Free Remote viewing magazine

[chrLz]

Guys,
I'm curious as to your opinion - what degree of interpretation is acceptable in scientific analysis?

None.

That may sound flippant and 'close-minded', but I have a very good reason and rationale for saying it - but no time right now to elaborate! I'll be back in several hours.. In the meantime, I'll offer a couple of hints - error range, null hypothesis, falsification, and perhaps more importantly - the *nature* of what is being claimed by the RV'ers..

[chrLz]

My availability may be a little sporadic for a day or two, but just to clarify what I was alluding to above..

First up, science in general (and the law courts, and..) uses many processes and checks and balances to try to find the 'truth'. In the rigid disciplines like maths, chemistry, physics, etc, we use error ranges, unambiguous descriptions, testable hypotheses, null hypotheses, falsifiabilty, and so on..

Even in the the more unrigid disciplines like psychology/sociology and so on, the same techniques are applied wherever possible and if results are ambiguous they need to be flagged as exactly that. All of the provisos and assumptions should be stated and if possible, measured.

But there is a much bigger issue here - this RV stuff isn't a science!!! It's a CLAIM. I don't think anyone disputes that psychology exists... But here we have people claiming that RV is a science, based on ludicrous examples like the Titanic one... Now to test the claim that persons have the ability to 'remotely view' information using some kind of unexplained process, we CAN, very much, apply the rigour that is used to test any claim made in any other field - I have given numerous examples above. When attempts have been made to do that, the rv-ers either fail, or run away.

With these claims, we have people like Daz promoting a 'methodology' that involves lame-ass interpretations by testers who have an obvious bias, and using data and scenarios that even in the most basic sense, are skewed so that any proper analysis is simply impossible.

At NO point has Daz engaged in the debate about how a truly fair, null-testable, random test might be setup. Things like testing the null hypothesis, falsifiability, finding truly random scenarios to 'view', are all concepts and terms that seem to mean nothing to him, judging by the way he ignores them...

And the reason for that is simple. He knows that he will fail embarrassingly under such conditions. So he must try to defend his current protected environment, and use terms like 'close minded' to try to deflect attention away from the simple fact that he *must* have a skewed and biased test, and 'judges' who will be required to interpret words and phrases subjectively, in order to have a chance of 'success'.

But credit where it is due. His Titanic description is really quite a good 'hit' on that scene of the barn. Somehow, he must have known this would happen...

{cue twilight zone theme}


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...

[dazdude]

Rich,

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......

thanks
rich

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.

Chrlz,

...?????

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.

Rich,

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

[RICH-ENGLAND]

daz.

you just repeated the same nonsense again and once again avoided answering me properly.

again you went on a rant about randi and avoided the main point that i made, THE PARACAST ARENT SCIENTISTS but you're happy to do it for them but yet not happy to do it for anyone thats offering big money prizes because they want you to abide by rules.

yet i scan supply links to seesions ( if i were allowed that is?) where i named and accurately sketched the targets all doneblindlike the tornado and the Sydney harbour targets - discredit these.

here you say you named targets but again you refuse point blank to even attempt it when i ask you and you claim its against the rules. seriously, make your mind up.. either you can name them or you cant, its quite simple?...

you go on about having the same training as us military but YOU ARE NOT IN THE US MILITARY so are not bound by anything....

enough is enough, im calling you a fake until you submit to scientific testing and prove otherwise...

thanks

rich

[chrLz]

Chrlz,

...?????
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.

So, INSTEAD OF WHINING ABOUT BEING UNABLE TO SPAM YOUR SITE, explain calmly and logically *in your own words* exactly why the normal testing methodology rules need to be bent for you to succeed.

Thousand of pages of scientific testing are available on my website which I am not allowed to cite (i wonder why).

Because it is spam. Because it shows you are lazy and unwilling to debate it here. And then when you do bring anything over here, you won't answer questions or answer criticism. The Titanic one being a fine example - the holes in that have been outlined in great detail, and I've shown how your description applies much better to other images... But you aren't interested, because you don't want to discuss the issue of interpretation, or selection of images, or how you could falsify the hypothesis...

I've been threatened that I cant paste links to supporting documents on my websites????

Look, I don't want to rub this in (much), but stop being so intellectually lazy and bring the points here, in your own words. Concisely, on topic, and in a way that responds to the issues. You are NOT doing that, and are trying to deflect attention for that failure by whining about not being allowed to spam your site. Show us some independent data, well-supported, from sites without an obvious bias. By all means cite the sources, but bring the points here in your own words. Then people might listen instead of laugh.

if you and others cant act fairly and level headedly then I wont participate.

Check mirror.

As to your Titanic analysis - its just plain crazy

It's notable that you don't want to actually quote the bits that were crazy... Would you like me to put up a whole pile of other random images and we'll see how your description fits? How was the original Titanic image chosen? Have you tried applying your description to other 'random' images? How would you falsify the 'success' of that reading? Do you actually understand what that means, and why it is important?
Is anyone else reading this, impressed with that Titanic thing?

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.

You really are a very lazy person. AGAIN, you won't properly address a point by point rebuttal, instead wanting to move on to other spam links. You won't go near the major issues - namely that you have judges that are biased and using interpretations that are not measurable or falsifiable, and yet you expect others to run around chasing down scattergunned/spammed examples. Not going to happen.

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?

Would that be the report that includes this:

It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the
paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to characteristics of the judges
or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used. Use of the same
remote viewers, the same judge, and the same target photographs makes it
impossible to identify their independent effects.

Read that first bolded sentence back to yourself several times.

It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the
paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to characteristics of the judges
or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used.

Any questions?

BTW, Daz, above you said this:

Hyman and Utss ... both agree that there were no flaws or problems in the science and experiments

Would you like to now apologise for that blatant lie?

[ryguy]

Is anyone else reading this, impressed with that Titanic thing?

Not impressed but it raised my interest a little. The problem is without being involved in the reading, I have no idea whether it was truly blind or not. And since we can never seem to get past the debating phase, I doubt we'll ever be able to actually conduct such a reading, unfortunately.

It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the
paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to characteristics of the judges
or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used.

Any questions?

Did you overlook the words "observed effects"?

BTW, Daz, above you said this:

Hyman and Utss ... both agree that there were no flaws or problems in the science and experiments

Would you like to now apologise for that blatant lie?

This is what he stated at the part of the report when he was dealing with the entire field of research, not just one case (emphasis mine):

I will suggest one more reason for my belief that it is premature to try to account for what the SAIC and the ganzfeld experiments have so far put before us. On the basis of these experiments, contemporary parapsychologists claim that they have demonstrated the existence of an "anomaly." I will grant them that they have apparently demonstrated that the SAIC and the ganzfeld experiments have generated significant effect sizes beyond what we should expect from chance variations. I will further admit that, at this writing, I cannot suggest obvious methodological flaws to account for these significant effects. As I have previously mentioned, this admission does not mean that these experiments are free from subtle biases and potential bugs. The experimental paradigms are too recent and insufficiently evaluated to know for sure. I can point to departures from optimality that might harbor potential flaws--such as the use of a single judge across the remote viewing experiments, the active coaching of viewers by the experimenter during judging procedures in the ganzfeld, my discovery of peculiar patterns of scoring in the ganzfeld experiments, etc. Having granted that significant effects do occur in these experiments, I hasten to add that without further evidence, I do not think we can conclude that these effects are all due to the same cause--let alone that they result from a single phenomenon that is paranormal in origin.

It's pretty clear in the report that Hyman does an excellent job pointing out how and why it's premature to conclude that the effects result from the same cause or that they are paranormal in origin. But he does concede that the data shows some kind of effect beyond chance variations. I like his approach, because he's willing to open the door that further research is necessary before you can jump to the conclusion as to the cause of that effect. That's what I don't like about the RV field - to RV practitioners, the psychic cause is a foregone conclusion. It's not!

