always is an effect and we cannot see it because

1)the design is flawed (why Ph.Ds such as Schwartzie can't design a Psych 101 experiment provides a prima facie case for fraud, BTW)

2)The effect IS there, the problem is that some unquantifyable countervailing fgorce is at work (non-believers are present, for example)

3) By it's nature effext x is not testable in any formal manner

4) It has been tested and replicated. See arcane journal y.

The whole area is a sorry, excuse ridden, mess.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you take a real physical process and design a kitchen sink analysis of it and do enough trials you will, through data mining, get some series of results that deviate from expected by a more or less significant degree.

Dismissing research into the anomolous as 'data mining' is misleading and at least partially incorrect. The discipline of data mining includes such things as cluster analysis, nearest neighbor methods, in general, multivariate statistics. That isn't what the researchers do.

If there are tight controls, and RNG's repeatedly generate results that are not expected by chance, further exploration is needed to determine if there is an effect or errors.

Many researchers (Utts, May, Radin, Spottiswoode, James, and many others) have statistical models for force-based (micro-PK, anamolous perterbation) and non-force based influence (ESP, anomolous cognition) of RNG's. These models predict quite different things.

The scientists can (and have) test what the models predict against the data as any scientist does. And, in their writings, these scientists are the first to say that additional well designed experiments are needed before anything definite is concluded. They are also the first to admit that, obviously, their "arguments in favor of an anomaly are based on statistical inference", and they "must consider, in detail, the consequences of such analyses."

At least one of these models, decision augmentation theory (non-forced based, ESP, anomolous cognition), was inspired by the idea that an organism could use anomalous mental phenomena to optimize its environment. It has been worked on since 1979, but the main articles I am familiar with are from 1995.

I think now there is incorporating Shannon entropy into the mix.

In any case, "applying models to shed light on the physical, physiological, and psychological mechanism of anomalous mental phenemona" is a far cry from dismissing this field as 'data mining'.

 

[Ed]

In any case, "applying models to shed light on the physical, physiological, and psychological mechanism of anomalous mental phenemona" is a far cry from dismissing this field as 'data mining'. [/B]

OK. Tell me, for this research, just pick one, what the falsifiable hypothesis is. The problem seems to be that there is no "thing" that is being examined. Is there a clear phenomonon that can be reliably repeated? And is the replication outside of the group that you mention?

Just an edit to add that models, per se, have relevance when there is something being modeled. What are the theoretical constructs that are being modeled here?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Tell me, for this research, just pick one, what the falsifiable hypothesis is.

Are the RNG's performing how we'd expect them to by chance, even after certainly accounting for outside influences?

The problem seems to be that there is no "thing" that is being examined.

If a well designed experiment is carried out and RNG's still don't perform as expected to by chance, then there is some "thing" going on (effect or errors). The authors of the papers do fully admit that the study of anamolous cognition has a negative definition.

Is there a clear phenomonon that can be reliably repeated? And is the replication outside of the group that you mention?

Not sure, and yes, I am fairly certain.

Just an edit to add that models, per se, have relevance when there is something being modeled. What are the theoretical constructs that are being modeled here?

You might just have to read the papers. *gasp!*

 

[Martin]

Are the RNG's performing how we'd expect them to by chance, even after certainly accounting for outside influences?

In other words, the hypothesis is that a certain experiment will produce certain results. Not good.

And how the hell does one certainly account for outside influences?

 

[T'ai Chi]

OK. Tell me, for this research, just pick one, what the falsifiable hypothesis is.

Here are a couple hypotheses that can be falsified:

-there is significance between levels of belief and standardized scores

-people get better scores if there is feedback of their previous outcomes

-the best results are from studies with the least methodological controls

-belief, remote viewing training, and studying movement arts, gives higher standardized scores

-person X can lift a chair with their mind

-the DAT model fits the data better than the micro-AP model

-anamolous effects occur in the effort periods

-information effects are independent of n (where n is the number of bits resulting from a single run)

-the quality of the data is proportional to the total change of Shannon entropy

-micro-AP relations exist more in biological experiments (systems)

-physical effects (Brownian motion, temperature gradients, etc.) can account for the observed variance in the absence of human operators

-the data are independent of the physical mechanism producing the randomness

-effects with pseudo RNG's are statistically equivalent to those observed with true RNG's.

-in micro-AP, the effect size is proportional to 1/sqrt, ie. a quadrupling of the number of bits will produce a standardized score twice as large.

-in binary RNG experiments, the AP effect size = 0

-Monte Carlo simulations can confirm the simple model formulations

-an intercept larger than 1 would support the DAT model, so we can test that hypothesis. (by doing a weighted least squares regression on (Z^2,n) )

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Calling All Remote Viewers

Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case?

Undoubtable it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.

To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her!

Well it still seems, very unfortunately, that my prediction has not been invalidated.

Just excuses about why their “superpower” can’t help this girl or her family or attempts to divert attention away from the question “If you can RV why can’t you help?”