Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

page: 46
56
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



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?

I dismissed your efforts to discuss off topic issues.

The issue is RV and you have brought no evidence forward.


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

Again with personal attacks. You have no evidence to base any of these attacks of yours. That seems what has been done with RV: accept it without any evidence at all.


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.

The fraud is the one claiming RV works and yet is unable to provide any evidence.


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....

So you have no evidence. Wouldn't it have been simpler to say that up front instead of all of the posturing?




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


lol..

hang on



nope one more...




listen you know nothing about the subject matter.... (two of yourMISTAKES )

"NASA has nothing to do with this prediction"

"I could tell by glancing over the abstract that is was false"


without a base understanding of the subject matter, you can not go further...
it is that simple

If you can not answer the question of if you believe in the Scientific method how can understand the experimental process

if you do not answer the question of if you believe in the big bang how could you possibly understand more complicated subjects like modern electronics

If you do not answer the question of if you believe in entropy how you can you be expected to understand information theory

If you cant understand modern information theory how can you understand the solution that was used for modern electronic communications

If you cant understand the big bang theory how can you hope to get to modern quantum entanglement

With out the experimental process,entanglement, information theory, and modern electronics how can you even hope to learn the basics of CRV at a beginners level (please note I did skip a few things)

(art, sculpting, writing, learning theories, behavioral modification, information analysis among others)

Without the same above, how can you hope do debunk as a pseudo-skeptic????

??????

In otherwords you cant.... We apparently are using big words, I apologize but the third grader got on quicker then you have...

her IQ test came back at 123...

that puts yours where????



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I did get a response back from Courtney Brown




Hi Kent,
Thanks for the update on conversation. There is no way to convince people. One can only offer information and let people do with it what they want. But good luck with the discussions.
Warmly,
Courtney



Maybe he will join and post......



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



listen you know nothing about the subject matter.... (two of yourMISTAKES )

"NASA has nothing to do with this prediction"

"I could tell by glancing over the abstract that is was false"

I don't even have to look back into the thread to check. You are a liar. I didn't say anything of this.
Why do you feel that you must lie?
Is it because RV is so stupid?
What causes you to be such a liar? I certainly would like to know as I am sure the others reading this thread.


If you can not answer the question of if you believe in the Scientific method how can understand the experimental process

You are a liar. You never asked this question. You have lied and lied and lied and lied and that makes you a liar.


if you do not answer the question of if you believe in the big bang how could you possibly understand more complicated subjects like modern electronics

I do not address off topic issues that you try to interject into the thread.


If you do not answer the question of if you believe in entropy how you can you be expected to understand information theory

I do not address off topic issues that you try to interject into the thread.


If you cant understand modern information theory how can you understand the solution that was used for modern electronic communications

I do not address off topic issues that you try to interject into the thread.


If you cant understand the big bang theory how can you hope to get to modern quantum entanglement

I do not address off topic issues that you try to interject into the thread.


With out the experimental process,entanglement, information theory, and modern electronics how can you even hope to learn the basics of CRV at a beginners level (please note I did skip a few things)

I do not address off topic issues that you try to interject into the thread.


(art, sculpting, writing, learning theories, behavioral modification, information analysis among others)

Without the same above, how can you hope do debunk as a pseudo-skeptic????

I do not address off topic issues that you try to interject into the thread.

Do you have anything to discuss about RV?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


I would be nice to have someone that is not boorish in the conversation.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
So far we have RV at zero. Nothing has been listed other than the comments of Utts. Utts says that there was something statistically significant. Then again Utts suggests it might have been the judging which was poorly done.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Reply to post by stereologist
 


Why should anyone have to prove anything to you? Don't believe it? Don't like it? Fine- disagree... But don't keep b####ing about how someone else should change your mind. Its annoying, its belligerent (at this point) and its down right rude! If this post bothers you soooooooo freaking bad- ignore it! All you are doing is taking this thread further off topic and for what? To satisfy your own narcissism? You want someone to PROVE to you that RV is real? It seems to me that even if you had hard proof right in front of you that you would deny it. Grow up dude really-

If you don't like the information in this thread or disagree with it (obviously) then move on- don't spoil the thread with mindless rantings simply because you want someone else to form an opinion for you. Deny ignorance- don't embrace it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


"Liar,liar, liar pants on fire..."

Really...


Do you have proof of me lying?

proof, right... you do have it



Hey newbie, each and every point is involved in the matter of Remote viewing. Not my fault you know nothing of the subject... Reminds me a virgin trying to give players advice on women....

Again you prove you have no QUALIFICATIONS
with out qualifications you can not determine what is on topic... and what is not..

For instance I am not the one who said NASA had nothing to do with this thread, mind you even though the main subject of this thread is over meteors... (you know part of NASA's job)

Hey stereo did you know who stated this? DO YOU??????


Each and every thing I have posted has been relevant to the thread... Everything.... the discussion is over




Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013


Covers by title alone

Well lookie here

Remote viewers is on the list
wait an issue, are all remote viewers making this prediction?

either way it is here as PART of the thread


but this is your fourth mistake, more words
(helps when you use that brain, of course I could ask for proof your in possession)

Predict
Prediction



A prediction or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge. While there is much overlap between prediction and forecast, a prediction may be a statement that some outcome is expected, while a forecast may cover a range of possible outcomes.


we have a split
hair split between forecasting and predicting

How did yall want this hair split...

I ll go with:
Predict is you make a call on an event before said event happens



The next part is tricky....

I will diverge here from the shared road to the event

Meteor Impact-

Impact event



An impact event is the collision of a large meteorite, asteroid, comet, or other celestial object with the Earth or another planet. Throughout recorded history, hundreds of minor impact events (and exploding bolides) have been reported, with some occurrences causing deaths, injuries, property damage or other significant localised consequences.[1] There have also been major impact events throughout Earth's history which severely disrupted the environment and caused mass extinctions.


Sounds like a job for NASA....

......


Then to a descriptive word

Catastrophic-
From Catastrophe



a sudden and widespread disaster



plus a few more definitions

_____

Before 2013

is a time marker-


______________


So remote viewers, prediction, meteors, 2013, catastrophe,

are all part of this thread... Will you please show me where it is limited to remote viewing...



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





I do not address off topic issues that you try to interject into the thread.


sorry these are your rules not mine...

If you do this again I'll be forced to pull a stereofraud and report you to the mods for offtopic discussion.


Otherwise you are violating T and C first (remember those who get upset first lose ) by trying to smear a poster.... Mr first cyber-bully.... can I print this and save it....

it was average attempt to derail the present discussion-- i'll give you a D-

You Lack of quals as a skeptic for this thread.

NASA not being an agency in charge of space objects? really dude
Big Bang not a scientific discovery????

Unless you inviting me to one of your other threads...
(please invite me to discuss those on those threads. please)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   


Swann's Jupiter rings

Ingo Swann proposed a study to Targ and Puthoff. At first they resisted, for the resulting descriptions would be impossible to verify. Yet, on the evening 27 April 1973 Targ and Puthoff recorded Swann's remote viewing session of the planet Jupiter and Jupiter's moons,[33] prior to the Voyager probe's visit there in 1979.

Swann asked for 30 minutes of silence. According to Swann, his ability to see Jupiter took about 3-and-a-half minutes. In the session he made several reports on the physical features of Jupiter, such as its surface, atmosphere and weather. Swann's statement that Jupiter had planetary rings, like Saturn, was controversial at the time. The Voyager probe later confirmed the existence of the rings.[34]

The following are Swann's exact statements:

6:06:20 "Very high in the atmosphere there are crystals... they glitter. Maybe the stripes are like bands of crystals, maybe like rings of Saturn, though not far out like that. Very close within the atmosphere."(Unintelligible sentence.) "I bet you they'll reflect radio probes. Is that possible if you had a cloud of crystals that were assaulted by different radio waves?" [35]



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



Hey newbie, each and every point is involved in the matter of Remote viewing. Not my fault you know nothing of the subject... Reminds me a virgin trying to give players advice on women....

Again you prove you have no QUALIFICATIONS
with out qualifications you can not determine what is on topic... and what is not..

Do you have anything to show that RV works? Again you show what an utter failure RV is.


Each and every thing I have posted has been relevant to the thread... Everything.... the discussion is over

Nothing has been relevant to showing that RV works.

Farsight is well known for its failures

RV has been a failure since the military days

The RV program was dumped because it was deemed useless

RV is a parlor game.

RV is for the self deluded



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



sorry these are your rules not mine...

If you do this again I'll be forced to pull a stereofraud and report you to the mods for offtopic discussion.

Again, I will not address off topic issues.


NASA not being an agency in charge of space objects? really dude
Big Bang not a scientific discovery????

I have no idea why you are wrong about NASA or its purpose.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


Ingo Swann claimed to view 30,000 foot mountains on Jupiter. No such mountains exist. Mountains cannot exist on Jupiter. There is no surface to Jupiter as Swann claims.

