Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

reply to post by stereologist


looks the same to me. as to promises, neither your or I can speculate anymore about tomorrow or RV...neither happens or not happens because your or I have the power to say so.

See ATS poster, you and I have no power at all over whether or not something is or isnt tangible.

Lotty Dotty Anybody can cal Horse Feathers on anything we want.

20yrs of DOD work and mega budget. Uncle Sam dont spend millions of dollars on "useless crap for christmas".

I have to say after evaluation of the OP Content and 42 pages that you are not qualified to say "NAY".

but lets face it, I cannot stop you or your Malarkey Cliche's

reply to post by stereologist


come on you can debunk better then this, please try harder...


I love how you are trying to twist words. So far you are still getting a lot laughter from me and my friends.. They are skeptics and are disappointed in your efforts. You have made them laugh again. It is actually at the point a few may come to ATS to do it more professionally. If you are there only competition it would be worth their time.



John told me to tell you, when he finally stopped laughing at you

NASA's involvement in this thread is apparent to anyone with a first grade education. They can see if the prediction is any way feasible. The prediction is not feasible out of the gate if NASA has no blind spots and is watching the whole system. Their models should eliminate the possibility of this prediction being true or leave room for its existence. My daughter can see why cant this guy. He has to be in highschool.

Of note he did explain it to his daughter in second grade and told me her response.
(she had more trouble with the concept of a blind spot then NASA detecting asteroids. He took her to his car and showed her what a blindspot was)

Duh!!! NASA has the webcams out in space, like, they should be watching to see if asteroids are coming. Any *snip for rudeness* can see that. Its like a math word problem... This psychic stuff is not part of the initial proof to disprove the prediction. It has to be possible first. DUH!!!

Dude a second grader understood.

reply to post by rebellender

20yrs of DOD work and mega budget. Uncle Sam dont spend millions of dollars on "useless crap for christmas".

Both you and I know that's not true. Uncle Sam spends all sorts of money and a paltry $20M or whatever small chump change spent on RV was more than enough to reach the find conclusion of useless.

I have to say after evaluation of the OP Content and 42 pages that you are not qualified to say "NAY".

My qualifications or yours or ripcontrol are not the issue. That is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. The issue is RV. Where is the evidence?

There is no need to debunk something that has no evidence for it.

RV remains a silly parlor trick for the self deluded.

reply to post by stereologist


Ok! so you have stated your case then about RV and so that others are not intimidated by you can you let others that wish to converse the issues of the OP unabated?

That means that you are very confident in you OPINION, so secure that you have no need to heckle or harass others.

So what is clear to me is you Call Crap. We get it. Totally.


again it the interest of the OP can others discuss the idea of the OP without your harassment and intimidation?

reply to post by rebellender


I have no intention of dropping my request for evidence that RV works. If you think supporting a point of view is intimidating then maybe that point of view has problems. If you think asking for any evidence at all is harassment then you are quite mistaken. If you think that pointing out the numerous and whopping failures of RV is intimidating or harassing then that is your opinion. Fine we have your your opinion.

If you have nothing to add to the thread other than asking for censorship then you are welcome to leave.

On the other hand if you have something that supports RV or the claims in the OP then I'd take a look at it.

There is nothing coming up that big as a meteor or asteroid THIS YEAR to make such a claim, this is wrong/

reply to post by stereologist


Rave on dont let me stop you, please continue

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by stereologist

 

Ok! so you have stated your case then about RV and so that others are not intimidated by you can you let others that wish to converse the issues of the OP unabated?

That means that you are very confident in you OPINION, so secure that you have no need to heckle or harass others.

So what is clear to me is you Call Crap. We get it. Totally.


again it the interest of the OP can others discuss the idea of the OP without your harassment and intimidation?

How is he harassing them like me he has asked for some proof and not from an RV site,some other source well, 2012 will soon be over and when the event doesn't happen we will see yet again its a load of S*%#.

reply to post by wmd_2008


calling crap for craps sake and hanging out in threads just to call crap is called fishing off the back of a boat pulling bait through the water AKA Trolling.

have a most wonderful day

reply to post by rebellender


Instead of complaining do you have anything on topic to say? Do you have anything to support RV?