Here was what Hyman wrote in his conclusion (again, emphasis mine):

1. The SAIC experiments on anomalous mental phenomena are statistically and methodologically superior to the earlier SRI remote viewing research as well as to previous parapsychological studies. In particular, the experiments avoided the major flaw of non-independent trials for a given viewer. The investigators also made sure to avoid the problems of multiple statistical testing that was characteristic of much previous parapsychological research.

2. [to save space I'm removing 2, but he basically detailed how SAIC tried to study too much with too few resources.

3. Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated. Historically, each new paradigm in parapsychology has appeared to its designers and contemporary critics as relatively flawless. Only subsequently did previously unrecognized drawbacks come to light. Just as new computer programs require a shakedown period before hidden bugs come to light, each new scientific program requires scrutiny over time in the public arena before its defects emerge. Some possible sources of problems for the SAIC program are its reliance on experienced viewers, and the use of the same judge--one who is familiar to the viewers, for all the remote viewing. [edit to add - Excellent Point!]

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

5. However, the occurrence of statistical effects does not warrant the conclusion that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. Significant departures from the null hypothesis can occur for several reasons. Without a positive theory of anomalous cognition, we cannot say that these effects are due to a single cause, let alone claim they reflect anomalous cognition. We do not yet know how replicable these results will be, especially in terms of showing consistent relations to other variables. The investigators report findings that they believe show that the degree of anomalous cognition varies with target entropy and the `bandwidth' of the target set. These findings are preliminary and only suggestive at this time. Parapsychologists, in the past, have reported finding other correlates of psychic functioning such as extroversion, sheep/goats, altered states only to find that later studies could not replicate them.

My favorite quote of Hyman's is #7:

7. The challenge to parapsychology, if it hopes to convincingly claim the discovery of anomalous cognition, is to go beyond the demonstration of significant effects. The parapsychologists need to achieve the ability to specify conditions under which one can reliably witness their alleged phenomenon. They have to show that they can generate lawful relationships between attributes of this alleged phenomenon and independent variables. They have to be able to specify boundary conditions that will enable us to detect when anomalous cognition is and is not present.

So, to this day parapsychologists haven't done that - there is still no defined set of conditions where you can say, okay when we do this - you get that result. The effect, in my opinion, is so intermittent and science still has no solid way to take measurements, that I think right now there's little hope that the conditions that can replicate the effect 100% of the time will ever come to light. At least not until science has more accurate tools to take feedback measurements from the "control system" that produces this effect. As many in this thread accurately point out - judging vague descriptions just isn't good enough.

With that said, I agree with Hyman that while you can't draw any conclusions as to what causes the statistical effect, you also can't shut the door and say, "there's nothing here to look at folks, go home." I do think there's something to look at...it just may not be what parapsychologists or RV enthusiasts currently believe that it is...

-Ryan

[Zep Tepi]

I've been watching this from the sidelines but I think the time has come for me to add my thoughts.

...
Now in jsut the summary - the only data that doesnt fit the target was 'dry' for the land.

I'm sorry, but this isn't the only data in the summary that doesn't fit the target. Not only that, this single piece of "data" completely invalidates your claim of successfully identifying the target in the first place! Bearing in mind the target is a sunken ship, describing any aspect of it as dry just boggles my mind. By the same token, describing the target as feeling "mainly like" land when the fact of the matter it is at the bottom of the sea, i.e. the exact opposite of land(!) is another massive fail in my opinion.

From your notes on the pdf, you also describe luminosity at the target as bright and the temperature as warm, again - both exact opposites of the actual conditions at the target!

Claiming this as a success in any way, shape or form (see what I did there) is quite frankly absurd.

What Chrlz did when using your description against an entirely unrelated image was to highlight how easy it is to describe something in such a way so that it can apply to almost anything. No, it's not very scientific but illustrates perfectly the methods and techniques used by people in the paranormal field for decades.

More to come.

[Alpha6]

Hahahaha !

