Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info
Remote Viewing info page spacer

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.)



begin archive

pjrv : Messages : 3923-3938 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3923?)
16:20:49
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3923

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:21 am Subject: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pjgaenir Richard Wiseman is, in the UK, nearly the equiv of James Randi in the US, except better educated. He's been involved in several RV situations where he has behaved... in a way that doesn't surprise psychics. Perhaps this is his version of AIR report's Ray Hyman who said about RV, 'There is an effect here... but I choose not to call it psi.' He inferred fraud. Now Wiseman has 'luck'. Interesting. Reminds me of Joe McMoneagle once saying the CIA had decided, rather than admitting psi, to consider him the luckiest SOB to ever walk the planet. :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#3925

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:04 pm Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' docsavagebill Hi Palyne, What you say is quite true. However, the anti-psi bias in much of his work is secondary to the amazing results he found of merely "feeling lucky" . I suspect that he originally thought there would be NO SUCH THING as a luck effect. Of course he tries to rationalize the cause as all mundane ..but eventually I think a psi linke will be found. The more psychic one is the more important this is IMO. Negative psi can be calamatous to a person. Especially in ARV experiments..G Best Regards, bill ------------ or in life. :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#3927

From: "Scott" Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:09 pm Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' scottrver But what is negative psi? I would postulate that it is a sabotaging subconscious that simply takes psi as one more input. That is to some degree what Wiseman was saying (without the psi component). I think the jury is still out on the cause(s) of psi missing in ARV and wouldn't necessarily attribute it to negative psi. Scott > Negative psi > can be calamatous to a person. Especially in ARV > experiments..G Reply | Forward

#3930

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:28 am Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' docsavagebill Perha0ps not Scott.. I wasn't making accusation..just a bad joke..G Best Regards, Bill > I think the jury is still out on the cause(s) of psi missing > in ARV and wouldn't necessarily attribute it to negative psi. Reply | Forward

#3933

From: Penny Zingery Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:22 am Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pzingery Hi, PJ, *** I know there are many who already know what I'm talking about a lot of times, when I write. I guess it's due to my legal background to "lay out the facts." So, forgive me if I seem to be "preaching to the choir" at times, ha. I'm just trying to explain my position. > I've actually nothing against skeptics, on fair terms. > The thing is, the most genuinely skeptical guy I know, also happens > to be the one of the world's leading psi researchers. There's a > difference between having a strong critical mind and refusing to do > anything except recognize data and even doubt that like crazy > (never 'believe'), vs. simply scoffing, evading, etc., the 'scoffers' > or 'pseudo-skeptics' as Truzzi called them. *** Yeah, that does happen to be true. You'll find skepticism mixed in with a belief in psi. Speaking from my own personal experience, enough of my former beliefs have been smashed, and I've seen enough to tell me that I need to be careful in the conclusions that I choose to embrace. And it's important, from my perspective, anyway, to take care in the way that ideas are presented, as I don't want or need to present what I think from a perspective based largely on belief. Especially among those who are critical, or even among the more credulous. One of the researchers I know is a mentalist, too. Which gives him an edge in dealing with those who are the "pseduo-skeptical," as he knows that they know, and they know that he knows, when the deck is stacked.. He's also able to present ideas from a different angle, that others wouldn't be able to get across, which earns them more credibility in the eyes of skeptics. So, there's a little dance that's always involved, with some give and take. > Wiseman is slicker, smarter, and smoother than most of the skeptics, > which in many ways IMO makes him more insidiously dangerous to real > science. If I'd felt he was all that honorable in past RV stuff he's > been involved in, I wouldn't have such a view. *** I have to agree with that. But, he's also considered a considerable force to be dealt with. Luckily, there are those on the other side who are able to counter what he does. *** And I'll have to get back to answering the rest of this later, or I'll be late for work. Penny Reply | Forward

#3934

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:29 pm Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' docsavagebill Hi Penny and PJ, I didn't realize the Wiseman was such a debunker type. Most of those don't even want to believe in a subconcious effect. But that does give Wiseman more leverage in trying to explain away psi..but really the facts are the fact. No one can explain away what Joe does. bill ------------------ Easy debunkers say, "It's a hoax!" Debunkers who are slick say, "I would love to believe this. I think it might be so. Yet I am looking and looking and golly gee, I just cannot seem to find anything." Even slicker ones say, "There does seem to be an effect here. But I just cannot bring myself to call it psi." That is despite having no reason not to besides their own inability to come to terms with the idea; and it's okay that they don't, as maybe there IS some different factor at work, but leaving it hanging like the real effect is fraud, or working it into something else, like, it's not psi, it's luck!--give me a break, sheesh. It's really kinda vomitable. Wiseman giving a seminar about luck is interesting, but just a few steps to the right of Dames giving a seminar about what he calls RV. Why a matter of fact consideration of psi is so difficult for so many people, I just don't understand. :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#3936

From: Penny Zingery Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:16 pm Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pzingery *** Ok. Maybe I can take the time now to write out what I'd like to say a little better than before. I noticed I used the word "self-relational" last night, too, haha. Doh! I meant "self-referential." > Wiseman is slicker, smarter, and smoother than most of the skeptics, > which in many ways IMO makes him more insidiously dangerous to real > science. If I'd felt he was all that honorable in past RV stuff he's > been involved in, I wouldn't have such a view. > > > And while many of his ideas are sound, > > (and can be valid as explanations > > a good deal of the time, in a lot of cases), > > the only problem is, many > > others think that they can't and don't > > explain everything. *** I guess one more thing I'd like to say about Richard Wiseman, is that even though he might do things in a way that can infuriate us, he has earned a certain amount of respect from researchers in both camps. He's a "worthy adversary," as his ideas can and do hold water in a lot of instances. Also, the parapsychological ghost researchers that I know, do value the input of those that are (truly) critical and/or skeptical, and they'll collaborate with them on certain projects, as I know you know.. It's in everyone's best interest to do that, at times. *** A lot of the problems that I have with (very enthusiastic and well-meaning) amateur ghost hunters, who claim they're "doing things scientifically," just because they're using a camera, or other instrumentation that they have little to no clue about how it works or what it's designed to measure, and within what parameters, (or how or why instrumentation is used in field research), is that I see little to no critical thinking being applied. Most are simply out there looking to confirm or "prove" what they already believe. So, when people contact me wanting to know "what's the next step," in the grand "profession" of ghost hunting, I suggest that they learn something about parapsychology. Most of the time, I never hear from them again. And, people like this, in my experience, have the capability of causing a lot of damage. With one tv show. Or with one newspaper article. Or with one website. More than your average Joe-Blow skeptic might wish they could do, working with the same medium. > At base, I suspect the issue here isn't just the detail of psi or > ghosts or whatever, but rationalism vs. real life. *** For most people, I think it's more about the experiential. > There is some deep psychological need evidenced by some people to > reduce all human experience down to something known, understandable, > safe--and "logical". They don't mind that humans have irrational > experiences, as long as the human can be deemed irrational, so that > they, as rational people, will never have to worry about such > frighteningly inexplicable things themselves. *** I've been taught by several of the researchers that I know, that we all have a psychological need to make sense of what we don't understand. (I forget what the terminology for that is, exactly.) I'd think it's a matter of degree, for each person individually, regarding how much ambiguity each can tolerate; or what one's issues might be along the lines of what's "acceptable," or "the norm;" or, how much of an "illusion of control" we might feel we need over any given situation (as if that's actually possible a lot of times, haha.); or how much personal responsibility one is willing to accept, too. Or, how "invested" we are with our beliefs. Those kinds of things. And for some people, it can be almost pathological, regarding the way in which they react to ideas that make them uncomfortable. The book, "The Conscious Universe" is brilliant, in the way that it explains skeptics and skepticism, if you've never read that. > They do not want to find 'the real answer' for all of science, as > many of them as scientists are much brighter stars when they're not > in the field of their denial, and would be more objective; they want > to find ANY answer that will allow their own psychology to dismiss > it, a criteria that carries far less need for genuine science or > covering the bases than actual science would. > > Why is it that so many psychologists themselves are in such obvious > need of psychotherapy. *** That's very true. As for psychologists who need psychotherapy, well... I think many are drawn to the field in order to work through their own issues. But, I know policeman can become policemen for the same reason. As can lawyers, or teachers... or hookers... mothers... whatever, ha. (Actually, I think "retired" would help me work out my issues, haha.) > It is the approach to psi which dismisses it as something else, > because something else has turned out to be the case sometimes, that > is one of the most common debunker approaches and IMO disingenious. *** I see it as a form of intellectual dishonesty, too. > To me, this is like saying that lots of college students get caught > cheating on tests, which only proves that you (person X) got your > degree through foul play. It's ridiculous. Yet that same logic is > applied to psi and other anomalies fields constantly. *** It's not very logical, is it? Logically, psi would be the simplest explanation, so many times. > > There are some interesting ideas, too, regarding > > how the environment, > > mind and body might interact with each other. > > Like a feedback loop of some kind. > > I actually feel that a great deal has been learned in the attempt to > disprove psi, ghosts, and other anomalies. And funny enough, many of > the people most into psi, are also interested in human potential, and > so very interested in how the mind/body works, the subtle senses etc. > I've experienced that a lot of esoteric stuff is as subjective as it > comes; whether this is invalidates it is a totally different argument. *** Yeah. And I don't think that the fact that some experiences are subjective invalidates them as "real." Not by a long shot. That would be a materialistic way of looking at things, and a negation of the mind/matter ideas. That's not what I think. > To me, the problem is that this kind of theory and research is never > presented truly scientifically, simply that, "I hypothesize humans > may have XYZ experience in XYZ situation." Rather, it always starts > out as, "Humans claiming XYZ are probably frauds and I suspect > they're deluded 'cause it's just that XYZ situation is in place, and > I'm going to try and prove it." Granted, nearly by accident we've > learned a lot this way. But it would be so much easier to find > interest if such approaches were not psychological "justifications" > of someone's belief system, and were instead simply an interesting > scientific query. *** Yeah, like it can be "nothing but" fraud, or deception, or delusion, or hallucination, or ignorance, or swamp gas, or mental defect... whatever reason du jour that works, in order to settle their own unease. And darn it, I was looking for a quote that I ran across that I think "nails" the reason behind pseudo-skeptical thinking, but I can't find it. > Penny Reply | Forward

