Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

page: 44
56
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
The issue is whether or not RV works.

I have posted a number of references to enormous failures of the RV crowd including those that made the prediction listed in the OP such as the Hale Bopp fiasco.

No one has posted anything in support of RV except for a report written by Utts years ago which was supplied to the government. Utts' comments there and the comments of Hyman caused the government to dump RV. They found RV to be useless. Now this useless RV has made another prediction which suggests a catastrophic meteorite impact before 2013. I see little reason to believe inthe prediction since the failure rate of RV is so high.

The same group has made excuses about timelines. Their excuse would be that nothing happened in our timeline, but the event did happen in some other timeline. Or the excuse might be that RV is not restricted to distance and they saw an impact on a distant world.

The real issue is not this prediction, but predicting the excuse that the RV folks will use to explain away yet another failure on their part.




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
WHAT IS CONTROLLED REMOTE VIEWING?

Here is an explanation and a trial performed by Melvin L Morse MD FAAP that, again, solidifies RVs scientific acceptance. Enjoy!


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.


HTML

PDF



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 



Here is an explanation and a trial performed by Melvin L Morse MD FAAP that, again, solidifies RVs scientific acceptance. Enjoy!

I read the material and nothing in their shows that it is scientific.

Instead this is just another handwaving and stating without any evidence that it is scientific.

The content is nothing more than another anecdote.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Here is another article for those who do not suffer cephalic carnage and have accepted remote viewing for what it is! Proven science!

The Institute for the Scientific Study of Consciousness



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 



Here is another article for those who do not suffer cephalic carnage and have accepted remote viewing for what it is! Proven science!

The readers of this thread are smart enough to know that no matter how often the baloney claim is stated that RV is scientific they will still want evidence.

So far no evidence.

About all we have seen is posts to sell RV to people. Is this a low key ad campaign? Is this an effort to use ATS for your personal gain? Really starting to look that way.

Where is the evidence that RV works?
Where is the evidence that RV is scientific?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
From the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory.

PDF - Eval Of RV: Research and Applications




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)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular
 


The PDF provided repeats what I have been saying all along. There is no evidence for RV working.
Fromt he PDF it states:

· 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


This is why the military deemd RV useless.

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.


Head for the bottom of the PDF and it states:

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).


As I have been saying - it's not scientific.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
It's always nice when people bring the evidence to the table that shows that they are wrong and I congratulate AlchemicalMonocular on showing us all that RV was a failure for the military and up to 1995 when the paper was publuished it was not scientific.

Good work AlchemicalMonocular.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Do you want to run an actual experiment here on ATS. I mean a better organized one then I have tried or has been done here before

I have to get mods permission, because we will need their help as well

I will need your help. You have been honest so far so I feel I can trust you to play honest. This means both me and you are the experimenters.

let me write up what I have in mind... give me a day or two

I will post a link here because of the way a certain person has stretched the thread out.

My I ask you a side question?

Sir, did the issue of contacting NASA to try and totally eliminate Dames kill-shot prediction make sense to you?

I am tempted to try and contact Dames to see if he wants to come and defend himself.... something you said made me think of it...



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


it is what I am proposing as well... it should end the debate but it has to be a separate thread...

in the laughter provided by a poster here I feel we have disrespected the op. His thread has been slightly highjacked ...

while still in the mode of the idea of the thread, it is suffering from thread creep due in part to my laughter and my friends laughter at someone

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

this is my opinion..

My apologies Rebellender for helping take your thread partially off topic



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I am very interested to know if you called crap on RV in say,1992?

At some point a guy has to let people do what they want to do. That could include people who wish to throw their lives away at 2 of the following
'
Believing the end is 12/21/2012

Calling out people that believe the end is 12/21/2012

It truly is my opinion be it humble that you appeal to ATS to remove 2012 Forum...now pay attention... you ready...
For the reason that you feel with out proof, science to back you, or a respected Colleague backing.

with this I encourage some to simply Pick Their Battles Wisely

edit on 19-6-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



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


The thread should be limited to the OP and whether or not the predictions of RV are reliable.

I've posted immense failures from the group making the claim. No one has provided support for RV except for the claims of Utts.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


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.

Specifically the
Observations
Conclusions

from the experiments you say where ran...

Good sir please either present said evidence or do not partake of the thread. You do not have any.

So far doing your work as a skeptic for you. All I have found is interpretation of someone saying failure.


No evidence exist of experiments ran along the same lines as required by science.

I repeat no duplication of experiments with the same methods.. You know the whole part where someone runs through the whole program and test the same things originally tested


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



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



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.

