Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

Going to start with some definite notes, and this is on a video I've watched some time ago. But the notes are going to take ages, time permitting.

Now some have gone to great lengths to put down the messenger, but, its his message that counts, and of course its very convenient to shoot down someone who has even worked at the leading universities when he veers into the "taboo" subjects.

The message, as it gradually unfolds, time permitting can then be followed up via search engines.

And then we should go into remote viewing protocol. Because they've not only been studied by the military, and go through very long training, but they've also been studied in those thousands upon thousands of university tests, done by the leading universities of the world, including Canada, Harvard, Yale, Cambridge. Probably the most cutting edge in Russia and China, because they do things we don't publish. And yet it all fits together in actually changing the picture of the overall puzzle you're putting the pieces in.

Now I really don't like spending a week at this, but filing it away in a folder for easier access in future threads may be OK.

Now, this question will go out to everyone minus the skeptics, because they don't usually include any research, and the ones they do are questionable. They're not backed up by thousands of experiments and even congressional panel conclusions, they're just a political tool, article.

So my question is this, since I do very average google searching, and it takes countless black holes of my time, poof gone.

What engines should I use for faster searches? What are the different things you can put on the google search line that will bring up more results faster?

That would be also very useful information to keep stored. I had some of it, but its lost or reformatted now.

Next post will be the beginnings of some important notes and a real look at the distortions in articles online reporting things, and also, the bias of some of those involved.

Then I'll take notes on the congressional panel parts in another post when I get to it, which can also be googled.

"Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin

Notes:

---The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Labs

---SRI international has funded a large body of research in this area.

---One of the things you run into again and again as a scientist studying this, is a taboo. The taboo restrict what ideas are acceptable, and as a taboo, this is not very good in science because science rests on informed consensus. If an informed consensus is contrained because of taboo, it means that science can't really make up a good decision about what's going on.

It means it will also create DISTORTIONS on how the topic is reported because especially among skeptical journalists, they don't want to be caught with their pants down. So its extremely difficult to get accurate reporting on this topic i the science media.

All this means is the taboo is sustained. And this taboo has been sustained for over 100 years.


---The Boston Globe article in science, January 14, 2008, "Brain scan tests fail to support validity of ESP"

And I digged a link up: www.boston.com...

Research on parapsychology is largely taboo in academia...

The study was a first use of cutting-edge brain scanning called functional MRI. Well, here is our first mistake, because in fact it wasn't the first, it's the fifth and the previous four which you guys can find out very quickly now because of the nice Google scholar engine, you can find four others, three of which are in mainstream medical journals of which all 4 of the previous MRI studies are successful.

Have you ever heard of them? No, but this one which turns out that it's not quite as unsuccessful as they claim, this one you do hear about.

---Back to a quote from the Boston Globe,

But in all cases, when teh researchers compared the scans, they saw precisly the same pattern of brain activation for the ESP and non-ESP images, meaning the brains responded the same

...But that is actually not what the paper says.

The paper says,it tested 16 couples of which one couple showed extremely significiant results of the type that they predicted, but then they go through great pains to explain away that result as a possible artifact, in which case my response writing to this journalist was, "Well if you can take the results you're looking for and explain it away as an artifact, well doesn't that mean the study design was flawed, because it means you could have explained everything away as an artifact?"

In addition, there was definite bias in the study. The one conducting it was a grad student who won a prize for his work looking at some kind of parapsychological effect, but now is abandoning this so he experiences no professional peril.

Now some other points/notes. Then I think someone, not just me, because I have to pick up my mother from the hospital now, on those Congressional Oversight Committees and reviews.

Especially interesting to note the kind of studies that are really being done in more recent years I think, but researching for links is very difficult now isn't it, like one in China in where astral projection is being studied, and they noted photons picked up, by their equipment, when the person was there, and also photons in another occasions, huge bursts of colored light, from using tools to chip away the calcification on extracted pineals, now there is some really cool research done, and if its being mentioned at all, one realizes this is the tip of the iceberg for what is really going on.

Notes:

Scientific evidence for psi was repeatedly assessed during the Cold War (open & classified)

-1981 Congressional Research Service

-1985 Army Research Institute

-1987 National Research Council

-1989 Office of Technology Assessment

---To look at what science has to say about this is to look at what scientific oversight panels have concluded, and during the cold war, there were four open reveiws and a number of classified reveiws about, what happens when you take people who are proponents and people who are skeptical and people in the middle, bring them together for a week or so to review the evidence. What do they conclude?

