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...
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.
let me cut to the chase. me and another individual are having a debate at above top secret.com
we are bouncing heads over CRV. the only thing we agree on is your inaccuracy. Is there anything you would like to add to this discussion in your defense.
either way thank you for your time
Your message has been sent to Remote Viewing Products. In the meantime, why don't you learn more about Remote Viewing? Did you know there an official training course that comes with FREE online training support?!
I am in the middle of a discusion on CRV with an individual on this thread at Above Top Secret.
Your work this individual is using as proof of you and CRV being a fraud.
I thought you might like to also join the discussion.
Thank you for your time
Statistics Professor Jessica Utts shared the results of her statistical studies in remote viewing and parapsychology. Serving as a statistician for the Remote Viewing research program at SRI, and later as consultant for a government evaluation of the program, she concluded that "psychic functioning has been well established." Her findings showed that when chance would dictate a 25% accuracy rating, subjects delivered a 33% rating, which is considered statistically significant.
lets see what they have to say as well. Since you called them frauds lets see if they respond
Would you like a funny... I have borrowed your attitude from each post I responded to and replied using the same basis as each argument progressed.
Sir I take your retreat to mean you have neither the quals nor the proof that was requested.
Sir does this mean you have no scientific basis for your claim of fraud or pseudo science?
25% versus 33% an eight percent increase
utts statistical on website linked to...
third mistake on your part
Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
reply to post by rebellender
I have experienced remote viewing,astral projection, lucid dreams etc..but I don't believe in any of this fear porn. I don't think remote viewing can specifically target future catastrophic events and pinpoint the time and date of them remote viewing is much more effective without a predisposition to find what your looking for.
No offense, but threads like this mislead people and discredit the actual research involved with this amazing ability we all have access to.edit on 16-2-2012 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)
I have been studying the material for years
I have been experimenting with the material for years and paid the price..
Former Navy sonar tech, A lot of the matters of sonar are surprisingly mostly learning how the equipment processes information it receives. Then how it edits the material
I am working on building a non-profit right now that is based on helping the vets and the poor with a good friend
I am slowly building a business to increase my income so I can retire in a few years...
As we speak I am side consulting with retail establishments on improving the services they offer while lowering their cost... three satisfied customers so far (I am paid based on results, the amount of extra income I bring them in)
I am working on a novel using the rules of making a cheap movie indie style as the limit of the story. (I am stuck right now on the grand inquisitor of the Theo-American empire)
however these endeavors are separate from ATS
What about you.. nice try on the implied calling out...
Her findings showed that when chance would dictate a 25% accuracy rating, subjects delivered a 33% rating, which is considered statistically significant.
8 percent higher
please quote your source because mine may be different...
like I said its nice to see you admit you where wrong... note on this part you seem at first to be clueless then all of a sudden knew what it was referring to?
Why the disinfo campaign...
You are a fraud... a pseudo skeptic...
like NASA having no part of the thread? when they can prove or disprove the killshot potential ability to exist
Or do you not consider them a scientific organization
actually it does...
The person posting the information according to the standards you set, is part of the value of the information presented.
You have not even posted anything about where your skills come into play enabling you to judge it pseudo science.
You cant maintain your own standards why?
You have no skills or quals so does this mean your post match in value to zero?
How can you judge anyones methods if you have no quals... the more you post the more suspicious I get over you being a big fraud...