No matter what this chap DAZ puts up he will be shot down in flames by people who know absolutely NOTHING about Remote Viewing !~ What a joke !
What a lot of NARROW MINDED BLINKERED people you are !~


Before you do any experiment I suggest that you read a book that will educate you all as to the mechanics of RV once done then and only then should you attempt to design a test.

PS The AIR report was a directed organised piece of disinformation in some miliatry RV'ers eyes, they did not
even examine 50% of the data !, Infact their examination percentage was so small it was a joke !

http://davidmorehouse.com/products-page ... wing-book/

Best regards

Alpha6

[ryguy]

No matter what this chap DAZ puts up he will be shot down in flames by people who know absolutely NOTHING about Remote Viewing !~ What a joke !
What a lot of NARROW MINDED BLINKERED people you are !~

Not exactly conducive to an intelligent conversation...why don't you bring up counter-points to what anyone has stated?

Before you do any experiment I suggest that you read a book that will educate you all as to the mechanics of RV once done then and only then should you attempt to design a test.

"Mechanics?" You're kidding right?

PS The AIR report was a directed organised piece of disinformation in some miliatry RV'ers eyes, they did not
even examine 50% of the data !, Infact their examination percentage was so small it was a joke !

They were using a sample of data in order to determine whether or not the activity had any value to the area of intelligence collection. I thought both of their views were fairly balanced and they did a good job of showing why the effect is far too unpredictable to provide "hard" value to people that need information they can rely on.

I don't think people are automatically shooting down Daz, but there is a requirement here that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Again, I personally find the readings interesting, but there isn't enough information about the methods involved to use them as a form of evidence...that's what people are taking issue with, and for good reason!

At least with an in-house test, the methods and conditions are known, so the results would be more meaningful, at least to us.

-Ryan

[chrLz]

Hahahaha !

No matter what this chap DAZ puts up he will be shot down in flames by people who know absolutely NOTHING about Remote Viewing !~ What a joke !
What a lot of NARROW MINDED BLINKERED people you are !~


Before you do any experiment I suggest that you read a book that will educate you all as to the mechanics of RV once done then and only then should you attempt to design a test.

PS The AIR report was a directed organised piece of disinformation in some miliatry RV'ers eyes, they did not
even examine 50% of the data !, Infact their examination percentage was so small it was a joke !

http://davidmorehouse.com/products-page ... wing-book/

Best regards

Alpha6

Is that the David Morehouse who sells books, does seminars, and describes himself as 'Psychic Warrior'? Gee, at last, a real scientist... Why not invite him over for a chat?

Anyway, Alpha6, I shall ignore the attitude and take it this means you wish to engage in sensible debate about:
1. The flaws and biases in current rv claims.
2. How to eliminate them and come to a methodology for testing that is as rigorous as possible.

The first thing to do is to properly define the claim. I invite you, or Daz, or anyone, to provide a summary of exactly what rv-ers claim to be able to do. No spam links to books we can buy... After all, you keep giving these links without your own words (which isn't how forums work..), and complaining that we don't understand. And Daz is busily giving us the rules, and then showing lots of examples where he breaks them.. I'm confused.

So, provide a summary of the claim, in simple English. We will start from there. I'm happy to provide a full and detailed appraisal and analysis, with debate from all and any who wish to contribute, with a view to generating a suitable testing methodology that is beyond question (or as close to it as possible).

Stop dodging the issues and start engaging in an analysis. Clearly, if you are serious about these claims, you would WANT them to be proven, without the continual provisos about flaws and biases. So, if you can't/won't engage in a full and proper process of evaluation, then...

..guilty as charged..

To ryguy - I hear what you are saying, and mostly agree, but I'd add a small point - it is very obvious that it only takes a minor flaw or bias in the experiments to generate statistically significant 'effects'. Those flaws may be very difficult indeed to find.. And it is, of course, very much in the interests of the claimants to produce those 'effects'. And of course they have had many years of experience in the process of convincing themselves that the effect exists, and of dealing with scientists and analysts, and knowing what they will look for - so do you think the flaws will be obvious?....


