History of Remote Viewing

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

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby Gary » Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:38 am

MikeJamieson wrote: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.


I have a problem when "opinion" is presented to appear as fact, especially when it is based on a narrowly selected (biased) data point.

In particular I am concerned that a certain person connected to the US Government may have influenced this bias in his communications with one of the RU moderators, perhaps to facilitate an unknown agenda.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am


Postby MikeJamieson » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:46 am

Gary wrote:
MikeJamieson wrote: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.


I have a problem when "opinion" is presented to appear as fact, especially when it is based on a narrowly selected (biased) data point.

In particular I am concerned that a certain person connected to the US Government may have influenced this bias in his communications with one of the RU moderators, perhaps to facilitate an unknown agenda.


I see. Well, I still don't know how that will impact me or anyone else. So far as I can see, we're just hashing things out here. It's like a mutual education project.
If someone is voicing an opinion and presenting it as fact, that's one thing we can sort out. (Which we seem to be doing with the statistical evidence related to psi, right?) I don't see myself, or too many people here, all that vulnerable to being manipulated by any sort of agenda. We're not a bunch of Moonies here, afterall. (Sorry if I offended any members of that Church, just the first example that popped into my mind.)

I'm catching up here and I do see some interesting dialogues going on that I have been completely unaware of over the past several months, or a full year actually. I am completely relaxed with people who have a radically different take than me. There are a few things I have zero tolerance for, like Jeff Rense posting total crap that smears the likely next President of the United States, but other than things like that, I find myself becoming very relaxed lately with all sorts of things. Not distressed. Not only do I think that's based on a deepening meditation practice, but I think it's also possibly a byproduct of this past year of intense campaign work. And, exposure to Barack Obama. Who has shown me a lot in the ways of being a gentleman. (Boy, do I have some personal stories about that!)

If there's a moderator here, or all of them in fact, who have a completely different take than me on some issues, that's not going to affect me in any way whatsoever. I presume it won't affect many others also. They only get in the way of folks who clearly cross generally accepted lines.

I guess what I'm saying is that it is really not necessary to get angry over differences, biases and all the rest of it. (I think I've trained myself well by
listening to the likes of Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc. I've learned not to scream at the tv anymore.)
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:51 pm

Gary wrote:
MikeJamieson wrote: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.


I have a problem when "opinion" is presented to appear as fact, especially when it is based on a narrowly selected (biased) data point.


You really are a hoot, Gary. FACT is, you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing us of! You have a problem with our opinions? Then be specific about what you have a problem with or shut the hell up. Do you think you have an exclusive on the truth? No you do not. You cherry pick the data that suits your own agenda then have the audacity to complain when someone doesn't agree with you! If this was an open and closed case as you would have us believe, where is the evidence to back it up with? The evidence I have seen so far, and forgive me for sharing my opinion on this, is nothing of the sort. Most of the reports I have seen on this phenomena are nothing more than highly subjective interpretations of something that have been twisted and turned in order to give a hit. Let me give you an example, if someone is tasked with viewing a particular location, say for example a stadium or something. Why can't the viewer describe the location he is seeing as exactly that? A stadium is a pretty specific thing and would be instantly recognisable as such. Why then describe shapes and other such nonsense. "I see a large building, looks like a stadium of some kind, surrounded by open spaces like a large carpark".
That sort of description fits much better than the generic "I see a shape, possibly a square or a triangle"... That ain't remote viewing, it's remote guessing. I'm not saying remote viewing isn't possible, but the evidence for it is light years away from being convincing.

That the USG and other entities have investigated the phenomenon is not indicitive of the phenomenon being real or proven, either. It demonstrates that the phenomenon was investigated. That there are thousandsof documents contained in the Stargate files for example is also not surprising. What did you expect after 20 years, a few scribbled notes on a piece of paper?

Gary wrote:In particular I am concerned that a certain person connected to the US Government may have influenced this bias in his communications with one of the RU moderators, perhaps to facilitate an unknown agenda.


Rofl, you want to know the extent of the RV aspect of those communications? "It's b.s.". There you go Gary, there's an exclusive for ya!

Want to know what I find intriguing? That you constantly fire shots in this particular person's direction. Any particular reason for that, or do you simply have a problem with those in the employ of the USG? One could be forgiven for thinking it is YOU with an "unknown" agenda...

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

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:03 pm

MikeJamieson wrote: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.


