History of Remote Viewing

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

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby MikeJamieson » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:18 pm

I forgot to mention about posting very specific questions related to RV history.
A while back, Hal Puthoff and Kit Green offered to answer questions that I might have, in the course of writing the articles, and they both have recently reaffirmed that offer of help recently when I re-established contact.

I can pass on specific questions that arise.

I should probably be reaching out to other persons involved in that history also.
Any ideas on who?
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA


Postby ryguy » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:43 pm

MikeJamieson wrote:I should probably be reaching out to other persons involved in that history also.
Any ideas on who?


I've got one - if he'll be willing to talk to you, and Kit and/or Hal don't advise him not to.

He will be an amazing source of information and insight for you. I'll forward his contact details via email.

-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

Postby MikeJamieson » Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:09 pm

Thanks!

***address removed***

I know I am only doing short summaries of the history, but the more people
(who were involved) help out, the better or more accurate these summaries will be.


***edited - removed your email so the spiders and spammers don't harvest it and start sending you thousands of spam emails***
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby dazdude » Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:55 pm

early people:
Keith harary - viewer
jacques Vallee - viewer - yes the UFO one!
Hartleigh Trent - viewer
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

Postby MikeJamieson » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:04 pm

Thanks, dazdude.

Keith Harary did join up pretty early. It was fun seeing him in that
Hella Hammid video you linked us to.

I have a friend who is somewhat regularly in contact with Vallee.
I can approach Valle that way probably.

I'll look into Trent.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:10 pm

dazdude wrote:Hi,
I am of the studied opinion that eventually, we will possess the appropriate scientific/systemic math and modeling language to be able to quantify more and more PSI capabilities that have been hit-or-miss mysteries down through time.

cant we already do this with quantum and holographic theory - both these theories have room for ALL the alleged PSI happenings to be normal effects of the universe within these models?


With all due respect, I think I have to agree with AD. Just because these theories "have room" to explain PSIstuff does not mean they actually do so, nor that their math has been vetted to do so. As the article AD shared points out, quantum theory and relativity do not agree in some areas, and they have yet to be successfully unified. The big outstanding item there is that mass/matter continues to be identified as separate and distinct from space-time. And also as pointed out in the article, too many crackpots will abuse quantum theory in how they adopt it to "prove" their crackpot claims. They believe (incorrectly) that the "uncertainty" aspect of quantum theory can be used as a broad brush to "prove" that many wild things "could be true." Of course, such people can never vet their claims with the math of quantum theory, or any other mathematically rigorous theory for that matter.

Holographic theory... can you cite specific sources to help me understand what you are pointing at? I am aware of at least one theory that intrigues me, and that is the work of John Archibald Wheeler. His work intrigues me because he attempts to tie the rigorous (and statistical) concept of thermodynamic entropy to the less-rigorous (but not inconsequential) concept of information entropy. If there is a hope for explaining PSIstuff, then I DO think it lies in the connection between energy and information. But I do NOT think we are "there" yet in terms of quantifying a theory such that it can be tested and proven. My gut feel does tell me that we will come to a greater understanding of the relationship between energy and information, and this may be part of the breakthrough I referred to above.

And Systems Theory is ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS and how relationships of one thing to another give rise to emergent phenomena.

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

Postby dazdude » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:18 pm

f there is a hope for explaining PSIstuff, then I DO think it lies in the connection between energy and information. But I do NOT think we are "there" yet in terms of quantifying a theory such that it can be tested and proven.


Well i didn't say we were there yet - i said these theories( unlike precious models of the universe) have room for the paranormal and that what seems like paranormal properties don't seem to paranormal more normal in the holographic theory. I'm by no means an expert and have only read the works of Michael Talbot with his Holographic universe book and articles.

Yes these theories are yet unproven but they are shaping up to be interesting contenders don't you think?

all the best...

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

Postby Access Denied » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:25 pm

MikeJamieson wrote:I dare ANYONE to make sense of that material.

Challenge accepted... :D

On the surface it appears to be an attempt to show that an “unethical” and "corrupt" CIA (hence the Watergate references for example) “stole” RV “technology” from the CoS. Regardless of this “overt” agenda, what I find interesting is the underlying assumption that RV is “valuable” (hence the numerous “success” stories sprinkled throughout) therefore it also appears to be a “covert” attempt to “legitimize” RV. The funny thing is what I see from my remote viewpoint (pun intended) is the subversive nature of both organizations being (inadvertently?) exposed… and of particular concern is the implication that the “classic” RV “success” stories can be explained by foreign intelligence ties… i.e. the CIA et. al. had been infiltrated by double agents motivated by greed.