I say RV is crap and I've posted a number of incidents such as Brown and his ludicrous group's viewing of a hose spraying on Mars. Isn't he also one of the clowns that viewed a spaceship following Hale Bopp? With all of the wacko stories coming out of RV it is hard to keep track.

reply to post by wmd_2008


the biggest part is not producing quals.

the next is evidence was attempt to be given and without any knowledge of discoveries that have been made he tried to dismiss anything he felt was not part of the subject

Note he felt, not through any part of the scientific method, his faith told him I guess.. Or he could tell by smell

Third he denied NASA had any part of this thread. Even though part of their job is stellar observation. They could end the whole discussion on this thread with a set of words. Yet he claimed they have nothing to do with this thread.

forth he admits to not reading the material that was provided- somehow an abstract was all it took to dismiss something.

Fifth he claims evidence he refuses to provide. All science industry is based on replication of experiments by independent parties.

He comes off socially as the person at the party who is upset over his girl friend talking to other people and then causes a scene.


how may I be of assistance to your question.

I advise running the experiments yourself.

Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual



Please note unlike Stereo I learned note group people together in clicks. Otherwise I would have a much lower opinion of skeptics and there skills. Thankfully my friends are not at the, kindergarten people of Walmart level of skeptics.

The main thing is he is refreshing as he made them laugh so hard at his naivety.

I outlined my experiments I have ran for them. They called them interesting and quite a bit of progress for me. (I might now qualify for a high school science fair)

The heartbreak came when they outlined the holes in my double blinds. (interactions with the targets was against the most basic, the third grader gave me a C in a big read ink for trying)

I then proposed my theory of alternate means of transmission of information. The skeptics view...

The only thing they told me was wrong was they would not swallow reverse speech. However they where greatly intrigued by my alternative.

Subconscious memes transfer across mass population

They are re-reviewing

Just so you know, their professions require exactness and are high stress. The one that was the most blunt was the Bookkeeper. (one of those men who runs his own business)

He also got the most excited over the above paper I wrote out. He said when combined with guerrilla marketing tactics might enable an outline of trends. He took a copy and I have not heard back from him.

Ill answer the best I can

reply to post by stereologist


Instead of not answering, have something to say on the topic.

Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

Yet you say NASA has nothing on this thread. Again they can answer if they have a blind spot. It will tell us if this prediction has any chance of coming true. Yet you said it has nothing to do with this thread.

I say your debunking needs work. I have posted a number of incidents on the discoveries behind the subject and yet you keep going off on rants. With all these off topic responses coming from you its hard to tell what your debunking is based on.

Is it facts or reading

or, is it emotions?

reply to post by ripcontrol

the biggest part is not producing quals.

This is a laughable excuse to use the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.

It is meaningless.

What needs to be done is to provide evidence for RV which no one including ripcontrol has done.

Ripcontrol has made a pathetic effort at attempting to divert the issue away from the issue which is supporting the claims in the OP.

Third he denied NASA had any part of this thread. Even though part of their job is stellar observation. They could end the whole discussion on this thread with a set of words. Yet he claimed they have nothing to do with this thread.

Here is another effort at pretending that NASA has anything to do with RV or that astronomical issues are germain. The simple fact of the matter is that the issue deals with RV. The failure of RV to do anything other than view imaginary and nonexistent mountains of Jupiter or to view nonexistent activity on Mars or to view nonexistent spaceships following a comet are what matters. RV is and has been a dismal failure.

forth he admits to not reading the material that was provided- somehow an abstract was all it took to dismiss something.

Nor has ripcontrol read the article. Had they then they would have answered the question about the type of bioenergy used. The article matters not at all. Why? Because it is not about RV.

Fifth he claims evidence he refuses to provide. All science industry is based on replication of experiments by independent parties.

Where is the evidence supporting RV? There is none.

In fact, ripcontrol has provided nothing other than whining and complaining. Not a shred of evidence has been supplied by ripcontrol.

I advise running the experiments yourself.

This is another bogus attempt at avoiding the issue of providing evidence for RV.

Please note unlike Stereo I learned note group people together in clicks. Otherwise I would have a much lower opinion of skeptics and there skills. Thankfully my friends are not at the, kindergarten people of Walmart level of skeptics.

What we know about ripcontrol is that they have made no effort to support RV. Whining and complaining and post ad hominems are no replacement for evidence.

The main thing is he is refreshing as he made them laugh so hard at his naivety.

