The StarGate Discussion List Archives

stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Testing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/1)

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

This list is an updates notification/discussion list for users of the Star Gate
Declassified Documents Website at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Testing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/2)
21:03:46

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

This is just a quick e-mail to (a) test the software is working properly
and (b) to let everyone know the list is here.

I'm sorry there has been no activity on this list so far, but it is because
I am waiting for more members to subscribe before I make any announcements,
or allowing/making discussion take place. (There's no point making
statements to a few people, and have to repeat it a week or so later when
everyone else who is going to join, joins :)

I will publically announce this new mailing list this Saturday (on my
website), by which time we should have enough subscribers to "do something"
with this list

Again, this mailing list is only supposed to be a news/updates list, so you
should not expect more than a few messages per week. However, chat about
FOIA/RV docs is welcome, so feel free to post or say hi!

Best regards,
Steve.




stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Upcoming New FOIA Request 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/3)
21:04:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

NEW FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST PLANNED
25th April, 1998: Star Gate Declassified Records Archive

Dear List:

I will soon be sending yet another FOIA request to the CIA. I will be
enquiring on various tidbits, mostly questions that have arisen as the
result of previous requests.

Among these, I will be addressing the controversial summary of the
"American Institute for Research" report on remote viewing, which will as
you remember, concluded that "continued use of remote-viewing in
intelligence gathering operations is not warranted" (*)

Naturally, this report has generated a great deal of criticism and
skepticism from the remote viewing community. It has it's doubters as well
as defenders, as is the case in virtually any subject.

The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website makes no effort to interpret
these documents, and this is intentional. We advise the reader to exercise
caution when reading or studying any subject, and to exercise all due care
before forming any conclusions. This is just common sense.

But other than that, we leave it up to the reader to draw any conclusions
from the material up on our website. We would encourage you to seek a wide
variety of views before making up your mind.

We will not force our own opinion upon you. Our job here is to act in the
public's interest, and to obtain documents of interest to remote-viewing
researchers (and the public at large.)

As a result, we'd welcome any comments or recommendations you may have for
our next Freedom of Information Request.

If, for example, you have a question you would like posed to the CIA's
Freedom of Information staff, please feel free to e-mail me at
steve@..., or post it publically by simply replying to this
message.

All (non-provocative) questions received will be catalogued, and it is very
possible I will attach all of these questions on a separate piece of A4,
and ask the CIA for a reply to these questions.

Whether you trust the CIA or not is up to you, but it cannot hurt to hear
what they have to say, and it can only contribute to our knowledgebase to
have them reply.

Comments or questions are welcome. Feedback is encouraged.

Feel free to reply to this message on this list, or send a private mail.

I will keep everyone on this list informed of any progress.

Best wishes to you all!

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 New FOIA Request / UFO Documents Effort 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/4)
21:04:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello all,

The Star Gate Declassified Docs website will not be receiving as much
attention as usual for the coming weeks.

There is are two main reasons for this:

- I am focusing on the preparation of a new FOIA request to the CIA for
additional RV material (comments/suggestions/feedback is encouraged!)

- I am focusing on a UFO documents effort to obtain/release many new UFO
documents - much of which has NEVER BEFORE BEEN SEEN by the general public.

The second item is what will be taking most of my time, but the first is
taking the rest (and is what I am working on ATM).

Once the request is written/sent, and the new UFO documents available, I
will go into more detail. In the meantime, I am having to be deliberate
vague. Sorry!

All questions sent re: the CIA FOIA request, I intend to INCLUDE as part of
the FOIA request on a separate piece of A4.

So, if you'd like to pitch a question to the CIA (remember: make it a
request for information, such as an answer to a specific question), then
post the question here (post/send e-mail to stargate@...!), or
e-mail me privately at steve@.... It's free, and there's
no need for you to worry about sending your own FOIA request to get the
answer - I'll do all the work necessary!

I will post here once the request has been written or the new UFO documents
are available.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 LAST CHANCE to field the CIA a question of your own! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/5)
21:04:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

In 3-4 days time, I will be posting a brand new FOIA request to the CIA.
Already in the letter:

- A request for very specific information on "Project Phoenix" and "Stunt
Pilot"

- A request to declassify the "CRV Training Manual".

(Archivist's note: this was posted on July 4, 1998 by me at firedocs.com.
It was never classified. - PJ Gaenir 6/2006)

- A request to declassify the full "AIR Report" (only the 6-page "summary
and conclusions" appears to be circulating)

(Archivist's note: This was html'd by me in 1998 and posted on Dr. Jessica Utts's website.
It was never classified. - PJ Gaenir  6/2006)

Any questions you'd like to ask?

Be SPECIFIC .. if possible, name a document, or some specific event you'd
like more information on. I will keep a catalogue of any questions asked,
and will either include them in my current request, or future ones.

But hurry! I am sending this request off in 3-4 days.. I don't like to hang
around..

If you'd like to be informed of any FOIA progress, visit the Star Gate
Declassified Docs Website (at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/) or send
a blank e-mail (no subject or message necessary) to
stargate-subscribe@....

Thanks!

Regards,
Steve.

P.S. Yes, I *will* pay any costs that come of this.. and you don't need to
write a letter of your own.. I will happily do all the work necessary..


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 New FOIA Request Filed 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/6)
21:04:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All,

A new Freedom of Information Request has been filed with the CIA.

I took a last-minute decision to remove the request for the "AIR Report",
so that focus will be put more on the search for the CRV Training Manual
and for some kind of description of Phoenix and Stunt Pilot's purposes.

I will file a request for the AIR Report perhaps at a later date, depending
on the CIA's response to this request. I intend to file an appeal with the
CIA should this current request be rejected in any way. After receiving
the information I've requested, I may ask for the AIR Report. However, I
think I'll have my hands full with the CRV Manual if the request is
successful, anyway :)

Suggestions for future FOIA requests are still welcome, so please e-mail
this list at stargate@... or me personally at
steve@... if you have any ideas!

The text of my latest FOIA request can be browsed by visiting the Star Gate
Declassified Documents Website at the following URL:

http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/

Enjoy!

Regards,
Steve.




stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Minor updates 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/7)
21:05:06

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

There have also been some minor updates to the website. The most notable
of these is the addition of FOIA Request #2, which was missing up until now.
I found the original Word file and re-printed/re-scanned it.

The CIA's refusal to send information on Phoenix and Stunt Pilot originally
may have to do with the fact I requested "any and all" documents relating
to these projects in my second request. I have narrowed my search criteria
this time to "the first document of Phoenix and Stunt Pilot". This document
should contain all we need, should the CIA decide to declassify/send it.

The text of FOIA requests #2 and #4 are now available at the Star Gate
Declassified Documents Website at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/.

Your comments, as always, are welcome and appreciated.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Agency FOIA Addresses Needed 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/8)
21:05:41

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear List:

A few people have written to me recently, mostly about the plans to release
the CRV Training Manual in the near future. Others have written with
suggestions for future FOIA requests.

However, mostly it has been from people who aren't so much interested in
specific information from the CIA (as my original request for new questions
was about), but rather to point me in the direction of other agencies which
they believe contain remote-viewing material.

I need the addresses for the agencies below. If anyone has the address of
the Freedom of Information Office for the agencies listed, please e-mail me
with the details at steve@.... Thank you!

Agency FOIA Addresses Needed for:

* Defense Intelligence Agency (*I have now found this address*)
* US Army / US Army INSCOM
* US Navy
* US Air Force

Any other FOIA addresses, while not needed, would be greatfully welcomed
and appreciated. Multi-agency FOIA requests may be made in the future, and
every agency address we receive helps us in those efforts.

Thanks again!

Big thanks must go to all those who have written me with suggestions and
comments for future FOIA requests. Rest assured, all your comments are
listened to and I will be sure to bear them in mind in future FOIA work.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Declaration of Independence 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/9)
21:06:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear List:

In an attempt to distance the Star Gate Documents website from the ongoing
political mayhem that exists within the remote-viewing community, the Star
Gate Declassified Docs Website has published a "Declaration of
Independence."

Our Declaration of Independence expresses our dismay at the political
nature of remote-viewing discussions and debates, and attempts to separate
us completely from this process, by focusing us solely on requesting,
obtaining and publishing remote-viewing documents. No amount of political
pressure from any remote-viewing group or faction will be able to influence
the direction of the Star Gate Documents website, and any implied threats
or "statements of dissatisfaction" made by any of these groups will not
deter us in any way, shape or form from our efforts.

However, we will work with anyone who wishes to co-operate with us in a
productive way, to obtain new documents. Requests of all kinds from all
members of the public for new information are welcome.

Below is our formal Declaration of Independence for the Star Gate
Declassified Documents Website.

STAR GATE DOCUMENTS WEBSITE: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website is an independent,
not-for-profit website created by Steve Crietzman. Unlike many other sites
on the Internet, we do not "take sides" in any of the political debates
that have sprung up around this subject.

We do not try to dictate what uses people put remote-viewing to, what they
choose to believe about the subject, what they do
with it, who learns it, or why. And we do not side with, or against, any
group or individual whose name is well-known within the RV community.

This site sides with the Freedom of Information Act - only. We file Freedom
of Information requests to various agencies and we
place the results of those requests
online. What you see online are public documents that you have a legal and
constitutional *right to see*. You may download
them, copy them, do as you wish with them. No one
owns the copyright to them - they are public documents.

Whatever you decide to read into these documents is up to you.

I may occassionally (rarely) make commentaries on these documents, if I
feel there is a need for me to comment on them, but for the most part, I
leave it up to each individual to choose for themselves; to choose what
they read, how they read, what they read into it, and what they do with it
after they read it.

I see my role as a liaison between the CIA's Freedom of Information Staff,
and the public. I will make requests depending on what I feel the public
are interested in knowing. I will occassionally write requests on behalf of
people who e-mail me and wish to remain anonymous and/or not file it
themselves.

In short, I am here to make the Freedom of Information Act just a little
bit more accessible to people on the web. And I feel the best way I can
remain neutral and objective, is if I stay out of the making of any
analysis, and not pay any attention to political backlash that may result
from my work. All I'm doing is publishing public documents, and if anyone
has a problem with that, you should ask them what is wrong in publishing
uncopyrighted, unclassified public documents.

I welcome feedback from anyone and everyone, and hope that everyone finds
some use for this website, whatever their political affiliation or personal
beliefs.

We will work with anyone who wishes to work productively with us, to obtain
new documents and further the knowledge and understanding of the science of
remote-viewing. However, we will not be influenced by those who wish to
restrict, hinder, or defame our website in any way.

The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website is an independent,
not-for-profit, non-partisan website dedicated to furthering the knowledge
and understanding of remote-viewing and the US government's involvement in
the same.

ends.

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 List Archive Now Public 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/10)
21:06:22

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear List:

The Star Gate List archive can now be viewed by going to the following Web
URL:

http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/stargate/

Before today, you would need to enter your e-mail address and be required
to sign up as a member of this website (nothing to do with me BTW), and
then it would check if you were subscribed to this list before it would let
you access it.

I've now made the archive public, so you can flow on in, and browse through
past posts.

