Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

This forum is for the discussion of psychokinesis and extrasensory perception.

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby MikeJamieson » Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:15 pm

I'm currently reading David Morehouse's "Pyschic Warrors", a book
recounting his experiences working for the DIA as a remote viewer.
(Morehouse joined the early generation of viewers in the late 80s.
Unlike most of the other people in that program, his psychic sensitivities
apparently developed after a trauma to his head---a bullet impacting
his helmet during a military training exercise. )

The subject of a remote viewing unit possibly targeting "enemies"
with "remote influencing" came up in this book. Morehouse (and
Mel Riley) became disenchanted when the remote viewing tool was
being expanded to use as a weapon (by attempting to adversly affect
others at a distance).

Is it for real? Is the military/intelligence arms of our government using
it covertly in classified programs? Can one protect oneself from this
type of potential intrusion?

BTW, here's Mel Riley's description of how one can protect oneself
(quote in Psychic Warrior): "You create an energy ball and surround
yourself with it. You give it a reflective surface, and that bounces the
probes back out into the ether." (He's describing visualization as well
as something akin to the practice of chi kung.)
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA


Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby Gary » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:23 am

MikeJamieson wrote:
The subject of a remote viewing unit possibly targeting "enemies"
with "remote influencing" came up in this book. Morehouse (and
Mel Riley) became disenchanted when the remote viewing tool was
being expanded to use as a weapon (by attempting to adversely affect
others at a distance).

Is it for real? Is the military/intelligence arms of our government using
it covertly in classified programs? Can one protect oneself from this
type of potential intrusion?)


The answer to your question appears to be blacked out in STAR GATE -- but generally speaking, the answer is "yes." And it is based upon achieving bio-chemical imbalance in the target's brain. [Note this does not require "paranormal" methods; it is sufficient to affect the individual via any perceptual channel.]
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby ryguy » Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:55 pm

Is it for real? Is the military/intelligence arms of our government using
it covertly in classified programs? Can one protect oneself from this
type of potential intrusion?)


Personally I've always believed that, if it is real - the perfect protection is a powerful and balanced spiritual life focused on prayerful meditation and a closeness to the Creator.

The following is obviously an anecdotal tale - but it's one that , if true, provides some clues as to the source of these supposed "powers" - and their limitations. I've not checked if there's a record of this story in the files, but this was one of those side stories that get told during a phone conversation. I've never attempted to confirm if it's true, so take it for what it is - an interesting story.

During one particular test - one of the CIA operators who was managing the testing that involved Pat Price, conducted a field experiment with Pat. The CIA official would visit several locations, and then Pat Price would report back information about those locations.

One particular location the CIA official visited was a church. It was a large stone church, and the official went in, took a moment to walk around the church and reflect...and then left.

Later when he met up with Price again, Price appeared pale and highly aggitated. He asked the official where he had gone, and when the official mentioned the Church, Price told him never to do that again. Apparently the very moment the official entered the church, Price had a terrible reaction - blinding and terrible images that blocked his ability not only to perceive the location, but the effect on Price actually sounded painful. Price's comment to the official was that churches are "evil places".

Taken from another perspective - if you are a believer in god and the sactity of certain places...it could be said that the church wasn't evil, but that which was attempting to enter the church was. The holy place provided a protection where the remote sensing or influencing couldn't reach.

Extend this to your personal life. If you believe in Remote Viewing or Sensing and want to block it - do whatever you believe needs to be done to bring the same protections upon you that were apparently made upon the church. With such a shield in place, and stengthened every day, anyone who attempts to "remote view" you will be in for a bit of a surprise.

This is, of course, if you believe that any of this is real. :)

The entire post above is based on two assumptions, that remote sensing is a real phenomenon, and that the story told about Price and the Church is true. Those are two huge assumptions.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:04 pm

Yup, as is so often the case in the weird and wacky world of make-believe, stories are attributed to people who are not in any position to discredit them, i.e. they are dead.

Did I tell you the story about my meeting with Arthur C Clarke a few years ago? Yeah, he told me he knew all about the alien bases on Mars, but had been paid by the USG to keep it quiet and present a more skeptical side to the public. He said he would expose the truth before his death but I guess he never got around to it...

[/pisstake]

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby Chorlton » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:52 pm

Wasnt A C Clarke too busy chasing young boys around Sri Lanka ?
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby dazdude » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:30 pm

I think the ingo an uri magnetometer sessions both affecting different magnetometers in different recorded, lab based experiments is a good starting point - its not definitive but its a starting point.

Also ingo swann did some interesting work in other labs

In 1970-71 Swann experimented with Cleve Backster in attempting to influence plants by mental activity. In 1971-72 psychokinetic experiments involved successfully influencing temperature recorded in a controlled setting devised by parapsychologists Gertrude Schmeidler and Larry Lewis at City College, New York. this involved PK effects upon target thermistors (temperature measuring devices) in insulted thermos bottles at a distance of 25 feet from Swann. (For a report, see G.R. Schmeidler, "PK Effects Upon Continuously Recorded Temperature," Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, no. 4, Oct. 1973).

Ingo's science and lab work - http://rviewer.com/IngoSwann-ResearchOverview.html

daz
Last edited by dazdude on Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby uberarcanist » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:38 pm

Chorlton wrote:Wasnt A C Clarke too busy chasing young boys around Sri Lanka ?


How do you suppose Steve ran into him? :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist.
867-5309
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby Access Denied » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:15 am

MikeJamieson wrote:Is it for real?

Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Do the math for the energy required. :wink:

ryguy wrote:Personally I've always believed that, if it is real - the perfect protection is a powerful and balanced spiritual life focused on prayerful meditation and a closeness to the Creator.

That’s probably still a good idea even if it isn’t real if you catch my drift.

Zep Tepi wrote:Did I tell you the story about my meeting with Arthur C Clarke a few years ago? Yeah, he told me he knew all about the alien bases on Mars, but had been paid by the USG to keep it quiet and present a more skeptical side to the public.

I can confirm he told me the same thing so clearly it must be true.

”They tell us absolutely nothing about intelligence elsewhere in the universe, but they do prove how rare it is on Earth."
~ A. C. Clarke on UFOs

Zep Tepi wrote:He said he would expose the truth before his death but I guess he never got around to it...

"No, merely cheerful."
~ A. C. Clarke on being gay
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby Gary » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:56 pm

Actually AD the answer is "yes" but not for the kind of reasons you are discrediting.

The real "remote influence" requires classical information channels and knowledge of how certain ideas invoke emotional response for a given individual. It is then possible to use classical information to produce self-organizing effects in an individual which can detrimentally affect an individual's brain function.

The FSU was deeply involved in this kind of research which is tangential to psychic phenomenology.

More psy-ops than psi-ops, although the two can be combined together as well.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:01 pm

To answer the question of the thread title in a technical way:

Remote Influencing, as a function which can be implemented in many physical ways, is certainly a capability within our universe. The simplest example that is all around us is radio communications (analog, digital, voice, data...). These all certainly qualify as ways to remotely influence any kind of system. Since I'm an airplane knucklehead I always use those examples.

The GlobalHawk (thanks Nor-Grum) :wink: is an autonomous physical entity, and its ground control station has a definite (designed-in) capability to remotely influence the air vehicle. No doubt about it.

But now, for the KIND of remote influencing that you are considering or implying, then one must ask the person considering if the technology is possible: "What type of signalling format and protocol are you suggesting is used by the human brain/body?"

Again, being extremely technical from a systems viewpoint:

1) Yes, remote influencing is certainly possible, in many demonstrable ways.
2) Is a SPECIFIC MODE of remote influencing possible or practical? Well, someone needs to quantify it to know.

And this is always where non-scientitic "woo-woos" love to make claims, but cannot back those claims up with even so much as a physical and/or mathematical model for how they THINK it might work. I will actively seek to debunk ANYONE who comes along and makes strong claims, but cannot even begin to describe a physical model for how it works. If nothing else, it will help the claimant see that they must take their theory and claims to this level before anyone can even vet its truth! I would shift from debunking mode to my systems analyst mode right away if they could present me a theoretical, physical/mathematical model!

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby MikeJamieson » Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:30 pm

Great discussion. Sorry, haven't been around (i.e.online) all that much lately.

Remote influencing is probably limited to very micro effects, imo.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby Access Denied » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:09 am

Gary wrote:The real "remote influence" requires classical information channels and knowledge of how certain ideas invoke emotional response for a given individual. It is then possible to use classical information to produce self-organizing effects in an individual which can detrimentally affect an individual's brain function.

The reality of "classical" mindf*ckery is not in dispute. :roll:

Gary wrote:More psy-ops than psi-ops, although the two can be combined together as well.

Sorry, I don't see any credible evidence of that.

Signed,

Milgram's 37
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby dazdude » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:21 pm

And this is always where non-scientitic "woo-woos" love to make claims, but cannot back those claims up with even so much as a physical and/or mathematical model for how they THINK it might work.


But this doesnt mean that there is NO such effect - just that the effect cannot be explained yet - surely?
Black holes and lots of things are at one point theories behind affects and alike before they are eventually proved with models - its the same for remote influencing under its many guises.

absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby Gary » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:32 am

To clarify this discussion, re: "human effects" there may be:

(A) Effects induced by information processing in the brain, which may be influenced by external information input into the system (software analog of the brain)

(B) Effects mediated by known or proposed fields that interact with brain processes directly in a controllable fashion

(C) Effects mediated by proposed deformations of quantum probabilities (Valentini model)

(A) Requires knowledge of how carefully selected information signals can affect the brain's environment at the molecular level (emotional / biochemical effects)

(B) Requires knowledge and control of fields which can controllably affect brain processes

(C) Requires an unknown theory of brain function at the quantum scale (like the Penrose-Hameroff single electron transistor in the Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory) that predicts subquantum non-equilibrium effects (Valentini's pilot wave)

The Penrose-Hameroff model is unique in offering a binary computational system controlled by a single quanta (single electron) , see http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/ for additional information.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Is "Remote Influencing" for real?

Postby ryguy » Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:54 pm

Gary wrote:To clarify this discussion, re: "human effects" there may be:

(A) Effects induced by information processing in the brain, which may be influenced by external information input into the system (software analog of the brain)

(B) Effects mediated by known or proposed fields that interact with brain processes directly in a controllable fashion


Those are my two personal favorites. Directed electro-magnetic frequencies (at a particular frequency) have a clear effect (or effects) on the information processing of the brain. Whether the technology is developed enough today so that the brain processes can be directed in a "controllable fashion" is definitely an issue to be concerned about. I doubt it though - most likely the best effects would be dizziness, confusion, nausea, etc...

It would certainly be an interesting weapon if such a directed frequency/radiation could inflict enemy troops with confusion, hallucinations, or other information processing malfunctions. I have a difficult time imagining that this aspect of "brain-research", which is related to a proven effect, hasn't been pursued further by military R&D.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Next

Google

Return to PSI / Mind Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron