Ingo Swann-Penetration The moon remotely viewed

page: 12
122
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I've recently come across Ingo Swann and I'm in the middle of reading the pdf version of Penetration.

I wasn't really surprised when this thread came up during a google search of more information about Ingo. I already had many tabs open and after reading through this thread I now have many more. Thank you.

The thread seemed to go very quiet, quite suddenly. Are the original posters still here? Did any of you begin a new RV group?




posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
This thread is a year or so old....but reading a post by C-Jean on moon matters just now, and her mentioning this gentleman, made me go look.
So here is this thread again for anyone new like myself who is totally interested and wants to find out more.

Have past posters anything they would like to add, sure would be nice to read Im sure.

Namaste

oooops!!...I see someone posted a couple of days ago. My bad for not reading to the end. Consider hand slapped. Again.
edit on 2-11-2010 by annella because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Still here


But nothing new to add right now



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aquarius1
could be the reason why the program was dumped,


It was dumped as it did not work.


why wouldn't they use something that works.


As it does not actually work, they do not use it



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Aquarius1
could be the reason why the program was dumped,


It was dumped as it did not work.


why wouldn't they use something that works.


As it does not actually work, they do not use it


You should run for public office. Only an elected official could ignore facts and declare the SRI experiments as a failure.

Problem is, on this site we deny ignorance. Check the facts and get back with us.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Hey Fellas,

Bumping with a sweet Lunar Anomaly from an unknown probe - Some of you may have seen this one before...



*It must be an transient Lunar Phenomena because in some images it just ain't there.



(I know it is a big image but that is only because I have grouped several images I would have otherwise had to post separately)
edit on 2-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
are you people kidding me? not to be rude.. but come on. i read this book last night and have to say, the whole thing came across as pure fiction. then i found out this Swann is a scientologist and that was it for me. scientologists believe it is okay to lie to us non-scientologists so long as it makes them money to give to their cult. this guy comes across as self important, with delusions of grandeur.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tonypazzo
are you people kidding me? not to be rude.. but come on. i read this book last night and have to say, the whole thing came across as pure fiction. then i found out this Swann is a scientologist and that was it for me. scientologists believe it is okay to lie to us non-scientologists so long as it makes them money to give to their cult. this guy comes across as self important, with delusions of grandeur.


Swann is NOT a Scientologist. He went into great detail about how much he idsliked Scientology. It was a smear attempt, which is common. Quit being fooled so easily, and read what the man says about the matter himself.

If it is pure fiction, then Hal Puthoff must be a charlatan, too. Which calls into question all of the realm of science, as he is as big a name as you can get.

This has already been discussed and presented in this thread. I am not going to rehash it. If you want to deny ignorance, look back through the thread. Go to Swanns website and get HIS take on the scientology thing.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Its quite sad really regarding judging the validity of a persons skills based on their beliefs which in Ingo's case are incorrect.

Listen to this dear soul talk. Ingo is quite a renegade in matters dealing with understanding these concepts which some people foolishly strive to limit themselves in understanding that *everything* is connected whilst wrapped up in the denial blanket.


I would guess that everyone has had some experience of saying the same thing at the same time, feeling that something has happened to someone in a remote location they care for., or in a great case that happened to myself this year In where I was relating my sadness for my friend who's fish were permanently retarded due to the vendors use of a chemical, only to find that at the same time I was relating my sadness to my father about the situation my friend had also been calling me to no avail to say the thermostat in the tank had mal-functioned and all his fish were ...cooked. That is how much we are all connected to everything in the universe.




Its an amazing journey..ride the resonant waves




edit on 14-11-2010 by Somamech because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Somamech
 


And it is not just Ingo Swann and Hal Puthoff making these claims. Throughout academias history you have have these folks (Rhine, Radin, Bierman, and now Bern at Cornell, who is currently releasing a paper talking about a minor 1% deviation from chance in some experiment).


Nearly 20 years elapsed before the idea of precognitive information reflected in the physiology of subjects was picked up again by the second author of this article (Radin 1996). He used the physiological measures Skin Conductance, Heart Rate, and Plethysmography, which reflect behavior of our sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system. Furthermore, in contrast to Hartwell, he used highly emotional pictures that were presented 5 seconds after the subjects had pressed the button for the next trial. In 3 independent studies Radin found significant differences in physiology, most notably in the skin conductance, preceding the exposure of calm versus extreme pictures. The precognitive response was termed "presponse." Radin discussed a number of possible classical explanations for presponse but concluded that these do not apply.

