Free Remote viewing magazine

[dazdude]

i think we may need to hire a remote viewer to find out where dazdude is hiding!.....

Not Hiding anywhereE - I told Ryan months ago - I had to get another new job and am now working three which takes most of my time - im afraid paying the bills and eating is actually more important that hanging out on forums. But i will try to fit some discussion in now its eased off very slightly.

its funny how these people disappear when the are challenged with hard questions, logic and reasoning..

Nope! I haven't run anywhere - life gets in the way at times - there are things more important than debate with people who just have not read the available evidence.

and why do i get the feeling that Alpha6 was a sock puppet on dazdudes hand?.

Lost me here?

So may I express the same sentiments bakatcha! When you or daz wish to stop 'babbling on', and enter into a discussion of verifiable testing methodologies, do return...

You guys all chant the same stuff. its tiresome.
The SRI and SAIC remote viewing work - that was paid for and continued for 20 years (this alone should tell you something) was in the most done under strict scientific and tested methodologies - and over hundreds of thousands of RV trials showed an effect. ALl the time the rv work was for 20 years under the scrutiny of:
scientific oversight committees, psychological oversight committees, human subjects code oversight committees, medical oversight committees, technical oversight committees, financial oversight committees, statistical oversight committees - most of which were aranged and run by the paying sponsors themselves. The documentation for these is available in the 92,000 pages form the CIA - most of which have bios and references for the members of the scientific commitees. Yet you say there is no evidence and no proff of scientific and properly tested remote viewing, the mere fact alone that paying clinets approved through oversight committees the work being paid for by themselves for upto 20 years is validation enough - let alone the scientific validation which is a whole different matter.

We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes. - R Hyman -AIR report 1995

Remote viewing has by both scientific evaluation and by clients paying needs been proved to work - period.

Daz

[RICH-ENGLAND]

absolutely brilliant, your first comments sum it up daz, and sums up psychic nonsense to a T....

quote by dazdude:
Not Hiding anywhereE - I told Ryan months ago - I had to get another new job and am now working three which takes most of my time - im afraid paying the bills and eating is actually more important that hanging out on forums. But i will try to fit some discussion in now its eased off very slig

right then daz, so what you are telling us is that you have this uber magical psychic gift that allows you to predict lotto wins (you said so yourself)...

there's millions of dollars/pounds/rubles/euros etc on offer every week on lottos, and millions in prize money available to ANYONE that can prove they have any psychic/paranormal power, yet here you are moaning and needing to work 3 jobs just to eat etc.....

doesn't say much about your claimed ability does it daz?....

brilliant stuff though daz, keeps me entertained at least.

thanks

rich

[chrLz]

i think we may need to hire a remote viewer to find out where dazdude is hiding!.....

Not Hiding anywhereE

Just trying to fix your CapsLock key, perhaps?

I told Ryan months ago - I had to get another new job and am now working three which takes most of my time - im afraid paying the bills and eating is actually more important that hanging out on forums.

As Rich observed, why not prove your ability and use it for good, after all, I don't think anyone would object to you applying this to lotto, event betting, etc and then taking a cut for yourself, and maybe a bit towards charity..

You guys all chant the same stuff. its tiresome.

Bakcatcha, again. All talk, no willingness to discuss the way to set up a REAL test. One that was free of the biases that are as obvious as hanging dog anatomy, in the ludicrous examples submitted so far.

The SRI and SAIC remote viewing work - that was paid for and continued for 20 years (this alone should tell you something)

That the charlatans who promote this were good enough to string it out that far?
That governments often misspend money, that they are gullible?
That when claims are made, they can be at least worth investigating?

Can you point to the ongoing research and peer-reviewed results, the subsidiaries of SAIC that are carrying on this work now?

Can you explain why, given the implications of the application of that research, that there are no unequivocal cases of proven use?

I guess it's because it's super-secwut, and it's all hush hush, right?