He also got the positions of the rings wrong.
He also missed the 60 Moons of Jupiter.

Didn't Swann later claim to have viewed something outside of the solar system to cover up for his mistake?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I do ... your apparently not smart enough to realize it... not my problem...

You are to afraid to respond to how each part is off topic... Again you offer no proof... being rude is uncalled for mam

How is the structure of the universe of topic for the science of Remote Viewing ?

How is parts of the human body off topic when the Science deals with humans?

How is information theory off-topic?

Is it because you are not smart enough to handle the subject? With no quals I have to go with the old mans Razors garbage.... I am left with the fact you cant mentally handle the job...

You after all said NASA had nothing to do with this thread...One of you four big mistakes... not to mention you offer no proof of lies..... Scientific Proof


Will you please provide the criteria you used to reach your conclusion? Without it your are nothing but a keyboard jockey in her mothers basement....



If you can not provide the scientific proof you demanded you will get none....

So I understand you are now accusing another organization of being a fraud and fake. What evidence do you have for this COMPLETELY off topic post



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


So you are lost on what NASA covers...

I think you are trying to bury your mistake when you stated that NASA had nothing to do with this thread... In fact you also have stated that it is off-topic




Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013


I decided to be nice newbie... and not count that as two mistakes...

Dude we have some excellent debunkers and skeptics here... you need to ask them for help... you have no ability at this....


So far
Stereologist- four mistakes total

or is is four Lies.....


I cant outline things any simpler....

Please keep your post on topic... and remember ATS is about denying *snip*...oops I mean ignorance



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


nope ....

Please post the links with the information you listed.... i may have heard of the mountain thing but it was not part of this from what my research has shown

To my understanding it was a clear call...

Their is a house trick involved here I want you to look at.... You have missed this in your whole debunking efforts...

I am not being rude, but it is a hair split most have missed, but I havent.... it is the biggest difference in your efforts as a skeptic.... it has lead to your own misunderstanding in the definition of remote viewing

Look back over the whole damn thing...


You see I am honest and trust me I am also much more ruthless then any here know.... You play nice I play nice....

The other is a little research project Lynn Buchanan proceeded with.

They where ask politely while why a certain empire fell

He got that they had something like a time of service... he got that the people where worried because less and less people where showing up for the term of service... till they saw no one on the return trip home

It still did not make sense to him so he went to their minds...

all he got was, they did not have money

He reported his results to the member who requested the info...

the guy came back excited a little later.... It had taken him time to realize he had not reported the did not have any money... they had reported they had no money... the difference between being broke and cash not existing..

Can you guess which culture?

amazing little discovery... BTW they got funding for another year...



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


edit on 24-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


-

I do ... your apparently not smart enough to realize it... not my problem...

You are to afraid to respond to how each part is off topic... Again you offer no proof... being rude is uncalled for mam

How is the structure of the universe of topic for the science of Remote Viewing ?

How is parts of the human body off topic when the Science deals with humans?

How is information theory off-topic?

The OP is about RV and you have offered nothing to shore up RV.

You have done nothing to show that the group doing the viewing has any success.

I on the other hand have shown that their record is pathetic. I showed a number of terrible failures on their part. You shown nothing.


You after all said NASA had nothing to do with this thread...One of you four big mistakes... not to mention you offer no proof of lies..... Scientific Proof

Again you lie. No surprise there. It seems that is the base level of those supporting RV.

I stated that NASA does not do RV.


If you can not provide the scientific proof you demanded you will get none.

I'm sorry this makes no sense. While spilling out your vituperous commentaries you seem to have been confused here.

The onus is on the supporters of RV to provide support. It seems to be an unsupported parlor game at this point since no one but Utts' old statements have been offered as evidence in support.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 



So you are lost on what NASA covers...

I think you are trying to bury your mistake when you stated that NASA had nothing to do with this thread... In fact you also have stated that it is off-topic

The issue RV. Where does NASA get involved in RV?



So far
Stereologist- four mistakes total

or is is four Lies.....

I cant outline things any simpler....

Please keep your post on topic... and remember ATS is about denying *snip*...oops I mean ignorance

Telling lies appears to be the norm for RV believers. Why is that? Why fall back on lies?

It seems that there isn't much more to this parlor game called RV.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Why is this thread still alive?

Neither of you have added anything significant in like 10 pages.

Let it go already

or not

whatever





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join