Specifically the
Observations
Conclusions

from the experiments you say where ran...

It has been well established that you tell falsehoods. Here you go again.
1. I have provided a list of epic failures in which you responded to some that Ed Dames is not to be trusted. So you lie when you state I have not provided evidence since you have agreed on Dames. Below are places where I have pointed out epic failures many of them involving Farsight. It's just the tip of the iceberg
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. I never offered to provide any experiments showing RV is a failure. Instead I stated that the burden is on the supporters of RV. That is what onus means. I do not have to prove a universal negative, which I have repeated more than once.

Nothing has been offered to show RV works. Nothing other than Utts. Even then Utts could not confirm that the military RV program worked or that RV worked. That was seen in the material posted by AlchemicalMonocular.


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

You are in no position to dictate the contents of the thread. You have provided nothing at all to the thread.

The issue is whether or not the claims of this meteorite impact before 2013 is believable. I don't see any reason to trust anything coming out of Farsight. Brown's group has been involved in a number of spectacular failures such as:
1. The water hose on Mars
2. Spaceship behind Hale-Bopp
edit on 20-6-2012 by stereologist because: Improved clarity



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


you still are causing great laughs. Seriously you are hilarious



First you state "I provided proof"

"Here are my post that state it is fake"


(note form the same poster who claimed it made no sense to reply is now quoting his own post as proof)





Thank you for laugh it has been a long day

Sterodudist-

I will break it down to a level you can comprehend

You claim Remote Viewing is a pseudo science

Correct-

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)

Scientific method



Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] 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."[3]


and, retesting over differences?

Reproducibility


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).


(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

Is NASA still not part of this thread because they do not apparently monitor the skies (hey your implications not mine)


The truth of the matter is you can not produce a single shard of the required evidence to prove remote viewing is not a science. What it looks like you are trying to do is set yourself up as the judge of what qualifies as evidence and does not.

"Lookie here its not science, it somethin we play in the parlor."

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...




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I am contacting mods now for the set up.

I am see if I can run the experiment over three threads?


edit on 20-6-2012 by ripcontrol because: Ministry of the Republic



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


Run it where you want all I want to see is some actual proof



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



First you state "I provided proof"

There is another outright lie. I never stated that. I offered evidence against RV.


(note form the same poster who claimed it made no sense to reply is now quoting his own post as proof)

Yet another lie. I stated it was odd to respond to your own post. Here I linked to previous posts to counter your previous lie that I had offered no evidence.


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

Another misrepresentation. It is a pseudoscience because RV pretends to be scientific when it is not.


And not just one, multiple scientist would have to have ran the same experiments. (different results)

Since that has not been done that makes RV a sham, or as I call it a parlor game for the self deluded.


(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 offered the spectacular and stupid failures of people like Brown and his Farsight group. That is evidence. It is clear that Farsight is not to be trusted. It is pretty clear that RV is a sham.


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

The burden is on RV to show that it works. You have made zero effort to provide any evidence. I have provided a large number of instances in which RV has been a laughable failure.


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...

We know who the frauds are. It is Dames and McGoneagle and Brown and all of the other clowns pushing this parlor game. It is the Ouija board of today.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Good Sir science is the scientific method...

Presenting someone else's argument is NOT proof. It is sham pseudo-skepticism.

Again it is apparent you can not produce what you claim. Where is the scientific evidence of pseudo science?
Is it like NASA having nothing to do with this thread? lol

Sir we know you are not even qualified to make the claims you have. You state "It is a pseudo science because x"

Never providing what X is... If you proved your quals I might believe you, because you would have some more weight behind your claim. As it sits your rating is at keyboard jockey in mothers basement

Your want respect and long for approval, list your Quals...
You sound like a preacher arguing against evolution

As for proof I am setting that up right now...

What better way then to run an actual experiment on ATS, open with nothing hidden



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I have followed and participated in Remote Viewing
for at least 8 years now and I believe it is a genuine phenomena.
What I don't understand is why some go out of their way to
say" nope there is nothing to it".

I understand shills.
For instance just about every anti Obama thread
is authored by someone in Las Vegas. Why?
It happens to be the hometown where the casino owners
that are pouring money into the right (Sheldon Addleson, Wynn etc) live.
These are paid shills. So at least that makes sense.

But why fight against people that believe in RV?
Why wouldn't they simply say "Hmm, those people
are nuts". You know, like believing in shape shifting
reptilians or listening to Michael Savage?

I dont get it. Don't believe in RV?
Don't do it.





top topics
 
56
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join