#3937

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:38 pm Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pjgaenir Hi Penny, > value the input of those that are (truly) > critical and/or skeptical, and they'll > collaborate with them on certain projects, Yes. Of course, finding a so-called skeptic who is not a rabid drooling maddog is so rare that it might be that perhaps our standards in so-called skeptics are a tad low. :-) It is Wiseman's work with some things in RV that I have disliked. He does not behave like with hostility like Randi (thank God for small favors); Wiseman is a cordial, intelligent and professional man. It hardly helps to invite a skeptic to be part of a project if they are not merely skeptical, but actually detrimental to the fairness of it--or, despite getting far more than the result they even were hoping for to disprove their view, they walk away acting like nothing happened. Someone moves those goal posts back, and back, and manages the whole situation so they're in total control, and then when it comes through and works times ten, they shrug it off? They don't tell anybody? They just move on quietly for the next challenge so someone has to jump through that damn hoop all over again? What is that, if not a form of intellectual dishonesty? I don't want to diss the fellow without cause, and I respect his position, but from the layman's point of me as Jane Smith off the street looking in, he looks like another debunker to me, who is just very, very slick. I might add that this stuff plays out over and over. France is very anti-psi, for example. The leading vocal critic there, the year that the PA prez was also French, teamed with the PA prez to do an RV challenge to be televised. They got McMoneagle. He blew them out of the water. The guy promptly sued to keep it off the air. It didn't show until over a year later on a different channel. I mean, it's that kind of thing, over and over. It's just wearying. Especially for the people on the firing line like Joe, I'd imagine. > amateur ghost hunters, who claim they're "doing things > scientifically," Yeah, similarly, I was saying in something earlier today, that since academia has basically made psi research heresy and forbidden, the results are many. One result is that even when scientists in other fields decide to have the courage or money to spend a little time on something in the psi arena, they totally screw it up! They are so ignorant, they don't know they're ignorant. They just assume there is 'nothing to know'--a subtle dis-education of their academic experience. They won't deign to ask a real psi scientist because they figure anybody studying the topic must be an idiot or a fraud I suppose--except them, of course. ;-) There is so little money, jobs, opportunity. But there used to be funding and so, over the last few decades, there's so many important little things that have been learned. Without controlling for or including those, there's no point to wasting time. It's so darn tragic when someone actually gets a little money for research, and then they just blow it on stupid stuff that were this any other topic, even a high school senior would have known better. But academia, aka The New Church, forbids the study. So nobody knows anything about it, unless they work in the field itself. But you can't work in the field anymore, because since it's not considered legit in academia, it gets no funding, so there are no jobs. And since it's not in school, there aren't even internships really. There are a tiny number of sort intern-job-things (similar to being overworked at a summer camp from what I understand ;-)) associated with some institution, which if you are near/in it, might allow you to someday do a tiny bit of research if God smiles (such as RhineRC); such positions, probably paying a secretary's wages, have a whole field of starving professionals and PhDs to compete for them. Not to mention that when you reduce a whole field, even a small one, to unemployment, you get a wolf-pack mentality where they'll fight each other for what little food's available. Through some of the websites I've had a hand in, I can't tell you how many emails I've seen from people, from graduate students to PhDs all over the world, who are fascinated with and willing to basically slave for minimum just for a chance to study psi. There is basically no place for them to go, nothing for them to do, no jobs for them to work toward, no college study that will include it. It's like, glad you're interested. Too bad. Geez. > people like this, > in my experience, have the capability of > causing a lot of damage. With > one tv show. Or with one newspaper article. > Or with one website. More > than your average Joe-Blow skeptic might wish > they could do, working > with the same medium. Yes, we have Ed and Courtney (and the latter thanks to the former) among others (also usually spawned by Ed) to thank for 'representing' RV, and doing it more damage than even James Randi on his best could have dreamed of. > > At base, I suspect the issue here isn't just the detail of psi or > > ghosts or whatever, but rationalism vs. real life. > *** For most people, I think it's more about the experiential. That's what I mean. I meant rationalism being thinking about life and it being logical; real life being the living, experiencing it. One is making sense of things; one is experiencing them. The making sense may or may not happen. > all have a psychological need to make > sense of what we don't understand. > (I forget what the terminology for that > is, exactly.) I'd think it's a > matter of degree, for each person > individually, regarding how much > ambiguity each can tolerate; This is of course a major issue in developing viewers, as well. > The book, "The Conscious > Universe" is brilliant, in the way that > it explains skeptics and > skepticism, if you've never read that. Yes, I read that shortly after it came out. I ought to reread it as it's just sitting on the shelf. No, wait, it is probably sitting in my box of a zillion psi books I'm going to e-Bay. :-) > It's not very logical, is it? Logically, psi would > be the simplest explanation, so many times. That's probably what I find most confusing. I mean, you look at stuff like McMoneagle can do; and much of that is in protocol situations where even the most suspicious mentalist would have to admit there is no way he could know the target (which sometimes does not even exist yet when he does the session, or he's out alone on an island with a videocamera on him while one of many options are being chosen blind by a producer back in the city) -- I mean, what amount of pathology does it take to deny this kind of thing? True, I can't put psi in a test tube, but there's lots of human experience that can't be and it's still real (though subjective and unique to each individual, and unpredictable). Sometimes, it is so patently apparent, it seems stupid to even debate it. It's a lot less 'faith' required to look at human history over the last 2000 years, and believe in some degree of psi, than to believe in the amount of stupid excuses given. It's like the UFO field as an example. You consider stuff like hundreds of separate videos of a single large event, and the excuse is 'mass hallucination'. Well heck, I find videos easier to believe than mass hallucination. You consider stuff like NORAD and radar and visuals by pilots, and the excuse is, weather balloons, swamp gas, Venus on the horizon. Personally, I find it easier to believe there was just something, we don't know what, tracked on the machines and by the pilots. I don't have an answer, but it's much less a stretch to accept what seems evident, and begin real investigation from there, than to make up huge excuses to explain away the obvious. Some 'skeptics' I know of have more faith than even the fundies. PJ Reply | Forward