Thanks for stating the obvious Mike, it's appreciated :)

I see. Well, I still don't know how that will impact me or anyone else. So far as I can see, we're just hashing things out here. It's like a mutual education project.
If someone is voicing an opinion and presenting it as fact, that's one thing we can sort out. (Which we seem to be doing with the statistical evidence related to psi, right?) I don't see myself, or too many people here, all that vulnerable to being manipulated by any sort of agenda. We're not a bunch of Moonies here, afterall. (Sorry if I offended any members of that Church, just the first example that popped into my mind.)


That is a point that Gary would do well to take on board. RU is not just about Ryan, or AD or myself. It is about the membership taking part in the discussions and our attempts at uncovering whatever truth it is we are looking for - together.

If there's a moderator here, or all of them in fact, who have a completely different take than me on some issues, that's not going to affect me in any way whatsoever. I presume it won't affect many others also. They only get in the way of folks who clearly cross generally accepted lines.


Thanks again Mike, that is exactly what we try to do. It gets really annoying having to defend things we haven't done.

I guess what I'm saying is that it is really not necessary to get angry over differences, biases and all the rest of it. (I think I've trained myself well by
listening to the likes of Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc. I've learned not to scream at the tv anymore.)


I should take up meditation ;)

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

Postby Gary » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:19 pm

Wow! Guess I pushed the right (wrong) button, eh Steve? :-) I have been very clear about my concern: RU tends to push an opinionated viewpoint based on a very limited review of the available data.

Let's see: RU parades Hyman's report as evidence against the RVing program while ignoring the fact that both Hyman the skeptic and Utts the proponent "agree more than they disagree" since they both accepted that there were "statistically significant results" and the research conducted by SAIC, one of America's top defense contractors, represented "a vast improvement in experimental protocols." In fact, Hyman concluded that "recent SAIC results are methodologically superior to previously flawed SRI work" and that the "new results are statistically significant."

As for the government person alluded to re: RVing as B.S., assuming this is the same SIO, I have documentation that refutes his stated opinion, and falsifies statements he provided to me re: RVing.

It is clear from the DIA records that STAR GATE was intended to move into a new phase based upon understanding the signal transmission/reception mechanism behind RVing, with the goal of developing communication systems.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:40 pm

Gary wrote:Wow! Guess I pushed the right (wrong) button, eh Steve? :-) I have been very clear about my concern: RU tends to push an opinionated viewpoint based on a very limited review of the available data.


If by pushing the right buttons you mean continuing to annoy me with your baseless nonsense then yes, I guess you did.

Let's see: RU parades Hyman's report as evidence against the RVing program...


Eh? RU paraded what now? That is exactly what I mean about you Gary. Is the report presented on the main site or on the blog? No Gary, it has been offered (along with many other opinions and reports) on the forum where it can be discussed by the membership. RU hasn't paraded anything of the sort.

As for the government person alluded to re: RVing as B.S., assuming this is the same SIO, I have documentation that refutes his stated opinion, and falsifies statements he provided to me re: RVing.


Good for you Gary, I suggest you take it up with the man himself. Our discussions have been about other subjects entirely, as I implied above.

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

Postby ryguy » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:45 pm

Gary wrote:As for the government person alluded to re: RVing as B.S., assuming this is the same SIO, I have documentation that refutes his stated opinion, and falsifies statements he provided to me re: RVing.


What's that?

"and falsifies statements he provided to me re: RVing."

LOL....what a hypocrite.

-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

In the hit parade!

Postby MikeJamieson » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:49 pm

So far as RV goes, only my articles have been paraded. BTW, colloboration
welcome. (See other thread.) I will post (in articles) the various perspectives and questions raised. HELL, I might even quote Randi!!!!!

I'm not sure when I will be writing about the story of the Odd Couple (that would be Jessica and Ray, of course). But, the conflicting perspectives of those within
Congress and the Executive Branch will be written about at different stages of the story.

Eh? RU paraded what now? That is exactly what I mean about you Gary. Is the report presented on the main site or on the blog? No Gary, it has been offered (along with many other opinions and reports) on the forum where it can be discussed by the membership. RU hasn't paraded anything of the sort.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Re: In the hit parade!

Postby Gary » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:21 am

MikeJamieson wrote:So far as RV goes, only my articles have been paraded. BTW, colloboration
welcome. (See other thread.) I will post (in articles) the various perspectives and questions raised. HELL, I might even quote Randi!!!!!

I'm not sure when I will be writing about the story of the Odd Couple (that would be Jessica and Ray, of course). But, the conflicting perspectives of those within
Congress and the Executive Branch will be written about at different stages of the story.

Eh? RU paraded what now? That is exactly what I mean about you Gary. Is the report presented on the main site or on the blog? No Gary, it has been offered (along with many other opinions and reports) on the forum where it can be discussed by the membership. RU hasn't paraded anything of the sort.


Steve:

It's easy to make grand statements like "the SRI research was flawed" etc. and then mention Hyman's Blue Ribbon opinion in passing without presenting the relevant data which can be easily obtained from USG documentation. Instead RU moderators often resort to quoting old data from web sites -- many which came into existence before the STAR GATE files were even available. For that matter the historical books on the subject, including Paul Smith's book, which I consider the best out there, were written before the USG documentation was available.

RU also appears to be unaware of foreign research and potentially relevant work in subquantum pilot wave theories of quantum mechanics, on-going USG sponsored work in torsion fields, etc. which might explain phenomena like remote viewing and eventually lead to new weaponized technologies. (I personally prefer the backwards time interpretation which might explain why compartmentalizing RV'ing results effectively quenched operational RV'ing of intelligence targets.)

Ryan: STAR GATE was a SECRET / LIMDIS / NOFORN program. Most USG types have never seen the relevant documentation, nor have taken the time to do so since it was declassified.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby dazdude » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:27 am

Let me give you an example, if someone is tasked with viewing a particular location, say for example a stadium or something. Why can't the viewer describe the location he is seeing as exactly that? A stadium is a pretty specific thing and would be instantly recognisable as such. Why then describe shapes and other such nonsense. "I see a large building, looks like a stadium of some kind, surrounded by open spaces like a large carpark".


I can answer this for you.
Bandwidth...
The channel that allows for psi data to happen in humans doesn't allow for massive bandwidth - why? - we do not know.

As an analogy:
Most PSI including RV is like trying to access the modern internet based on cable modems and broadband content with a 14,400 modem and a speed of 4kb per secon ( if you remember these) when this happens the webpage forms in small chunks, little, by little one bit at a time, each little bit building on the last until you finally get a full picture.

T hats how psi works - you can and don't just get a massive burst of data - maybe its a bodily defence mechanism or something - I mean imagine how disruptive and dangerous to life itself it would be if all of a sudden everyone could have a burst of full screen imagery insights overloading your mind when you are driving down the street or crossing the road - I don't know - but its pretty much solid that there does seem to be very limited bandwidth in the psi channel.

But again you're going over old ground that has been proved over and over again in multiple labs - the phenomenon exists. Its been proved.

That there are thousands of documents contained in the Stargate files for example is also not surprising. What did you expect after 20 years, a few scribbled notes on a piece of paper?


Its not the fact there are documents - its the fact that there are documents from 13 ( i think thats correct) of the top science labs in the world showing time after time over a 20 year period that PSI effect were in place in the lab. yet you do seem to want to ignore this and still say its not been proven - yet these scientist and top labs have proved it?

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: In the hit parade!

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:34 am

Gary wrote:Steve:

It's easy to make grand statements like "the SRI research was flawed" etc. and then mention Hyman's Blue Ribbon opinion in passing without presenting the relevant data which can be easily obtained from USG documentation.


Let me just say this post is infinitely better presented than the post that was lost in migration. I was considering suspending your account for that one.

Wrt the SRI (and other) research what I will say is this; one man's interpretation of a "hit" differs VASTLY from mine. That's just me. Get over it :)

Instead RU moderators often resort to quoting old data from web sites -- many which came into existence before the STAR GATE files were even available. For that matter the historical books on the subject, including Paul Smith's book, which I consider the best out there, were written before the USG documentation was available.


We don't resort to anything of the sort! Have a look through the many links provided in this section of the forum. You will even find references to your own site and sites you yourself have pointed us toward! Your argument above is becoming tired, Gary. Time to try a new one?

RU also appears to be unaware of foreign research and potentially relevant work in subquantum pilot wave theories of quantum mechanics, on-going USG sponsored work in torsion fields, etc. which might explain phenomena like remote viewing and eventually lead to new weaponized technologies. (I personally prefer the backwards time interpretation which might explain why compartmentalizing RV'ing results effectively quenched operational RV'ing of intelligence targets.)


You presume to know so much about us... :roll:
I personally do know about pilot wave theory thank you very much, and -if you must know- I think the idea is ridiculous. Using such a theory in an attempt to explain entanglement is far too specific by half. Don't get me started on the popular interpretation of the many worlds hypothesis either. I am not a big fan of using fancy ideas in order to make something such as remote viewing "fit". Prove there is something that needs fitting in the first place. That has not been done, regardless of what you or Daz might say to the contrary ;)

The Holographic Universe is my favourite book btw. I've read it several times and I must say it is extremely stimulating. There is no way I would use it as a model in an attempt to explain the unknown, however.