If you've not already done so, I'd check out the Star Gate website today -
there have been several changes lately. The URL again is:
http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Notice for our UK Subscribers! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/11)
21:06:32

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear UK Subscribers,

If you have not yet seen "The Real X-Files: Remote Viewers", you have an
opportunity tonight!

The time and place: Saturday 30th May, Channel 4, 9pm. It's a one-hour
documentary reportedly by Jim Schnabel that discusses the US intelligence
community's recruitment and training of remote-viewers, and you'll have the
chance to see the faces behind those names you've probably heard referred
to in the newsgroups, BBSs and discussion lists!

WEBSITE NEWS:
No, I've not forgotten the website. A radical redesign has been made of
the website, and these changes will be uploaded either today or sometime
later this week, along with a move to a completely new address (don't
worry, the old address will continue to function properly!)

UK SCENE NEWS:
It looks like the remote-viewers are finally looking to Britain! Joe
McMoneagle will be introducing and describing (but not training, it should
be noted) remote-viewing to a UK audience this November, 1997 in a venue
with Paul McKenna and Michael Breen. More information will be added to the
website about this soon. The event is expected to cost a little over
?1,000, but I should stress that Joe McMoneagle will be there in the
capacity of explaining, perhaps demonstrating (unconfirmed) remote-viewing,
but certainly training does not appear to be on the agenda. He will be
sharing the stage with Michael Breen and Seka Nikolic, who is described as
being a bio-energy healer.

There is also rumour of training in the UK, but since there has not yet
been an official confirmation or guarentee (the event is still in the
planning stages), I would rather not give names.

But it certainly seems like the UK might be getting some professional
remote-viewers' attention this year!

Best Regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Notice for our UK Subscribers! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/12)
21:06:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Notice for our UK Subscribers!

Hi All,

Just a few corrections to the last post -

>UK SCENE NEWS:
>It looks like the remote-viewers are finally looking to Britain! Joe
>McMoneagle will be introducing and describing (but not training, it should
>be noted) remote-viewing to a UK audience this November, 1997 in a venue

This of course should read "November, 1998". Although I guess those versed
in remote-viewing could have visited the event even if it was last year ;-)

>website about this soon. The event is expected to cost a little over
>?1,000,

This should have read "a little over 1,000 UK pounds."

Best regards,
Steve.

P.S. I will be announcing the new address of the Star Gate Website on this
list (as well as on the old address).. both addresses will continue to
function (the old one won't be "closed" as both will point to the same
site.)

Also, I'll have probably a few surprises for folks this coming Saturday..
until then, you'll just have to wait :)



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Website Updated 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/13)
21:06:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

The topic line pretty much says it all, doesn't it? :)

The address to the new website is:
http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/.

Please bookmark this new URL and be sure to check back often!

What's new:

* Complete new look (redesigned from the roots.)
* New 'Policy' section (to be uploaded soon.)
* Text versions of all documents to be uploaded soon
(Progress Report No. 3 already available this way.)
* Discussion BBS is back again!
* More to come..

Your comments, criticisms etc. are welcome on the new BBS, too!

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 No Data Error 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/14)
21:07:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All:

You might have got a "No Data Error" when trying to access the new new-look
Star Gate website. I've had this error, and have heard from another that
she'd also got this error when attempting to access the site.

This is not a problem that can be fixed easily on the server end, but from
your end it is simple. Just click "Reload". Quite why it will send you
nothing the first time you try, and send you the page the second time, is a
bit of a mystery, but I believe the server is stopping half-way from
sending you the page.

We should have this problem fixed soon. In the meantime, be "Reload"
trigger-happy :)

I hope this problem hasn't caused too much trouble for you all.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 CIA Ask $450 to Perform Star Gate FOIA Search 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/15)
21:07:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All:

This is outrageous. The CIA want $450 to be able to perform a search for
the documents I asked for, but say it is better to wait because it might
soon be available anyway. Here is their reply.

09 JUN 1998

Mr. Steve Crietzman
49 St. Gilberts Road
Bourne
Lincolnshire
PE10 9XD
UNITED KINGDOM

Reference: (deleted)

Dear Mr. Crietzman:

This is in my response to your 11 May 1998 Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request for records related to remote
viewing, as follows:


1. "The document which officially established 'Project Phoenix.'"
2. "The document which officially established 'Project Stunt Pilot.'"
3. The entire 'CRV Training Manual'..."
[4. [Other documents as described in your letter relating to Phoenix
and Stunt Pilot.]

This request has been assigned the reference number above for
identification purposes.

...

In accordance with Section (a) of the schedule, search fees are accessable
even if no records are found or, if found, we
determine that they are not releasable. This means you will be charged even
if our search results are negative or if it is
determiend that no information is releasable under the FOIA. The search
fees for a requester in the "all other" fee
category for each item in a request are usually about $150. Your three-item
request could cost about US$450.

...

Pursuant to 32 CFR $1900.13(f), we must request your good-faith deposit in
the amount of $200. One reason we are
requesting this deposit in this particular instance is because we believe
it highly likely that, if we have copies of the
documents you have requested, they will be released as part of the Star
Gate Collection sooner than we could locate,
review and or coordinate them under the FOIA.

...

We will hold your request in abeyance for 45 days until we receive your
commitment to pay all fees incurred and under
the conditions above along with your good-faith deposit of $200.

Yours sincerely,

[signed]
Lee S. Strickland
Information and Privacy Coordinator

Enclosure

...

The full letter, plus the fees list, will be added online within a few
days. The URL, again, is http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/.

Please read the last mail to the list about the No Data Error if you have
problems connecting.

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 The CIA's FOIA Response 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/16)
21:07:43

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All:

Below is the CIA's reply to my latest FOIA request. As noted in
this letter, I urged the CIA, in writing and on the telephone, to
break with their standard "we're reviewing them now, please wait"
policy, and to perform a search under the FOIA as laid down and
required by law, for the unclassified CRV Training Manual, and
for the documents which establish Projects Phoenix and Stunt Pilot.

This is their response. They want me to pay $450 to cover various
costs. Needless to say, I still have a few legal tricks up my sleeve,
and might be able to circumvent this rather hefty charge, by appealing
for a fee waiver, citing public interest and my intention to distribute
and publish the results, and also by quoting a few FOIA regulations. I
can play at the regulations game too, CIA.

However, in light of the fact that PJ Gaenir is already busily
processing the CRV Manual, and that the additional time spent on the
CRV Manual might slow my own efforts in other areas, I am hereby dropping
the request to the CIA for the CRV Manual, to focus on the Phoenix and
Stunt Pilot materials, among some other things which I am reluctant to
discuss at present. There is no point in my attempting to obtain the
CRV Manual, since by the time I get anywhere with the manual, PJ will
probably have her version online.

I want to reiterate that when I filed the original request for the
CRV Training Manual (something I had been considering for about six months
on-and-off), I was not aware that PJ Gaenir was intending to put this
document online, available for all. Around the same time I posted my own
intentions to obtain and publish this manual, PJ Gaenir announced to her
list that the CRV manual would be available online in about two months
(paraphrased.)

I was not sure at the time if this was in reference to my own efforts (since
the CIA's replies can take six weeks, and it would take a week or two to
scan the pages in), or something I did not know about, but by then I had
already made preparations for a FOIA request for the CRV Manual, and I'd
sent it on it's way. What mattered to me, is that this manual was
available online, so that the science of remote-viewing could be better
understood, and the technology put in a position where it can more easily
be held to scientific scrutiny. Scientific data means nothing if it cannot
be questioned, scrutinised and the experiments repeated by others. At this
present time, there is insufficient information in the public domain to allow
the claimed SRI results to be duplicated in a public environment.

I am deeply grateful for PJ's pledge to publish the manual, as not only
would this be a tremendous service to the remote-viewing research
community, it also frees me to focus on other documents in the CIA's
possession, and opens up the possibility of moving on with some other planned
FOIA requests.

I will, of course, continue my FOIA efforts. When one line of investigation
has dried up, I will go down another. My intention is to collect and publish
as much information as is possible. The FOIA does work - just not, perhaps,
as well as we'd like it to.

Careful wording, and a good understanding of FOIA law, are helpful bonuses
however, as has been demonstrated by the CIA budging from it's no-reply
policy, which I pointed out was flatly illegal, to a "we'll do it if you
pay" policy, which isn't much better from a practical point of view, but
at least it's a more liberal response.

Hopefully, this can be budged further, onto a "we'll do it for free"
policy, by pointing out a few more legal regulations, and using
"fee waivers" and the FOIA Appeals procedure.

Best regards,
Steve.

==========

09 JUN 1998

Mr. Steve Crietzman
49 St. Gilberts Road
Bourne
Lincolnshire
PE10 9XD
UNITED KINGDOM

Reference: (deleted)

Dear Mr. Crietzman:

This is in response to your 11 May 1998 Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to remote
viewing, as follows:

1. "The document which officially established
'Project Phoenix.'
2. The document which officially established 'Project
Stunt Pilot.'
3. The entire 'CRV Training Manual'..."

[4. [Other documents as described in your letter
relating to Phoenix and Stunt Pilot.]

This request has been assigned the reference number above for
identification purposes.

As you know from the various communications between you
and this agency, we have considered all remote viewing
docuiments in our possession as inaccessible until the Star
Gate Collection release. During your two recent phone calls
to this office you urged our staff to break with our recent
precedent of not searching against the collected Star Gate
records during its declassification process.

As we have explained to you, the Star Gate records
declassification project that is being conducted at CIA was
undertaken as the result of a special Congressional mandate.
This effort is dramatically different from the processing of
FOIA requests. One principal difference is that CIA has been
given permission to release other agencies' records; another
is that CIA is using more liberal guidelines that may result
in more releasable documents that may be less heavily
redacted than they would have been under FOIA guidelines.

What this means to you in this particular instance is
that if we were to conduct a FOIA search against the Star
Gate Collection and if the documents you want were located as
the result of this FOIA search, we would have to review them
pursuant to normal FOIA procedures. This means that our
reviewing officers would make any necessary deletions on the
basis of standard FOIA exemptions. After our review, we
would then have to send the documents to their originating
agency for its formal FOIA review. The originating agency
would make the decision as to whether it is able to release
the documents. The CIA is not allowed to release another
agency's documents under the FOIA.

As you know, the FOIA authorizes federal agencies to
collect fees for records services. You will note on the
enclosed fee schedule that we charge search fees, including
computer time where indices are computerized, and copying
costs for releasable documents. In accordance with Section
(a) of the schedule, search fees are assessable even if no
records are found or, if found, we determine that they are
not releasable. This means you will be charged even if our
search results are negative or if it is determined that no
information is releasable under the FOIA. The search fees
for a requester in the "all other" fee category for each item
in a request are usually about $150. Your three-item request
could cost about US$450.

Pursuant to 32 CFR ?1900.13(f), we must request your
good-faith deposit in the amount of US$200. One reason we
are requesting this deposit in this particular instance is
because we believe it highly likely that, if we have copies
of the documents you have requested, they will be released as
part of the Star Gate Collection sooner than we could locate,
review, and refer and or coordinate them under the FOIA.