#3938

From: Penny Zingery Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:40 am Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pzingery If you could have read some of the emails that I'd read regarding what people thought after that article (and other articles) about the Vaults and Hampton Court Palace, you might see the influence he's able to exert, along the lines of reducing apparent psi or unusual experiences down to natural causes, only. As he's not only an academic, which of course, carries a lot of weight with many people. He also uses the media to his advantage, and gets a lot of press whenever he researches any public place (which is no fluke, by the way, or simply because what he does is so interesting... it's planned), as do so many skeptics. And what I thought was "timely", too, was that video of the "ghost" of Hampton Court Palace that surfaced at the end of last year. My opinion of that was that it was more likely either a hoax, or some schmuck caught in a costume, out on a smoke break, when he should not have been doing so. But I have to wonder about why it was released in the first place, as it was filmed in during October of that year, as I remember. People have been known to do strange things in order to counter negative publicity regarding what's dear to them, or if it might affect their pocket book. But what would have been more effective, wouldn't have been to use a very questionable "ghost" video, if that's the case. Now you have a lot of people who're convinced that's a ghost of Hampton Court Palace, when no apparition of that kind (or haunting that involved a "ghost" opening a fire door, for Chrissake) has ever been seen before, as I understand. (And of course, most don't know about the issues involved with "ghosts on film" in the first place.) So, the issue just became more convoluted and confused, and, once again, people aren't being given accurate information about these kinds of experiences. (Not to mention the fact that a possibly hoaxed video doesn't help the case for paranormal phenomena in the eyes of many.) Bill Pendragon wrote: > No one can explain away what Joe does. Oh, but it's done every day. Penny Reply | Forward

#3928

From: Penny Zingery Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:55 pm Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pzingery Hi, Bill and PJ, Yes, the research that Richard Wiseman conducts can be kind of like a double-edged sword. While there is a lot of value that can be found in his theories, he does lean towards the skeptical end of the spectrum. More than just a tad. In the way of ghost research, here's an article that some may have seen from awhile back. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3046179.stm Now that he's researched the Edinburgh Vaults and Hampton Court Palace, what he'd like to do is to build an experimental, artificial "haunted house" that would test his (psychological) theories regarding ghostly phenomena. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0%2C12243%2C1005295%2C00.h\ tml And while many of his ideas are sound, (and can be valid as explanations a good deal of the time, in a lot of cases), the only problem is, many others think that they can't and don't explain everything. Like, as only a few examples, how can different people at different times experience and report the same haunting, with no prior knowledge regarding what others have experienced in the same location; or, how can more than one person see the same apparition at the same time? There are some interesting ideas, too, regarding how the environment, mind and body might interact with each other. Like a feedback loop of some kind. Suggesting that some apparitional experiences might be more than purely subjective. Dean Radin built a high-tech psychomanteum to test that kind of theory, after a visit to a castle in Sweden with some other researchers in 1996. (Raymond Moody and William Roll). During a later visit to the castle with William Roll, Andrew Nichols also reported an anomalous experience in the same place. Each person had an experience in the same location, independent of the others. And even though each person's experience was self-relational in a way, each experience also seemed to have an "energetic" aspect to it. Apparitional and haunting experiences have been shown to be too complex to fit a one-size-fits-all, purely psychological, physical and/or physiological (etc.) explanation. Even though each of those different perspectives can be relevant as avenues to pursue in an effort to understand what might be occurring. Richard Wiseman, though, I highly suspect, would be more than happy to see any number of ideas put to rest, once and for all. Penny Reply | Forward