How’s that for a first order approximation? 8)


dazdude wrote:Yes these theories are yet unproven but they are shaping up to be interesting contenders don't you think?

Not really, you’re putting the cart before the horse I’m afraid… first you need to prove that a paranormal phenomenon exists beyond the oft cited “greater than chance alone” rationalization before you can even begin to try and explain it.

Allow me to reiterate in a nutshell what Ray has already pointed out…

Despite what you may have been told, the holographic “principle” and related “theory” (e.g. strings and branes for which empirical evidence is conspicuously absent) is speculative conjecture… it remains unproven i.e. no (complete) mathematical proof exists. Sorry…

[that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, however that does mean it’s also entirely possible it’s incorrect]

In the interest of balance I think this is worth considering…

http://skepdic.com/esp.html

Much of the belief in ESP is based upon apparently unusual events that seem inexplicable. However, we should not assume that every event in the universe can be explained. Nor should we assume that what is inexplicable requires a paranormal (or supernatural) explanation. Maybe an event can't be explained because there is nothing to explain.

Like it or not, the sum total of the “History of Remote Viewing” to date suggests…

Most of the evidence for ESP is anecdotal and is dismissed by skeptics as based on one or several of the following:

· incompetence or fraud by parapsychologists or believers in psi
· trickery by mentalists
· cold reading
· subjective validation
· selective thinking and confirmation bias
· poor grasp of probabilities and of the law of truly large numbers
· shoehorning, retrospective clairvoyance, and retrospective falsification
· gullibility, self-deception, and wishful thinking

And finally…

Psychologists who have thoroughly investigated parapsychological studies, like Ray Hyman and Blackmore, have concluded that where positive results have been found, the work was fraught with fraud, error, incompetence, and statistical legerdemain.

Going forward it would seem RV advocates would be wise to separate themselves from the “cloak and dagger” aspects of the “History of Remote Viewing” as a means of “legitimizing” the field and pursue more conventional methods of validation e.g. open peer review.

That’s my $0.02 anyway…
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]

Postby MikeJamieson » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:38 pm

I'm gonna give you an "A", AD. Good job.

MikeJamieson wrote:

I dare ANYONE to make sense of that material.

Challenge accepted... Very Happy

On the surface it appears to be an attempt to show that an “unethical” and "corrupt" CIA (hence the Watergate references for example) “stole” RV “technology” from the CoS. Regardless of this “overt” agenda, what I find interesting is the underlying assumption that RV is “valuable” (hence the numerous “success” stories sprinkled throughout) therefore it also appears to be a “covert” attempt to “legitimize” RV. The funny thing is what I see from my remote viewpoint (pun intended) is the subversive nature of both organizations being (inadvertently?) exposed… and of particular concern is the implication that the “classic” RV “success” stories can be explained by foreign intelligence ties… i.e. the CIA et. al. had been infiltrated by double agents motivated by greed.

How’s that for a first order approximation? Cool
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby MikeJamieson » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:48 pm

Ray Hyman, Princeton study , 1994: "the golden egg".

(He backtracked a couple of years later on the ganzfeld studies, but, hey!,
he's the one who developed the protocols/methods for the '94 study.)

BTW, I think paranormal is a bad term. There's nothing paranormal
about so called esp. It's as natural as breathing. We just don't understand
the how and why. But, I think dazdude basicly has it right: everything is
interconnected, non-seperate. But, I'm not proposing the above notions
as something people should accept "as so". Just sharing my perspective.

So far as the cloak and dagger focus and the history: I'm just writing the history.
I'm not trying to prove anything about RV. I don't operate as a missionary or some guy preaching in a tent. (Someday I may play that role for a bit, just for fun. Anyone have any good "missions" for me to preach on?) I'll leave the "is it 'real' or not for
others to debate.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

The odd couple: Utts/Hyman

Postby MikeJamieson » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:10 pm

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/r ... hyman.html

The above is a snapshot of the issues raised by AD.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby Access Denied » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:46 pm

MikeJamieson wrote:So far as the cloak and dagger focus and the history: I'm just writing the history. I'm not trying to prove anything about RV.

