Remote Viewing 9/11- Amazing Revelations That DON'T Support the Official Story

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I'm trying to figure out the same my friend, I didn't know a lot about it before but the more I look at it the more it looks like crap. What do you think?

A guy that basically started the RV program talks about it...

www.biomindsuperpowers.com...

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Please tell me remote viewing is not been regarded as a serious source now on matters regarding 9/11....

There is a need to enlarge on that..a bit.
Thirteen years plus since the event is not remote viewing, it's history in any form you want to make it.
Anything done in the same way in Sept 2001, and consistent and proven to be so, would probably tick somebody's box.

Hi all, long time since posting...
I just want to say that RV is real, and it does work. I attended the IRVA conference a few years ago, and the experiment results where mind blowing... The experiment was pre-cognitve and associative...i.e. the target wasn't selected until after the RV session. The selection was randomly selected from dice rolls by attendees...that eventually determined which of 20 images (in envelopes) was the target. FYI, we turned in the drawings we made, so that they could not be altered after the fact when the target was revealed.

Anyway, I wanted to point out that the guys doing the RV in the video are NOT doing it correctly. By them trying to interpret the results as they see them introduces a cognitive bias. When preforming RV, you should not talk or try to interpret what you are seeing in your minds eye. You don't want to engage the logic side of the brain while RVíng. Just let it come, and try to draw the images etc. Then later try to interpret the results. This process will reduce any cognitive bias being introduced.

originally posted by: fastfred
Anyway, I wanted to point out that the guys doing the RV in the video are NOT doing it correctly. By them trying to interpret the results as they see them introduces a cognitive bias. When preforming RV, you should not talk or try to interpret what you are seeing in your minds eye. You don't want to engage the logic side of the brain while RVíng. Just let it come, and try to draw the images etc. Then later try to interpret the results. This process will reduce any cognitive bias being introduced.

There are many different ways to RV and many different protocols that some follow and other don't. I wouldn't say they are doing it wrong. You are right that talking about it can impact the rest of the drawing. Some protocols allow for questions to be asked of the RV'er during the drawing to focus the work better. These guys are 'experts' at it however and have done it thousands of times.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I'm trying to figure out the same my friend, I didn't know a lot about it before but the more I look at it the more it looks like crap. What do you think?

I tend to take note of what the Army looks into. I've noticed too many time cancelled projects showing up later fully realized under a new name.

I can't take this as any evidence about 9/11. It's something to notice maybe. It does fit my thoughts on that particular event, but it's nothing provable.

I have had my own psychic type events, that I cannot prove. Maybe if I had told everyone before it happened and then it happened it would bare more weight, but talking about something after the fact really doesn't do much for me.

How we understand the actual construction of "reality" may play a crucial role in the viability of remote viewing. For instance, if things really are predestined and on a predetermined path, then remote viewing into that past would yield the actual events as they happened. It might also reveal the lies that were told to cover up the REAL events. One's own misconceptions of how reality is really constructed could easily skew the belief system as to the potential of remote viewing.

Now if it turns out that there are really infinite reality paths for each second of the day, and we just happen to be traveling down one of them, then remote viewing the past could be just viewing one of those reality paths, with infinite possibilities of results.

But my gut tells me that there may be infinite reality paths from this second forward, but only one true path from this second backward. A true path I refer to as absolute history- the history that really happened, as opposed to that as told by victors, liars and cheats. Cayce referred to it as the Akashic Record. I think we can all agree that there IS an absolute, true history. And it would seem that remote viewing into that history would reveal the truth. Because why would it reveal that which DIDN'T happen? It would only reveal that which DID happen.

Okay, let me get this straight. Remote viewing of an event 13 years ago confirms a theory that the "viewer" knew about before he tries to view it.......

The general theme of the video, its conclusions, and this thread, reminds me of the 1982 movie Wrong Is Right which starred Sean Connery. Here is its blurb from IMDB:

A satire of American news reporting, Covert Agencies, and political system. The theft of two suitcase sized nuclear weapons, and their sale to a terrorist group, leads TV Newsman Patrick Hale on an international chase to track them down, and uncover the twisting maze of apparent involvement of US Government agencies.

My bs detector has blown a fuse !
At least take the tin foil hat off ,
To salvage an ounce of credibility .

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I'm not blasting on you when I say this but,

As long as I put remote viewing in front of anything I want to speculate about it becomes more credible? I may be mistaken but I didn't know that remote viewing was actually a real thing that is scientifically based and repeatable? I am watching your vid but I remain HIGHLY HIGHLY skeptical about it. On another note it is interesting at the very least thanks for posting as I have not seen nor heard of this series.

Whether remote viewing is scientifically repeatable, and therefore testable, tells us nothing about its authenticity. I see people make this mistake too often. Science only studies the physical world insofar as something can be controlled and repeated. Science thinks that anything that does not submit itself to physical scrutiny is either not real, or not worthy of study, and this is simply absurd. Do we honestly think that science has reached the pinnacle of discovery, even though we know that science builds on what has come previously? Again, this says nothing about the legitimacy of remote viewing. Maybe it is real, maybe it is fake, but because it is untestable does not immediately make it fake.

Well if it can't be demonstrated under controlled conditions that only means one of two things, it is either a. far too inconsistent to be taken seriously as a means of gaining valid information or b. complete and utter bullocks.

I'm going with b.. but I can't be certain.