In conclusion, we have determined that we can search for
the records you requested - specifically, for (1) the CRV
Training Manual, (2) records relating to Project Phoenix, and
(3) records relating to Project Stunt Pilot. Such a search
would be conducted specifically under FOIA ground rules, some
of which have been highlighted in the paragraphs above.

We will hold your request in abeyance for 45 days until
we receive your commitment to pay all fees incurred and under
the conditions stated above along with your good-faith
deposit of $200.

Sincerely,

[signed]

for Lee S. Strickland
Information and Privacy Coordinator

Enclosure



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Documents Added to Website 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/17)
21:07:54

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear List:

I have just made some major updates to the website.

I now have available the CIA's official reply to my latest FOIA
request, plus the CIA FOIA fees and regulations list which came
enclosed with their letter.

But probably the most significant change is the addition of the
American Institute for Research's controversial report on
remote-viewing.

I now have online a copy of the 183-page version of this
report, as well as the 6-page summary that was included in
response to my first FOIA request of last year.

My thanks must go to Paul Smith, who made me aware of
the existence of the full AIR report as a PDF file, which I have now
added to the Star Gate Documents Website.

The URL to the website, as always, is: http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/.

The old address of http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/ is also still working;
you can choose which address you prefer :)

If/when I decide to appeal against the CIA's decision, or to file a fee waiver,
I'll announce it here to this list, and add the letter to my website.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 The Closure of the Viewer List 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/18)
21:08:24

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello All,

PJ Gaenir will soon be leaving the remote-viewing community, and her 250-strong
Viewer List will be closing for good. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say
that we wish her well for the future.

However, this does mean that the Star Gate List is in no longer in danger of
"duplicating" the Viewer List (since it will not be around much longer), and
so I'm lifting the rules a little on this list. (The rules designed to protect
Star Gate
List from becoming like the Viewer List no longer seem necessary.)

Starting today, posts from anyone will be automatically accepted onto this list,
and discussion can be about anything, so long as it relates in some way to what
the
Star Gate Website is about - remote-viewing and science (and the science of
remote-viewing.)

I am putting my trust in those who are subscribed to be reasonably sensible
about
how they use this list (if they decide to!) I won't place any ground rules down
now,
I'll just open the ground to almost anything (friendly, non-RV chatter included
for now!), and see how things go. I'll only introduce rules if I feel they're
necessary.

For now, "be good to each other" is the only common-sense rule that's being laid
down.

This BBS encourages critical thinking, and those who have difficult questions
to ask about RV are encouraged to speak their mind. My intention is that these
people can raise their questions without feeling uncomfortable or guilty about
their views (there is nothing wrong in asking difficult questions!)

But views of all types are welcome here. If anything is banned or unappropriate
on other mailing lists or BBSs, you should consider the Star Gate List a safe
place to discuss those topics. I would like this list to be a list "for the
other
people."

Anyway, I declare this BBS open to the public!

Anyone want to start off..? Anything goes!! :)

Best always,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 The Closure of the Viewer List 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/19)
21:08:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List

Steve:

FAIR ENOUGH!!!!

...but get that CGI thingamajig fixed :-).

electrix



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 The Closure of the Viewer List 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/20)
21:08:58

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List

Hiya,

>Steve:
>
>FAIR ENOUGH!!!!
>
>...but get that CGI thingamajig fixed :-).

Okay, I get the message.. ;-)

If anyone reading hasn't seen the Star Gate BBS, goto:
http://www.progressiveweb.net/local-cgi-bin/config.pl

Oh, and the Star Gate website is now also at
http://www.progressiveweb.net/stargate/

but the two older addresses still work too ;-)

(I promote this will be the *last* change in the address :)

Say Electrix, want to post your essay to the list? Might get some
chatter going..

Best,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/21)
21:09:09

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello everyone,

This is just to remind you that this mailing list is OPEN FOR CHAT
now..

There's only 17 people here.. but if just half of you made the effort
to make a few posts, we could have an active mailing list in no time!

This is a request for people to consider making one or two posts each,
and to try to make an effort to reply to any posts that are made to the
list.

I'm interested to see where we can take this list f we all try!

Any takers..? Come on, just make a reply to this message! At the
moment, let's just see who's here, we'll worry about the topic
later! Let's just all say "hi" for now..

I realise I could just post a list of names of everyone who's here,
and some of you probably would like me to do that but I can't.
Subscriptions are private - you name will only become public if
you decide to post..

So please, consider making a post! (YES, YOU! :)

Cheers,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/22)
21:09:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Posts welcome!

Hi Steve... I just read for the first time some of the material sent to you
from the CIA, dated 1972. I was so interested to read this stuff! Can't
thank you enough for guiding me to this site... truly so wonderful. You
have done an outstanding job getting all of this information released...
knowing all the steps to take, etc. I'm very impressed.

It seems to me that remove viewing is just what I thought it was all
along... those who are proficient in ESP are the best viewers. That's not
to say we can't all learn to use it to a certain extent... but there will
always be those who are just plain better at it. IMO
Love,
Paula


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 dream 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/23)
21:09:29

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi everybody!
I have very active dreams, lucid dreams, and pretty good dream recall.
I consider it a blessing. Anyway, something unusual occured the other day
and I would appreciate feedback.
My friend Terri and I were discussing our nightly dreams. I told her
that I dreamed of round headed whales (beluah?) or dolphins, 4 or 5
together in line, swimming up to the shore. The water was dark, it was at
night. She told me that the night before she had dreamed the exact same
thing! Very unusual stuff. Did anyone else have a similiar dream? Is this
a thought dimension out there that we picked up on?
And Steve, good idea to have a list. Good luck.

Regards,
Jane


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Thoughts on RV 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/24)
21:09:43

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Paula,

First, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us on this list! I for
one really appreciate it :)

I have always had a problem with the idea that we can all be
trained to become experts at remote-viewing, given enough
time and practice. When we look at our other five known
senses, it's worth remembering that with sight, for example -
some people are born with excellent vision, others are
short-sighted, others are long-sighted, and some - in the
rare cases - are born blind.

Some people are born deaf, others are born with bad
hearing, most of us have good hearing - but some of us
have better hearing than others.

Some of us are colour-blind to certain colours and can
"see" certain things better than others. Some of us are
sensitive to certain frequencies of sounds that others
of us aren't. Some of us cannot see *or* hear. Some of
us might have bad sight and bad hearing, or bad hearing
and good sight.. or any combination of the above..

So I think if we're going to call ESP a "sixth sense"
and take that literally, I think it's fair that we'd have
the "psychic duds" - who are psychically blind/deaf -
those who are about average - and those with excellent,
fine-tuned senses, so called "natural psychics" and
"world-class remote-viewers" for example.

I do not believe that training will allow us to continue
to improve, any more than by doing "reading exercises"
and reading books and watching TV day after day, will
give us better eyesight. We may become more
accustomed to them, but I don't think we'll get
to improve our natural ability beyond it's natural levels.

All this said, I'm not sure how I feel about remote-viewing
anyway. As the kind of person who demands a high
level of scientific evidence, I'm the type of person
who wants to see everything the labs have. We've got
very little to go on, really.

But until we know more about ESP - and the sad truth
is, I believe anyway - that we can't make any conclusions
about remote-viewing at all - then we're not in a very good
position to say much. We can speculate, based on our
own experiences in life, and our own feelings based on
what we know about remote-viewing and what others
have said, but apart from that - we really do not know
the *cause* of the higher-than-chance results, even if
we off-the-bat say that there's more than just unknown
mistakes in the experiments happening, and that "something"
else is happening - something, forlack of a better word,
"paranormal". Saying the cause is something paranormal
still doesn't tell us the cause, and more than saying that
hearing is a "physical sense." We know that ears receive
the sound and our brains process that. Where is ESP
signals (assuming they're there) being received, how
are they being processed, and what could interfere
between the source of the transmission (and - how is
it transmitted BTW?), and the receiver.

Until we find the cause, we don't know why we're getting
higher-than-chance "scores". Once we do find the
cause, and let's say it's paranormal for a moment (my
'gut feeling' is this is the answer), then we'll be able
to find ways to "increase" the signal-to-noise ratio,
improve the signal, and get much better results. (Perhaps
the "sidereal time" is a step in that direction.)

I don't think we have answers yet, but I hope - that the
answers are just around the corner. Once we start to get
those answers, we'll know a great deal more about what's
causing these higher-than-chance scores, and we'll
finally be able to say "mundane" (bad experiments,
subliminal messages or whatever) or "paranormal" (ESP,
remote-viewing, distant signals being sent to our mind,
etc.) I guess in this sense, it's not "paranormal" at all..
only in that we don't have the answers now, and it can
*seem* to be beyond our understanding of the world and
universe.

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth :)

Thanks for contributing, Paula. I think I agree with you -
if ESP is "real" (which I think it is), then there will be
pros, those with "average" psi abilities, and a couple
out there with no real ability, just their imaginations
to work with (thus, bad results/chance results.)

Studying 'psychic duds' might even tell us a little
about what thoughts/impressions we should be
ignoring, and help us detect what experts have that
the duds don't.. (was a passing thought, was going
to ignore this but figured I'd post it anyway to get
some people thinking :)

That's some of my thoughts on the subject, anyway.

Paula, want to respond?

Anyone else want to chip in..?

Best always,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 dreams 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/25)
21:09:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Jane!

Welcome to the list, and thanks for posting.. :-)

I find dreams fascinating. Perhaps it has something to do with me being
a "psychic dud" ;) I really don't think I've got any RV talent to use, but I'd
love nothing more than to be proven wrong. (And I'm not saying I don't
think others have RV talent.. there's a good chance they do.. I'd just
like to see a little more light shed on all this.. because I don't think there's
quite enough info and evidence out there to prove it yet..)

I have a lot of lucid dreams and vivid dreams, but none lately. In my life
I have had only two dreams that *might* come under the "predictive"
category.. both about the same person/people, separated by a couple
of months. I never had any other dreams about these people (that I
remember), and I've never had any other "predictive" dreams about
anyone else. Two dreams aren't really enough for me to go on though..
so I hope more come along some time.. :) I noticed they seem to have
certain "characteristics" that other dreams did not..

Anyway, I guess I'm straying here. I don't really have anything to say
about your dreams - I'm not really that good at dream interpreting (except
my own dreams :), and lucid dreams are about the only thing I am good
at talking about.

I thought I'd chip in these comments as I thought you might find them
interesting, or others might..

If anyone can help Jane, *please* post a reply here! I'm not sure I can
be of much help on this one..

Take care,
Steve.



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Answer To Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/26)
21:10:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

These messages are going to get extremely long and cumbersome if we just
keep hitting the Reply button, thus the above subject...

Steve... IMO, ESP or psi cannot be tested in the laboratory... it is
something that can never be harnessed and explained away in a scientific
manner. Now, having made this statement, I can just hear the flames
starting. But, and remember this is my opinion only, until we can prove
that God exists in the laboratory, we cannot prove that extrasensory
perception exists either... I don't care how many protocols, this thing
just isn't going to behave the way scientists want it to. How can one
prove something that belongs in another dimension??? And isn't that
where psi comes from?

Put this down to my naïveté... I am, after all, much older than the rest
of you (probably) and just have that good old "gut" feeling about all
this... ESP has to be experienced; psi has to be experienced... this is
a subject one has got to "know", not "believe". And that comes from
experiencing these things. Anybody have an opinion? Or am I all wet???

Love,
Paula


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/27)
21:10:19

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello,
We are a small group located in Orange city Florida.We have been
working with RV for the last 6 or so months now and have had a few good hits
but not as consistant (spelling)? as we would like it to be.We have no guide
lines to follow by except what is posted on the web.If anyone feels like they
have had possitive and concise hits from this ,please e-mail me and let me
know how you have done it.
thank you Paul Roggio E-mail me at Neshamah1@...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/28)
21:10:28

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello Paul!
Are we neighbors? I live in Lakeland, Florida. Are you near Orlando?
Anyway, I'd like to hear more about your experiments. How many viewers do
you have? How are targets set up? Just general questions about how you
are running your test. Good luck with the project!

Regards,
Jane


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 To Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/29)
21:10:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Paula!
Yes, I agree with you that there is not sufficient technology to prove
the existence of PSI. It just is. Like God just is. I believe that it is
real and can be demonstrated, but not taken apart and disected.

Warmly,
Jane


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 dream 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/30)
21:10:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

[stargate] dream

Thanks Steve for your comments about dreams. I am particularly interested
in hearing about your "predictive dream"!

You wrote:I have a lot of lucid dreams and vivid dreams, but none lately.
In my life
I have had only two dreams that *might* come under the "predictive"
category.. both about the same person/people, separated by a couple
of months. I never had any other dreams about these people (that I
remember), and I've never had any other "predictive" dreams about
anyone else. Two dreams aren't really enough for me to go on though..
so I hope more come along some time.. :) I noticed they seem to have
certain "characteristics" that other dreams did not..

Please share with us some of your predictive dreams or lucid dreams.
I love dreamwork.

Regards,
Jane


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 The Closure of the Viewer List 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/31)
21:10:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List

I hope I am on the list. I am assuming I am since I am getting a list
of people just raining into Hard Drive.

Hi everyone...

simply...I am electrix

the shocking one... :-)

About that Essay...I am not sure it is the appropriate place to put it,
being so long and all...and I do believe there is already a chatter
going....

Feel free to post it Steve. I will dropping notes interminently since I
have to focus on other matters.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/32)
21:11:09

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Paula Hulslander wrote:

> It seems to me that remove viewing is just what I thought it was all
> along... those who are proficient in ESP are the best viewers. That's not
> to say we can't all learn to use it to a certain extent... but there will
> always be those who are just plain better at it. IMO

There is a possibility that the above stated belief may hinder ones own ability
to surpass those proficient in RV/ESP, no?
Perhaps, Paula, what you may be good at (or undiscovered skills) they can't
even fathom. No?

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Answer To Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/33)
21:11:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula

You are not alone on that thought Paula. I recently posted an Essay and a
Rebuttal on the same idea of Proof. The use of Science to investigate the
paranormal is lopsided. We can scientifically analyze its results, but
sooner or later we are left to infer othe presence of the Paranormal which
is a confounded and alternate reality.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/34)
21:11:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Glad to see that I wasnt't the only one that made an makeshift experiment before
taking an RV workshop. My advice is that one of you take an RV workshop and
share
the info with the others if all of you can't afford it.

The protocols are not written in all the books I have read on RV. It is
something
that must be pass to you by an instructor. The closest you are going to get to
protocol is buying the Ed Dames video Tapes. Of course, absorb the information
given with critical and open mind since the man IS part of Intel and who knows
what's his agenda. IMO.

Before my RV workshop, I tried out the experiments by gleaning information from
several books and the Net and tried it on two people. The results were very
interesting. The target "hit" were very close.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 dream 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/35)
21:11:43

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] dream

What I am interesting in finding out is your opinion of what makes the mind
"light up" these images in the head called dreams.

What do you think dreams are?

How can there be no light entering your eyes but yet you can visualize images
in your mind. Doesn't it defy physics. For something to be visual light
must be shed on it. Can someone (pun intended) enlighten me on this?

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Answer to Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/36)
21:11:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

I woke up this morning to a flood of messages and 3 new requests to
join the list. Looks like things are really starting to pick up here.. :-)

Thanks to everyone who's posted! Keep it up! :-)


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Answer To Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/37)
21:12:02

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula

Electrix:

I just finished reading your essay on the BBS and, needless to say, agree
wholeheartedly with everything you contend there. Thank you for your
thoughtful and quite brilliant insights, Electrix... have always enjoyed your
posts on Farsight.

Love,
Paula


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/38)
21:12:14

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Electrix wrote:
>You are not alone on that thought Paula. I recently posted an Essay and a
>Rebuttal on the same idea of Proof. The use of Science to investigate the
>paranormal is lopsided. We can scientifically analyze its results, but
>sooner or later we are left to infer othe presence of the Paranormal which
>is a confounded and alternate reality.

Hi,

Well, all opinions are welcome on this list, but I have to disagree with you
here Electrix (life would be boring if we all agreed all the time, wouldn't it?
;)

It may well be that we'll continued to be dumb-founded by remote-viewing,
but science has provided us with so many answers to so many questions,
it's methods could very well provide us with answers on psi. Maybe not now,
maybe not in a few decades, maybe not in 100 years.. but someday. It
might happen slowly, or quickly.

We have no surefire way of
predicting the future (let's leave RV out of this for the moment ;) so it's
hard to say where science will or will not take our understanding of subjects
like RV.

Science is an objective system. It provides us with "hard evidence" and solid
answers (as much as that is possible.) It deals with data, experiments, results,
etc. Things that can be examined, tested, and measured.

Anything else I put under the catagory of religion, belief or faith. It is hard
for me as the scientific type to comment on faith and belief, because it is
difficult to scientificly test a faith. Does God exist? Provide me with a
scientific
way to test for God, and we could perform a test. But we cannot perform
a test because we don't know what to test for, or even if we can test for it.
So
there is no way to prove it a positive.

This, unfortunately, means we cannot prove a faith. Does that make it wrong?
How do I know? I can't measure it!

I prefer to stick with things we can scientifically measure, and leave
belief/faith
to those who use/need it.

I'm not a person who has much faith in anything but the objective/scientific.

Some may call this a failing, others a blessing, others something inbetween.
But
it is the system I've chosen. We all choose our systems to rely on. That's the
one I've chosen.

I prefer to put my trust in things I can test, measure, examine. IF it can be
tested, measured or examined.. it can be subjected to a scientific experiment,
and it can be scientifically analysed. Otherwises, it is not of much scientific
value. If something cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be
experienced or examined.. we can't be sure it exists objectively, ever. Which
means it does not affect physical reality.

Clearly, psi affects physical reality. So we can test that much of it. If it
crosses
over at some point into non-physical reality, perhaps then and there the
scientific
experiments will no longer be of use. But that still gives us a lot to examine.

And it's still possible that RV is purely physical, with no paranormal
explanation
being necessary. (Note: That does not mean RV does "not exist"; it just means
there may be a physical explanation rooted in our physical universe, for how
we pick up these "signals".)

That's my feeling. I respect your views Electrix and Paula, but I prefer not to
comment on things beyond that which can be scientifically analysed. Psi
CAN be scientifically analysed. How far and how much remains to be seen.

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/39)
21:12:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> We have no surefire way of
> predicting the future (let's leave RV out of this for the moment ;) so it's
> hard to say where science will or will not take our understanding of subjects
> like RV.

Science has actually made considerable inroads into explaining RV. Unlike many
public
forums for RV focusing on Psi as if it was another weird superstition, the
foundation
research is in electromagnetic wave resonance. The protocols in Rv are designed
to focus
the viewers intent and attention, until they resonate with the targets
electromagnetic
signature, The degree to which you match this resonance will be demonstrated in
the level
of clarity in your view.

RV is a communication skill, which takes allot of discipline to master. Many
EEG and
bio-feed back experiments have been conducted to measure the state achieved when
good RV
data is collected, the wild card is that each individual, even well trained
professionals
have good and bad days and to top this off availability of data, is often
compromised by
the individuals ability to retrieve it, or the viewers disciplined ability to
refrain from
interpretation or contamination of the data items collected. The difference in
good and
bad days can be justified by everything from, stress and distractions, to over
confidence
and sloppy protocols. The human factor is yet to be totally quantified, except
that when
certain brain wave states are achieved very accurate data can be retrieved.

> Science is an objective system. It provides us with "hard evidence" and solid
> answers (as much as that is possible.) It deals with data, experiments,
results,
> etc. Things that can be examined, tested, and measured.

Absolutly, even though biological functions can be measured human free will and
complexity
can vary results in a heart beat by shifting the focus of their attention.

> I prefer to put my trust in things I can test, measure, examine. IF it can be
> tested, measured or examined.. it can be subjected to a scientific experiment,
> and it can be scientifically analysed. Otherwises, it is not of much
scientific
> value. If something cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be
> experienced or examined.. we can't be sure it exists objectively, ever. Which
> means it does not affect physical reality.

One of the most humbeling experiences I know is to sit at a desk with only a
pen, stack of
fanfold paper, and randomly generated Target ID that has been cued to.......any
of
billions of possible targets. At the end of an hours work, you lay out your
session
along side the target photo and you get to see.... what is congruant target
data, want is
contaminated (data with simular gestault but turned into something else) and
what is pure
imagination. When you see the target you find out what all those puzzle pieces
you saw
but did not yet understand really meant. I have been traing to RV for just
under a year.
Data I collected, that was way beyond odds of guessing, a year ago is nolonger
acceptable
to me, as far as clarity or quality, the more you do, the more you know is
possible, the
more you push yourself to improve, until nothing less than full clarity and
accuracy is
acceptable. Not everyone thinks that this way of being is fun :) so not
everyone puts in
the work to get the results.

> Clearly, psi affects physical reality. So we can test that much of it. If it
crosses
> over at some point into non-physical reality, perhaps then and there the
scientific
> experiments will no longer be of use. But that still gives us a lot to
examine.
>
> And it's still possible that RV is purely physical, with no paranormal
explanation
> being necessary. (Note: That does not mean RV does "not exist"; it just means
> there may be a physical explanation rooted in our physical universe, for how
> we pick up these "signals" .)
>

The trick and discipline in RV is to keep the primary consciousness occupied and
out of
the way so that the subconscious can communicate clearly. The sub communicates
in
visuals, sounds, feelings and perceptions. Our Ego finds this furtile ground
for showing
how smart it is, and will usually contaminate the data, until it is trained and
disciplined to its part in the process. This becomes a life changing experience
because
our egos are busy doing this every waking moment, not just in RV.

Aloha Yaana



Tue Jun 23, 1998 4:23 pm

Hide Message Option
View Source
Use Fixed Width Font
Unwrap Lines
Yaana Allen 
yaana@...
Send Email Send Email




stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/40)
21:12:39

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear Steve and List,
Hope this makes it..my first attempt.
I was wondering, perhaps for a start, if anyone here has worked with
any Remote Viewing techniques in experiments..'blind', etc. I am
completely untrained by any teacher but have enjoyed testing myself...
with some moderate success..and some plain failures as well. I am
hoping to practice more and learn.
At any rate, this is my first hello to all, Best wishes, Laura


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/41)
21:12:48

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Aloha Miss Yaana,
Your technical writting is very good. Great post.
Aloha Glenn


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/42)
21:13:00

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] RV Science

I wouldn't have it any other way Steve! My words are no written on concrete to
be
followed as Ten Commandments, although sometimes I write in such a manner :-)

I welcome dissidence. It is a healthy to analyze and acknowledge different
views. Insults,
of course, are another matter. I don't engage in such. I am not offended by
your response
since I don't feel you are being disrespectful.