I didn't get the impression you were. (in retrospect I should have responded to Daz in a separate post)

MikeJamieson wrote:Anyone have any good "missions" for me to preach on?

You mean besides attempting to inject some clarity into the murky waters collectively known as “alternative topics”? :wink:

MikeJamieson wrote:I'll leave the "is it 'real' or not for others to debate.

Yeah, that’s not something I’m really interested in doing either… I'll go grab a bag of popcorn and move to the back of theatre now. :)
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]

Postby dazdude » Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:34 pm

Access denied,
as you brought up Ray Hyman

Ray Hyman
Sep 11th 1995

Because my report will emphasize points of disagreement between Professor Utts and me, I want to state that we agree on many other points. 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.


you also said:
Not really, you’re putting the cart before the horse I’m afraid… first you need to prove that a paranormal phenomenon exists beyond the oft cited “greater than chance alone” rationalization before you can even begin to try and explain it.

Well it depends on what you call proof. If its research papers by some of the best scientific labs in the world that show there is an effect taking place then yes this is proof - and has been in existence for at least 2o years. Why does is have to be limited to your definition of beyond chance - its been proved what more do you need?

you also said;

Like it or not, the sum total of the “History of Remote Viewing” to date suggests…

Quote:

Most of the evidence for ESP is anecdotal and is dismissed by skeptics as based on one or several of the following:

· incompetence or fraud by parapsychologists or believers in psi
· trickery by mentalists
· cold reading
· subjective validation
· selective thinking and confirmation bias
· poor grasp of probabilities and of the law of truly large numbers
· shoehorning, retrospective clairvoyance, and retrospective falsification
· gullibility, self-deception, and wishful thinking


you quote this and use the Name of Ray Hyman (earlier) yet i already show ray doesn't agree with these comments.

LOL where - in the pages of the skeptic website maybe, but in the labs of the top science departments in the US and other countries and in the intel agencies who spent 20 milion on its research it doesn't.

the evidence for esp is monumental not anecdotal - you need to read the masses or SRI and SAIC documents from the stargate archive details tens of thousands of esp trial which prove its existence - or do you believe the words of sceptics over scientist?

I can find and supply huge ammouts of documents form men with IQ's and PHD's all over the place that have done thousands of scientific trials over and over that show an state that this is a real phenomenon.


And finally…

Quote:

Psychologists who have thoroughly investigated parapsychological studies, like Ray Hyman and Blackmore, have concluded that where positive results have been found, the work was fraught with fraud, error, incompetence, and statistical legerdemain.

Going forward it would seem RV advocates would be wise to separate themselves from the “cloak and dagger” aspects of the “History of Remote Viewing” as a means of “legitimizing” the field and pursue more conventional methods of validation e.g. open peer review.

That’s my $0.02 anyway…


Sorry but you seem to lack a great amount of research knowledge - multiple scientific papers form multiple labs have proved the existence of a PSI and open peer review - Puthoff and Targ amongst many of the scientists involved have published remote viewing and esp papers all over the place in peer reviews - you need to do some actual research my friend.

As to separation form cloak and dagger - thats crazy - the best research for 20 years was done under the folds of cloak and dagger research - why separate it?
You don't see nay non cloak and dagger labs getting the 20M that it did from the secret program which proved time and time again a real effect.

read the papers - some are on my website.

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

Postby Gary » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:26 am

dazdude wrote: Sorry but you seem to lack a great amount of research knowledge - multiple scientific papers form multiple labs have proved the existence of a PSI and open peer review - Puthoff and Targ amongst many of the scientists involved have published remote viewing and esp papers all over the place in peer reviews - you need to do some actual research my friend.


Daz is, of course, correct about Ray Hyman and the final STAR GATE Blue Ribbon review:

http://www.starstreamresearch.com/SG%20 ... Review.jpg

I agree 100 percent with his assessment: Reality Uncovered tends to over-generalize their conclusions based upon a narrow set of the available data (i.e. they are biased and appear to have an agenda).
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby MikeJamieson » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:43 am

C'mon, Gary, lighten up a little bit. Everyone has biases. But, the moderators
aren't suppressing our ability to post information or opinions.

And, agenda? It is what is stated openly.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

PreviousNext

Google

Return to PSI / Mind Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron