Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

Personally, no amount of people claiming they were psychic ever made the slightest dent in my BS-meter, especially since that whole new age world is the grapenut contingent (fruits, nuts and flakes) much of the time.

Just DO it. Pretend it's science fiction, suspend disbelief, learn something about it, and do it yourself. That is in my experience the ONLY thing that truly makes someone believe there is something to it.

How "much" there is, and how "much" you personally can do for it, those are separate topics. When I look at what people submit for RV (and I've been working with people on this for a dozen years), once in awhile it's staggeringly obvious, sometimes it's good but imperfect, most the time with practiced viewers it varies between that and so-so with the occasional 'missed target', and a good chunk of time with the general public it's lost-in-space. But only statistics looks at the big picture for a decision; when you feel and see something inside you, and then get feedback and it's EXACTLY that -- even if you communicated it horribly on paper, which is not uncommon LOL (it's as much a 'translation' and 'communication' art as anything) -- that is the convincing part.

It's the kind of thing that can really only be grasped (grokked, as Heinlein might have said) directly. For indirect, 'official' demonstrations or proof of concept, the science lab under controlled conditions is the only legit source. Any attempt to make other sources stand-in as legitimacy tests is mostly IMO just a subconscious effort to "look where it is not" in the hopes of not having evidence for it truly challenge belief systems.

A viewer works on perceiving, on translating what they perceive, on articulating what they perceive via sketch or words. They look at hard feedback. They compare every word/phrase/line of data they wrote down with the target, with their remembered-experience of what made them write that down, and they hopefully learn something from that. Rinse, repeat 10,000 times.

Like any sensory process, active repeated use for input and neural mapping to 'meaning' of input is required. Unfortunately this is a VERY long term practice; probably one of the most frustrating arts on earth for that reason and others. Everybody is working on it. Even the most public 'expert' (McMoneagle) fails sometimes and he is learning still, and forever. Everybody else has varying levels of skill, some better than others, all subject to variance.

reply to post by dazsmith

OF course you dont remember 'Tornado' was mentioned.

That's a lie. I did.

You see - you are taking single words and comments of of context and in your ignorance of how remoet viewing works are trying tio use this as a weapon to show its doesn't.

Another lie. I used phrases and the ENTIRE document.

In fact it is you that is using a single word.

No one and definitely not me, ever said Remote viewing is 100% accurate. In my sessions anything form 5-50% cha be inaccurate - luckily is average is about 20%. which means out of 100 pieces of information - noise has made 20 or so inaccurate. So you have to look at the 'whole picture' a remote viewing session paints and not just disect single parts.

In the case of the tornado viewing only 1/6 might have to do with tornadoes. This is being quite generous. None of the words suggesting location match up with Arkansas.

The target consists of;
Structures, people, motion, object.

That covers a large part of the world.

The Structures are;
Manmade, of mixed sizes and shapes.
At least one of the structures has a rough/texture surface feel.
One of the structures is tall with multiple levels to it, feels lipped in part.
Very linear accents seem to be part of the design.
This structure feels important to the location/region.
The structures feel like they are exposed to an aggressive, natural flowing motion.
The structures feel stepped and from above appear closely located.
Location feels close to a curved area of land/coastal.

That covers a large part of the world. What did this have to do with the tornadoes? Nothing.

Hot, sandy and bright. The land itself felts generally flat and flowing in shape/form.
This feels edged by water/sea.

That was a huge miss.

There is an object which is;
Shiny and smooth, this feels very curved and flowing in its designed form.
This is also manmade, metal.
This feels highly designed.

That's another huge miss.

There are people at the target who are;
Hot & tiered with dry throats.

Thanks for continueing to point out failure after failure. I applaud you for the candor of showing how this RV session was a failure.

There is a motion at the target which is;
Aggressive and fluid, free in its movement.
This builds to a crescendo and then dissipates downwards.
The movement feels penetrating as it interacts with the location and structures.
The flow/movement is against the structures in a wild, uncontrolled manner.
The motion builds to a release then it trails away.
As it builds its motion is spikey with aggressive movements then it recedes with a
release of energy ‐ much like an orgasm.

More failure. Cheers for your candor.

Now did I predictively weeks in advance describes what could be a tornado - let alone sketch it (which is in the actual session - showing a wave of movement hitting and going through a structure)

Not at all.

And by the way - i named the target as a TORNADO on page 4.

That is you going back to a single word.

This is the failure of RV. With all of the descriptions NOT about a storm the self deluded viewer zooms in on the one or two little items that allow them to claim a hit.

So remember - dont take individual words - look at the information as a whole.

That's is what I have been saying - you failed. The whole shows that RV failed.

Because, this single paragraph is a great DESCRIPTION of a TORNADO!!!!
if you say otherwise then you are clearly beyond all help.

Like I said before this is a great example of someone exhibiting delusions of success.

Thanks for showing everyone how self delusion works.

There is a motion at the target which is;
Aggressive and fluid, free in its movement.
This builds to a crescendo and then dissipates downwards.
The movement feels penetrating as it interacts with the location and structures.
The flow/movement is against the structures in a wild, uncontrolled manner.
The motion builds to a release then it trails away.
As it builds its motion is spikey with aggressive movements then it recedes with a release of energy ‐ much like an orgasm.

Let's see what People think this describes. I have a few suggestions.
1. a Riverdance performance
2. a performance of Bolero by Ravel
3. a parade
4. a protest march
5. the daily tides
6. a rainstorm
7. daily commute
8. pigeons flying
9. a wild party
10, a county fair
11. a street festival
12. a flood

Nobody really understands psychic functioning. What we do know a little about is stuff that can make the overall process "more prone to" go better or worse; and we know how to reduce certain kinds of noise and amplify certain kinds of signal. A little bit. So part of RV protocol is using the knowledge of the past for a decent protocol in the present. But it's not perfect because we're only at the beginning of this.

"Psi" is a warehouse-word. It gets all the things that have no other definition. When something gets a definition (such as how in the 80's, frequencies in the human voice, and pheromones, gained huge understanding in those areas of physiological research), then those things get their own term and they are moved OUT by the Remote Viewing protocol--which is designed to "exclude everything that is known to NOT be psi".

It's possible that eventually everything will have a label and explanation and there will be nothing left to call 'psychic'.

Something people outside the field may not be aware is that RV really is a *new* field particularly with the public. There is a lot of growing experimentation as people honestly try to learn more about not only how their own mind works but how the larger dynamic of RV works in a team or applications context for example. Sometimes more is learned by how things get messed up, than any other path.

The (mis)"education" provided by government people as part of 'training' the public set the field back quite a ways in some regards and has kept it going nowhere in circles for over a decade, but fortunately at least a few people have managed to gain some accomplishment despite that, and sloowwwlllly but surely a science-based protocol everyone should have started with is getting better understood and utilized, at which point things are actually beginning to go better, and I think the future will see more applications work that will be educational to everyone exposed to it.

There has been a repeated claim that RV is science based.

What makes any fo this science based?

What are the facts?
What are the theories?
What experiments are being done to test RV?
How is RV falsifiable?

What is it that makes any of this science?

The CIA or DIA could have stopped their communicating about a lot of this with a single signature. Curiously that never happened, and despite several high-level reportings of Ed Dames for stuff that probably should have put him in Leavenworth, he was never investigated; he and Morehouse were in a "strategic deception" unit when they left the military; Ed was promoted to Major and released.

He went into the world very very loudly talking about something he called 'remote viewing' which has a bare resemblance to it -- a lot of resemblance with an experimental psychic method (an experiment which was canceled for lack of evidence of its value, circa 1986), but zero resemblance to the protocol which is the single thing that took psi out of the mystical wishful woo-woo and often fraudulent cultural muck it's been relegated to since the dawn of time, and cleaned it off and made it able to be studied and applied cleanly.

Pretty much everything he (and to a lesser degree but similar manner, his coworkers of that era) have advertised since 1995 has turned out to be more a matter of disinformation than anything.

Courtney Brown, OTOH, has jump started the RV world and has done so with a keen eye on the scientific protocols (see OP links).

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular

Courtney Brown, OTOH, has jump started the RV world and has done so with a keen eye on the scientific protocols (see OP links).

So you think that science is just about having a protocol? Not at all.

There is no science here as far as I can see.

Science is not about following a particular procedure. That's just widow dressing to mkae this appear to be some legitimate line of research.

What makes this scientific?

The defense seems to be that you distance yourself from some clown with a long list of failures.

Brown too has a long list of failures.

I have some more ideas about the paragraph that has been called a great description of a tornado.

1. low clouds gently blowing through a city of tall buildings
2. fish being moved through the weirs of a dish farm and removed for shipping to market
3. a factory making cars
4. a rocket launch
5. cruise ship leaving port
6. an indoor soccer match
7. the running of the bulls of Pamplona
8. flooding streets during a rainstorm
9. strafing run of an airplane
10. a wrecking ball
11. harvesting grain

[sigh]

So much claptrap by so few who know so little.

There was never a stargate program.

There were many, many 'projects' and they overlapped and the dates on at least some are pretty 'creative'. When the CIA made the overall program public, a few of the projects had already been made public, and by the time the CIA decided to clean out the file drawers (literally) and very carefully release about 5% of the documentation from the project -- perhaps I'm cynical but I distrust their reasoning on every inclusion -- a few more projects had been mentioned publicly.

They gathered the projects which were already known about and they put them under the umbrella name "The STAR GATE Program." That was the name of the last unit project in '95 when it closed. In doing this they accomplished three things: They ensured that anybody searching for information via FOIA would only find "the projects we chose to lump under the name TSP"; they ensured that anybody searching for psychic stuff during that era could simply be 'automatically categorized as looking for the stargate program'; and, they then real carefully vetted what they wanted to be released for that and did it all at once, to save the FOIA altogether and ensure any future requests could merely point to that.