I do want to clarify a few things which I interpreted from your comment. I
don't mean to
imply that science is NOT instrumental in researching the Psi phenomenon.
Instead, I am
attempting to communicate that we must keep the distinction of CATEGORIES to
avoid falling
along the same mistake scientist have made in the past and some who continue to
do so. It
is not unusual for scientist to cling to pet theories at the neglect of more
promising
hypothesis or theories.

The other concern I have is to blindly or dogmatically accept scientific
resolves. It is
easy to accept evidence in a tunnel vision manner, and when confronted with new,
other
alternatives and possibilities, be ignored.

If you can envision the analogy of an hypnotist providing you with "stable
data" for your
mind to operate with, this is what I am getting across. It is nice that we can
prove most
every physical phenomenon, but with can also be "hypnotize" into thinking in a
certain
way. But more aberrated is taking something that works in one medium, such as
scientific
method, and applying it to an evading subject that does not fall in the area of
the
PHYSICAL (i.e liquid, solid, et al).

With all respect to Yaana's effort to scientifically explain electromagnetic
wave "state",
let's take something like biofeedback. It is easy to make a judgement leap for
Brain
activity to Mind activity before defining the difference of both. Especially
defining the
nature of the mind. The nature of the brain, though, is progressively being
understood
since that is PHYSICAL. Biofeedback is a complex weave of frequency overlapping
each
other. Dissecting the frequency into classification serves good for examination
purposes.
But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. And although
biofeedback can
extract brainwave level and can entrain brain activity, it doesn't say much
about the
Mind. So, it is no wonder that each individual react differently to brainwave
stimulation
as I have noticed in my test on others and myself. Physical functionality may
or may not
compliment Mental behavior. Expected results of certain wave frequency react
differently
in some other individual. However, I can't disagree that the data discovered so
far is
helpful. I think it is. But the proper perspective must be applied to the nature
of the
paranormal. The findings and results of this science shouldn't necessarily
dictate and
define Psychic or Paranormal Laws in as much as it might need define or dictate
religious
theory of creation and so forth; but instead ONLY survey, observe the results,
and perhaps
explain these sporadic results and idea in a "wordly" way.

It is also of no surprise that Eastern philosophy on spiritual and cognitive
behavior is
finally being mirrored in science. The hard facts and scientific doctrine has
kept it
from examining Eastern philosophy sooner. It is this blind commitment to the
physical that
keeps us from improving the spiritual progress of Humankind. Sometimes it is
necessary to
step outside of the CATEGORIES to obtain a new angle on things, and accept the
condition
(subject) for what it IS, in its PROPER COMPARTMENT until such time that there
is a
Unified Theory.

So yes, Psi RESULTS can be scientifically analyzed and quantified, but Psi
nature cannot
not be defined within that CATEGORY. It is diametrically opposed that PHYSICAL
cannot be
treated in the same way as the META-PHYSICAL, just as the rule of CLASSICAL
SCIENCE cannot
be treated in the same way in the field of QUANTUM THEORY.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Answer To Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/43)
21:13:11

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula

Ha,ha,ha....thanks again Paula...we are ALL in this together!

Love also...
electrix



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/44)
21:13:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. ...snip

Yes first we must define what we are dealing with:
The BRAIN: is a objective, physical mechanism which can be studied and monitored
The MIND: is a subjective, psychological mechanism where we store our stimulus
response
reactions to physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual stimulus, this is
individual to each
person based on events, choices and beliefs.
The CONSCIOUSNESS: is an infinite, spiritual mechanism which must be present for
life to exist
within form, this has even been scientifically demonstrated in plants, so the
consciousness
principle exists separate from both Brain or Mind. Consciousness is the medium
of the unified
field, our most untapped resource and the area represented by the more than 90%
of unused
space in our brain. .

The Skill which is Remote Viewing is two fold, to sync these three on a single
focus, and to
direct that focus with the intent to acquire and experience the target and
retrieve data. This
takes discipline and practice much like a Japanese Tea Ceremony, which when
understood every
tiny movement has a deep significance.

Ultimately those who have not experienced a thing, can not conceive of any proof
which would
satisfy them, and those who have need no further proof. A brief review of
ancient spiritual
practices will show in almost every culture, simple disciplined, repetitive
activities or
ceremonies, accompanied with chanting or drumming which are actually theta
tones, these
practices put the participants into trances for "vision quests" a place they go
to answer
questions and have deeply moving mystical experiences.

Recently we met with a doctor who specializes in using bio-feed back equipment
to facilitate
treatment of addictive and anti-social behaviors. Our intent was to have our
advanced
students experience a monitored theta state, so it would be easier for them to
duplicate. The
doctor was hesitant to take patients to theta without a counseling session
because, as she
said "when people approach theta, what ever they have suppressed or repressed
tends to bubble
up".

As a minister who has done spiritual counseling for 20 years Ihave seen this
occur. The wild
card and weak link in this equation is not the brain, nor consciousness, but the
psychology,
the individual development of each mind. The significance we add to and then
invested in over
time to give meaning or justification to events and our behaviors is what we
use to define
our selves, develop our identities, anything which threatens to show us we may
have erred in
our assessment, no matter how ultimately true or effective becomes the enemy of
the mind.

Remote Viewing is a practical application of many ancient principals packaged in
modern
science, regardless of the proofs given mysteries will always remain mysteries
to those who
look from the outside.

Aloha Yaana


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/45)
21:13:49

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] RV Science

Hi Electrix,

>I wouldn't have it any other way Steve! My words are no written on concrete to
be
>followed as Ten Commandments, although sometimes I write in such a manner :-)
>
>I welcome dissidence. It is a healthy to analyze and acknowledge different
views. Insults,
>of course, are another matter. I don't engage in such. I am not offended by
your response
>since I don't feel you are being disrespectful.

I'd like to think we're having a good-spirited debate here.. I haven't felt that
you were
being disrespectful either, and I've actually really enjoyed reading your posts
and
your essay. I hope you feel the same way.

While I might have a different perspective on things, that's what makes us
strong
as a race. It would be pretty dull if we always agreed, wouldn't it? :)

>I do want to clarify a few things which I interpreted from your comment. I
don't mean to
>imply that science is NOT instrumental in researching the Psi phenomenon.
Instead, I am
>attempting to communicate that we must keep the distinction of CATEGORIES to
avoid falling
>along the same mistake scientist have made in the past and some who continue to
do so. It
>is not unusual for scientist to cling to pet theories at the neglect of more
promising
>hypothesis or theories.

Here, I agree with you completely. I've always had a problem when people
clinging to theories,
and refusing to consider the alternatives. My definition of science would be an
open system -
where everything is published openly, and the scientists themselves have open
(but still
critical-thinking) minds. My idea of a good scientist would be one who is open
to everyone
and closed to nothing, is prepared to stand up for what he believes is correct
(i.e. not
being discouraged by the current scientific paradigm, etc.)

My approach is to be open to everything, and to just "go with the data." I don't
like to
wander past that point, unless it's absolutely necessary. I'd prefer to see
more experiments
organised, or see more data put on the table, before I'd wonder into speculation
to obtain
answers. (Even "common sense" speculation can lead us down false paths, just as
the
"common sense" scientists of times gone by believed the Earth was flat and the
center
of the universe.)

(I realise we're probably not in disagreement here, but I just felt I ought to
elaborate on
my own feelings on the subject here.)

>The other concern I have is to blindly or dogmatically accept scientific
resolves. It is
>easy to accept evidence in a tunnel vision manner, and when confronted with
new, other
>alternatives and possibilities, be ignored.

I think this is an example of scientists going by assumptions - they "know"
their current
theories are correct, so they reject new data because it would tumble their
house of cards.
I think the true scientific approach would be to examine the subject thoroughly,
and to see
if the exception to the rule is actually capable of tumbling the house of cards,
and thus.. the
rule itself. Then the exception (anomaly) helds to build up a new rule.

I've never felt ignoring a subject is scientific. That's why I have such a
problem with
groups like CSICOP, who claim to be scientific, but then proceed to condemn and
all
attempts to scientifically examine "the paranormal."

(Which reminds me, have you seen CSICOP's latest gripe? With the new X-Files
movie,
of all things.. :)

>If you can envision the analogy of an hypnotist providing you with "stable
data" for your
>mind to operate with, this is what I am getting across. It is nice that we can
prove most
>every physical phenomenon, but with can also be "hypnotize" into thinking in a
certain
>way.

Scientism, as I understand it, is a belief in scientist's answers to all
questions, is a religion in
itself. It believes that scientific theories and explanations are the
foundation of reality,
and anything that goes against their paradigm must be false, because their
theories/laws/
rules are unbreakable. It is the belief that what science does not know about
will
eventually be fitted in with existing laws, and old laws and theories will not
be shaken,
except in very minor ways.

Scientism.. is (IMO) unscientific. It's assumptions based on facts. I happen
to feel that
science will experience a few minor and major paradigm shifts while us humans
survive
on this planet. If a rule cannot explain anomalies, and the anomalies
definately exist,
then the rule is wrong or incomplete. Scientism would probably dictate that the
anomalies
must be non-existant and not worth studying because they cannot exist. True
science
dictates we perform experiments to see if those anomalies really do exist, and
go into
those experiments unconvinced either way (that it anomalies do, or do not,
exist.)

>With all respect to Yaana's effort to scientifically explain electromagnetic
wave "state",
>let's take something like biofeedback. It is easy to make a judgement leap for
Brain
>activity to Mind activity before defining the difference of both. Especially
defining the
>nature of the mind. The nature of the brain, though, is progressively being
understood
>since that is PHYSICAL.

I don't think scientists have yet been able to say with any certainiy where or
what "mind"
is - there's debate as to whether consciousness itself is real or only an
illussion. Scientists
who are worth their weight cannot afford to make assumptions either way.

However, this does not prevent us from comparing brainwave patterns to
performance in psi
experiments. If a pattern IS found, we can tell there is some kind of
relationship between
the two. If none is found, we know there isn't a relationship.

We can perform these experiments without commenting on the nature of mind or
spirit.

Science has many methods of testing and experimentating, and the answers science
provides us with allow us to better understand what we're studying. There's no
telling
if science will ever be able to provide us with answers to everything. Some
things will
always remain subjective.

>But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. And although
biofeedback can
>extract brainwave level and can entrain brain activity, it doesn't say much
about the
>Mind.

I agree; see above. In studying brainwave patterns and psi performance,
scientists
are examining the possible relationship between them in order to learn more.
Experiments
can only test for one thing at a time. In this case, for a relationship between
brainwave
patterns and psi performance.

The results we obtain may only give us half the answers we're looking for, but
that
it better than nothing. Scientists can eventually make experiments to analyse
the things
they want to test.

