Remote viewing - how do they do it?

[EternalSceptic]

Well if it isn't noway BJ
I don't claim to be an expert on SB however you seem to know a lot more.
Your comment "present some of your evidence" is so lame and predictable. it is as if there is a limited vocabulary for non beleivers. Can you please show me conclusive evidence that paranormal activities don't happen or exist? Take your time!!!

"Did you study logic?" "Yes"
"Did you _really__study_ logic?" Umm.. Err..
</p>

It's _your responsibility to present a proof bacause it's _your_ claim. And it's so easy: You claim: "there is an a with property b". Just show one and you win.

 

[galla]

"The news on Wednesday broke of the retrieval of Elizabeth Smart. Since that day, PSI TECH has been inundated with hate mail because we announced early in our investigation that she was deceased. Personally, I must tell you, I am devastated. I can only imagine how upset and angry I would be if my daughter had been abducted and missing and I was informed by a reputable intelligence gathering company that she was dead."

So, PSI TECH blew it big-time, but they aren't trying to pretend they didn't.

Removing all their info on Elizabeth Smart is pretending they didn't blow it - if not now, then a year or two down the track when people forget exactly what used to be on the site. You can't just discard all your data that didn't work. Even remote viewers will say they have a certain percentage of failures. Removing the bad data lowers their failure rate.

All the data from any remote viewing session should be published and used in determining the success/failure rate.

Remember the classic horoscope experiment that shows 80% of people will assess random information as meaningful to them. Good news for the Sylvia Brownes and remote viewers of the world.

 

[BillyJoe]

The odds of Natasha Demkina achiving the results she did was 50 to one against change. Not amazing given the amount of people she looked at, but not insignificant. Maybe she should do 100 next time.

Joe Mcmoneagle did a similar demo, but for a french TV show Les Lundis de l'Investigation which apparently had a vocal french skeptic (i don't know the name) and Mcmoneagle viewed the targets he was given with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Random doesn't mean average.
Also, the greater the numbe of trials and the more controls that are in place the more the results regress to the mean.

 

[galla]

The Natasha Demkina results don't mean much of anything because there was no control in the test. I'm surprised the test wasn't arranged that way. There should have been others there "guessing" which disease belonged to which person. From the sound of it, anyone could have guessed at least a couple of them.