However one potential "normal" explanation, namely the effect of anticipatory strategies, was not discussed at the time. Subjects who participate in this type of experiment while being aware that once every so often an extreme picture will be displayed may build up (generally incorrect) expectations about the probability that such an extreme picture will be shown in the forthcoming exposure. Indeed, owing to the "gambler's fallacy," their expectation may increase after each calm picture and decrease after an extreme. Superficially it appears that this could result in a mean anticipatory presponse that is smaller for calm stimuli than for extreme stimuli.

This possible explanation of the differences in presponse was later modelled through elaborate computer simulations by the first author and by an independent sceptical outsider. It turned out that the effect as described above only emerges when randomization is done without replacement, and therefore it could not explain Radin's original results (see also discussion section). Thus the experimental results by Radin suggested a true, large and replicable "precognitive" psi effects with a remarkable signal to noise ratio



But if you read this article:

cognet.mit.edu...

From MIT, you will find that there is some mainstream parties pursuing decidedly non-mainstream activities.

The conclusion of the MIT study:


The results indicate a precognitive response-subjects react up to several seconds before the stimulus appears. Having ruled out anticipatory strategies, the only remaining explanations suggest some backward time referral. Formally the laws of physics are time-symmetric. Practically this time symmetry is observed in classical mechanics but not in thermodynamics where Boltzmann's second law forces the development of systems toward higher entropy. In a lucid book on time symmetry, Huw Price analyzes this problem and concludes that the standard "explanation" for assymetry based upon probabilistic arguments is incorrect (as Boltzmann himself also realized) (Price 1996). In an analysis of the asymmetry observed in radiation (EM theory) Price suggests that asymmetry here is caused by the spatial arrangements of radiation absorbers and emitters. Absorbers tend to be noncoherent while coherence is often the case for transmitters. According to Price this results in a destructive interference of any "advanced" waves (i.e., from absorber to emitter). Thus we never observe in nature back-action except potentially if we have a coherent absorbing system. Maybe our consciousness is such a system. Price shows also that when allowing for time-symmetry in quantum physics all puzzling paradoxes related to the measurement problem such as nonlocality disappear.

The results show that presponse occurs subconsciously but that ("subsequent") conscious experience of the emotional figures are required. Price's analysis of the problem of lost time-symmetry suggests a continuation of these types of experiments with experienced meditators in altered states. If the meditator succeeds in blocking out the picture of his awareness we may get a complete disappearance of the phenomena. Interestingly this fits with lore about the relationships between meditation and the occurrence of "psi"-phenomena. It is said that on the path toward complete control of one's consciousness at some point psi-phenomena will appear. It is also said that one should not pay attention to these phenomena because that would only frustrate progress in meditation performance. Within this, admittedly very speculative, framework the expected point of symmetry on the time axis is NOT at stimulus onset but rather at the start of the conscious (emotional) experience, which may be around 500 msec later. Therefore the peak of the presponse is not expected around 3.5 seconds before the stimulus onset (where it would be if it was a mirror image of the response with symmetry point at stimulus onset) but rather about 2.5 seconds before stimulus onset, which fits well with the specification of the dependent variable in section 1.3.


And an interesting philosophical discussion regarding time symmetry and PSI:

forums.philosophyforums.com...
edit on 14-11-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Starred your most interesting post.

fyi: Anyone out there wanting a copy of this can go to 4shared dot com and grab one, but hurry because as you know once freebies are made known they seem to get closed down or deleted.

I just now got my free copy here: search.4shared.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Thanks for those papers my furry friend, or should I say thanks from your furry friend? (bit hairy myself lol)


I came upon this website tonight which you may like if you have not read it already.

www.lifescientists.de...

I still need some more wowo time with that site as I'm thinking that matter does not emit light as thought but more so that something like DNA as an antenna slows light down to create matter.

At this juncture I shall crawl back into my belly button and see what I can find...its never a boring place that' s for sure



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


Originally posted by dna42

There is no such thing as telepathy, telekinesis or anything bypassing the laws of nature. Entertaining: arguably so. True: Not in the slightest.



You, sir (or madam) are exactly, 100% correct. There is nothing that humans are currently capable of that bypasses the laws of nature.

But, what if i told you that you have 14 (or 17), not 5 senses? What if you considered the purpose of the VNO (and its unknown uses), or the fact that you have small organs in the palms of your hands and soles of your feet that detect magnet changes (and now you know how divining works, right?).

