Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013, page 50

Pages: << 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 56 times

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 05:28 PM by rebellender

reply to post by WhamBam

dont stop there please tell us after you have read all the material of the OP what RV does do.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 06:28 PM by WhamBam

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by WhamBam

dont stop there please tell us after you have read all the material of the OP what RV does do.

I've read it and have followed these RVer session for quite a long time. IOT understand the sessions you have posted, one has to understand the concept of the multiverse.

Which btw I notice that no one seems to have a clue - in this thread, i.e.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 06:36 PM by rebellender

reply to post by WhamBam

it's quit alright to answer my question posed to you.
Please continue.
about the multi universe and outcomes and viewings.
Tell us about the bubble and bumping it. Spare no details

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 06:39 PM by WhamBam

reply to post by rebellender

about the multi universe and outcomes and viewings.

If you haven't understood your own thread how the hell am I supposed to enlighten you?

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 08:12 PM by nancyliedersdeaddog

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by darkbake

From the research I have done, remote viewing seems to be an accurate science with empirical evidence to back it up (and even theory involving how time works)... this is an interesting article, I'm surprised I didn't know about it until now. I would suggest reading it to learn more about remote viewing.

If this event does happen, then it should be proof of remote viewing... and if it doesn't, it could be an example of remote viewing failing. But why does all of this kind of stuff just happen to land in 2012??

RV is accurate science? I don't believe that. On the other I'd love to see what you have that shows it to be accurate or science or both.

I have to agree with you and I would also love to see this proof that RV is accurate science. Plus we have already established this Ed Dames guy is a complete failure.

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 04:28 PM by Clairacoustique

Originally posted by WhamBam
I've read it and have followed these RVer session for quite a long time. IOT understand the sessions you have posted, one has to understand the concept of the multiverse.

Which btw I notice that no one seems to have a clue - in this thread, i.e.

That hasn't deterred the endless, mindless argumentative quality of this thread, has it?

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 05:12 PM by Foundryman

I love how the "remote viewers" give themselves an out: "If the the thing I imagined doesn't happen then it happened in another dimension and you can't prove that it didn't so there!"

People actually take this seriously? There's no proof of this anywhere. Sorry, it's just wishful thinking (again).

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 05:29 PM by Paranormalist

I have found certain "skeptical" arguments confusing. Part of the confusion seems to involve the use of certain words, such as "believe" and "evidence." Because of this, I have come to call people with a certain viewpoint "selective skeptics." They seem to be extremely skeptical of claims of the paranormal, but, are not equally skeptical in other areas, such as the claims of supposed "circlemaker" hoaxers.

The selective skeptics tend to use techniques similar to political spin doctors. They often setup their arguments by painting a picture of their opponents as "believers" in various paranormal claims. This hints that the claim is to be taken as an absolute belief. The suggested "spin" is that such a big claim must be proven absolutely. In most cases, I think, the word "belief" is not intended to be an absolute. It is not claimed to be a scientific fact that everyone should accept. In most cases the claim is simply that there is some evidence or reason to think that a certain phenomenon is paranormal.

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 05:47 PM by Clairacoustique

reply to post by Paranormalist

Theories presented are often attacked as if they were claims of fact. This "spin" you speak suggests that absolute proof must be given along with the theory, otherwise the theory is to be rejected. In my view, various theories should be presented, including non-paranormal theories, and then the evidence can be compared to the theories. Each person can determine for themselves which theory, if any, seems most supported by the evidence.

Your "selective skeptics" sometimes say that there is no "evidence" at all to support certain paranormal claims. The "spin" seems to be that the "evidence" must absolutely prove the claim. In my view, the word "evidence" in these cases is intended more like that used in a court of law. The "evidence" can always be disputed. Judgments are made based on the convincing power of the evidence, but the judgments are not considered absolute. Yet, we act on the results, such as a death sentence based on a single reliable witness.

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 05:49 PM by Paranormalist

reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

Plus we have already established this Ed Dames guy is a complete failure.

"Complete"? Here's 10,000 pounds that demands that his family, friends, CIA and assorted others in Dames life would disagree. If only one comes forward, I win.

Bet?

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 05:55 PM by Paranormalist

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 08:18 PM by SUBKONCIOUS

Originally posted by rebellender
Just when we think all the Gloom and Doom of 2012 has been Debunked and the unnecessary prepping for a disaster can be put out of our heads somebody comes up with yet another Doom. This one is a little different. Its a real "Wait and See" here is the link and some opening text Remote Views Metoer

a global disaster by 2013. Back in 2008 some predictions were made by a team of the top, military trained "remote viewers" -- each with over a decade of successful service.

The scientific community believes these predictions to be so strong and reliable that they proposed to let the reputation of remote viewing, as a science, rest upon this horrible prediction.
edit on 16-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)

hhhmmmm.... The scientific community proposed to let their reputation of remote viewing, as a science, rest upon this horrible prediction...

so if a meteor doesn't hit the earth by 2013..... the "scientific community" has to "admit" that remote viewing is not credible... awww poor science.... since they've been trying so hard to convince us of all those unexplainable anomalies over the years.. rather then completely disregard them and stick to what "makes sense" good job science.. i am so proud of you...

well.. in all seriousness... this sounds like a really clever/sleazy/obvious way for the government/science to discredit something that they know for a fact works (to an extent).. for fear that if more people accepted the concept.. they would probably start askin a lot more questions... imagine... "This just in.. Massive meteor strike off the coast of Europe! up next: 60-Minutes prestents... It is in fact possible to see the future...

more like: 60-Minutes presents.. Remote viewers that admit to being a "hoax"

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 09:45 PM by stereologist

RV does not work. It certainly is not scientific. The group putting out this claim of a catastrophic meteor impact is well known for failure. Another failure just puts another nail in the coffin for RV.

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 09:54 PM by SUBKONCIOUS

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 09:59 PM by stereologist

The thread shows no reason to believe in RV and many reasons to consider RV a hoax based on the self delusions of the people involved. RV is a failure and this prediction will just end up being another failure.

reply posted on 24-8-2012 @ 10:19 PM by Paranormalist

reply posted on 25-8-2012 @ 09:45 AM by stereologist

reply to post by Paranormalist

You've managed to say nothing in many posts.

So far this thread has shown zero evidence in favor of RV. This thread is about RV.

Do you have any evidence in favor of RV? I'd like to see it instead of these rather vacuous suggestions about what you think people are supposed to do.

reply posted on 25-8-2012 @ 11:26 AM by rebellender

reply posted on 25-8-2012 @ 11:35 AM by stereologist

reply to post by rebellender

You've managed to say nothing in many posts.

So far in this thread your posts have shown zero evidence against RV. This thread is about RV.

Do you have any evidence against RV? I'd like to see it instead of these rather vacuous and erroneous suggestions about what you think people are supposed to do.

Since this is your thread I assume you'd have read it. If my assumption is right and you have you read the thread then you are lying. I have posted many instances of the utter and complete failure of RV. I found no instances at all in which RV worked. No one including you has posted any evidence in support of RV.

RV's failures are numerous including the failures of such clowns as the Farsight group which I have shown has made many stupendous blunders such as the claims of the active hose on Mars and the spaceship behind Hale Bopp.

So please do not lie in such obvious ways.

You should spend you time finding even one instance in which RV worked.

reply posted on 25-8-2012 @ 11:37 AM by stereologist

This thread is about RV. Where is t here any evidence at all that RV works.

The government gave the RV group more than ample time to show it worked. It was dumped because it was seen to be useless. Now many of those from that program are bilking the self deluded instead of bilking the government.