I outlined my experiments I have ran for them. They called them interesting and quite a bit of progress for me. (I might now qualify for a high school science fair)

So your friends are easily duped by the parlor game called RV. No surprise there.

After dozens of posts still no evidence of any sort from ripcontrol. That pattern was evident after the first few posts.

reply to post by ripcontrol

Instead of not answering, have something to say on the topic.

Please provide anything at all that supports this silly parlor game called RV.

I say your debunking needs work. I have posted a number of incidents on the discoveries behind the subject and yet you keep going off on rants. With all these off topic responses coming from you its hard to tell what your debunking is based on.

That's another falsehood. You've provided nothing on topic.

When will anyone post anything in support of RV. So far all that has been posted are the number of enormous failures I have posted. These are failures from Dames and Brown. Let's not forget that after 20 years the RV clowns were kicked off the government dole and forced to sell their poppycock to the gullible fools of the general public. And guess what, they found some marks.

I think it is better to gouge the gullible than to have them turn into Madoffs.

Remote viewer?? Don't you mean schizophrenic out of their mind person? Remote viewing isn't real..

reply to post by stereologist


Hold your horses good sir reread those post,

Do not insult my friends they are made of better stuff then you! Look closely at what was said. They never once have said they believe in the material.

I do not call you an idiot, mark, or moron so please refrain from said behavior.


As for the NASA material, I noticed you backed down and then tried to redirect. It is a subject you had to back off of because you where wrong. Is it because it would affect a lot of your post on ATS?

If they say nothing is scheduled cosmically 2013 and there are no blind spots then Dames is wrong. The prediction can not take place.

The only thing we agree on is Dames status.

As for evidence, it was provided. You ignored it, not my problem.

Your pattern is abuse until person quits. Then claim abuse when they discuss that matter with you.

As for your debunking, You still are making them laugh. They are predicting your responses pretty well. The pattern has been evident,not just from this thread, but several others of yours.


Complaining about evidence ad nauseam yet providing none for multiple post is part of your pattern

Let us go back to this thing called the Scientific Method
Where are the Observations
Where Are the conclusions

You state they are the basis of your claim. You said scientific evidence proves Remote Viewing is a fraud.

Of course you admitted another mistake YOU made earlier as well.
What was it?
not reading something and only browsing the abstract....


Until you provide this evidence I have to go with your pattern of mistakes. Are you just 'browsing the Abstract' again?


The other post was not directed for your reading unless you are both posters.

Of note Have you even contacted NASA to prove Dames prediction is impossible?

This thread so far has several topics in it

Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013-actual prediction

Remote Viewing Science?

Ed Dames Fraud?

Courtney Brown Fraud?

Arguments over RELATED base topics

Skeptics View and possibilities

NASA's observation/monitoring of Space-born objects

At this point I am asking a mod to just peek around here

reply to post by ripcontrol


Well I will ask this same question again if you RV guys are so confident lets see a demonstration to prove your point, not a reference to something that some RV site claims has been done.

Now if you guys can do what you claim they're shouldn't be a problem unless of course......

reply to post by ripcontrol

Do not insult my friends they are made of better stuff then you! Look closely at what was said. They never once have said they believe in the material.

I do not call you an idiot, mark, or moron so please refrain from said behavior.

Please stop telling lies and misrepresenting what I posted.

As for the NASA material, I noticed you backed down and then tried to redirect.

Another lie. I did not change my position.

As for evidence, it was provided. You ignored it, not my problem.

Yet another lie. You have provided no evidence to support RV.

Complaining about evidence ad nauseam yet providing none for multiple post is part of your pattern

You continue to lie. I have posted mul;tiple instance s of the failure of RV and reviewed those instances in recent posts. You have provided nothing to support RV.

Let us go back to this thing called the Scientific Method
Where are the Observations
Where Are the conclusions

Where is the evidence that RV is scientific. No evidence has been provided.

You state they are the basis of your claim. You said scientific evidence proves Remote Viewing is a fraud.

I never stated that. I have asked for evidence to support RV and that RV is scientific. Nothign has been provided.

Of course you admitted another mistake YOU made earlier as well.
What was it?
not reading something and only browsing the abstract....

Not a mistake. I stated fact. I know you have never read the article either.

Of note Have you even contacted NASA to prove Dames prediction is impossible?

You have provided no evidence for the support of RV. The obvious reason is that you can't provide support for this silly parlor game called RV.