Has remote viewing already been tested?

[pgwenthold]

I will no longer waste my time with you people. I gave you the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you want to dismiss me as deluded or a nut, do it because I really don't care.

I haven't dismissed you, man. I am trying to help you! I want to help you come up with a fair test of the skills you claim to have so that you can show Randi that you can do it, and win the million.

Why won't you work with me?

The others look to be trying to help, too.

 

[Ipecac]

The others look to be trying to help, too.

Yep, me too.

(The only reason I called him a deluded nut was because he told us too.)

 

[jackmott]

Why are you ignoring my offer to let you demonstrate your ability?

http://www.psitech.net/news/tsl_090502.htm

I found this. I have also looked through randi.org's news archive. He tends to filter any infomation that he does not like he leaves out. Its reads a bit like a right wing low grade newspaper too.

"and just for some more negative evidence, SRI, or Stanford Research Institute investigated RV for years,
spent $20mil in US taxpayer money, and found nothing." - actually they were split on that, one statiticain found that psychic functioning does exist though it use for intelligence gathering is poor/not justifyable. The other side of the coin is another professor who claims tighter controls were needed. The full SRI-internation program data has never been released or was seen by either people, and is no longer at SRI all data was returned to the CIA/DIA. 3 people who worked closely on the project claim it too be a resounding success in proving the effectiveness of remote viewing.

I will no longer waste my time with you people. I gave you the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you want to dismiss me as deluded or a nut, do it because I really don't care. YOU are the ones who are loosing out here, not me. As for doing a demo for one person on the webboard? Sure, when i am better in 9 - 14 months where i should be excellent, thats no problen At the moment i doubt i am accurate enought to consistantly provide a convinicing demonstration unless I did around 3-6 targets, and that would take up many hours.

Hey olaf, don't give up on it, the more you practice the better you become.

 

[jackmott]

Why won't you tell me what leads you to believe that these types of phenomena are worth investigating further?

What clues lead you to believe they are real?

It certainly would be money well spent. I really have no time for the hysterical denunciations of all apparent "paranormal" phenomena on here. I'm just not interested. It should be investigated whether skeptics like it or not.

 

[Psiload]

Joe_Black wrote:

http://www.psitech.net/news/tsl_090502.htm

I found this. I have also looked through randi.org's news archive. He tends to filter any infomation that he does not like he leaves out. Its reads a bit like a right wing low grade newspaper too.

Unlike the great minds over at Psitech. They would never purge their archives of embarrassing information, would they?

Hmmm... let's see:

http://lite.psitech.net/search/searchy.php?searcht=elizabeth+smart&pagesize=10

Search Terms: Elizabeth Smart

Search

No matches found.

Oops!

Missing the point, Mr. _Black? Then I suggest you crack open your piggy bank and buy a F#%&!ng clue.

Wait a sec... did you actually shell out money to these Psitech clowns for your RV lessons? Oh, that would be too funny.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I don't know about you, but it appears to me that Psitech are being remarkably honest.

After all, they searched for her. And zero matches is exactly what they got!

 

[jackmott]

right wingers are pro religion
randi is definitely not.

so, imma have to disagree with you there

http://www.psitech.net/news/tsl_090502.htm

I found this. I have also looked through randi.org's news archive. He tends to filter any infomation that he does not like he leaves out. Its reads a bit like a right wing low grade newspaper too.

 

[RichardR]

Joe_Black wrote:

http://www.psitech.net/news/tsl_090502.htm

I found this. I have also looked through randi.org's news archive. He tends to filter any infomation that he does not like he leaves out. Its reads a bit like a right wing low grade newspaper too.

Unlike the great minds over at Psitech. They would never purge their archives of embarrassing information, would they?

Hmmm... let's see:

http://lite.psitech.net/search/searchy.php?searcht=elizabeth+smart&pagesize=10

Search Terms: Elizabeth Smart

Search

No matches found.

If anyone is interested I have a copy of the html file from their website of a few years ago. The title of the page is:

On The Record: Solving The Elizabeth Smart Case

PSI TECH Releases Its Summary Report on the Elizabeth Smart Abduction/Murder

 

[thaiboxerken]

One can also look in the wayback machine, internet archive.

 

[richardm]

It certainly would be money well spent. I really have no time for the hysterical denunciations of all apparent "paranormal" phenomena on here. I'm just not interested. It should be investigated whether skeptics like it or not.

But Ian, it has been investigated, almost constantly since the 1930s. The research has either been shown to be flawed, or to have produced no evidence of a real effect.

At what point do we give up ?

 

[Interesting Ian]

But Ian, it has been investigated, almost constantly since the 1930s. The research has either been shown to be flawed, or to have produced no evidence of a real effect.

