It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

page: 36
56
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular

Originally posted by interupt42
This is great news!!!! Based on statistics there is 0% chance of this prediction coming true.


What prediction? Why so?


"What prediction?"
OP title: "Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013"


I see that you have been misled by the OP error and have not read much of this thread and none of the Farsight Org article. So for your convenience...

"This project describes climate and planetary change between the years 2008 and 2013...our research does indeed suggest that major global change is a possibility between now and 2013. However, web site visitors are reminded that this is research, not certitude. Remember what Albert Einstein once said, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"

The devil is in the largest of easily found details.



edit on 31-5-2012 by AlchemicalMonocular because: (no reason given)


WOW they managed to predict climate / planetary change
thats all over the net and on tv the only remote you need is for your tv




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
dont you think that possibly as time has progressed, and knowledge of the workings of the mind have been refined, that some may have the ability to "see" things more accurately?


Yes and as RVers have practiced their art, their abilities have progressed, exhaustively recorded so to bring no doubt to that fact.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular

Originally posted by interupt42
This is great news!!!! Based on statistics there is 0% chance of this prediction coming true.


What prediction? Why so?


"What prediction?"
OP title: "Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013"


I see that you have been misled by the OP error and have not read much of this thread and none of the Farsight Org article. So for your convenience...

"This project describes climate and planetary change between the years 2008 and 2013...our research does indeed suggest that major global change is a possibility between now and 2013. However, web site visitors are reminded that this is research, not certitude. Remember what Albert Einstein once said, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"

The devil is in the largest of easily found details.



edit on 31-5-2012 by AlchemicalMonocular because: (no reason given)


Not sure the OP made a mistake as you say since the link he includes states the following:


However, you are correct that I did not read all the 33+ pages of post nor the Farsight Org article you mention.

Not referenced to you, but Einstein also said
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not to sure about the former.” Albert Einstein


BTW are you claiming to be able to RV? if so what is your success to failure ratio?


edit on 31-5-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

However, you are correct that I did not read all the 33+ pages of post nor the Farsight Org article you mention.


Nor the majority of this thread. Get back to me when you do.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 


Don't really care to , but are you suggesting that the original posters premises is pointless and only after reading 51% or more of the thread can one reply?

BTW I have answered your questions but you appeared to ignore my. Are you claiming to be able to RV? if so what is your success to failure ratio?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Here is a blog offered by the Owner of the Ten Thousand Roads RV site/forum P. J. Gaenir (also an ATS Member) re: Dean Radin with a live chat transcript for those who are focused on finding the truth to RV.

TKR Dean Radin



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 


What I got by reading the transcript you provided is that there is not enough scientific studies to prove that RV exists or if its possible nor do we know enough about it? Did I miss something there, that proves that RV capabilities are proven to be possible?





Palyne_Gaenir: Do you have a working model of psi mechanics based on your studies?

Dr._Dean_Radin: Not really. Most of my studies are driven by intuition and guesses. I tend
to distrust elaborate theories because while they can provide guidance about what's
useful to do, they are also blinders. So far my intuition has served me well, so I'll continue
along those lines. A kind of proto-theory that guides some of my work is roughly a
quantum holistic model, but I don't defend that too strongly. It's just a way of thinking.






Palyne_Gaenir: The Russians did experiments with electronic enhancement of psi
phenomena but allegedly didn't get any results. Have we done any that you know of? And
what results , if any, are there?

Dr._Dean_Radin: Andrija Puharich claimed that charged or floating Faraday cages could
enhance psi effects, but I'm not aware of anyone trying to replicate his findings. Other
than that, very few such experiments of this type have been published in the Western
world.







Palyne_Gaenir: Has there been any study specific to the ability to psychically "hear" (via
that sense) phrases or words, "verbal" data?

Dr._Dean_Radin: Not that I'm aware of, at least not specifically involving something like
clairaudience as the target. Some people do report this in ESP tests in general, but as *the*
target, I can't think of such a study. BTW in the previous question, there is a way to study
the experimenter effect -- by asking people with different a priori expectations to do the
same study. And






Palyne_Gaenir: Precognition seems to happen in relation to survival (i.e. coming danger)
and mundane events (i.e. knowing who's on the phone before answering.) What do you
think sparks seemingly "random" precognitive events? Any theories?

Dr._Dean_Radin: There's plenty of room for genuine coincidences out there, so not every
precognition is a "real" one
. But even for the apparently mundane coincidences, I think in
the right frame of mind the whole world can appear to synchronistic. That's what all the
mystics have said, and I suspect that within that framework they're right.

edit on 31-5-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
There has been mention of James Randi
in the thread. As Dennis Rawlins showed in "sTARBABY" Randi (and a number of other CSICOP giltterati) didn't have even a smattering of statistical knowledge that would have been necessary for them to begin to understand PSI research, never mind refute it.