Better still, since they had it all in one huge collection, they could make people pay for it, rather than having to deal with sending out pieces at a time on request.

Still patiently waiting for anything substantiating what appears to be a false claim that RV is science.

Some people have the false idea that by doing anything with a set protocol somehow makes it scientific. It sounds more like religion to me. There is the start of the ritual. There is the ritualistic process. There is the completion of the ritual.

Rituals do not make science.

This same ritualistic emphasis is made by people claiming that thoughts affect the growth of ice crystals.

It's all window dressing to cover up the fact that it does not work.

The military gave the RV group more than sufficient time to show something. They never did. The project was dumped because it was deemed useless.

But was it useless? No. It was a means of duping the gullible and those prone to self delusions into transferring their cash to those that stated they could teach this to anyone. So it does have a purpose. It earns money. It makes money despite the fact that it doesn't work. Then again Madoff and others have done the same.

reply to post by stereologist


I really want to thankyou Stereologist for keeping this thread alive for me. I cannot believe 32 pages and most attributed to YOU!!!

Thanks Man!!!

The issue is the definition of remote viewing and what people claim to be able to do.

You do not go to people with cameras and demand that their camera perform by providing GPS coordinates. If you did, you would either be ignorant of what the tool was expected to do, or you would be attempting to judge the tool by something nobody ever claimed for it in the first place, which would make no sense at all, unless you just wanted to mislead onlookers about what's really going on.

(I use 'you' in the general sense here)

If you told someone you played piano and were a musician, and they "set up a test" and gave you a 12-string pedal-steel guitar in eFlat and told you to prove yourself on it, would that be fair? You might say, "Well yes but this is NOT what I said I could do," and they'd say, "Aha, making excuses again eh!"

Did the person viewing say they felt they could describe numbers/letters/papers, which are quite famously -- in case you're not aware -- the very least likely things to succeed such as in a science trial of remote viewing? No, they did not. So ask yourself, why would a "test of them" even AFTER this was made clear, immediately pull up those famous examples?

Someone tasking like that, in this case, clearly knows what remote viewing does least, and is deliberately tasking to it. This makes them untrustworthy from the outset--now, no matter what the target was, I would not trust them not to change it or do something else devious to try and work against the project. It's an issue of "good faith"; it's obvious they haven't got it.

When people make claims they need to stand by them.

A common claim for RV is that it is science based. Why do they claim that?

It appears to be a bluff at best. When asked to provide a reason why they make this claim the response is an excuse, or whining or multiple excuses.

The recent spate of excuses are quite similar to the excuses as to why astrology fails. Would it be fair to ask an accomplished astrologer to play a guitar when they have mastered a piano? No one is asking the RV claimant to do a test incompatible with their area of expertise. That straw man argument is a typical excuse as to why failures happen. Instead of testing and failing, the excuse for failure appears before the test. You see that all of the time with the ninnies that complain about the million dollar deal with the Amazing Randi.

All I want to see is some reason that RV is called science based. There are 2 reasons I have been offered in the past:
1. use of a strict protocol
2. multiple levels of blinding

Town meetings use a strict protocol. Does that make town meetings science based?

Does blinding make the process science-based? No. Blinding is a part of the protocol.

THE SCIENCE OF REMOTE VIEWING: Essi Tolling interviews Courtney Brown, Ph.D., Director of The Farsight Institute

Essi Tolling - Dr. Courtney Brown Interview

Again with the science claim.

This really sums up the possibility of this being science.

Just DO it. Pretend it's science fiction, suspend disbelief, learn something about it, and do it yourself. That is in my experience the ONLY thing that truly makes someone believe there is something to it.

If there actually were anything to this as a science it would have been stated.

Was anythign? No, nothing, nada.

The just do it suggestion is based on the idea that believers will believe because they can delude themselves into thinking it works.

There are no objective results. All of the results are subjective.

I thought the tornado results were bad. I wonder how bad the results are when Daz thinks it failed?

Brown does a terrible job of describing superposition. It does not read as if he is using the term as used in QT.

Superposition has to do with objects existing in all possible states until measured. Then only 1 of the states is measured.

I wonder why Brown has a hard time understanding that objects appear to be solid due to EM. The interactions of electrons make objects solid.

I also like the part where he pretends to know things that "most" other scientists do not.

A mild report on RV
skepdic.com...

One of the odd notions sometimes passed off as being science based is the notion blinding.

Blinding is done in experiments to avoid the observer affecting the outcome of an experiment.

It doesn't make the experiment scientific. It simply removes or reduces confounding issues.

Like so many other pseudoscientific beliefs, RV goes away from proper controls are applied to experiments.


Going back to the OP, RV predicts a catastrophic meteor impact before 2013. It's rather pointless to even consider such a claim since the group doing the claim is well know for their huge mistakes and failures.

A more realistic claim was the Elenin comet. Even though it was impossible for the comet to hit the Earth at least it existed.