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.