But there's an infinite number of possible questions we can ask about an
infinite number
of subjects. Each experiment is designed to give us just one answer to one
question (or,
a few answers to a few questions), but there will always be unanswered questions
out
there.

>It is also of no surprise that Eastern philosophy on spiritual and cognitive
behavior is
>finally being mirrored in science. The hard facts and scientific doctrine

I'd like to think that science (hard facts) and scientism (dogma and doctrine)
are two
separate thngs. Scientists should not believe in anything until they've been
able to
perform experments for themselves, and got the answers for themselves.
Scientism
asks us to accept the prevailing scientific views and ignore alternatives. True
science
would never, I hope, be so blind.

>from examining Eastern philosophy sooner. It is this blind commitment to the
physical that
>keeps us from improving the spiritual progress of Humankind. Sometimes it is
necessary to
>step outside of the CATEGORIES to obtain a new angle on things, and accept the
condition

If there is something outside of the physical, is it possible to test for it? If
the answer is yes,
science can provide answers - so long as we have the technology and knowledge
necessary to create an experiment to perform the tests and get the answers.

If the answer is no, then there is no way of proving that xyz exists. No test
or experiment
can be created to test for it. Which seems to suggest it cannot be experienced.
If
something can be experienced, it can in theory be tested.

>So yes, Psi RESULTS can be scientifically analyzed and quantified, but Psi
nature cannot
>not be defined within that CATEGORY. It is diametrically opposed that PHYSICAL
cannot be
>treated in the same way as the META-PHYSICAL, just as the rule of CLASSICAL
SCIENCE cannot
>be treated in the same way in the field of QUANTUM THEORY.

But it is important to realise that both classical scienec and quantum theory
use experiments
to perform tests and gain answers. But it does seem many things in quantum
theory will
be hard, if not impossible, to prove. This does not prevent us from testing
what we can.

What we cannot test, we can never be sure about. That doesn't mean I feel
people do not
have the right to believe in what cannot be tested, it just means we can never
be *certain*.
We have no clear answers, there are no tests or experiments we can perform.

In which case.. these questions cannot can answered, because it is impossible to
devise a
scientific experiment for them.

I'm pretty sure that's what you're trying to say. The problem is, we cannot
prove these
types of claims (although I guess you could counter that they cannot be
disproven as
well.)

In these cases, I feel we can only rely on what we *can* test for. Anything
else is
speculation. Although I remain open to the possibility that some things cannot
be
tested for, with no solid answers, such as seems to exist in the field of
quantum
theory. However, in these cases no solid answers would be possible. Therefore
we have a choice: to either speculate and reach an answer which may be in
error, or to not take that step.

However.. referring to what I said earlier - re: clinging to theories, and going
with
the data - scientists are taught not to speculate, and to keep with what the
hard facts show us. The data should carry us, not our own feelings,
speculations,
or assumptions.

So my choice is to avoid speculating, and to just go where the data takes me.
You
are welcome to choose another route. We simply must choose the system that we
feel is the most helpful to us, and the most useful.

In my opinion, I feel that speculating too much - and that includes clinging to
old scientific paradigms as much as accepting new ones - is a route we must be
careful about taking. I'd rather not speculate, period - apart from what is
absolutely
necessary in order to be able to analyse data. Without a minimal amount of
speculation and imagination, humans would probably not possess the vast
intelligence that we have today. When we look at a car, we'd be incapable of
knowing it was a car unless it was identical in every way, shape and form.
Imagination - i.e. speculation - is necessary in our species cognitive
functions. But
I feel that in science, we have to keep this to the lowest possible level.

I welcome people who choose to disagree, but my choice is to take the route
that requires the most reliable on hard data, and the least reliance on
speculation
as possible. People must decide for themselves how they want to interpret the
world around them.

Thanks for this fascinating debate, Electrix.. :-)

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Other RV techniques 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/46)
21:14:00

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello,

this is my very first post to this list, so I'll keep it short. After having
read
the complete site of Ingo Swann, most part of PJ's site, ... and all the
books I could get about RV, I still don't know which research has been
done in countries outside the U.S. I think it would be nice to compare
this research with CRV. Methodologies are good to enable things,
but at the same time they also limit some possibilities. Different
viewpoints
on the subject could give us more insight into the mechanisms of RV. So
does anyone know of the research that has been done in countries like
Russia, China, Israel, Great Brittain, ...? (may also be PK related)
Second question I have is, has anyone experience with the RV course of
Paraliminal Management Systems (Tim Rifat). It could be interesting because
it seems totaly different from the military RV methods.

Well that's all for now, and Steve I hope your list will become as important
or even more so than PJ's.

All the best

Frank V


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Hi Laura 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/47)
21:14:09

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Laura!
Welcome to the list. It is always good to hear from people who are
actually trying the remote viewing. Please post some of your sessions.
Jane


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Other RV techniques 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/48)
21:14:26

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Other RV techniques


>this is my very first post to this list, so I'll keep it short. After having
>read the complete site of Ingo Swann, most part of PJ's site, ... and all
>the books I could get about RV, I still don't know which research has been
>done in countries outside the U.S. I think it would be nice to compare
>this research with CRV. Methodologies are good to enable things,
>but at the same time they also limit some possibilities. Different
>viewpoints on the subject could give us more insight into the mechanisms of
>RV. So does anyone know of the research that has been done in countries
>like Russia, China, Israel, Great Brittain, ...? (may also be PK related)

Hi Frank,

First, hello and and welcome to this list! I hope you enjoy yourself here,
and hopefully learn a little in the process.

On RV labs outside America - I expect experiments in other Western
countries are geared in much the same way as experiments in the US:
performing double-blind trials, gathering statistics, and analysing the
results, and attempting to replicate what the US labs have found.

There is a psi lab here in Britain, in Edinburgh. I've been meaning to
contact them and obtain more information on their research, but I
became so occupied with other topics, and in studying US research,
that I'd completely forgotten about the Edinburgh (Koestler?) laboratory
researchers.

Since you've brought foreign research, it gives me a nice timely
reminder to get in touch with them. I *really* ought to know what
psi research is being done in my own country.. :-)

I'll post more information once I have it (I'll start by making a
phonecall tommorrow - this is something I've been meaning to
do for some time, and now seems as good a time as any.)

(According to the documents up on my website, Russian
parapsychology in the 70s was geared towards understanding
and utilising psi abilities, rather than proving the phenomenon,
which was assumed as being a reality.)

You want to view the Electronic Reading Room up on my website
and examine the report called "Final Report (NBIT)". It is a summary
of Western research into 1970s Eastern (Russian) research into
psi, and highlights the differences of approach between our 70s
labs and their Eastern counterparts. It's quite an interesting read.

My website is up at:
http://www.progressiveweb.net/stargate/

>Second question I have is, has anyone experience with the RV course of
>Paraliminal Management Systems (Tim Rifat). It could be interesting because
>it seems totaly different from the military RV methods.

The stories I have heard about Paranormal Management Systems are not
exactly supportive. Beyond that I really can't comment. I wouldn't buy any
of their courses until I'd done some checking, though.

>Well that's all for now, and Steve I hope your list will become as important
>or even more so than PJ's.

I hope this list is successful too, but it really depends on it's members.
If people want this list to succeed, then it will. It is a great shame that PJ
has decided to close her lists, but it remains her decision and her right to
close them if she wants to. She'll be missed. I just hope I'm able to build
a list that's half as busy and half as popular as PJ's. That depends as much
as anything else on the support of people like you - the posters. If you
want this list to succeed, then it will!

Thanks for your post, and I hope you find this list useful!

I'll post more about UK psi research once I've contacted the Koestler lab
in Edinburgh.

If you like, you can visit the Koestler Parapsychology Unit,
part of the University of Edinburgh, at the address below:

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/

Enjoy!

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Getting the Balance Right 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/49)
21:14:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello Everyone,

I'm glad to see that everyone is finding this list useful, and I hope
that everyone is enjoying themselves and learning a little in the
process! :)

The reason I am making this post is because I would like everyone's
opinions on what they'd like to see this list become.

PJ's Viewer List was designed so that the general public could ask
questions relating to military CRV, and those questions would be
answered by the professional viewers and RV pros who frequented
the list. This list was moderated in order to keep posts on-topic.

PJ's Psi List allowed discussion of related subjects, such as psychic
phenomena in general, ghosts, out-of-body-experiences, astral
projection, etc. This list wasn't moderated.

I am wondering what people want of THIS list. It can be a "serious"
list, with emphasis on CRV. Or it could be about "similar" subjects.
It could be a general chat list. Or a mixture of all of these.

I would like to see this list be 50% light discussion and light
research (recounting experiences, sharing ideas, etc.) and
50% serious research, CRV-based.

I worry that if the list is too serious, it will put off the more casual
readers from contributing, and only a small percentage of
people will be interested in contributing. But I also worry that
if this chat is too "chatty", it will put off the more serious
debators who might decide to leave the list.

Because of this, it is important the balance is got right. I'd
like people's comments on what kind of list they'd like.

Please send your comments by private e-mail to me
at steve@... - please do NOT post it to
this list! Thank you.

I hope you all enjoy this list and will find it useful.

Best always,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 jane in lakeland Florida 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/50)
21:14:48

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

There are 5 of us who have been working very heavily on this program.
We stem from all different backgrounds but have one major thing in common,
We all beleive in areselves .I teach small classes in my back yard twice a
month
on everything involving metaphysics such as astral projection,alternate states
of consciousness,deep meditation.and hemispheric syncronization.When we came
across remore veiwing we embrased it as a welcoming challenge.
Thank you for responding Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/51)

 09:23:29

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> The CONSCIOUSNESS: is an infinite, spiritual mechanism which must be present
for life to exist
> within form, this has even been scientifically demonstrated in plants, so the
consciousness
> principle exists separate from both Brain or Mind. Consciousness is the
medium of the unified
> field, our most untapped resource and the area represented by the more than
90% of unused
> space in our brain. .

Interesting view Yaana. I am not sure if I agree with all aspects of your
definitions. I
personally, find it to be a challenge just to decide if consciousness IS the
Mind as it is. Take
for example, Unconsciousness plays a key role in the living. In fact,
Unconsciousnes sometimes
SERVES the Consciousness with cognitive or/and subliminal data. Thus,
Consciousness AND
Unconsciousness form a pair, if not the same in regards to state dominance at a
particular time. I
could delve deeper into this, but I am afraid I could write a volumes on my
findings of
Consciousness and quoting MIT lab studies. And as far as "separate,"
consciousness, I visualize
it otherwise. I "see" a synergy of independent faculties.

