I see lots of links on Psi-Tech claiming evidence to support how successful TRV is, but only one other case besides Elizabeth Smart where they admit they screwed up.
http://lite.psitech.net//psmith.htm
Again, only because they were caught.
So to say they are "forthcoming" is a joke.
And even with the Smart screwup, they attempt to spin it, cherry-picking from the slew of drawings and readings that were done to post hoc support their case.
Lame.
http://lite.psitech.net//psmith.htm
Again, only because they were caught.
So to say they are "forthcoming" is a joke.
And even with the Smart screwup, they attempt to spin it, cherry-picking from the slew of drawings and readings that were done to post hoc support their case.
Lame.
Here's a guy who uses remote viewing to select the best TV to buy. 
Questions that defy all other means. Like, "What's the warranty on this thing?" Totally unanswerable without TRV.
Questions that defy all other means. Like, "What's the warranty on this thing?" Totally unanswerable without TRV.
Last edited:
Do you think stock market, weather, and other forecasters are more forthcoming about their failures? There used to be a TV weather guy in Washington, DC named Gordon Barnes who claimed he could made accurate daily weather forecasts several months in advance. One of them was for a major snowstorm on a particular January day. The day came and it turned out to be unseasonably warm in the Washington area. Did Barnes admit his error? No, he claimed that the warm day largely supported his forecast: He knew the day would be EXTREME, he just had the wrong extreme! By that standard and many others that I could cite, PSI TECH looks quite forthcoming.
http://lite.psitech.net/MovieViewer.html?MovieSel=TRVDemo
A TRV demo by Dourif. The newscasters are blown away by it, but I fail to see anything even slightly remarkable about it.
Judge for yourself.
A TRV demo by Dourif. The newscasters are blown away by it, but I fail to see anything even slightly remarkable about it.
Judge for yourself.
And if you read the link, you will see that Dourif also tries to post hoc rationalize her error. Just look at the title of her "admission." What Went Wrong & What Went Right.
And here's a clue to her cherry-picking for what follows:
And just like your weatherman:
If she was truly forthcoming, she would publish all of "hundreds of TRV® sessions of data" and let people judge for themselves.
If I scribble and rant for hundreds of sessions about ANYTHING, I will be right on at least a few things. Then I can just publish the things I was right about.
Are you saying that her performance was no better than the average person would have done given only a set of random numbers, or rather that there is no way of knowing whether that's the only information she had? If the former, what's your explanation for her seeming to hone in on a helicopter?
At no point at all does she say "helicopter". That's your desire-to-believe talking. Go back and check.
She drew a crude box and a crude rectangle. The reporter made those out to be helicopter parts.
Also, the news team had no concept of how to perform a double-blind test. The reporter knew that her team-mate had selected the helicopter crash as the target. She then selected only those items which made the closest fit out of Dourif's scribblings.
A box and a rectangle. Be serious.
Look at the list of words Dourif wrote on the paper. I believe one of them was "quiet". Another was about noise. Lots of contradictions. The reporter homed in on only those that fit.
How long was the session? How long was the part you are shown? Big difference between the two.
Last edited:
Totally credulous. That's why I blame the media as much as the con artists. The media lends these creeps an aura of integrity.
If you look at the video, you can hear someone prompting Dourif. For example:
Dourif jumps on it.
Covers two bases, mechanical and people.
Also, if you look, there are pages and pages of lists of words she wrote down. They focus the camera in on those that could be connected to the helicopter. However, at one point, they show a quick scan of part of a list but make no comment on it. Here are the words on it:
Silky?
Quiet?
Chemical?
Salty?
And that's just one fraction of a list out of many lists.
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,480
And, just to defend meteorologists (real, scientifically trained professional weather forecasters -- not "TV Weathermen"). All forecasts and all "actuals" are published and available back for a 100 years or more. They are never "removed". When I was in the business, there was an analysis done at the end of every shift of the forecasts made in the previous shift with an eye to seeing where we went wrong, improving personal skills and improving forecasting in general. Plus a whole lot of computers and a huge research group. Weather prediction and the length of forecasts have improved over the decades. They are better than they used to be.
I p*sses me off when I see "weather forecasting" used as a synomym for "guessing".
Thank you. I feel better now.
I p*sses me off when I see "weather forecasting" used as a synomym for "guessing".
Thank you. I feel better now.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
1) Weather forecasts: there is a whole bunch of meteorologists who spend their entire lives assessing the accuracy of forecasts that have been made, and comparing them to actual weather. The most important part of forecasts to keep in mind is that the terms are all defined very precisely, and when they say there is a "30% chance of rain," that has an exact meaning in meteorology. Most people don't quite understand it, but with some research, you can find out all the details. Ask Sylvia Browne what she means when she says she has an 87% success rate, and you will never get a straight answer. Weather forecasts are not perfect, but they are pretty darn good if you understand probability.
2) Remote viewing: Clearly the "interpreting squiggles approach" is nonsense, but I always figure what you should do is let them draw their squiggles and then ask them, OK, which of these 6 places do you think best matches what you saw, and show them 6 pictures of different types of places. Force THEM to interpret their drawing first, and then you can see if they are right.
2) Remote viewing: Clearly the "interpreting squiggles approach" is nonsense, but I always figure what you should do is let them draw their squiggles and then ask them, OK, which of these 6 places do you think best matches what you saw, and show them 6 pictures of different types of places. Force THEM to interpret their drawing first, and then you can see if they are right.
Your bias shows when you fail to note that Dourif specifically said "mechanical sounds", "rotating like fan", "sound like whirr", and "oblong object." Further, when asked how many people were involved, she specifically said four, which was the number of people killed in the accident. I do agree, however, that editing and leading questions can make the performance appear better than it really was. Still, I would love to see Randi or any other skeptic matched up against her.
Seriously? Where would I find those records?
So when meteorologists say "30% chance of rain," they have historical records to back up that percentage? Again, I would be interested in knowing where those records are available.
It probably does show bias not to mention those things.
But what do you think of these items yourself? If she knew it was the scene of an accident, "mechanical sounds" would be a given. What does "rotating like a fan" mean? How else would you rotate if not like a fan. But it could mean fans, or wheels, or yeah helicopter blades. Similar for "sound like a whirr" and "oblong object". There are lots of oblong objects, which can be taken to mean "longer than wide" or "not obviously square".
The four people are a little harder to explain. Could have been a lucky guess. She counted them out one by one, so it might have been like Hans the Horse (if you know the story) with the film crew her cue. It might even have been hinted at by the crew in a segment on the cutting room floor.
The whole thing went on for 45 minutes, if I remember, but we see only a few minutes. What did she say that missed completely - 40 minutes on the cutting room floor. What sort of feedback did she get from the film crew, inadvertantly or otherwise - 5 minutes containing a few partial hits and one that was spot on.
It can make a can of crap look like a bowl of breakfast cereal!
Been done lots of times in other contexts. Uri has paranormal powers, Randi does the same thing using tricks.
We agree that we would need to view the unedited version to evaluate how well she did.
Yes, but skeptics have fallen flat on their faces also. See my post about the college professor who tried to take on Peter Hurkos --
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1636691&highlight=hurkos#post1636691
"They mean remote viewing someone's insides, as a non-invasive form of testing. This is not taken very seriously in the scientific community, and the only scientific attempt I know of to test such a thing (CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina) was not very successful."
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.
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.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Contact your local meteorologist and ask them about information on assessing forecasts.