Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATS DEBATE ROUND 2: John Nada v. David

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2003 @ 08:30 PM
link   
ATS Great Debate
Round Two


John Nada v. David

Topic: The concept of remote viewing is as much a hoax as the con artists "speaking with the dead" on television. It simply is not possible to extend oneself and view events remotely.

John Nada will take the affirmative position, agreeing with the statement and will have first opening statement.

David will take the contrary position, disagreeing with the satement, and will have first closing statement.

Editing of your posts is strictly prohibited! For obvious reasons. Editing your post results in immediate forfeiture.

1- Competitors assigned the affirmative position go first with an opening statement, and have right of passing their opening statement post to their contrary position competitor. Opening statements cannot contain links.

2- Each competitor in turn contributes FOUR posts to support their side of the topic. (For a total of five posts) These are the only posts within the debate that may contain links to articles, or embedded pictures/graphics. (one link or graphic per post).
For round two, no more than 12 hours between posts or you forfeit your turn.

3- The competitor representing the contrary position has first right of closing statement. As with the opening statement, they have an opportunity to pass to their competitor representing the affirmative position. Closing statements cannot contain links.

4- Each competitor can submit one rebuttal to their competitors closing statement, but cannot exceed 200 words. Rebuttals are not required.

This is a total of 12 posts, the debate is closed, and voting begins. Forum members will vote on the merits of your capabilities arguing your side of the position, not their opinion of the position.

The debate begins immediately. Opening statement from the affirmative side is due by 17:00 GMT tomorrow, or the opening statement is passed to the contrary side.

Good luck, and have fun.




posted on Jun, 30 2003 @ 11:02 PM
link   
where is everyone?



posted on Jul, 1 2003 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I really don't have time for this debate at the moment and have had no time for research (For a subject a have no knowledge of). However, I'll keep the debate thing rolling along when I have time.
Lucky for me I have been chosen to argue Remote Viewing is rubbish, because the reason I have not done any real research on the subject is because I believe it as true as Elvis being alive (or alien, which ever way you lean...
). Either way it's not good.

Humans indeed can do many amazing things, and I would dare not call many of these Remote Viewers fakes, just that there are always simpler reasons for these things.

As we go along I'll see if I have time to explain with proof what I'm talking about. I already know of quite a few extraordinary things that can be proven rationally, even though I was gobsmacked when I first saw them.

Anyway, we'll see how things go as time moves along. Over to you David.



posted on Jul, 1 2003 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Right, i also have very little time for the current debate, however one must do his best to participate.

I've got the opinion that remote viewing is NOT rubbish and is a very exact and intricate piece of neurology mixed with some good old sci fi unknown.
I firmly believe remote viewing to be a skill that is not commonly learned but is a trait in a families genealogy, almost like its hereditary, however i feel anyone could make it given the amount of training and effort as the tools exist inside of us to use it.

I'm sure many are very familiar with the CIA's MKULTRA programs and the subsequent spin-offs they produced in uber-secret, i know a couple of victims that were subjects in the MKULTRA program. The CIA handlers would plague them with chronic terrors in order to completely break them and bend them to their wills in a practise very similar to that in the book 1984, in the end you love the leader and the system.

Remote viewing is tarnished by the nuts who claim that they can see and penetrate other peoples minds, getting past the nutcases and con-artists takes some time but the reward is worth it, many will not have the persistence to penetrate these barriers but the select few will.
Many scientific studies have been done over the years and have come up pointing towards either side, its almost 50/50 in studies, some will attribute this to chance and guessing games, but the human brain is far more capable than we think, we only use a tiny percentage in our lives, this enormous potential can be tapped by those with the gift and willingness to use it.

According to friends it is not some TV image, its an image in the minds eye that comes either as a flash or as a vague outline, enormous amounts of concentration are required for the viewers not to accidentally think images and report them to others.

There will always be skeptics and there will always be the believers, but the human brain remains unexplored and its abilities are not known in full, we should read a little more into it before discounting theories like remote viewing.

They said we'd never be able destroy the planet, walk on the moon, or invent clean re-usable power, but we've proved we have the power to.

