Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


Now that's a face to make ya fists itch.
I'm developing a hypothesis about close-eyed people(i.e.eyes near each other,not shut^^)

reply to post by TheExopolitician


Remote viewing was a failure for the military. It was at best so haphazard as to be unusable.

Remote viewers are the only ones claiming success. That's no different from claims of psi.

That Brown website lists the FarSight group. I have communicated with that group. That is the one where the people were claiming success by applying ludicrous fits.

reply to post by stereologist


My post was removed regarding my and many others actual experiences with viewing (remote or otherwise). Apparently, this topic is sensitive and I will leave you with one statement.

You are very, very wrong.

reply to post by TheExopolitician


Anecdotal evidence is all there is to remote viewing. The farsight group is laughable in the manner in which they claim success. If you write down enough random words, probably less than 200, you are going to claim a hit on almost anything.

For example, I will pick some words: swaying, energetic, man-made, gray, water

I claim this is a direct and perfect match for all of the following:
1. hurricane
2. late evening on a pier
3. dancing with the stars
4. the moon Europa
5. a bucket of mop water

This is the sort of drivel the farsight group does.

Originally posted by miniatus
I've challenged remote viewers on ATS multiple times with basics and they failed every time.. I don't really feel alarmed by this.

I've conducted foolproof tests here, perhaps some of you remember it .. tamper proof... nobody ever succeeded.. not once..

I say this with respect.. my challenges were open.. and I accepted open answers as well as anonymous .. most felt comfortable being anonymous but many were public.. yet none were relally what I'd call close.. after my first test.. I accepted new parameters for the second round but the results were the same..

edit on 2/17/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

I don't know what kind, quality or level of fraudulent viewers you seduced into that lunacy but none I know, including myself, would spend one moment with such a carnival demonstration.

reply to post by TheExopolitician


All you provide is a personal claim that it works. Testing shows it does not work.

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
reply to post by rebellender

 

I have experienced remote viewing,astral projection, lucid dreams etc..but I don't believe in any of this fear porn. I don't think remote viewing can specifically target future catastrophic events and pinpoint the time and date of them remote viewing is much more effective without a predisposition to find what your looking for.

Lumping all viewing into "remote" is a common misrepresentation. There are many styles, capabilities and result/outcomes from Viewers.

For instance, I am a "document viewer" as my personal strong suit. This is the ability to observe documents, sometimes with specific clarity, others with very vague generalities. I am not of value unless the location of the documents can first be pinpointed.

Ed Dames was(is?) an event, lat/lonn and obstacle viewer (he is also CIA deep to his heart), Paul Smith, Lyn Buchanan (my mentor) and others have different capabilities, some of those capabilities change over time.

Explanantions And Manuals

No offense, but threads like this mislead people and discredit the actual research involved with this amazing ability we all have access to.

True this.

Viewing went deep black after the Mk-Ultra projects, much of it NSA related and much of it is viewing of planetary and other galactic information.

And yes, the viewing of aliens.

Originally posted by TheExopolitician
reply to post by stereologist

 

My post was removed regarding my and many others actual experiences with viewing (remote or otherwise). Apparently, this topic is sensitive and I will leave you with one statement.

You are very, very wrong.

Sorry but re your so called ability stump up (prove it) or shut up, so how do you want tested will I stand at a location, will I draw something or will I hold an object.

Lets see what you have got.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by TheExopolitician

 

All you provide is a personal claim that it works. Testing shows it does not work.

There are hundreds of other personal claims and many well documented regarding the efficacy of viewing but you knew that.

I don't really believe in some of this...
If we die, we die.

Plus, if this would happen, we would all end up dieing!!! :\

I would rather die then be the last human on earth...


So, can I call this Y13k?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by TheExopolitician

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Sorry but re your so called ability stump up (prove it) or shut up, so how do you want tested will I stand at a location, will I draw something or will I hold an object.

I can see you are a formidable, science-based, highly advanced and experienced agent of controlled, double blind testing and I have my tasks cut out attempting to fool you!

Ok. So place your hands inside your pants and I will describe what you are holding.

I see something the size of a well used pencil...with the end lopped off, it has two very tiny acorn like structures beneath it. It is shiny, well polished...hand polished or sure...the image is getting blurry........

Lets see what you have got.

Perv.

Spot on but how did you know I had a 5 times life size model of your genitals there!!!

reply to post by TheExopolitician


So back on track how do we test you or are you not up to it!!!

reply to post by TheExopolitician


Where are the tests that show any remote viewing "styles" work?

Viewing went deep black after the Mk-Ultra projects, much of it NSA related and much of it is viewing of planetary and other galactic information.

And yes, the viewing of aliens.

Are you referring to the remote viewer that saw giant mountains on Jupiter only to learn there cannot be mountains on Jupiter so they changed the "accurate" view to being in a galaxy far, far away?

reply to post by TheExopolitician

There are hundreds of other personal claims and many well documented regarding the efficacy of viewing but you knew that.

There are also lots of testimonials from people claiming to generate free energy, predict earthquakes, read minds, predict stock prices, etc. - but you knew that.

What I do know is that remote viewing is not effective. It doesn't work. It was well rested and found to be not useful.

Originally posted by Brainiac
reply to post by rebellender

 

Here we go again...
Remote viewers? You mean like in that movie "Men who stare at goats"?
Haha... oh boy.

Funny about that movie...which was humorous and based on a great amount of well documented studies, programs and working files.

The Men Who Stared At Goats

Personally, I am not a fan of John Alexander, he and I did not see "eye to eye" so to speak but, in his minor defense, much like Ed Dames, it's very difficult to tell where the commitment to military intel/CIA starts and stops with John. I believe he's full blown intel/Agency re: UFOs but quite practical regarding viewing (and alike matters).

Clipped from thew OP link...

McMoneagle was the first remote viewer in the program and was given the designation "#001" and has the reputation as being the best of the best remote viewers. McMoneagle was somewhat unusual in that the way he received his target assignments was what is called a "double blind" method. The photograph or description of the target was placed inside an envelope, which was placed inside yet another envelope and was often in a different room from where Joe did his remote viewing.

In other words: Joe did his remote viewing without being informed of the target. That information did exist, but was not shown to Joe prior to his viewing session.

...this is responsible, science-based viewing. The programs I was personally involved were often more stringent than this. The parameters varied for reasons unknown to the tested and at times, the results were unknown.

Other sessions labeled "learning" the results were immediately known. Each tested viewer that I knew, including myself, were tested repeatedly over months and months so that a very clear view of abilities and accuracy could be recorded.

Potential viewers were selected from a number of criteria, mine was the demonstrated ability in combat to predetermine enemy positions both from a lat/long perspective but more so from an in combat recon perspective.

reply to post by TheExopolitician


So how do we test you or do we assume the usual BS, and can't back up your claims?

Dr. Courtney Brown has a clear, science-based review and explanation of viewing - including the difference between describing and predicting the future - which is paramount for this thread.

I can highly recommend his book for those who desire to advance their knowledge of viewing and remove scurrilous claims and mythologies.

Edit: Note how Dr. Brown emphasizes the use of the highest quality, few-among-a-few, military grade viewers for this project. IME, there were only a dozen or two that would have fit this quality objective and I would be surprised if that number is any different today.

reply to post by TheExopolitician


Why do people make outrageous claims on here then won't back them up Ah the power of the internet!