The “Jose Luis Alvarez" scandal is just one of a number that Randi has survived because his fan base doesn't care about the truth, they care about their ideological position and, I'm ever more convinced, the permission Randi gives them to feel superior, expending no effort other than mocking refusal to look at the controlled research into PSI.

Conceit is the primary motivation of the "skeptics", their ideology is, primarily, a vehicle of self-esteem. And the professionals among them use that as a means of self-promotion and profit. Few if any of the "skeptics" would be anything but obscure without that racket.

If Randi knew that his "sidekick" "Alvarez" was a fraud and said nothing, then this questions his character and reputation for fierce honesty. If he didn't know, then this questions his competence as a fraudbuster.

It's a lose-lose for Randi and a win-win for those amused by Rand's deepset ignorance.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 


Thanks for the typical petty commentary of those that support frauds such as RV. They attack Randi personally because they have nothing left to do.

Randi doesn't do the the stats. So your claim is a typical bald faced lie of those that promote frauds.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
One of the whines commonly heard from the fakes and frauds is that you have to read all of the material to understand it. Why would anyone in their right mind waste so much time on something that is highly suspect?

It is a bad defense. I've found out the hard way too many times that the people making such a statement don't know the material themselves.

So no I do not read all of the crap put out there by RV believers. Most of it is junk and the pattern of junk material becomes evident very quickly.

The one thing I am sure of is that if the RV believers predict something then bet against it because they are wrong nearly 100% of the time.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



in fairness I ask you for a second to suspend disbelief

My understanding is that you refuse to accept the data on remote viewing as methodology or protocols

Your stance is that its successes are due to hidden manipulations, albeit conscious or unconscious, of data.
(I think it is phrased as contamination or something like that by the experimenter)

Your mention of the double blind is what I am assuming you are reaching for.

reply to post by ripcontrol
 


and

reply to post by ripcontrol
 


This is the best non-scientific explanation series I could come up with
(please note the experiments listed are not CRV but CRI)
(coordinate remote influence)


Note: reverse speech was required IMHO to provide a series of backdoor cultural memes


With the potential here for this thread

Your saying that the prediction is listed as a mere potential and yet the viewers claim proof positive success if it was listed at all.

Well, for observation of Data the answer is no. Your analysis in the end goes against your batting average. If your final analysis does not claim it but it is on the prelim sheets...

It does not count

As for my experiment that I am running, the batting average of viewing data is not the aim.

The aim is if the target behavior matches the desired outcome. Different Formula and base requirements.


After rereading your post I think I understand a little better where you are coming from. IT appears that initial exposure to the concept of RV was half brained and was missing a few metrics.

The key area that is apparent is this.

Human beings are running these operations and not machines. So they will act like humans

1)some people are better with the colors they see
2)some with the sounds
3)some with spatial orientation
4)some with feeling and touch
5)some with people
6)some with object

The idea is supposed to be that a team is composed of the individuals who are good in different areas. This is supposed to be to improve accuracy

I will endeavor to answer your questions,on the subject of the OP's, honestly and to the best of my ability. Just ask.

Instead of arguing I am interested in the skeptics view here. So I want to start this over on the discussion. My only olive branch

Fire away and I will answer ( I am however not going to sugar coat it for consumption.)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


You made one reply to one of my post and the other replies are to your own posts.


Human beings are running these operations and not machines. So they will act like humans

Humans are involved in lots of experiments. So what?

Some people are making a prediction. These same people have a terrible track record with numerous glaring failures involving cases where they RV things that do not exist. They are self deluded to think that what they do works. Despite a long track record of stunning failures they think that they are on target most of the time.

This prediction of a catastrophic meteor impact is worthless.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neysa
Interesting post. I just watched the vid on the site that you linked to, and forgive me if I misunderstood, but I don't think this should be taken as a warning to us.
The way I understood it, he says that they are viewing multiple realities with multiple time lines. Not our reality, specifically. He said they can't tell what time line or reality they are viewing. Hmmmm

Not sure I buy into the parallel universe theories and remote viewing or not, but your post was interesting nonetheless.

Thanks


Well done!

It is a study using remote viewing to attempt to observe climate and planetary change between the years 2008 and 2013. The initial results appear dramatic on a global scale, and the research does indeed suggest that major global change is a possibility between now and 2013.

