Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

I need to fix an embarrassing typo in the preceding post.

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

I meant to say:

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

This applies to science as well as pseudoscience work. There might be a small, but what appears to be a real effect in a science experiment. Controls are checked and tightened and sometimes the effect is real and continues to be measured. Other times the effect goes away. Recently a superluminal event went away when a loose cable was found. It appeared to be real. It was tested and retested and eventually found to be not real. Some drugs or treatments appear to be efficacious. Better experiments with larger sample sizes and better controls are created to evaluate the results. If the better experiments show no efficacy then the idea is dropped. If the effect continues to be seen then more experimentation is done.

For things like RV the failures are simply explained away pretending it is meaningless. Experiments are not done scientifically. The results are vague and extremely subjective.

Sports fans know that you can't referee your own child's games and be objective. RV is judged by the person that most wants to "win", to show that all of that time investment was better than a Madoff investment. You, yourself make the call about what you did, and that is a bad idea.

reply to post by stereologist


Actually sir may I interject here.

It seems you have two arguments you have rolled into one.

I myself have ran way to many times into this argument over what is science.

The only thing I have been able to find is this.

Science is the scientific method.

Nothing less and nothing more... A continuous cycle of experimentation and continuous questions...

each answer leads to new questions

Therefore all science is experimentation

the rest is the history of experiments... much different...


The second argument, the accuracy of Remote Viewing...

debates are easy to have and I will finish them later I do look forward to this discussion on it---


it is very important to this thread because first we have to decide if RV is a science or applied trade.. (like engineering)

then its batting average...

Third the prediction being referenced here

gtg will have to finish later... yall have a good night

reply to post by ripcontrol

Therefore all science is experimentation

the rest is the history of experiments... much different...

The scientific method is more than experiments.

A link was posted to Brown talking about QM. He talks about how RV might and I repeat might work through QM. Where are the experiments? Where are the predictions? Where is any of this? Where is the effort to minimize or reduce the subjective issues?

RV is not science based. It does not act like science or apply the scientific method.

Accuracy? None I have ever seen.

This particular prediction does not appear to be based on anything worthwhile. I imagine that RV is here to stay like a lot of other pseudoscience "stuff". With all of the predictions they make it is probable that over the next few decades one will turn out to be right. Then all of the failures are forgotten and the win or hit or whatever you want to call it will be paraded around. Call it the gambler gambit. Remember the wins and forget the piles of cash that have been lost.

Stereologist

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.

You are clearly delusional.
did I describe what could be a tornado? to say:

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.

Doesn't describe a tornado - its just plain ludicrous to say this is a faliure - if you were tasked as part of the english language to describe a tornado without saying the word tornado - then you'd come up with something similar,

That's another huge miss.

How can you claim my data is a miss - you'd have to examine the entire target are and not find a shiny, smooth object? Dont get me wrong Im not claiming this part was a hit - its an unknown - its not a miss.

But OK - clearly you dont like this target, so lets not dwell I have thousands of exmaple done BLIND so how about these:

SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE
Again I did in scientific protocol being BLIND to the target amongst others.
MY data is here: www.remoteviewed.com...

Again I name the target (page 10 of the pdf).

MY summary said:

The target feels:
Like a location where land and structures meet a vast amount of liquid which is water.
The water feels choppy and deep and part of the structures do feel integrated and under the
water. The overall target feels grey and mild in temperature and grey/overcast.

Land/structures:
Which is hard, solid, grey, linear and man made.
This has structures which are also man made and of varying sizes and. shapes – there are
many structures. There is an area which is both land/structures and the water meet.
One of the structures close to the water feels very linear. Flat and stepped.

Water:
Which is deep, wide and as far as the eye can see.
The water is cold, blue/grey feels choppy with waves or a wave‐like motion.
The water feels very active – motion wise or rough/choppy.

AOL’s of:
Road, Lake, sand, sea, Port, Sydney harbour.

Now is this OFF target - is this me been delusional - did I not describe and accurately sketch the target?
Explain this away as being off target?

Daz

Sterologist,
do you realise how crazy you come across.
You cant say to a remote viewer - i want you to remote view a target.

The target turns out to be a yellow golf ball.

The remote viewer says:
its a ball, its yellow.

you then say - sorry your not on target because the target could have been a melon ball, or the sun, or a snooker ball???????

The experiments go like so:
you pick a target - any target.
you tell the viewer there is a target
he blindly remote views the target
you then get his data
you review his data against your knowledge of the target
you aks yourself does his data match the target

you DONT ask yourself - does his data match anything else in the world?????
That makes no sense other than to bolster your plain crazy reasoning.

Daz

Stereologist

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?

RV - when done properly IS science based. Some practitioners (admittedly) aren't doing it scientifically.
RV history is ALL science. Remote viewing was created in a science lab, for and by scinetisats.
Its was (when in official use) tested in science labs year on year from 1972 - 1995. Twenty three continuous years.

SOME of the papers form these labs - science papers are here: www.remoteviewed.com...

In these papers - scientist form multiple labs describe RV working under proper scientific controls - under millions of repeated trials.

Whats NOT scientific about it?

When done correctly RV is done within the protocols as created by science - this removes all possibilities of information coming form anything but psychic means.

Daz

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.

Clearly you know nothing about the subject you try to trash - read the massive list of science papers on my site here for better information. www.remoteviewed.com...

Daz

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.

Well I covered this for you previously .
Yes its partly due to a strict scientifically created protocol
Also the 23 continuous years of study in multiple labs to create this protocols, the massive amount of science papers and in protocol trial which now amount to over 1 million.
The scientist involved, and more.

Daz

reply to post by rebellender


In the bible they talk about humans as if they are gods,and angels,but the reality to me is that at some time in the past a meteor hit earth and caused a global flood of biblical proportions,i think this was a direct hit with a weaponised rock,that was directed at us for a specifiec reason,to wipe most of us out.

I think we have another one comeing and we dont know how to or dont have time to stop it from hitting us.We should be working on harvesting a rock to block it or some type of defense if possible,if not possible then we need everyone worldwide to dig in and try to save some of humanity.

These rocks are the only way to wipe us out without ruining the planet with nukes or other weapons.

Originally posted by one4all
reply to post by rebellender

 

In the bible they talk about humans as if they are gods,and angels,but the reality to me is that at some time in the past a meteor hit earth and caused a global flood of biblical proportions,i think this was a direct hit with a weaponised rock,that was directed at us for a specifiec reason,to wipe most of us out.

Why would they have wanted to wipe most of us out? Why expend all the energy and time to manipulate a giant rock in space?

Serves no purpose to just see if you can do it because just the ability to move the rock and direct it on the path you want it to follow shows you can do it. Suffice it to say, the best way to obliterate a hazard like a meteor is to obliterate it with an impact but they could have just as easily have chosen another planet that even we know is uninhabited.

I find it interesting but just dont see any reason to believe in remote viewing abilities but more than flat out denial it is just that they get things so wrong too many time.

reply to post by dazsmith

Doesn't describe a tornado - its just plain ludicrous to say this is a faliure - if you were tasked as part of the english language to describe a tornado without saying the word tornado - then you'd come up with something similar,

The point is that it does not describe a tornado. If I were tasked to describe a tornado I certainly would not do such a wishy washy job. It could describe any of a number of things as I pointed out in a previous post.

This is an excellent example of the sort of subjective, self delusional matching up that RV boils down to.

How can you claim my data is a miss - you'd have to examine the entire target are and not find a shiny, smooth object? Dont get me wrong Im not claiming this part was a hit - its an unknown - its not a miss.

It's a huge miss. Then again the self deluded RV believer will make up any story just to pretend their failures are not failures.

But OK - clearly you dont like this target, so lets not dwell I have thousands of exmaple done BLIND so how about these:

Out with that BLIND comment again. That's just part of the hocus pocus street act seen in RV.

Again I did in scientific protocol being BLIND to the target amongst others.

Quickly followed by that word scientific and BLIND again.

So what is scientific about it? What is your hypothesis? Do you have a null hypothesis? Do you have statistics to show? What objective measures did you take? ...

Like a location where land and structures meet a vast amount of liquid which is water.
The water feels choppy and deep and part of the structures do feel integrated and under the
water. The overall target feels grey and mild in temperature and grey/overcast.

This covers almost every city in the world and certainly in the US except for Indianapolis which is the only major American city not on a waterway.

Which is hard, solid, grey, linear and man made.
This has structures which are also man made and of varying sizes and. shapes – there are
many structures. There is an area which is both land/structures and the water meet.
One of the structures close to the water feels very linear. Flat and stepped.

This could be anything from a building to a ship to a train to a plane to a road to a subway to a sculpture to power lines to ...

Which is deep, wide and as far as the eye can see.
The water is cold, blue/grey feels choppy with waves or a wave‐like motion.
The water feels very active – motion wise or rough/choppy.

This could be any big lake, river, sea, or ocean.

Road, Lake, sand, sea, Port, Sydney harbour.

Other words used: undulating, deep, rapid, cold, rising up, down and up, soft, lignis, cold, grey, messy, rough, wet, mushy, fibrous, mixed sizes, complicated, linear, long, constructed, man made, choppy, moving, flat, wide, grainy, beige, blue, green, salty, bitter, acrid, chemicals, buzz, electrical, intention, boxy, pinnacled, heavy, wet, lipped, sections, spacious, sky, deep, wide, deep, overcast, moving ripples, waves propelled, stippled, glinting, choppy, by the edge of liquid interface, side view, AOL Sydney, stone, like a ledge, grey, blue, white, windy, but manageable,

I see nothing that suggests the famous Sydney opera house. I did see the word Sydney. The rest of the words and drawings do not suggest the opera house.

Other than this single word the rest of the words describe the Brooklyn bridge far better especially in terms of shape, color, and being linear, long, rough, wet, sections, pinnacled.

reply to post by dazsmith

Sterologist,
do you realise how crazy you come across.
You cant say to a remote viewer - i want you to remote view a target.

The target turns out to be a yellow golf ball.

The remote viewer says:
its a ball, its yellow.

you then say - sorry your not on target because the target could have been a melon ball, or the sun, or a snooker ball???????