As for Torsion Field research, do you mean this type of research?
(emphasis added)

Torsion field, also called axion field, spin field, spinor field, and microlepton field is a pseudoscientific concept loosely based on Einstein-Cartan theory and some unorthodox solutions of Maxwell's equations. The torsion field concept was conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of physicists in the 1980s. The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov, began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies, but was disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as fraud and embezzlement of state funding, only to reemerge again as a private enterprise; The International Institute for Theoretical and Applied Physics and later as a private company UVITOR.


I thought the following quote to be quite apt also:

The basic postulates of these theories are full of contradictions and scientifically nonsensical statements, but their applications take this a step further. Torsion field theory was hailed as the explanation for homeopathy, telepathy, levitation, clairvoyance, and other paranormal activity and ESP, which also would allow the humankind to harness it, building everything from miracle cure devices (including devices that cure alcohol addiction) to working stargates, UFO propulsion analogs and superweapons. Many such devices, in particular the miracle cure boxes, have been patented], manufactured and sold, and some appear to work due to placebo effect, and the torsion field scientists have been working hard to obtain large-scale government and military contracts.


One person's "yay!" is another person's "I beg your pardon!?"

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

Postby MikeJamieson » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:44 am

Reading the wikipedia article on remote viewing just now, I found this:

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for paranormal claims and thus he remains unconvinced:[27]

" I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. ... Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."
—Richard Wiseman, Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28-29
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Re: In the hit parade!

Postby Gary » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:45 am

Zep Tepi wrote: Wrt the SRI (and other) research what I will say is this; one man's interpretation of a "hit" differs VASTLY from mine. That's just me. Get over it :)

As for Torsion Field research, do you mean this type of research?
(emphasis added)

Torsion field, also called axion field, spin field, spinor field, and microlepton field is a pseudoscientific concept loosely based on Einstein-Cartan theory and some unorthodox solutions of Maxwell's equations. The torsion field concept was conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of physicists in the 1980s. The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov, began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies, but was disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as fraud and embezzlement of state funding, only to reemerge again as a private enterprise; The International Institute for Theoretical and Applied Physics and later as a private company UVITOR.




Steve, this is the perfect example of over-generalizing from a narrow data point!

Torsion has become a hot topic in physics today. For example:

... it has been established in Refs. [1] and [2] that the torsion is associated with the intrinsic spin of a particle ...

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605142

As for subjectivity in remote viewing, you must not be aware that initial DIA tests were successfully able to transmit simple coded binary choice messages?

I'll have to get back to you with the details later.

BTW "The previous program was able to estimate that approximately one percent of the general population possessed a high-quality, natural AC [anomalous cognition] ability."

And just FYI pilot wave theory is a perfectly legitimate field of study in physics.

As is the many worlds theory, which can be potentially falsified or proven by the emerging field of quantum computers.

However, as shown by Max Tegmark et al, there are actually other reasons to believe in many worlds that don't require quantum parallel worlds:

Many worlds in one
Authors: Jaume Garriga, Alexander Vilenkin
(Submitted on 3 Feb 2001 (v1), last revised 2 May 2001 (this version, v2))

Abstract: A generic prediction of inflation is that the thermalized region we inhabit is spatially infinite. Thus, it contains an infinite number of regions of the same size as our observable universe, which we shall denote as O-regions. We argue that the number of possible histories which may take place inside of an O-region, from the time of recombination up to the present time, is finite. Hence, there are an infinite number of O-regions with identical histories up to the present, but which need not be identical in the future. Moreover, all histories which are not forbidden by conservation laws will occur in a finite fraction of all O-regions. The ensemble of O-regions is reminiscent of the ensemble of universes in the many-world picture of quantum mechanics.

An important difference, however, is that other O-regions are unquestionably real.

Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby MikeJamieson » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:52 am

The largest posting of released Stargate material is here:

http://www.remoteviewed.com/remote_view ... litary.htm

(Wikipedia only references this site for FOIA released materials, which makes sense because so far my research has shown most are there. Black Vault has only a very small number posted. )

Way to go, dazdude! (You have an impressive work ethic, clearly.)
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby MikeJamieson » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:57 am

Can I humbly suggest (no hostility agenda, just my anal retentive need for an orderly desk) that we put the theoritical discussion concerning possible underlying causes and dynamics related to RV in a seperate thread?

This is a history thread. That way we won't have criss crossing streams here.
It would be neater that way. Also, a glossary might help. (Some people, not me......I had read earlier wikipedia articles on torsion fields, etc, and found myself spinning and getting dizzy, like when I read Jack Sarfatti....)
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 3 guests