so you wrote "tornado" but when i ask you to attempt to name a target its totally against all these fantastical self serving "rules" you have?. hmmmm......
Rich - you have to have knowledge of the CRV process to understand the data. When we get naming data we record it as AOL's these are analytical overlays - the mind guessing with incomplete data. they are usually close matches for the target, but sometimes can actually be the correct name for the target - though generally not. Its not my self erving rules - it sthe rules of the method/system that was created for the US military. Its an attempt at trying to distinguish and identify 'possible' noise in the process.
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.
Because there isnt the slightest degree of knowledge of how rv and CRv works form those that are decrying and who wnat to run a test - with demands that I name the target - which is a big no, no through all remoet viewing methods taught. Its hard debating when some of you have a very basic or no knowledge of actual remoet viewing that isnt Ed Dames sound bites from C2C.
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.
Not at all I've already many many months ago said Id do a test for Ryan when an if the playing field is fair and level.
'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...
Thousand of pages of scientific testing are available on my website which I am not allowed to cite (i wonder why).
- Code: Select all
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.
I've been threatened that I cant paste links to supporting documents on my websites????
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.
Not at all - but if you and others cant act fairly and level headedly then I wont participate. Its all I ask.As to your Titanic analysis
- its just plain crazy - you go out with my RV description and retro fit an image to the data and say hey look it fits - this means your data was rubbish - yet i did all mine blind - you give yourself the luxury of having my data in hand to fit to a target image - and you think this is scientific proof that my data was wrong??????
yet i scan supply links to seesions ( if i were allowed that is?) where i named and accurately sketched the targets all done blind
like the tornado and the Sydney harbour targets - discredit these.
now daz says hes won small amounts, well daz, i went through a lucky year once and had extremely regular small wins and even once said to a friend "im gonna win the lotto tonight" and won a decent prize with a work syndicate but have hardly won a thing since. none of it was psychic at all it was just statistical chance and i could have quite easily claimed i was psychic and got a decent looking result... now picking the jackpot by psychic means is a little less of a statistical chance and thats why "psychics" dont do it and make the excuses that they do like "we cant use our power for personal gain" while charging some poor grieving soul a fortune for a dodgy cold reading.
Yep but my data that made the picks came form BLIND remote viewing and not perosnal knowledge of the events/sports/thing bet upon.
Secondly I don't do readings and do not charge for any Rv work that I do do - which is primarily for the U.S police forces on missing persons work.
now next up daz was extremely happy to write the word "tornado" on one of his viewings but then tells me its absolutely forbidden to even attempt to name a target!...
I've written about this above - its your lack of knowledge of the remote viewing process that clouds your comments - its why doing a test is hard because you are trying to judge me based on no knowledge of how remoet viewing works and how it is done and used?
then every time i ask daz if he had attempted to win any prizes from any sceptical or scientific groups he avoided the questions or twisted his answers to suit himself which made me have to keep re phrasing them to try and stop him worming his way out of it but still got no clear answers even though he knew full well what i was asking, he kept insisting that james randi is no scientist and therefore not worthy of testing daz yet hes happy to do his stuff for non scientists on the paracast that weren't offering a million dollars... i wonder why?.
The Randi challenge isn't scientific- its a magician side show - its not a scientific group - Randi is NOT a scientist hes a showman - and one with no real science background if he uses trickery and 'plants' like he has done in the past ( doc on my website - which im not allowed to mention)- that's NOT scientific behaviour - its cheating.
If a psyhci had been proved to have used plants in a scientific experiment - youd be shouting your ass off about all psychics being fakes - yet when Randi does is - you dismiss it and forget it - funny that.
I cnat do tests for a man (Randi) that has acted so - his reputation precedes him.
daz says i was retro fitting for his titanic viewing, well it matters not, my points stand, millions upon millions of objects and places would fit that vague description, and many of them with a far better fit.
It does matter.
90+ of my data matched the target - I did this BLIND its not my choice what target they picked - so the data may match any other number of found and compared targets - thats irrelevant? I was asked to describe a psychicially blind target - and this is what I did?
BTW, I'm not sure whether it is worth taking this much further, but I would be willing to chat with anyone genuinely interested in setting up a usable testing regime (preferably publicly on this thread or another for that purpose). I would warn that it will not be a trivial task, but if a decent set of parameters could be set up, then other (braver) rv-claimants would then be able to have their say and explain why they object to any of the methodology. Or perhaps even have a shot at it...
Its been done before thousand upon thousands of time - the AIR document itself form Hyman and Utss where both agree that there were no flaws or problems in the science and experiments yet an effect was measured - are you saying that Hyman and Utts made a a mistake and that you can do it better?
Professor Jessica Utts and I were given the task of evaluating the program on "Anomalous Mental Phenomena" carried out at SRI International (formerly the Stanford Research Institute) from 1973 through 1989 and continued at SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) from 1992 through 1994. We were asked to evaluate this research in terms of its scientific value. We were also asked to comment on its potential utility for intelligence applications.
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. http://mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/ ... hyman.html