#3931

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:52 am Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pjgaenir Hiya Penny, > he does lean towards the skeptical end of the spectrum. > More than just a tad. I've actually nothing against skeptics, on fair terms. (I just heard the weirdest sound ever outside. It's like something out of a UFO movie. It's 2:25am and I'm not going outside though! They will have to abduct my neighbors I guess.) The thing is, the most genuinely skeptical guy I know, also happens to be the one of the world's leading psi researchers. There's a difference between having a strong critical mind and refusing to do anything except recognize data and even doubt that like crazy (never 'believe'), vs. simply scoffing, evading, etc., the 'scoffers' or 'pseudo-skeptics' as Truzzi called them. Wiseman is slicker, smarter, and smoother than most of the skeptics, which in many ways IMO makes him more insidiously dangerous to real science. If I'd felt he was all that honorable in past RV stuff he's been involved in, I wouldn't have such a view. > And while many of his ideas are sound, > (and can be valid as explanations > a good deal of the time, in a lot of cases), > the only problem is, many > others think that they can't and don't > explain everything. At base, I suspect the issue here isn't just the detail of psi or ghosts or whatever, but rationalism vs. real life. There is some deep psychological need evidenced by some people to reduce all human experience down to something known, understandable, safe--and "logical". They don't mind that humans have irrational experiences, as long as the human can be deemed irrational, so that they, as rational people, will never have to worry about such frighteningly inexplicable things themselves. They do not want to find 'the real answer' for all of science, as many of them as scientists are much brighter stars when they're not in the field of their denial, and would be more objective; they want to find ANY answer that will allow their own psychology to dismiss it, a criteria that carries far less need for genuine science or covering the bases than actual science would. Why is it that so many psychologists themselves are in such obvious need of psychotherapy. It is the approach to psi which dismisses it as something else, because something else has turned out to be the case sometimes, that is one of the most common debunker approaches and IMO disingenious. To me, this is like saying that lots of college students get caught cheating on tests, which only proves that you (person X) got your degree through foul play. It's ridiculous. Yet that same logic is applied to psi and other anomalies fields constantly. Viewers will provide damn near blueprint level trace-quality sketches of a target, and scoffers will default to 'luck' to explain it. We're not talking a 1-of-4-gestalts here, but great detail. The target could have been anything on earth but it's just 'luck' that every detail ended up in the sketch. I mean the odds against this are so astronomical that it's an act of faith far superseding religion to believe that. Accusations of fraud used to be big, until the best mentalists in the world were made part of the scientific oversight committees and worked with the scientists to the point where the protocol made anything they could dream up impossible. Still there were doubts, so they finally went to having the viewer do the session before the target pool was even randomly chosen, which was yet before the actual target was chosen from the pool. So they quit looking at that, now having no way to disclaim it. Joe's been challenged I don't know how many times by skeptics, including Wiseman more than once, and has worked hard to stand up and prove it despite what seem actual efforts to insidiously wreck the process so the answer cannot be acceptable. Yet despite more than proving out the demands, nothing is ever said in the way of, "He met the demands." No, people like Wiseman just walk on, like nothing happened at all, and wait a short time till the memory of the locals has dimmed, and then start all over again with the same schtick. It's like the UFOlogy argument: because SOME people see Venus and think that it is a UFO, therefore, UFOs are simply something normal mistaken for something unusual. Of course, that doesn't address the people who had a triangle fly 50' over their car for half a mile and then all spent time in a hospital from radiation burns. That doesn't explain radar tracking something moving at Mach14 and doing right angle turns that is chased by jet pilots briefly who all have it in their visual range from way up there. That doesn't explain hundreds of people getting a South American "hallucination" on videocameras from every angle. All such stuff is carefully excluded from consideration because it can't be whitewashed away. So they will look for some account that clearly suggests the person saw Venus, or a weather balloon, or swamp gas, and use this as the 'example' they can 'debunk'. People can write off statistics all they want, but if half a dozen people the Japanese version of the FBI has been looking for, for decades, have been found, all because McMoneagle, from his living room in Virginia, sketched out details on the region, the city, the things nearby, unique elements, the likely building they live in, even down to the floor and apartment, and what they did for work or other details, and you can see how right on this is clearly, and so they found the person (or in a couple cases, found where the person had been literally days before they arrived), this is nothing short of evidential, in the engineering sense: it WORKS. Regardless of whether someone can construe a situation so they can be the sole judge, and then deliberately try and judge in a way as to prevent success, you can't deny success in the real world like that. One can, however, ignore it, and continue suggesting that people who believe in psi, or UFOs, or other unprovable things, are victims of their own hallucinations, the swamp-gas of the mind. :-) > There are some interesting ideas, too, regarding > how the environment, > mind and body might interact with each other. > Like a feedback loop of some kind. I actually feel that a great deal has been learned in the attempt to disprove psi, ghosts, and other anomalies. And funny enough, many of the people most into psi, are also interested in human potential, and so very interested in how the mind/body works, the subtle senses etc. I've experienced that a lot of esoteric stuff is as subjective as it comes; whether this is invalidates it is a totally different argument. To me, the problem is that this kind of theory and research is never presented truly scientifically, simply that, "I hypothesize humans may have XYZ experience in XYZ situation." Rather, it always starts out as, "Humans claiming XYZ are probably frauds and I suspect they're deluded 'cause it's just that XYZ situation is in place, and I'm going to try and prove it." Granted, nearly by accident we've learned a lot this way. But it would be so much easier to find interest if such approaches were not psychological "justifications" of someone's belief system, and were instead simply an interesting scientific query. PJ

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info