Quoting Daz{AD} Do you accept the challenge as proposed?
No
...?????
Am I missing something here?
The refusal was given on no basis whatsoever. At NO point did Daz even
begin to engage in a reasonable discussion on what would be acceptable.
Indeed, one would have to surmise that he was simply waiting for a few comments he could take umbrage at and then run like the wind, knowing full well what the result will be when he and his associates are not running the tests.
{Chrlz} ...They never want to take on the lotto, or truly random numbers, or answering from set word lists - simply because using any of those methods can't be twisted to their favour. Why do you think there is NO, I repeat NO properly peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted verification of this? Don't you think science would LOVE to have something new like this to properly investigate, and more importantly, use and develop?
LOL clearly you have no idea about the already found uses and non uses of remoet viewing. especially in relation to words and numbers.
'LOL'?? - Daz, you're such a profeshunal... But he's actually right, I have no idea about the 'found uses'
of something that does not exist. If Daz disputes that comment, why did he not simply provide links and cites to some decent scientific testing, instead of the execrable claptrap on his spam site? And to back up the fact that it is execrable, see my example below...
There seems to be an increasing tendence for Daz to make more and more claims, yet when he is asked to support anything - nothing but ad hominems and LOL's.
Hence my elaboration below - I'd love to hear others comments on MY interpretation of one of Daz's successes...
{Chrlz}If I had more interest I would put more effort in and maybe help set up a test...
Can you read, Daz? Do you see there that I was
not partaking in setting up the test - I simply made some observations. Yet you seem to be terrified and have run away, without even having engaged in a discussion on how to set up a decent test.
Unbelievable... But not surprising...
Surely your powers can stand scrutiny? Well, no, it seems very clear that they CANNOT.
This is way I wont take a test with you -there is NO way it can ever be a level playing field.
Translation:
I won't even discuss setting up a level playing field, because I can't play on such a thing...You guys are so biased in the opposite before we start that there is no way any results would change your minds.
Oh do explain why you think we are biased? Seriously, I'd love to hear an answer to that. Are we being paid by 'them'? Are we afraid that there might be people with powers that might be able to... (fill in the gap please, because I can't think of any threatening downside..) Are we jealous?
And again I ask - why won't you engage in a debate about how to make the remote viewing tests beyond reproach and uncheatable?
I can only think of one reason. Indeed, if the results are not as
ridiculousambiguous as your Titanic effort, then you could simply point at the results. "Look you guys, unambiguously I got 8/10 of the viewings correct".. And we would all bow to your ability.
At least the Paracast sceptics were open to the possibility.
And we should be impressed why? They were qualified in what way? Did they have a background in science and testing methodology?
Was there any chance THEY might be biased towards a positive result?Why is bias in your direction ok, but bias towards proper testing not?(yes, that's a *really* stupid question, call it rhetorical..)
I'm not your man as trying the name the target goes against all the rules of my teaching CRV (look it up). The number of descriptive words and the sketches should be enough to generate an overall descriptive impression of the target.
How perfectly convenient. We wouldn't want accuracy, oh no, just adjectives and phrases that can be twisted around by the highly impartial 'judges'. What a complete and utter farce.
You see on the titanic session - virtually every single piece of data was a fit for that target except the words 'dry, land' all the other pieces which probably number 1-200 words in descriptive form match the target - yet you still say vague, wont vague mean that less than 50% of my data/words would fir the target?
And I thank you, daz, for reinforcing that example as one of your favorites. I was sorta hoping you might do that...
So let's look at that Titanic effort, in a just a tiny bt more detail...
First, here's the Titanic image in question:
Where is the citation/copyright for this image, Daz?And
here's a random landscape picture I just grabbed - seriously, I did a search for "country landscape", and shut my eyes and randomly moused to an image:
Image © Dr WP Brown from http://www.docbrown.info - reposted here for educational purposes only. I am happy to replace it with one of my own (but I'm just changing providers right at this moment!)Here's your description of the Titanic image, with my comments on how your description fits that random image, and then how it fits the Titanic one:
The target mainly feels like:
Land, structure/s and a downwards feel or movement.
Barn - superbly accurate - obviously land and structures, and there is a distinct downwards feel to the rock wall, the hills, even the leaning barn which leans down into the image. 8/10
Titanic - the word 'land' seems horribly out of place, and even structure seems a bit off - it is a vessel, not a building... And while downwards reflects what happened to get it there, it is not a particularly strong feature of the image itself. 5/10
The land:
Direct, hard, solid rough and dry.
