• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lucianarchy and remote viewing

NoZed Avenger said:
If any remote viewer actually . . . oh, I don't know . . . ACCEPTED the challenge, they could request a lighted area. At the moment, you are throwing out hypothetical objections from hypothetical people with hypothetical powers with hypothetical limitations who might, one day, if the stars align, actually deign to get up off the couch and have world-changing powers tested.


I have had my "powers tested" by Fiona Steinkemp from the Koestler Inst. the results certainly were very self-evident in their accuracy. The viewing method uses guided meditation / OOB.
 
Steve,

Thanks for the references. However, you missed quite a few questions.
 
thaiken: Yes, the ad-hominem tactic is a popular one among believers. They will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why the locker challenge won't be beaten, while ignoring the real reason... .it's because people do not have superpowers.

Reply: Actually it is extrmely common among cynics, and close minded skeptics as well. The term liar is particularly prevalent and is used like water to characterize just about anything that doesn't fit with the agenda of these folks.

On the other hand, you must forgive me where James Randi is concerned. Randi is a self-confessed hoaxer and trickster .... he
admits this gleefully and has no qualms about it. His involvement in a few projects where he hoaxed investigators has been confirmed by HIMSELF. I would never accuse him of anything,
he does that himself and takes the heat for it. Transcripts of his lectures to college audiences are similarly revealing. Therefore, a lot of folks are leery of him. Its his reputation, he made it and he must live with it. So if it looks like I am generalizing about Randi, his tactics or motives, keep in mind I have been preconditioned by these factors. I am sure he could care less.
 
Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
If any remote viewer actually . . . oh, I don't know . . . ACCEPTED the challenge, they could request a lighted area. At the moment, you are throwing out hypothetical objections from hypothetical people with hypothetical powers with hypothetical limitations who might, one day, if the stars align, actually deign to get up off the couch and have world-changing powers tested.
Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I have had my "powers tested" by Fiona Steinkemp from the Koestler Inst. the results certainly were very self-evident in their accuracy. The viewing method uses guided meditation / OOB.

Assuming arguendo the truth of the matter asserted, your allegation has something to do with the quoted material from me?!

Mr. Grenard was objecting to the rather informal test offered by Randi on the basis of assumed objections from hypothetical people -- and he has since stated on this very thread that his objection appears to be incorrect, as several remote viewers say that they do not need a lighted area.

Your "testing" has nothing to do with the material quoted or the discussion.

Luci/Robbin, I remember you from usenet -- in several different incarnations and under several different names. I believe we decided early on that we each had no interest in pursuing further conversations. Why don't we keep that policy in force?

NA
 
SteveGrenard said:
Reply: Actually it is extrmely common among cynics, and close minded skeptics as well. The term liar is particularly prevalent and is used like water to characterize just about anything that doesn't fit with the agenda of these folks.

It is mainly used to point out lies - like in your case, Steve.

SteveGrenard said:
On the other hand, you must forgive me where James Randi is concerned. Randi is a self-confessed hoaxer and trickster .... he admits this gleefully and has no qualms about it. His involvement in a few projects where he hoaxed investigators has been confirmed by HIMSELF.

Did his hoaxes work, Steve? Did they not point out serious flaws, Steve?

SteveGrenard said:
I would never accuse him of anything, he does that himself and takes the heat for it.

No? Then why did you start an anonymous smear spam-campaign against him?

SteveGrenard said:
Transcripts of his lectures to college audiences are similarly revealing.

Where are these? What do they "reveal"?

SteveGrenard said:
Therefore, a lot of folks are leery of him. Its his reputation, he made it and he must live with it. So if it looks like I am generalizing about Randi, his tactics or motives, keep in mind I have been preconditioned by these factors. I am sure he could care less.

You have been "preconditioned" only by your own biases, Steve. But you are probably right about Randi caring less about you.
 
Indeed. I originally said I was not aware of any sucessful RVing accounts which ocurred in the pitch darkness of a closed box or locker. Since then I read an account where Joe McMoneagle caims this can be done. I am sure Randi would be willing to shed light on the object or objects in question if he was asked. Or at least I would hope so.

The locker is allegedly in JREF office in Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. The address is:

201 East 12th Street, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815.

E 12th is also known as "East Davie Boulevard." I am sure this location can be found on MapQuest for any RVer who works from map coordinates.

The location of the locker within the above pemises needs to be confirmed although some RVers may find it anyway. I understand that a photograph appeared on the commentary website a few weeks ago so this should be verified and checked.

In addition, Randi published a list of object choices contained within the locker. We do not know if this list contains the content item or items but it may. Randi hoaxes sometimes by throwing out red herrings like this so I caution about this. It would be nice if someone can cororborate the list as well as corroborate the presence of the lcoker where Randi says it is. Beyond this, I see no reason for any remote viewer not to attempt to view the inside of this locker. If someone does and Randi says they are wrong, the problem of corroborating with an outside third party becomes paramount. Also RVers often see shapes and textures
so judging is necessary. Since a can of soup doesnt look like a coconut, I see no problem there, etc.

Ballpen
Bar of soap, wrapped
Barbie doll
Bicycle pump
Box of facial tissues
Can of soup
Cap
Clock
Coconut
Deodorant stick
Dictionary
Earphones
Empty bottle
Finger ring
Five-dollar bill
Floppy disk
Furniture spray
Icecube tray
Picture frame
Scissors
Spoon
Sunglasses
Telephone cable, modular
Toy airplane
Toy gun
 
NoZed Avenger said:


Assuming arguendo the truth of the matter asserted, your allegation has something to do with the quoted material from me?!

Mr. Grenard was objecting to the rather informal test offered by Randi on the basis of assumed objections from hypothetical people -- and he has since stated on this very thread that his objection appears to be incorrect, as several remote viewers say that they do not need a lighted area.

Your "testing" has nothing to do with the material quoted or the discussion.

Luci/Robbin, I remember you from usenet -- in several different incarnations and under several different names. I believe we decided early on that we each had no interest in pursuing further conversations. Why don't we keep that policy in force?

NA

I don't know what you are talking about :confused: This thread is about my remote viewing ability. If you don't want to learn / discuss the subject, then that's not a problem for me. I am puzzled that you would contribute to the thread though.
 
This is from the Princetonian on the occasion of Randi's lecture series at Princeton:

Randi spent part of his talk chastising the scientific community's attempts to expose false claims of magic.

"I'm a patient man," Randi commented. However, he went on to say that the statistical and overly lab-oriented focus of modern science when researching miracles stretches his good humor.

Randi allegedly has a history of friction with the academic community. During the lecture, Randi criticized scholars who earn Ph.D.'s as being incapable of saying two important phrases: "I was wrong" and "I don't know."

When asked after the lecture about his last visit to the University over a decade ago, Randi said, "Frankly, the visit was not [satisfactory]" and that he would rather not talk about it.(*)

(*anybody know why?....:))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randi openly admits he will never have to give away his prize because nobody can sucessfully meet his challenge. I agree with him. He hates scientists because they are proving, in the academic arena, that many of the phenomena he decries as his stock in trade, are proven statistically valid. The above account is repeated endlessly in all the lectures he gives on college campuses. He makes light of education and educated persons. This is his privilege but it is also the privilege of his critics to point out that this is a disingenous agenda to follow.

You are lying about the anonymous smear campaign Claus and continue to lie openly about it. It was not anonymous, and it was
based on the truth. It was based on the post made by Ed Dittus, now a moderator here, accusing me and another person of sleeping together; disgusting venal filth that had no truth attached to it whatsoever. Ed also called that person the town whore as well. This was typical of the ad hominem attacks made on people on this forum which no longer occur as a result of reforming the the content of this to live up to the high standards Randi has in mind as objectives of his foundation. Randi, one day, woke up to the fact that his site was being blocked because of foul language. That is now prohibited. This was also part of that effort. Before these reforms took place myself and a lot of others found this a place where points were made that relied on the use of such language. I wouldn't be caught here until these reforms took place. You should be the next to go with your smears accusing people of lying about everything. You are the best of the worst of them in the ad hominem department.
 
You will note that the 'Ladybrook' attempted Belfast bombing occured within 24 hours of my reference to the name in my first post in this thread. There is no other newsworthy item using the word 'ladybrook', a simple search will confirm this. This is how RV impressions work, often nothing clear, which is all that I could pick up, a name. More precognition than RV, but RV works across time points.
 
Lucianarchy said:


I have had my "powers tested" by Fiona Steinkemp from the Koestler Inst. the results certainly were very self-evident in their accuracy. The viewing method uses guided meditation / OOB.

IN other words, he has his delusions encouraged by a quack.
 
Steve,

You are lying through your teeth. Know why I know this?

Because you are changing your story all the time. You said that it was because of filth and obscene posts that were all over the place.

Now, it's because Ed made a joke about you and Pam Blizzard 'schtupping' it.

And, yes, it was anonymous.

If you have complaints about my posts here, please address the mods. I have confidence they will make the right decisions. Your problem is that I can back up my claim.

Go ahead, Steve: Report me. I am not in the least intimidated by your threats.
 

Reply: Actually it is extrmely common among cynics, and close minded skeptics as well. The term liar is particularly prevalent and is used like water to characterize just about anything that doesn't fit with the agenda of these folks.


I'm open-minded, just produce a super-powered individual to pass the JREF challenge or a CSICOP test and I'll start to believe.



In the other hand, you must forgive me where James Randi is concerned. Randi is a self-confessed hoaxer and trickster ....

LOL. You take his words out of context to paint him as dishonest and uncredible. I guess all magicians should not be trusted, if we decided to use your standards.
 
Lucianarchy said:


I have had my "powers tested" by Fiona Steinkemp from the Koestler Inst. the results certainly were very self-evident in their accuracy. The viewing method uses guided meditation / OOB.
Zero accuracy would be very self-evident.
 
Randi spent part of his talk chastising the scientific community's attempts to expose false claims of magic.

Yes, I agree that a little bit more should be done by the scientific community to educate people that the paranormal claims are just hoaxes.

Randi openly admits he will never have to give away his prize because nobody can sucessfully meet his challenge.

I don't know where Randi has said this, but I certainly believe that the prize will be safe for as long as the challenge exists.

I agree with him. He hates scientists because they are proving, in the academic arena, that many of the phenomena he decries as his stock in trade, are proven statistically valid.

And yet, you haven't given verified, validated, repeatable evidence that has been reviewed by the scientific community to support this notion. Why do you keep fabricating such nonsense?

He makes light of education and educated persons. This is his privilege but it is also the privilege of his critics to point out that this is a disingenous agenda to follow.

LOL. I think much of Randi's point is that the educated are just as vulnerable to being tricked as the uneducated. Often, the educated seem to think they are too smart to be tricked, which works against them.
 
Lucianarchy said:
You will note that the 'Ladybrook' attempted Belfast bombing occured within 24 hours of my reference to the name in my first post in this thread.

What the hell are you talking about?
 
Lucianarchy said:
Actually, it was only about an hour before.:th:

I don't know what is that, but I infere you are bragging of knowing in advance of a bombing that turned out to be frustrated. To that, I would tell you two things:

1.- If you knew something, it was worth nil, zero, nada - nobody else could do anything about what you knew;

2.- But if you really Knew, you would be my suspect in a police investigation.

Did you read the police statement about the girl that was missing because she eloped with a marine? FYI, they said they were glad they didn't follow the leads given by RV's and PSI's, or they would have been driven away.

Wheat silos.
 
So, Randi and so many other skeptics are messing with experiments trying to prove RV.

So, as already proposed, is there any way we at this forum could set up something that would be worth to you believers? I have a desk here with several things (easy), or if you would like to come into my bedroom. What else would RV's need to go ahead and make a test? What would skeptics need?

I know already, I am "Gallopant", and not trustworthy, but then again, make your call.


WAIT... I'm having a vision... The family of former Salsa Queen Celia Cruz was given special visas form the Cuban government to attend her funeral in NY. I have a hunch that they will try to deflect...
 

Back
Top Bottom