These four studies were done that are in the open literature, all four concluded that something interesting was going on.

---here's an example of a review of remote viewing evidence that was done for the CIA in 1995, just as the formerly classified program became unclassified, Jessica Utts, is a Professor of Statistics and also is now on teh Executive Council of the AAAS.

Her conclusion was, that using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established

So Jessica, is a world renowned methodologist besides being a statistician, one would think that she knows what she's talking about.
---The other person was Ray Hyman, a very well known skeptic Professor of Psychology from University of Oregon, now retired. His conclusion was, well these results, the experiments on remote viewing were free of methodological weaknesses and the effect sizes are two large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.

---Jessica and Ray disagreed about what to call this.

---If you begin to look at scientific oversight committees and review articles and so on over the past 130 years, you find increasingly sophisticated methods where effects don't disappear even under scrutiny, with the latest techniques.

So for example I just mentioned the fMRI study, for example, you can get results with an fMRI

Well why don't you learn this in college? Why don't you learn about this in main stream science?

---There are 17, 500 institutions of higher learning around the world, and roughly 50 acacemics in the world who are openly interested in psi and that includes both proponents and skeptics. This means the academic interest level is approximately 0.3%.


That means 99.7% of academia in the world, don't have a single person identified for their interest, pro or con.
That is a TABOO.

---Well over 90% of the population is interested. About 60% of the population believes in the probability or the certainty that psychic effects are real. ...

Usually for interesting topics, you have academic progrems that are discussing in some way. 0.3%.

This is a massively controlled subject and we're being kept in a time bubble in the dark ages.

www.brainsturbator.com...

“I never liked to get into debates with the skeptics, because if you didn’t believe that remote viewing was real, you hadn’t done your homework.”

--Major General Edmund R Thompson

www.dtic.mil...

A RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
IN
FULFILLMENT OF THE RESEARCH
REQUIREMENT
Research Advisor: Colonel Donald N. Panzenhagen
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA
May 1988


...Our fears and cynical attitudes
towards psychic capabilities make us our own worst enemies.
The Soviets, on the other hand, take psychic research very
seriously at all levels, particularly for its military
application.....



In December 1980 Lieutenant Colonel John B. Alexander,
US Army, authored an article in Militax Review entitled
"The New Mental Battlefield: Beam Me Up, Spock." In this
article he challenged the imagination of his readers when
he stated, "To be more specific, there are weapons systems
that operate on the power of the mind and whose lethal
capacity has already been demonstrated" (3:47). he
discussed psychotronic weaponry and provided eye-opening,
,unclassified information on both Soviet and American....


Researchers contend psychic functioning
"occurs naturally in the everyday experiences of many
people"(41:l1). Psi is further subdivided into two
categories. The term extrasensory perception (ESP) refers
to telepathy, dowsing, precognition and remote viewing,
while the term PK refers to psychokinesis (33:27).
Psychotronics is the term used to describe "the
amplification of psychic energies by electronic
devices"(33:125).

Very interesting report and will probably post more of it when I read more of it.

reply to post by Unity_99

and of course its very convenient to shoot down someone who has even worked at the leading universities when he veers into the "taboo" subjects.

There is no problem veering into "taboo" subjects as long as there is reasoning and evidence to support the stance.

but they've also been studied in those thousands upon thousands of university tests

That's not true is it? The tests were not done in universities.

Probably the most cutting edge in Russia and China, because they do things we don't publish.

Please explain why this leads to cutting edge?

Now, this question will go out to everyone minus the skeptics, because they don't usually include any research, and the ones they do are questionable.

Actually it is the skeptics that are looking for evidence and it is the believers that provide nothing at all. They make all sorts of valueless claims and can't supply anything other than empty claims of thousands of nonexistent studies. It is the believers that make up all sorts of fake tales.

It is the gullible that believe everything they find in a search engine. It is the believers that look for anything at all to claim as evidence.

reply to post by Unity_99


There is a great source - Radin.

The Princeton group closed down due to lack of evidence.
SRI was found to be using poor methods.
The idea of a taboo is a claim made by those with failed ideas that need an excuse for their own poor work. The people in science know this is laughable, but it sells to the gullible.
Telling us that a newspaper is full of mistakes is common knowledge. If it is not, then it should be.