Do you realize how much you sound like you are whining because you do not ever say ball, yellow. What you say nearly every time is gray, man made, structures, water, flowing, etc. You toss out enough vague baloney to try and get a hit of some sort. Now you are whining because of your vague reports.

That's ok. Whine all you want.

you DONT ask yourself - does his data match anything else in the world?????
That makes no sense other than to bolster your plain crazy reasoning.

The reason YOU don't ask the tough questions is because is about self delusion. That is why it is not scientific. There is nothing scientific about this parlor game of yours. This is the adult version of a Ouija board.

This is why the military dumped RV. It provides nothing useful other than people giving themselves congratulations. RV does have one use. It gives the people playing the game a chance to think they did something.

reply to post by dazsmith

RV - when done properly IS science based. Some practitioners (admittedly) aren't doing it scientifically.
RV history is ALL science. Remote viewing was created in a science lab, for and by scinetisats.
Its was (when in official use) tested in science labs year on year from 1972 - 1995. Twenty three continuous years.

There is nothing about science in RV. You just whined about being tested. You about trying to see if the description was something other than a bunch of hooey that applies to nearly everything.

If the possible targets are: banana, hockey skate, toupee then we would hope that the descriptions could differentiate between the 3. The problem is that RV can't. The practitioners whine when real testing is done. When the first hint of science actually appears the RV believers balk.

In these papers - scientist form multiple labs describe RV working under proper scientific controls - under millions of repeated trials.

That's a gross exaggeration. There have never been more than a few thousand trials.

Whats NOT scientific about it?

Nothing at all. Where is the theory, the hypotheses, the numerical results, the objective data, etc.

When done correctly RV is done within the protocols as created by science - this removes all possibilities of information coming form anything but psychic means.

A red herring. The problem is not where the information comes from. The problem is whether or not there is any information there.

reply to post by dazsmith

Clearly you know nothing about the subject you try to trash - read the massive list of science papers on my site here for better information

Obviously you can't differentiate between this parlor game of yours and science.

reply to post by dazsmith

Well I covered this for you previously .
Yes its partly due to a strict scientifically created protocol
Also the 23 continuous years of study in multiple labs to create this protocols, the massive amount of science papers and in protocol trial which now amount to over 1 million.
The scientist involved, and more.

A protocol does not make something science. That would make the Jiffy lube science. That would make the fast food outlet scientific.

There are not a massive amount of science papers on RV. There have not been a million trials. In 25 years a million trials would require that 40,000 are done a year or over 100 a day every day for 25 years. I simply don't believe that has happened. Furthermore, people playing this parlor game does not constitute trials.

Originally posted by ripcontrol

The second argument, the accuracy of Remote Viewing...

debates are easy to have and I will finish them later I do look forward to this discussion on it---

There is nothing to debate regarding the accuracy of RV when produces by experienced RVers. I suggest instead of taking time to debate, read. The information is readily and easily obtained and fully verifiable.

Originally posted by ripcontrol

Third the prediction being referenced here

No predictions are referenced. you need to spend a little time reading through the protocols, the sessions, what they mean and the Farsight website.

Last time I checked remote viewing and foretelling the future were two very different things... I'm not sure I'd buy this one...

reply to post by Malcher


Can you come up with a less labor and resource intensive method to disarm an entire planet that is armed to the teeth with nukes?Then just roll in and pick out all of the billions of tonnes of mined and processed materials you require from whereever they lay.

Better yet enslave those left to collect it for you.It cant be that hard to calculate how big of and what composition of rock would be needed to splash down hard enough to cause a global tidal wave or at least a serious one that kills hundreds of millions of people.

Maybe not an ELE sized rock maybe just one big enough to say inundate the west coast of North America?


I mean who could be blamed for that??Just mother nature herself,and somehow I doubt she will ever issue a denial of guilt.


I mean a country could have sent out probes to enslave a rock and direct it onto say China and obliterate the country with not one shred of evidence of human interaction,40 years ago!!Planning ahead usually pays off.


Not saying this is tru just sayin its a possibility.

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Last time I checked remote viewing and foretelling the future were two very different things.

I assume you mean RV present targets v.s RV future targets. Time to check again.

Originally posted by one4all
reply to post by Malcher

 

Can you come up with a less labor and resource intensive method to disarm an entire planet that is armed to the teeth with nukes?Then just roll in and pick out all of the billions of tonnes of mined and processed materials you require from whereever they lay.

Better yet enslave those left to collect it for you.It cant be that hard to calculate how big of and what composition of rock would be needed to splash down hard enough to cause a global tidal wave or at least a serious one that kills hundreds of millions of people.

Maybe not an ELE sized rock maybe just one big enough to say inundate the west coast of North America?


I mean who could be blamed for that??Just mother nature herself,and somehow I doubt she will ever issue a denial of guilt.


I mean a country could have sent out probes to enslave a rock and direct it onto say China and obliterate the country with not one shred of evidence of human interaction,40 years ago!!Planning ahead usually pays off.


Not saying this is tru just sayin its a possibility.

there were wars before there were weapons
have a nice day