Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

page: 45
56
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



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"

You tell even more lies. You continue to lie about what I wrote.

Instead of that you should be providing evidence in support of RV. You have done nothing. I at least have shown how idiotic the claims are from the RV crowd including the Farsight group making the claims in the OP.


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

Again you make an appeal to authority logical fallacy. It has no bearing on whether or not RV works. I have shown many cases in which it fails. You have provided nothing.


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've never asked for proof. I've asked for evidence. You should start doing something after so many contentless posts.
edit on 21-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 



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.

Please provide some evidence that it works.

The issue here is whether or not the OP is a prediction. I say that it is not since RV is a failure.

I would be interested in seeing someone actually present some evidence for RV since only 1 or 2 posts provide evidence for and all of those from AlchemicalMonocular who has presented evidence from Utts' appraisal of the military work.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Killshot.com contact




Hello Mr.Dames,

let me cut to the chase. me and another individual are having a debate at above top secret.com

www.abovetopsecret.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?!


the upsale


now you said Courtney Brown

www.farsight.org...




Mr.Brown,
I am in the middle of a discusion on CRV with an individual on this thread at Above Top Secret.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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



lets see what they have to say as well. Since you called them frauds lets see if they respond

Stereo-dude



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I have all the time in the world...

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 are you insecure to the point you resort to name calling?

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?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Jessica Utts coast to coast




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.


interesting reading....

of note was some of the limitations she observed..

how about we contact her as well see what her opinion is....

25% versus 33% an eight percent increase
edit on 21-6-2012 by ripcontrol because: Ministry of the Republic



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



lets see what they have to say as well. Since you called them frauds lets see if they respond

Fine. They are.

You have been unable to state anything at all in this thread. Maybe they can state what you are unable to state, which is actual content.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



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.

I didn't call names. I simply pointed out each and every time you lied about what I had stated.


Sir I take your retreat to mean you have neither the quals nor the proof that was requested.

You have no qualifications,but that does not matter. The issue is RV, not you or I.


Sir does this mean you have no scientific basis for your claim of fraud or pseudo science?

Where is the evidence that RV works? Since you have posted nothing at all except personal attacks on me it is quite clear that you are not aware of anything whatsoever to support this parlor game called RV.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



25% versus 33% an eight percent increase

That is not what you quoted. No one claims an increase.

That was an older show from 2006. It is still the material from the old military program.
edit on 21-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


again the rudeness...

Insecurity on your part...

not my fault you do not know how to listen, perhaps if you turn down the stereo you could hear...

reply to post by ripcontrol
 


reply to post by ripcontrol
 


reply to post by ripcontrol
 



also if it has been nothing why have you kept replying trying to deny it
edit on 21-6-2012 by ripcontrol because: Ministry of the Republic



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


utts statistical on website linked to...

reading helps

third mistake on your part

edit on 21-6-2012 by ripcontrol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


Your welcome to tell the truth. No one is asking you to lie.

Why not find some evidence that is for RV and show all of us that RV works.

So far it is Utts and Utts alone. Don't forget the other half of that report was written by Hyman and the result of the joint report was the determination that RV was useless.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



utts statistical on website linked to...

reading helps

third mistake on your part

OK. Let me help you out since you do not understand what was written. Her claim is that a test had a certain value. Her comparison is a mathematical prediction of what happens under uniform random conditions. She compares the two. She says that the difference is significant.

There is no increase. Yes, reading helps. Increase is not mentioned in the quote because it did not happen.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


My quals

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...
edit on 21-6-2012 by ripcontrol because: spanglesh



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

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 to agree with this. Strictly speaking, remote viewing deals with 'real time' events/scenarios...not future events or scenarios, this falls into prophesying and prediction...all future events and scenarios are available to all (if you can wrap your brain around the myriad possibilities being presented)...and circumstances 'line up' for them to be able to occur in this locum...otherwise, they have and are occuring somewhere else...the 'pathways' necessary for them to proceed in a particular direction have 'collapsed', in this locum...

The other possibility (vis a vis this thread) is that, as with dream, lucid, astral...it is interpreted as real time...which it sometimes, is not...

akushla



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



My quals

I have been studying the material for years

I have been experimenting with the material for years and paid the price..

Such anecdotes have no bearing on the issue of whether or not RV works.


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...

Who cares. None of that has anything to do with RV.

I couldn't care less if any of that was true or not. It has no bearing at all on whether or not RV works.

Please provide any evidence at all that RV works.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





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



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


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...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


The problem I have is, you have ignored the basics of what it might be based on.

So How I can proceed further with an explanation, you deny the basics of the big bang and the humans nervous system?

Not only do you have no clue how crap works you want to be the judge and jury as to what is part of the conversation and what is not. Every conversation you have had on ATS to date has been based on this method of communication.

EVERY one. it is a shame but you come off as the wannabe skeptic with no professional hopes.

Anything that is outside the box your in is bad. At heart your afraid of change.

Control the initial stage of the dialogue control the whole dialogue right. Well I call everything your try and say ends up with

its not part of the conversation...

Its how we know you are not denying ignorance. Your promoting it in a bid for some form of pleasure or power.

I will not let you pass this point.

I challenged you to run the experiment yourself... You said that it is not your deal to prove anything rv'ers have to... You asked for evidence and refused to do what was offered... Your a lazy fraud at that.

Have your ran any of the test yourself according to the list procedures. You ask for proof, I told you the easiest most undeniable proof was to run the exact experiments that where ran with RV...

Theres your proof those test your afraid to RUN....
edit on 21-6-2012 by ripcontrol because: Ministry of Truth



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



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


Sorry you don't have an understanding of probability and statistics. It is a difference, not an increase. It is not higher. A value of 17% would also have been statistically significant. Calling me a fraud because you don't understaqnd what was written is telling.

The problem as Utts stated in her report and is in the report linked to in this thread is that the statistical difference could not be attributed to RV. It was just as likely due to the the poor testing method employed.

The issue is not NASA. NASA does not employ RV. The issue is RV.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



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 post no evidence and continue to make an appeal to authority. How sad. It is even sadder that you do not understand that such an appeal is a logical fallacy. let me assist you.
www.logicalfallacies.info...


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...

We already know you have zero authority in this field otherwise you would have posted evidence.

I have posted a large number of failures on the part of RV including failures by Farsight and Brown.





new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join