Yet you say there is no evidence and no proff{sic} of scientific and properly tested remote viewing

That's because there is none. Nothing that has been accepted by the science community. With exceptionally good reason - it is tripe like the stuff you presented earlier. Sometimes the biases and faults in the research are quite well-disguised - that's in the nature of this stuff, where you always have the out "Oh, well, it will only work in certain circumstances, so we need to set the test up like this..", and those certain circumstances ALWAYS involve deliberate biases or flaws in the testing.

ALWAYS.

Now, let's go to your quote. It's from the JSE, first up (what a surprise) - a very well known source of NON-peer-reviewed pseudo science. That's the kiss of death for a start. It is NOT peer-reviewed. And is Ray Hyman the same one who once believed in palm reading, but has now recanted? The same one who is a self-proclaimed expert on cold-reading and promotes it? Yes, Ray - 'amaze your friends'... You've amazed Daz, anyway..

Anyway, all that is pretty much beside the point, because... Daz is being a bit naughty.

Let's look at it PROPERLY, instead of Daz's cherry picked and out of context quotes...

We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research.

Here, Hyman is referring to specific experiments, and he follows that with this - for some reason Daz obviously doesn't think this bit was important):

1. Do these apparently non-chance effects justify concluding that the exis-
tence of anomalous cognition has been established?
2. Has the possibility of methodological flaws been completely eliminat-
ed?
3 . Are the SAIC results consistent with the contemporary findings in other
parapsychological laboratories on remote viewing and the ganzfeld phe-
nomenon?
The remainder of this report will try to justify why I believe the answer to
these three questions is "no."

That would be a NO, Daz. Why did you leave that out?

FURTHERMORE, here is a direct, in context quote from the ABSTRACT of that paper (the abstract summarizes the content and INTENT of the paper) - it says:

..We evaluated these experiments in the context of contemporary
parapsychological research. Professor Utts concluded that the SAIC results,
taken in conjunction with other parapsychological research, proved the exis-
tence of ESP, especially precognition. My report argues that Professor Utts'
conclusion is premature, to say the least. The reports of the SAIC experi-
ments have become accessible for public scrutiny too recently for adequate
evaluation. Moreover, their findings have yet to be independently replicated.

My report also argues that the apparent consistencies between the SAIC re-
sults and those of other parapsychological experiments may be illusory.

Many important inconsistencies are emphasized.

Even if the observed effects can be independently replicated, much more theoretical
and empirical investigation would be needed before one could legitimately claim
the existence of paranormal functioning.

Gee, Daz, that seems to contradict you.. BADLY.

In fact one would have to observe that you seem to have deliberately attempted to mislead the forum on the content of that 'report'.

Feel free to now explain...

[nablator]

Hi chrLz,

The same one who is a self-proclaimed expert on cold-reading and promotes it? Yes, Ray - 'amaze your friends'... You've amazed Daz, anyway..

http://www.skepdic.com/Hyman_cold_reading.htm
Ray Hyman "promotes" cold reading just like James Randi "promotes" pseudoscience.

[chrLz]

Hi chrLz,

The same one who is a self-proclaimed expert on cold-reading and promotes it? Yes, Ray - 'amaze your friends'... You've amazed Daz, anyway..

http://www.skepdic.com/Hyman_cold_reading.htm
Ray Hyman "promotes" cold reading just like James Randi "promotes" pseudoscience.

Err, ok, yes.. I coulda worded that better! But hey, my link was to a skeptics site too..

My (poorly presented) point was that Daz is reading this stuff and seeing support for his cause - where there is none. Ray Hyman is not saying what Daz claims he is (- and even if he was, he would need to be posting it somewhere other than JSE...)

[RICH-ENGLAND]

oh and by the way, im still waiting for an explanation on a couple of things....

daz, how come you say you're not allowed to name a target when i ask you to do so but then give us an example of one of your sessions where you specifically named a tornado?.

daz, how come you say you're not allowed to know a target in advance when i challenge you but then give us examples of you winning money on the lotto which is obviously a target you know in advance?...

why do your rules appear to be very breakable when it suits you then appear to be absolutely set in stone unbreakable laws when we ask?....

thanks

rich