I thought that a remote viewer person can only see a distant object, not to see what is going to happen in the future.

This post is a mistake, please delete it mods.
Thank you.

reply to post by Unity_99


The use of psi by the government probably came into play when the Soviets "leaked" a fake movie showing "successful" psi. This tricked the US and its allies into all sorts of wasteful experiments. Despite the continued failures the US and its allies hoped to catch up to the Soviet successes - which were fakes.

About as good as it gets is one psi devotee, Utts, who colored her report with her personal beliefs.

Utts was paired with Hayman, a skeptic. Hayman agreed with Utts that there was something there that was not a statistical fluke. Unlike Utts who attributed this to psi, Hayman did not since the evidence for psi was lacking.

---There are 17, 500 institutions of higher learning around the world, and roughly 50 acacemics in the world who are openly interested in psi and that includes both proponents and skeptics. This means the academic interest level is approximately 0.3%.

That means 99.7% of academia in the world, don't have a single person identified for their interest, pro or con.
That is a TABOO.

That is a typical bad misrepresentation. It simply means that most people are not interested in this. How many people were actively working on solving the Poincare conjecture? Was that taboo?
How many people are working on snake hearts? Is that taboo?
How many people are studying any of a number of specialized fields? Is that taboo?

The answer to this is that your measure of taboo is not sensible.

Well over 90% of the population is interested.

It just may be the educational environment in which I live, but less than 5% of the people I know are interested in this woo-woo. I believe you simply made up this statistic thinking that no one would question you.

This is a massively controlled subject and we're being kept in a time bubble in the dark ages. /quote]
No one is preventing you or any one else from doing research. What we do know is that despite decades and decades of research nothing has turned up. You are free to do your own research. Maybe you could be famous by publishing in this field.

reply to post by Nikola014


RV folks claim they can see anything across distance and time.

In one claim RV reported seeing mountains on Jupiter. After learning that there were no mountains they claimed to see mountains on a planet in a distant galaxy.

reply to post by stereologist

The use of psi by the government probably came into play when the Soviets "leaked" a fake movie showing "successful" psi. This tricked the US and its allies into all sorts of wasteful experiments. Despite the continued failures the US and its allies hoped to catch up to the Soviet successes - which were fakes.

While this is so far off the mark, and they have conducted reems of studies and just that video alone will go into a few of the types of studies that are in the "open source" field, as opposed to classified, however much much more, even psychotronic weaponry has been used for years on all sides, so many won't be sharing that opinion, which is not a fact.

However at least it is some deeper thinking though I disagree with it.

Now, reaching an opinion to try and quickly explain one bit of published material, is just that. I think even you would understand the difference between offering a suggestion and what data and scientific outcome is. The only thing is, those on the panels were experts in their fields, and they are qualified to draw conclusions, and based those conclusions on quite a significant body of data.

So in reality stubbornly sticking to that possibility in your mind is to me feeble at best.

Unlike Utts who attributed this to psi, Hayman did not since the evidence for psi was lacking.

The point of what was written is that Hayman found something very interesting occurring, that was carried out with good protocol in such a wide range of studies that coincidence could not account for it.

One drew the obvious words to described it: PSI, the other was not willing to call it something, but admitted it was real.

So what you just said is not true.

reply to post by Unity_99

The point of what was written is that Hayman found something very interesting occurring, that was carried out with good protocol in such a wide range of studies that coincidence could not account for it.

Misrepresenting Hayman does not further your claims. Hayman did not believe that anything unusual was happening. He made along list of reason for what the data. Was it interesting? To Hayman he was curious only as to what flaw there was in the experiment. He listed the flaws. Was it a good protocol? Hayman wasn't so sure. He listed why he thought there were flaws. Was it coincidence? Hayman stated no. He also stated that he did not think that there was anything in the data supporting RV.

One drew the obvious words to described it: PSI, the other was not willing to call it something, but admitted it was real.

Hayman did not suggest or support psi. He thought there was a rational reason for the data that did not involve psi. One of his concerns was the poor judging involved.

So what you just said is not true.

Almost everything you stated is a falsehood or at a minimum a clear misrepresentation.