Barn - again, yes, this is very much 'of the land', so I guess it's direct! The rocks are obviously rough and solid, and there is no sign of water in the image (except clouds). 7/10
Titanic - not sure why directness applies. I guess the structure is hard and solid, but some of it is/was smooth, and of course all that seaweed will be soft and flowing.... And 'dry'...??? The 'wetness' is an absolutely KEY part of the image!!! 4/10
Structure/s:
Feels manmade.
Constructed.
Strong imposing shape and form.
Tall, solid, hard, thick and dense.
Barn - yes, it's definitely manmade, indeed that is a feature of the image - the man-made-ness in contrast to, yet made from, the natural elements. Tall? well it does look taller than say a house would.. Certainly the two structures, barn and rock wall, are solid, hard, thick and dense. 7/10
Titanic - yes, manmade, but tallness doesn't really strike me from this image. Solid, hard? Yes, some of it. But thick and dense? Well, that soft flowing seaweed doesn't really look all that thick or dense to me. 5/10
The structure feels:
Very linear both on the horizontal and vertical levels. Lots of lines - blocky.
A part of the structure feels downwards based - drops downwards.
I’m not sure if this is motion or aesthetic and visual.
{I
love that last sentence! "How to make it applicable to everything" - I'm sure that is part of the 'CRV' training credo...}
Barn - yes, lines everywhere, tyre tracks coming down from the hill, the wall, the lines of the hills, horizons, fence posts and rails.. and the barn and that wall are both certainly blocky! The wall clearly drops away downwards, as do the hills, even the barn.. 8/10
Titanic - the rails have lines, but that's about it... Blocky? No. And i don't really see a strong 'drops downwards' effect. 6/10
From the perspective of looking up at the target;
it looks linear and oblique/sloped.
Everything feels chunky, solid and dense.
Barn - yes, slopes are very obvious everywhere, and haven't we already discussed the solid/chunkiness? 7/10
Titanic - yes, it slopes, but I don't get a 'chunky/solid/dense' feeling. 6/10
This has a ‘monolithic’ and important feel to it, like a memorial, a great sense of pride and achievement, a strength and for show.
Barn - yes, to a farmer or someone with an appreciation for such beauty in a landscape, as mankind battles with the elements to make an existence from the land, that's a lovely description. 6/10
Titanic - yes, that's not too far off,
but DISASTER or FAILURE of an achievement, or sadness rather than a 'great sense of pride' might have been a little better... 6/10
But alas we are going nowhere here
Indeed, I'm losing the will to live.. so I stopped there.
But in my humble opinion the entire description fits my completely unTitanic-like scene MUCH better. I'd be interested to hear other views,
plus I invite folks to just pluck any old image they like, and see how well Daz's description fits...The point I'm trying to make is how utterly ridiculous such a 'test' is, and how subjective and open to interpretation the 'results' are.It's WORTHLESS. If you tried to present such junk to a scientific review process, you would be laughed (and probably rapidly escorted) out of the door.
nothing except an 110% hit will convince you guys - even when i show you examples of a target of a tornado - and in my blind rv session I write 'tornado' as well as sketch and describe wind interacting with structures - you still don't think it was a hit for t target?
Apart from anything else, the full story of how these 'highly controlled' experiments were done is *not* properly documented. Indeed, over a long series of such tests, I would be shocked if you didn't score some decent sounding hits. Given the nature of the subjects (they all seem to be of rather interesting or dramatic events), the statistical analysis of such 'hits' would be (
by design?) impossible to delineate, and of course all the bad ones will never see the light of day. So of course any hits will
sound impressive. And as we don't know how rigorously controlled the tests were, and you refuse to engage in debating those issues, then it's game over.
This truly is the worst form of pseudo-science, and it reflects on the gullibility of the eager-I-want-to-believe-audience, and the self-delusion of the purveyors. This is a complete and utter fail, Daz. We have nowhere else to go.
You don't.
We do. Indeed, I'm thinking of using that Titanic 'analysis' elsewhere.
Hope you don't mind...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
There should of course also be *random* responses to see how chance manages to go, and responses from skeptics and believers alike.. Then, all the responses must be carefully anonymised before analysis by independent and unbiased persons.. 