However, people are reminded that this is research, not certitude. Remember what Albert Einstein once said, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"

We will not fully understand the remote-viewing data until the experiment is completed in mid-2013



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 


Before RV gets caught up in pretending to do research, maybe they should demonstrate that RV is more than a parlor game.

Sorry. That's how pseudoscience works. You do some vigorous hand waving and a few abracadabras before announcing that it works. Much easier to skip the difficult stuff and then pretend that all is well.

So back to the claim of a meteorite impact, when this turns out to be yet another stunning failure will people begin to realize what a charade RV is?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   


reply to post by stereologist
 


I am about to be guilty of feeding the the troll

Good sir, Refrain from rudeness

Your claim of pseudo-science is unqualified.

I asked if you if you had ran your own experiments
1) so far to date you have ignored the question

I may not have asked, if you had done any training in the area

I am asking...

Have you done any training in Remote viewing and with who?

Which methodology and or protocols have you used?

their are three major versions of remote viewing-
with a minor one with a very close to occult basis

the rest are merely variations on the three (with the fourth minor being a variation on information generating process)

So far you have shown only that you have done no study on the subject, done none of the exercises associated with the 3 RV's, and no research on the person making the kill shot claim this thread is about.

What you have claimed is the ability to judge a book by looking at the cover.

You sir are unqualified to make the judgement on Pseudo- Science claim. Your post are filled with high content buzzwords and filler value statements.

Good sir you have not done your homework...

Remote Viewing: The Data Dump on PSI warfare

I have...

ED Dames

reply to post by ripcontrol
 


this is the link to the post on the guy who made the kill shot claim... to save you time with your rebuttal ...


Also you jumped claims in your earlier post.

You went from straw-man argument to straw-man argument and have not backed up your claims,

You have yet to run any experiments yourself on the subject and have yet to provide said material for peer review even if it is just here on ATS..

The other man who you ran down...

Lyn
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



As for the General who was interested in spoon bending..

he is also listed in the thread I did homework for so you did not have to...


As for the Kill shot





unfortunately we do not have access to his batting average

We do not have access to his and his teams CRV sessions.

All we have is the outcome and not the teams work or his individual sessions

So with this in mind I have to say.

No-

I have read multiple accounts of his forced tasking
which pollutes the efforts with massive AOL

However the mention of deadly asteroids striking earth is not improbable. Ask any dinosaur their opinion on it

The probability window is open and we have no screening process to measure such potential. It is available to us with modern technology.

Both extra solar incidents and asteroid belt monitoring is necessary. It is worth the cost to set up said defenses in orbit and at the edges of our solar system.

Ed Dames kill shot no

Potential to happen again to earth,
YES

edit on 3-6-2012 by ripcontrol because: a missing piece



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
^^^

TL DR: You don't live in my fantasy land, so you wouldn't understand

Whatever dude
edit on 6/3/2012 by Flowmaster05 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The issue is not whether anyone in particular has ever played this parlor game called RV or been sucker into a play school doing RV.

The issue is whether or not RV works. There are multiple requests that I try it. Sorry, not a self deluded fool. Are there real scientific experiments that show it works? This is where Utts is mentioned. Utts is a believer in parapsychology. She thinks there is. She also suggests more work needs to be done. Where is that work?

Another issue is the claim that RV is scientific or science based. Really? What other than a strict protocol more like a religious service is there? Making out a strict protocol can be seen in a royal spectacle such as a wedding in the UK. That doesn't make it scientific.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Ed Dames RV failures

1. Aliens living in New Mexico and getting hybrid with us
2. Saw a cylinder carrying a plant pathogen coming from Hale Bopp
3. North Korea nuked South Korea in 1997
4. Global economic collapse in 1998
5. Mammoth Mtn to be next North American eruption
6. Tornadoes strong enough to rip people apart
7. Cannibalism in Europe as food runs out
8. People to be blinded by CME before 1999
9. Claimed his RV ability would fail after 2011

Brown also failed when they did an RV on the spaceship trailing Hale Bopp

So there we have a short list of Ed "100% hits" Dames stunning failures. He claims to have a 100% record and yet he has been oh so wrong. His #9 claim in my list is wrong too. He actually had no RV ability about 40 plus years before that date.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


as can avoiding question asked.

Again what are you qualified at to make the statements you have made?


You where not invited to try RV, you where asked if you went through any of the training. You sound like a critic who claims to know x is false yet not once have you made any effort to prove your have any knowledge in the field you claim is fake.

Most debunkers make the effort to prove "the Parlor games" are rigged. You have made none of these efforts.

As for dames, I decided a long time ago not bad mouth someone not in a conversation. It however appears we are on common ground with him.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Flowmaster05
 


I am curious if you where responding to my post.




top topics



 
56
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join