At what point do we give up ?

You've been seriously misinformed. It has indeed been investigated constantly since the 1930's. But far from what you state, the evidence is sufficiently compelling that a lot of parapsychologists think it is of no further worth pursuing the authenticity issue. It has already been shown to exist.

 

[Ipecac]

You've been seriously misinformed. It has indeed been investigated constantly since the 1930's. But far from what you state, the evidence is sufficiently compelling that a lot of parapsychologists think it is of no further worth pursuing the authenticity issue. It has already been shown to exist.

But actual "scientists" don't seem to think that it has been shown to exist. I'll go with the scientists, rather than the self-interested parapsychologists who can't seem to design a scientifically valid study.

 

[Interesting Ian]

But actual "scientists" don't seem to think that it has been shown to exist. I'll go with the scientists, rather than the self-interested parapsychologists who can't seem to design a scientifically valid study.

Which actual scientists are you talking about here? How much of the research have they systematically studied? What are they actually asserting? That it merely hasn't been shown to exist, or that there is no evidence suggestive of this alleged phenomena? I doubt that any intelligent knowledgeable non-skeptical scientist could, with all integrity, assert the latter.

As for this accusation that the alleged phenomena hasn't been shown to exist, well science is a complex endeavour. Arguably nothing ever gets shown beyond doubt. And I note my words were f*cking twisted around as they always are. I said that some parapsychologists said it is of no further worth pursuing the authenticity issue, which certainly does not mean the phenomena has been shown to exist. It means the evidence is compelling enough for a rational person to deem it to be authentic beyond any reasonable doubt. And I didn't say I agreed with them. In fact I do think it's worth pursuing the authenticity issue, but investigations into nature and characteristics of the phenomena should also be pursued.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I said that some parapsychologists said it is of no further worth pursuing the authenticity issue, which certainly does not mean the phenomena has been shown to exist.

Does not seem terribly consistent with this from your previous post:

It has already been shown to exist.

Or is that me twisting your words?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ian is a living contradiction. He doesn't let it bother him though, as long as he can keep deluding himself into believing that he knows something that skeptics don't know.

 

[jackmott]

You've been seriously misinformed. It has indeed been investigated constantly since the 1930's. But far from what you state, the evidence is sufficiently compelling that a lot of parapsychologists think it is of no further worth pursuing the authenticity issue. It has already been shown to exist.

So who are the individuals who had the ability? Let them come forth and win the $1million

 

[jackmott]

I'm going to ask again, and I will never stop until you answer:

Where is this evidence/data, where can I look it up?

Which actual scientists are you talking about here? How much of the research have they systematically studied? What are they actually asserting? That it merely hasn't been shown to exist, or that there is no evidence suggestive of this alleged phenomena? I doubt that any intelligent knowledgeable non-skeptical scientist could, with all integrity, assert the latter.

As for this accusation that the alleged phenomena hasn't been shown to exist, well science is a complex endeavour. Arguably nothing ever gets shown beyond doubt. And I note my words were f*cking twisted around as they always are. I said that some parapsychologists said it is of no further worth pursuing the authenticity issue, which certainly does not mean the phenomena has been shown to exist. It means the evidence is compelling enough for a rational person to deem it to be authentic beyond any reasonable doubt. And I didn't say I agreed with them. In fact I do think it's worth pursuing the authenticity issue, but investigations into nature and characteristics of the phenomena should also be pursued.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I said that some parapsychologists said it is of no further worth pursuing the authenticity issue, which certainly does not mean the phenomena has been shown to exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does not seem terribly consistent with this from your previous post:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It has already been shown to exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Or is that me twisting your words?

Within any reasonable criteria of "shown to exist". In science, when one shows something to exist, this does not mean to say that we could not, sometime in the future, decide that the thing concerned does not actually exist.

 

[Nigel]

I was following along, minding my own business, giving Ian the benefit of the doubt, until I read the following:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I said that some parapsychologists said it is of no further worth pursuing the authenticity issue, which certainly does not mean the phenomena has been shown to exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does not seem terribly consistent with this from your previous post:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It has already been shown to exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Or is that me twisting your words?

In my opinion, Ian has hung himself.

(from thaiboxerken) Ian is a living contradiction. He doesn't let it bother him though, as long as he can keep deluding himself into believing that he knows something that skeptics don't know.

I agree. *shakes head*

 

[Interesting Ian]

Does not seem terribly consistent with this from your previous post:



Or is that me twisting your words?

Some parapsychologists think it has been shown to exist, understood in the scientific sense. That doesn't mean to say it has been "shown to exist", or that I personally think it has. I wouldn't use them words to describe any belief of mine anyway, because I recognise the provisional nature of science. I merely say the evidence is very suggestive.