It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Melvin L Morse MD FAAP (www.spiritualscientiﬁc.com)
Controlled remote viewing is a scientiﬁc protocol for organizing one’s thoughts into primary
information from “out there” and secondary “analytic overlay” which represents the brain’s own
chatter and noise and effort to create its own meaning of perceptions and information. This
protocol is used to draw and describe events and geographical locations which are otherwise not
accessible to our ordinary senses.
Here is an explanation and a trial performed by Melvin L Morse MD FAAP that, again, solidifies RVs scientific acceptance. Enjoy!
Here is another article for those who do not suffer cephalic carnage and have accepted remote viewing for what it is! Proven science!
An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications
Michael D. Mumford, Andrew M. Rose, and David A. Goslin (American Institutes for Research)
ABSTRACT: Studies of paranormal phenomena have nearly always been associated with controversy. Despite the controversy concerning their nature and existence, many individuals and organizations continue to be avidly interested in these phenomena. The intelligence community is no exception: beginning in the 1970s, it has conducted a program intended to investigate the application of one paranormal phenomenon—remote viewing, or the ability to describe locations one has not visited.
Conceptually, remote viewing would seem to have tremendous potential utility for the intelligence community. Accordingly, a three-component program involving basic research, operations, and foreign assessment has been in place for some time. Prior to transferring this program to a new sponsoring organization within the intelligence community, a thorough program review was initiated.
The part of the program review conducted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR), a nonprofit, private research organization, consisted of two main components. The first component was a review of the research program. The second component was a review of the operational application of the remote viewing phenomenon in intelligence gathering. Evaluation of the foreign assessment component of the program was not within the scope of the present effort. (468 KB -- PDF)
· A statistically significant laboratory effort has been demonstrated in the sense that
hits occur more often than chance.
· It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the
paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to characteristics of the judges
or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used. Use of the same
remote viewers, the same judge, and the same target photographs makes it
impossible to identify their independent effects.
· Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are
due to the operation of paranormal phenomena; the laboratory experiments have not
identified the origins
The end users indicating that, although some accuracy was observed with regard to
broad background characteristics, the remote viewing reports failed to produce the
concrete, specific information valued in intelligence gathering.
The information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate with regard to specifics, and
required substantial subjective interpretation.
In no case had the information provided ever been used to guide intelligence
operations. Thus, Remote viewing failed to produce actionable intelligence.
Considering the statements above, the only sensible recommendation in this author's mind is to
bring some "scientific method" into this process (if it is continued).
The thread should be re-limited back to
Is the kill- shot feasible by NASA's standards
Prediction record of the creator of the kill shot
Archaeology record of earth strikes
No you have not.
Not a single bit of immense information has been presented by you. You lie good sir and not that well.
You have presented nothing in the way of evidence.
I ask you again for the copy of 'scientific' evidence you supposed that exist refuting Remote Viewing.
from the experiments you say where ran...
As for your whims, reliability of RV predictions is not the basis of this thread.
This thread is over the killshot garbage and the 'updated' 2013 thing
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
Reproducibility also refers to the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, or by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure. The basic idea can be seen in Aristotle's dictum that there is no scientific knowledge of the individual, where the word used for individual in Greek had the connotation of the idiosyncratic, or wholly isolated occurrence. Thus all knowledge, all science, necessarily involves the formation of general concepts and the invocation of their corresponding symbols in language (cf. Turner).
First you state "I provided proof"
(note form the same poster who claimed it made no sense to reply is now quoting his own post as proof)
Well for RV to be a pseudo-science, and not a figment of your imagination, this means some REAL Qualified scientist ran what is called an EXPERIMENT on the subject
And not just one, multiple scientist would have to have ran the same experiments. (different results)
(key concepts a real scientist would know of)
you claimed its a pseudo science multiple time, also a parlor game
Yet you provide no scientific evidence.
Only claims of evidence
Thats not science, thats opinion... everyone has one
(Mister NASA has nothing to do with this thread...lol)
I have asked have you your self ran any RV experiments?
If I am not clear let me sum it up for you
You are a skeptic fraud, and cause a lot of laughter.
You claim to have proof but offer no scientific proof as evidence of your claims
This way when someone tries to discuss the matter with you your first claim is that it is not related or scientific. Yet you refuse to base your response in anything of science. Also of note you have not provided you proof of skills to judge if something is scientific. Again without proof of your Quals you are a fraud...