This is, after all, a conspiracy site. And I'm a pretty cynical sort of bloke, so when a scientist admits he has any significant doubts in a field like this one, the alarm bells ring loudly. Like you said - extraordinary claims...

[Access Denied]

This is, after all, a conspiracy site.

Umm... are you lost?

Last time I looked the sign on the door says "Searching for the answers, passionate about the truth"...

Difference being we don't pretend to have all the answers as in “Must be (everything is) a conspiracy!” but you can be damn sure we’ll do our best to try and discover/uncover the truth by following the evidence (or lack thereof as the case may be) wherever it leads.

As Steve said, more to come…

[my apologies everyone, real life has been preventing me from responding to as many posts and threads as I would like lately]

Tom

[chrLz]

This is, after all, a conspiracy site.

Umm... are you lost?

Sorry - that was indeed a very poor choice of words!! What I meant was that this site *often deals with* conspiracies. So I don't feel too bad suggesting the almost impossible to believe conspiracy that some rv-ers might be doing a little cheating...

Anyway, I'm hoping Daz or any other rv-expert will come back and define for us *precisely* what rv is.

And then I'll be happy to look at that definition/claim in excruciating detail, and set up some suggestions for ways it could be properly tested. Those tests will include the extraordinary concepts of:
- true randomness (or something very close to it)
- set criteria for 'judging', that does not involve loose interpretations (AKA the "Titanic/Barn Effect")
and a whole pile of other sciency stuff that I'm sure everyone will agree to...

[RICH-ENGLAND]

i think we may need to hire a remote viewer to find out where dazdude is hiding!.....

its funny how these people disappear when the are challenged with hard questions, logic and reasoning..

i wonder if he has the same shower of oblivion that a certain wayne herschel disappeared into when the going got tough.

and why do i get the feeling that Alpha6 was a sock puppet on dazdudes hand?. hmm, ive also seen that behaviour a fair few times, new account signs up to defend the indefensible then disappears...

thanks

rich

[Alpha6]

Hi Rich,

Funny I thought you to be the "sock puppet" of Chrlz.....funny eh ?

I am an independant, so no problem there. I was waiting for something to be sorted out, ie to work a Session, but I can see why Dazdude has not returned, no matter what would be provided as an example of RV, it would only
be stamped fail, from this board, no matter how many examples are brought forward. You see you guys have NEGATIVE stamped across everything !

So I can understand it being a futile exercise. Go in peace and babble on !


Alpha6

[chrLz]

Hi Rich,
Funny I thought you to be the "sock puppet" of Chrlz.....funny eh ?

Each to their own sense of humour, I guess. This is based on...?

I am an independant, so no problem there. I was waiting for something to be sorted out, ie to work a Session, but I can see why Dazdude has not returned, no matter what would be provided as an example of RV, it would only be stamped fail, from this board, no matter how many examples are brought forward. You see you guys have NEGATIVE stamped across everything !

The posters here have given very good reasons why they were regarded as failures, in particular the Titanic debacle - which was not *our* choice of a 'showpiece'.. You, just like daz, seem to have no wish to engage in a sensible debate and address those issues, or provide any links to independent, fully documented testing that shows that there is something to rv.

There's a good reason why you can't provide those links. Do you know what it is?

So I can understand it being a futile exercise. Go in peace and babble on !

Well, I for one am so glad you at least understand why it will remain futile.. until a genuine rv claimant is willing to be subjected to a bit of scientific rigour, instead of the ridiculously biased self-testing/appraisal that seems to pervade...

So may I express the same sentiments bakatcha! When you or daz wish to stop 'babbling on', and enter into a discussion of verifiable testing methodologies, do return...

Indeed, let me throw you a curve ball. If I made the claim that my rv abilities were far superior to Daz's, how would I be able to prove that to your satisfaction? How about the general scientific community?

Do the 'proofs' differ? If so, why is that, do you think?