The mind may never reveal its secrets to us, its a matter of faith and belief, you either have it or you dont.



posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Ok, lets just say for the moment that Remote Viewing is real. Why aren't these people winning the lottery every week? Where were these thousands of people who say they can do it on 9/11? Surely all these people would have been at the WTC's begging people not to go in? But no, we always get these arguments "oh, it doesn't work like that, it's more sketchy pictures. We can't quite make out what we're seeing." stuff like this. They are basically the same arguments given by people who speak to the dead. Yes, these people do some things which are sometimes unbelievable, but there is another explaination.

I will get to my theory in a minute so try and bare with me. There is this guy on TV in the UK called Derren Brown, who is a mind control expert. this guy is amazing. I have watched him being able to tell everything about a person (to what their childhood pets name was, to saying what is on their mind right then) just by being able to read the persons body language. He can also make people do anything he want's just by the way he speaks and the way he presents himself (He can collect winnings from dog races with the losing tickets, as well as stick needles through people just by the power of his voice. He can literally make people believe anything).

For more information on him check these sites

www.channel4.com...

www.derrenbrown.co.uk...

Watching this guy really worries me as I think "Well if he's doing it for entertainment, surely there must be thousands of government agents that can do it as well", but that is getting off the subject. My point is that this is a very real phenomena, unlike Remote viewing.

Keeping this skill in mind it lead me to an idea "If someone can do this individually, isn't it possible we can do it as a collective as well?".
If an individual can read a person from their body language and the way they speak, then surely it can be done as a collective by a large group of people close together e.g. a city or even country.
I believe that remote viewing could be like a mass reading. People who sensed that something would happen on say 9/11 thought this because America as a whole sensed the actions and reactions of the large group of people in Al Qaeda (or from the Government, if you believe this). However, not everyone will read this as more people are receptive to mind control than others, as you will read on Derrens' site.

Maybe we're alot closer than we think as a collective. As a collective in one country we are sensing the reactions of another collective in another country. Then, people sense the movements and feelings from one city to another, then a town to another, all the way down to the individual.

I hope this makes sense, if not I'll try and explain myself better. I think that people who genuinely believe they are remote viewers are in fact just experiencing the above, whilst the rest are just phoneys. Remember, they can't prove nothing. We will always get the same arguments from these people "I can't just read the lottery results...I don't understand what I saw until it actually happened", but these kinds of arguments are what all scamsters use.
At the end of the day, what can they prove? Nothing.

These people who speak to the dead on TV are obviously using the mind control technique, (which you'll believe when you see this Derren Brown) and I believe it's the same skills applied to Remote Viewing.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Sorry about the late reply, i've been having serious network problems...

In remote viewing you cant find out the future results of chance games such as the lottery as remote viewing is more of seeing a location from someone elses eyes or just being mentally there.

Those who have the gift of paranormal powers generally do not abuse it, i agree there are many frauds in the world out to exploit the fools among us, however those who have psychic gift are greatful for having it and will generally not abuse it for their own personal gain or to assist in the misfortune of others.

I am very familiar with Derren Brown as a frequent viewer of his shows, there are some stunts that cannot be explained through his reading of body language. I'm not even sure if he's a Ph.D in psychology or human behaviourisms.
The human brain is a very suggestible thing, the subconscious mind can overrule the conscious in many situations, the most frequent being when a subject is concentrating on something else, rather like the time he got the entire shopping mall to raise their right arms with a whisper.

Remote viewing does not deal in games of chance or predictions more suited to gypsies and fortune tellers, it is about placing the mind in another location to view an event. The event has either happened or it hasnt and if the mind has saw it, then its attributed to remote viewing.
From first hand talks with remote viewers the view is rather foggy, most will not concentrate on clearing the fog allowing the view to come naturally and last longer, they can come in realtime or can come in vivid image flashes.

Over the course of 50 years, many nations have invested incredible amounts of money in remote viewing and the science behind it, naturally the results are still heavily classified (the decent ones are anyway) and can provide little insight into it, however, i cant see the governments of the world spending trillions researching something that just wont work.
They dont tell us everything you know



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 11:53 PM
link   
John Nada and David, please place replies within the next 24 hours.



posted on Jul, 22 2003 @ 12:16 AM
link   
And the Winner is

David!





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join