I think speed and the angle of decent is going to determine the type of destruction we may or may not experience. I just hope it hits like a bullet in the deepest part of the ocean.

Originally posted by Nikola014

I thought that a remote viewer person can only see a distant object, not to see what is going to happen in the future.

Therein lies the rub. Ra-David Wilcock can see within you and without you.

Originally posted by Unity_99

Now some other points/notes. Then I think someone, not just me, because I have to pick up my mother from the hospital now,

Sadness precludes my 8inner romances.

reply to post by stereologist

There is no problem veering into "taboo" subjects as long as there is reasoning and evidence to support the stance.

There are thousands upon thousands of research findings that give complete evidence that this is real.

For example, the research that shows aspirin helps decrease heart attacks, is real, repeatable, and therefore doctors will recommend its usage in the emergency room, however, it is very tiny stats, showing this, but this small stat is observable.

These studies show stats that range from 7% - 40% over the expected neutral, depending on whether the subjects were taken from left hemisphered science student groups, or from artists and others more likely to be right hemisphered.

Huge differences. And these are just the studies on telepathy in universities, not in military, in the unclassified sectors.

Like Utt said, in any other field of science this is absolute proof.

That's not true is it? The tests were not done in universities.

That is an outright lie, either spoken through lack of research or worse, with intent to bury truth under reams of mistruth.

Just one of the universities that has conducted these studies, in Ontario, Canada, came out recently with a controlled, rather opinionated release of the same kind of information, including revealing that Ingo Swann, one of the remote viewers was a part of their experiments.

And he also mentioned that these were only some of the studies being conductd in many universities.

Now, here is the thing. I am not going to spend a year coming up with each study.

You have no reason to ignore the conclusions or information brought up in government overview committees, by panels of experts, and by numerous others who share data. If you disagree with them, why not find really solid evidence, not just some biased report, to disprove this not the case. And that all the experts are wrong.

I on the other hand, do not feel the necessity to reinvent the wheel, but can rely on the ones who did this already.

Originally posted by shushu
I think speed and the angle of decent is going to determine the type of destruction we may or may not experience. I just hope it hits like a bullet in the deepest part of the ocean.

Check these out. It will put a perspective on things and if anything happens what the sequence will be,.here you go.

reply to post by Unity_99

There are thousands upon thousands of research findings that give complete evidence that this is real.

That's simply not true. You can pretend all you want, but that does not make this true.

Huge differences. And these are just the studies on telepathy in universities, not in military, in the unclassified sectors.

So where are these studies? All you do is mention something about a drug trial, but nothing at all about psi.

Like Utt said, in any other field of science this is absolute proof.

Utt's claims are not supported by other researchers including Hayman.

That is an outright lie, either spoken through lack of research or worse, with intent to bury truth under reams of mistruth.

Why don't you provide some evidence?

And he also mentioned that these were only some of the studies being conductd in many universities.

Why don't you name publications reporting on these findings? Instead you make vague references.

Now, here is the thing. I am not going to spend a year coming up with each study.

Why not spend a few minutes giving a few studies. You claim there are thousands. How hard can it be to give a few publication references?

You have no reason to ignore the conclusions or information brought up in government overview committees

A government panel has nothing to say about science.

Please provide us with a list of a few journal articles.

reply to post by rebellender


A few more you tube videos without introductions. It is hard to imagine that this would be done.

reply to post by stereologist


I cannot even begin to believe your posts. And with no proof of anything but expect everyone to spend years of their lives proving every last thing that is there. Why? So people behind the scenes can try to wipe it offline?
Its there. The committees saw it. Its been released by university employees and you can do the research for a change to counter those who have far more credentials than you.

Out and out lies!

Basically its hot air and opinion on the one hand, experts both academia and military on the other, I'm still reading the pdf written by the colonel I've quoted above, and people have to scratch their heads and decide which way to go with either their belief or whatever research they feel like doing or drawn to.

So basically skeptics, not real skeptics, not the kind that are open to ideas and policing information against hoax and frauds, but the kind that want to turn people off information they won't open their minds to themselves, these people work by stating untruths, using words as put downs and slurs on information. Rarely doing any research, but expect the other side, to suddenly become the professionals and spend years on each topic regurgitating what is already published by the professionals, or they think they've won.

No, that is not how it works.

Also, with your opinion on the one side and the academia on the other, I would have to say you're not lacking in any ego there.