Theta brain level, by the way, appeals to the unconscious more so than the
conscious, all things
being equal. A study on major "legitimate" psychics (Jane Roberts, Edgar Cayce)
will find a
common denominator that they would retreat into Deep Theta or/and Delta. I have
trouble accepting
many books written on biofeedback since they don't acknowledge essential facts
such as: 1. Human
biofeedback goes through a cycle in 90 minutes. It goes through Beta, Alpha,
Theta, and Delta and
a combination thereof. It is like onion skin. One predominates over the other
accordingly. At
any one point of that cycle we are dipping into Delta quickly or hovering longer
(in the case of
sleep). So, the state are contiguous and overlapping, not discrete. So, many
readers of this
technology are ill informed. 2. Entraining oneself into a particular state
takes as much effort
as practicing RV. I have lied down with the Monroe Hemy-Sync tapes having to
RECALL the states
induced by his binaural audio, it takes some doing and repetition before being
able to "lock-in"
to that state. I have used the aid of "brain machine" only to realize that it
is more
"artificially" induced than practicing the real thing. Now don't get me wrong,
each method serves
its purpose and I have gotten some interesting results from both. But there is
something missing
from this technology, it is not reproduced across the board in the same way to
all individuals.
Thus, again the illusive Mind at play.


> The Skill which is Remote Viewing is two fold, to sync these three on a single
focus, and to
> direct that focus with the intent to acquire and experience the target and
retrieve data. This
> takes discipline and practice much like a Japanese Tea Ceremony, which when
understood every
> tiny movement has a deep significance.

Yes. At first it requires practice. But that's the way of Mother Nature, isn't
it. Humanity is so
entrenched in the fast-food, quick-fix, 2 hour Hollywood scenario, we expect
everything to come at
once. An observation on Mother Nature could tell us a lot about the operational
laws of the
physical self. I am of the impression that there are receptive microcellular
organisms that need
to be awaken to "perceive" psychic-ness. In the same way that we have cells
that specialize in
being receptive to light and only light, is the same way I visualize
psi-cellular activity. By
the way, there is the thought that the Mind is not merely a synergistic Brain
activity but is also
within cellular level. Discoveries have been made of amputated people who
generate this "mental"
energy even though there is no arms or legs. "Fields" have been scientifically
detected through
instrumentation.

Perhaps the future of RV is not having to sit behind a table and generate tons
of paperwork.!
Mechanism doe not surpass Intention in my books. Once the psi-cellular levels
are once more
receptive, we would have evolved one step further.


> Ultimately those who have not experienced a thing, can not conceive of any
proof which would
> satisfy them, and those who have need no further proof. A brief review of
ancient spiritual
> practices will show in almost every culture, simple disciplined, repetitive
activities or
> ceremonies, accompanied with chanting or drumming which are actually theta
tones, these
> practices put the participants into trances for "vision quests" a place they
go to answer
> questions and have deeply moving mystical experiences.

Certainly...the way through is DOING IT!.

> Recently we met with a doctor who specializes in using bio-feed back equipment
to facilitate
> treatment of addictive and anti-social behaviors. Our intent was to have our
advanced
> students experience a monitored theta state, so it would be easier for them to
duplicate. The
> doctor was hesitant to take patients to theta without a counseling session
because, as she
> said "when people approach theta, what ever they have suppressed or repressed
tends to bubble
> up".

Well, yes. That is true to certain extent. Since it is difficult to identify
that specific area of
Theta, I can see why she was hesitant. Doctors freak when they are not IN
CONTROL of the
pathogens. Scientologist delve heavily in this area through the use of
Dianetics. They call it
engrams (not the scientifically defined engrams). What many of even well
informed Scientologist
don't know is that each time they delve into this area they re-inforce the power
of that
"engram." The antidote to this pathogen must be treated as quickly as possible
to diffuse them.
They lie sporadically all across our mental lifetime past-life tracks.

> As a minister who has done spiritual counseling for 20 years Ihave seen this
occur. The wild
> card and weak link in this equation is not the brain, nor consciousness, but
the psychology,
> the individual development of each mind. The significance we add to and then
invested in over
> time to give meaning or justification to events and our behaviors is what we
use to define
> our selves, develop our identities, anything which threatens to show us we may
have erred in
> our assessment, no matter how ultimately true or effective becomes the enemy
of the mind.

Let's not forget that the unconscious element sometimes DIRECT the conscious
behavior without
consciousness volition. That is why subliminal messages are so effective if not
detrimental. So,
personality can be a mush of conscious and unconscious elements establishing
prominence. How far
can the unconscious take over? Go to the nearest mental asylum.

> Remote Viewing is a practical application of many ancient principals packaged
in modern
> science, regardless of the proofs given mysteries will always remain mysteries
to those who
> look from the outside.

Mysteries are only mysteries because of ignorance. The marketing of mysteries
is what keeps the
Powers that May Be fill with dough in their pockets and laughing their ass off.

However, I get where you are coming from. The "outside" is such a lonely place.
:-)

Respectfully submitted....
Aloha electrix



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/52)

 09:23:55

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> Interesting view Yaana. I am not sure if I agree with all aspects of your
definitions. I
> personally, find it to be a challenge just to decide if consciousness IS the
Mind as it is. Take
> for example, Unconsciousness plays a key role in the living. In fact,
Unconsciousnes sometimes
> SERVES the Consciousness with cognitive or/and subliminal data. Thus,
Consciousness AND
> Unconsciousness form a pair, if not the same in regards to state dominance at
a particular time. I
> could delve deeper into this, but I am afraid I could write a volumes on my
findings of
> Consciousness and quoting MIT lab studies. And as far as "separate,"
consciousness, I visualize
> it otherwise. I "see" a synergy of independent faculties.

Scientific and spiritual communities have developed arbitrary assignments such
as conscious,
unconscious and super conscious, or body, mind and spirit, to describe
seemingly separate functions
of a functional whole. In the esoteric teachings we have 3 vehicles, which go
from dense matter to
subtle energies; physical, emotional and mental, all of which are animated by
the living breath of
spirit (life) and come under the leadership of the soul (individualized
consciousness) . Each of
these aspects of our being have differing functions; physical (third dimensional
vehicle of expression
and experience) emotional (vehicle of communication... not intended for constant
drama) and mental
(like the software program which takes the available data and stores/ presents
it in a usable fashion)
and the soul the keeper of the purpose.

The more society evolves, the more our minds develop, the further we get away
from our natural selves,
and project arbitrary judgments of superstitious nonsense on natural experiences
until we learn not to
trust or recognize them. That does not mean that our souls stop communicating,
but it does mean that
the impressions, perceptions, and sensations sent into our daily mix will be
interpreted by the mind,
and either validated or invalidated. There is an old programmers saying
"garbage in, garbage out".
man has evolved into amazing problem solvers, we demonstrate everyday things
tantamount to miracles.
Yet some problems allude us. I suggest that in society as with individuals
problems that will not
solve, or get bigger no matter what you do are false problems. False not in
that they are not genuine
problems, but false in that we have incomplete or inaccurate perception of what
the real issue is.
Trust of our innate selves has been trained out of most of us, the modern
resurgence of spirituality
is an attempt to reclaim our birth right.

> Theta brain level, by the way, appeals to the unconscious more so than the
conscious, all things
> being equal....snip

High Theta is the threshold to sleep. There is a handshake between low Alpha and
high theta where
there is an exchange of control between the conscious mind and the
sub-conscious, or autonomic
system. In altered state RV we train to maintain the ability to communicate in
that slim window,
where the primary consciousness has fallen asleep, because it is in that window
that target can be
experienced and congruent data retrieved with out the filter of the minds
interpretation. If the
viewer falls asleep the session is over and the data is useless.

Psychologist study man as a stimulus response animal, in so doing they have
created many false
problems. Stimulus response is the medium of the mind, but not the totality of
the being or the limit
of it's potential. Ironic because the direct translation of the word Psychology
means, study of the
soul. Our science and many religions train us to discredit our essential selves
and replace it with
memorized facts figures and dogmas, but as you can see from the world we have
created it is time to go
back inside and trust both who we are and what we know as essential beings and
question or leave
behind many of the social facades which cripple us.

It delights me to know end the the military has developed a structured system
that, if followed , will
lead you exactly there, into a direct experience of your full potential, but no
one ever said it was
going to be easy, not because the system does not work, but precisely because it
does. In using it
you will be faced with dismantling false beliefs or discrediting the system
which put your nose in it,
so far we have a more than 50% drop out rate. Humans are such creatures of
comfort, most would rather
keep the illusions they are comfortable with, than face a truth that would
change their lives.

Aloha Yaana


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Differences Between UK and US Research 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/53)

 09:24:17

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

I've just been browsing the website of the Koestler Parapsychology Unit,
which
is part of the University of Edinburgh.

In reviewing the information up on their website, it seems that UK
researchers
are taking a difference approach to psi than their US counterparts. There
are
two working hypothesises in UK labs - the pseudopsi hypothesis, and the psi
hypothesis. It appears that the UK is working about equally on the theory
of
pseudopsi as it is to pro-psi theories, and so is pursueing both
possibilities.

The below text is taken from Koestler's Mission Statement. Someone asked
about UK research, so I hope this answers his question. It's worth noting
that the UK is home to some of the biggest skeptics of remote-viewing -
Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore, for example. Susan Blackmore
had an out-of-body experience when she was younger, which shook
her beliefs somewhat and made her feel we could OBE, but when she
later took an aerial look of the area she supposedly was OBEing over,
found that it was completely different. For her, this sowed the first
seeds
of doubt, and she now feels that our brains are incredibly complex devices
that are capable of mimicking real-life imagery in incredible detail, but
she's
not convinced that psi exists (yet.)

Nonetheless, "pro"-psi and "anti"-psi theories seem to have both been
tested
in UK labs.

Below is the Koestler Lab's Mission Statement.

PARAPSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
EDINBURGH

Introduction

The noted writer and critic Arthur Koestler and his wife Cynthia provided
in their wills for the establishment of an endowed Chair of Parapsychology
at a British university. The declared intention was to further objective
scientific research into "the capacity attributed to some individuals to
interact with their environment by means other than the recognised sensory
and motor channels". Following the Koestlers' deaths in 1982, their
trustees advertised the post and in 1984 awarded the Chair to the
University of Edinburgh. In 1985 I was fortunate enough to be invited to
serve as the first occupant of the Chair, taking up the post in December of
the same year. My remit was to develop a systematic and
responsible research programme that would integrate this controversial area
into the ongoing research and teaching activities of the university
community. As our tenth anniversary approaches, I have been invited to
describe how we have gone about our task during these years.

We have fairly limited resources. Our basic funding, from the Koestler
Endowment earnings and from the Literary Estate, provides for a full-time
secretary ( Mrs Helen Sims ) and two postdoctoral fellows, one fulltime (
Dr. Deborah Delanoy) and one part-time (Dr. Caroline Watt). We are located
within the Department of Psychology, where I do some teaching and supervise
research students at both Honours and postgraduate levels. Six students
have now completed Ph.D's under my supervision, on theses related to
parapsychology. We receive some additional research funding from outside
institutions, for student support and for necessary equipment.

Integrative Parapsychology

In setting up a research plan, one of our main problems was to clarify just
what serious parapsychology involves. Anyone can call themselves a
parapsychologist, and media representations tend to put entertainment first
with accuracy at best an afterthought. Thus we have developed what we call
an Integrative Parapsychology, with six features:

1. We regard parapsychology as the study of apparent new means of
communication, or interaction, between organisms and their environment
(commonly referred to as psi, or psychic ability), beyond those presently
understood by the scientific community.