100% within the rules of nature. If you really want to blow your mind, consider where your mind actually is. It isn't in your brain, and there is ample evidence of this (such as hemispherectomy survivors that graduate college). If we can come to terms with where our mind is, we can come to terms with variations on experience that are opened up by such knowledge.

Don't be too quick to fall for the age old arrogance of man, who perpetually thinks that he, at that particular moment, represents the pinnacle of what mankind could become. Once you get past such illusions, you soon realize that you (like all men) are ignorant fools grasping blindly in the darkness of the unknown.


Sorry to bump an old thread, but it's actually known we have, most of us, atleast 20 senses.

You're right to correct the other guy though. He's engaging in pseudo-sciences. There are no proven 'laws' of nature, only what we've so far been able to document. We've gone from 5 senses to over 20 in a century of science.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Sorry to bump an old thread, but it's actually known we have, most of us, atleast 20 senses.

You're right to correct the other guy though. He's engaging in pseudo-sciences. There are no proven 'laws' of nature, only what we've so far been able to document. We've gone from 5 senses to over 20 in a century of science.


Perhaps a link to an explanation of these senses would help? I know I would appreciate it.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Aquarius1
could be the reason why the program was dumped,


It was dumped as it did not work.


why wouldn't they use something that works.


As it does not actually work, they do not use it


You should run for public office. Only an elected official could ignore facts and declare the SRI experiments as a failure.

Problem is, on this site we deny ignorance. Check the facts and get back with us.


These people, while considering themselfs supports of science, are no different than the religious fundamentalists they despise.

When confronted with evidence that conflicts with their world view they put their hands over their ears and shout 'LALALALALALLALALA', like a petulent child.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey Fellas,

Bumping with a sweet Lunar Anomaly from an unknown probe - Some of you may have seen this one before...



*It must be an transient Lunar Phenomena because in some images it just ain't there.



(I know it is a big image but that is only because I have grouped several images I would have otherwise had to post separately)
edit on 2-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)


I would like to see the source image. Please.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by tonypazzo
are you people kidding me? not to be rude.. but come on. i read this book last night and have to say, the whole thing came across as pure fiction. then i found out this Swann is a scientologist and that was it for me. scientologists believe it is okay to lie to us non-scientologists so long as it makes them money to give to their cult. this guy comes across as self important, with delusions of grandeur.


Swann is NOT a Scientologist. He went into great detail about how much he idsliked Scientology. It was a smear attempt, which is common. Quit being fooled so easily, and read what the man says about the matter himself.

If it is pure fiction, then Hal Puthoff must be a charlatan, too. Which calls into question all of the realm of science, as he is as big a name as you can get.

This has already been discussed and presented in this thread. I am not going to rehash it. If you want to deny ignorance, look back through the thread. Go to Swanns website and get HIS take on the scientology thing.


In the name of fairness I must call you down on your claims regarding Hal Puthoff. He isn't really a big name.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Sorry to bump an old thread, but it's actually known we have, most of us, atleast 20 senses.

You're right to correct the other guy though. He's engaging in pseudo-sciences. There are no proven 'laws' of nature, only what we've so far been able to document. We've gone from 5 senses to over 20 in a century of science.


Perhaps a link to an explanation of these senses would help? I know I would appreciate it.


Hey FurryTexan, I am looking for you now. I recalled the point was made on a British knowledge/comedy panel show. That usually looks at old wives tales and 'facts' that are commonly held, but untrue.

After finding the clip In question I may have overstated the senses. The quiz master said he'd accept anything from 9-21 as a proper anwser. Keep in mind the show is from 2005 though.

Here is the video(not sure if available for no UK users)

www.youtube.com...

Here are some quick articles I found

meditation24-7.com... (according to the chart in this link we may have as many as 33, although the definition of a sense is probably in question alot)

www.lorinroche.com...

www.qi.com... (the TV show forum discuss the topic post-show)

I will further try to see If I can find articles from more 'accepted' sources.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NadaCambia
In the name of fairness I must call you down on your claims regarding Hal Puthoff. He isn't really a big name.


He may not be a big man... but his name keeps popping up in my research



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NadaCambia
 


Well, you know...there is that saying that "money talks, wealth whispers". In Hal's case, his wealth is his experience and knowledge. He has been on scene in just about everything that stays just off the radar. He seems to be conected to most ATS science stories.

Like Zorgon says, he pops up all the time. For a peek at what he is doing right now, check out my Ning Li thread. He is everywhere that curious things happen, i guess is what i mean.

But you are right. An eminent "black budget" program manager, while "big" to those in the know, sure isn't going to be the public rock star that you may be thinking.
edit on 10-1-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
122
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join