2. Parapsychology is an interdisciplinary problem area, not a separate
discipline and not just a subset of psychology.

3. Parapsychology questions rather than presumes; our remit is to
investigate a capacity attributed to some individuals and we are under no
obligation to presume that capacity's existence.

4. Parapsychology incorporates the investigation of two sets of working
hypotheses: the 'pseudopsi hypothesis', which states that most if not all
of the evidence for psi is spurious, the result of our being misled or
misinterpreting observations; and the 'psi hypothesis', which states that
we do appear under certain conditions to have access to some genuinely new
means of communication.

5. Parapsychology involves the study of observers drawing inferences, and
can profit from the use of models of how we make observations about
ostensibly psychic events, including how we can be misled by ourselves and
others.

6. Parapsychology uses the tools of science, including detailed
descriptions of natural occurrences, surveys, hypothesis formulation and
testing, correlational studies, controlled experimental studies with
systematic variation of condition, and construction of theoretical models.

What's not psychic but looks like it...

Our research has largely proceeded along two main lines. One involves the
study of "what's not psychic but looks like it". Psychology has long been
involved in the study of self-deception and error in human perception,
memory, thinking and decision making. Within our group, Carl Williams is
looking at some of the factors that lead us to attribute meaning to
ambiguous information, with an eye toward eventual clinical application.
Tony Lawrence is developing and testing a model of the factors involved in
the formation of beliefs about psychic phenomena, as we are growing up and
as adults as well.

Additionally we have become quite involved in the psychology of conjuring
and deliberate deception, drawing both on an integration of the relatively
obscure writings of professional magicians and fraudsters and on
experimental studies. This research involves surveys of the techniques for
both physical and mental effects, as well as strategies for presenting
information to observers. Richard Wiseman has studied the effects of
observers' attitudes toward psi upon their ability to reconstruct the
details of fraudulent psychic demonstrations shown to them on videotape,
finding that those with positive attitudes were less likely to notice
details related to how the trick was done. It's important as well to
understand the psychological strategies of the confidence artist and the
techniques by which psychic claimants attempt to negotiate the rules by
which their claims will be accepted or rejected. Our work in these areas is
currently best represented in a little book recently co-authored by Dr
Wiseman and myself, Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants. It includes a
description of the strategies pseudopsychics can use to produce even
complex patterns of results in their data fraudulently. Of additional
interest are the strategies by which fake psychic researchers persuade
clients that they know all about the clients through psychic means. Chris
Roe has specialised in this area, particularly in the verbal strategies
often used. Together we are gradually working toward the development of a
general model of deception, including the social context of such deceptive
acts. We hope this line of research will be beneficial directly to
parapsychological research as well as cognitive and clinical psychology and
other disciplines where deception may be involved.

Assessing new means of communication

Our second main line of research involves assessment of the evidence for
genuine new means of communication, including the development of better
descriptive tools for exploring daily life experiences as well as
experimental tools for producing psychic effects with sufficient strength
and consistency that they can contribute to systematic research programmes
to develop and test models of how psychic functioning, if it exists,
actually works.

Some of this work involves a mix of questionnaire and interviews. Shari
Cohn has used both to explore 'second sight' experiences within family
units, analysing the material both quantitatively and qualitatively to look
for patterns in the nature of the experiences themselves, family
relationships and other salient factors. Carlos Alvarado is also using both
techniques to look for patterns in a specific kind of transpersonal
experience known as an out-of-body experience, closely related to
near-death experiences. Such research has been an under-represented
component of formal parapsychology and can contribute a great deal to
understanding the richness of the experiences involved, as well as in the
development and testing of models about their nature.

Naturalistic settings

Other research may involve bringing systematic investigation tools into
naturalistic settings, to overcome the problems of ecological validity
frequently associated with controlled, laboratory-based research with
living organisms. We have done very little in this area, other than to
explore ways of sealing off target materials that can then be turned over
to individuals for exploratory work in non-laboratory settings. One study
by Dr. Wiseman and Dr. John Beloff with an individual claimant produced
chance results; another by Drs. Delanoy, Watt, Wiseman and myself with
several individuals previously successful in the lab produced positive
results. We will be pursuing this area, always in consultation with
magicians, as part of our effort to conduct at least some of our research
in more natural settings.

Laboratory studies - extrasensory perception

Most of our effort in this area has gone towards experimental studies of
deliberate attempts to produce psychic effects in our own research
facilities within the Psychology Department, emphasising procedures that
have had a good track record with several other researchers. One line of
research follows a noise reduction model for ESP studies and uses amild
sensory reduction technique known as the ganzfeld procedure, plus
progressive relaxation, asking relaxed participants in a shielded room to
produce mental impressions about the content of short film clips being
displayed several rooms away.
The procedure is automated and includes security features to guard against
fraud by researchers as well as participants.

Our results with this procedure are very encouraging, with effect sizes
similar to those obtained elsewhere by researchers with less well
safeguarded facilities, and our research with this technique continues.
Several researchers have been involved with this work, including Kathy
Dalton, Deborah Delanoy, Caroline Watt and final year undergraduate
students in addition to myself.

Another line of research by Caroline Watt involves looking at individual
differences in perceptual defensiveness and vigilance, following up on
research done in several other countries indicating that people who score
as defensive on a defense mechanism test do more poorly on controlled ESP
tests. She has found similar results using a more objective procedure to
assess perceptual defensiveness and vigilance, with vigilant people scoring
better. This is consistent with the notion that for some people the
information may be more distorted in the course of processing, although the
finding may
have other interpretations as well.

A third line of research has explored techniques purported to train or
enhance psychic ability. This line of research, largely conducted by Dr.
Delanoy, Dr. Watt, Dr. Loftur Gissurarson and myself has presently produced
only mixed results at best, and has in part contributed to the
falsification of certain claims for psychic development techniques.

Psychokinesis

A fourth line of research involves attempts to influence through mental
activity, e.g. intentions, the behaviour of electronic equipment such as
random number generators based on a source of noise. Such research may seem
inherently extremely implausible, as surely we would know it by now if we
had any such ability. Nevertheless, low level but consistent effects have
been produced in a variety of other laboratories. Our own results have
produced at best extremely weak results, although there has been a tendency
for the results to be stronger with those having more positive attitudes
toward the
possibility and those who feel they have had spontaneous experiences
suggesting such effects. This research has been conducted largely by Dr
Konrad Morgan, Dr Gissurarson and Paul Stevens, in addition to final year
undergraduate students. We regard the work as contributing to the
falsification of some hypotheses regarding the linkage between operator
attitude and equipment failure.

Interaction with living systems

A fifth line of research involves attempts by an active agent to influence
the body physiology of a receiver several rooms away. One version of this
involves exploring the idea of remote staring effects, through the use of
closed circuit video. Although we are encouraged by some exploratory
studies, this line of research is still in its preliminary stages. It is
being conducted largely by Dr. Delanoy and Zachary McDermott.

History of parapsychology

A final area of research involves the history and social context of
criticism in parapsychology, conducted by Nancy Zingrone, and a set of
surveys of methodological problems and issues by Dr. Julie Milton.

Concluding remarks

In short, our research programme is still in early stages, with more
progress in some areas than others. We are clearly contributing to a better
understanding of how we can be misled, both by ourselves and others, and we
appear as well to be identifying certain areas where genuine psychic
effects may be more readily manifest under conditions that will allow us to
explore them more systematically. We are attempting to apply the tools of
science to an extremely complex set of human experiences and their
interpretation and we are acutely aware that we must avoid both the false
positive error of claiming something is there when in fact it is not, as
well as the false negative error of declaring something is not there when
in fact it is. Both errors are bad science.

Author: Robert L. Morris
Koestler Chair of Parapsychology, March 1995.
Last modified: 24th. January 1996

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Differences Between UK and US Research 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/54)

 09:24:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> PARAPSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
> EDINBURGH

EXCELLENT post Steve, thank you !!!!
Aloha Yaana



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Differences Between UK and US Research 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/55)

 09:24:46

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Steve--

Thanks for the post. I've been up on the Koestler webpage a number of
times, but never actually read their introductory material--spent all my
time reading posted papers and such. They've been up to more than the rest
of their webpage necessarily shows!

Enjoy!
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/56)

 09:25:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> Scientific and spiritual communities have developed arbitrary assignments such
as conscious,
> unconscious and super conscious, or body, mind and spirit, to describe
seemingly separate functions
> of a functional whole. In the esoteric teachings we have 3 vehicles, which go
from dense matter to
> subtle energies; physical, emotional and mental, all of which are animated by
the living breath of
> spirit (life) and come under the leadership of the soul (individualized
consciousness) . Each of
> these aspects of our being have differing functions; physical (third
dimensional vehicle of expression
> and experience) emotional (vehicle of communication... not intended for
constant drama) and mental
> (like the software program which takes the available data and stores/ presents
it in a usable fashion)
> and the soul the keeper of the purpose.

This is indeed from the human perception and perspective of itself.

> The more society evolves, the more our minds develop, the further we get away
from our natural selves,
> and project arbitrary judgments of superstitious nonsense on natural
experiences until we learn not to
> trust or recognize them. That does not mean that our souls stop
communicating, but it does mean that
> the impressions, perceptions, and sensations sent into our daily mix will be
interpreted by the mind,
> and either validated or invalidated. There is an old programmers saying
"garbage in, garbage out".
> man has evolved into amazing problem solvers, we demonstrate everyday things
tantamount to miracles.
> Yet some problems allude us. I suggest that in society as with individuals
problems that will not
> solve, or get bigger no matter what you do are false problems. False not in
that they are not genuine
> problems, but false in that we have incomplete or inaccurate perception of
what the real issue is.
> Trust of our innate selves has been trained out of most of us, the modern
resurgence of spirituality
> is an attempt to reclaim our birth right.

Can't argue there. But just to be meticulous, I would like to point out a few
things. I believe it should
be that society (people's mental conglomeration and agreed upon rules of
behavior) dictates our mores and
the more we acknowledge societies' principles without question the more we
reduced our perceptions
[philosophical introspection]. Science, by default, is reductionism followed
blindly. It is expansionism
applied rationally with no prejudice [scientific introspection].
Also, "problems that will not solve" may be due to improperly applied solutions,
like the right CONTENT in
the WRONG CATEGORY. Like constantly using statistical data to prove an esoteric
point. Somehow, the
agenda switches to using science to validate one's conviction to others, which
up to now has been futile
to the progress of the nature of Psi. Statistician can't even agree on their
figure, muchless the
dumbfounded, unschooled bystanders that are struck with a tower of formulas to
INTERPRET. That's
reductionism at its worst. As far as false problems and solutions the answer is
using False Data Stripping
(a borrowed concept and terminology not of my own).


> In altered state RV we train to maintain the ability to communicate in that
slim window,
> where the primary consciousness has fallen asleep, because it is in that
window that target can be
> experienced and congruent data retrieved with out the filter of the minds
interpretation. If the
> viewer falls asleep the session is over and the data is useless.

Sounds like my period in time when I was learning to meditate. :-)


> Psychologist study man as a stimulus response animal, in so doing they have
created many false
> problems.

Now, come on...let's cut some of them some slack. Things have gotten a little
more sophisticated these
days. Some are Cognitive Scientist in disguise. :-) Actually, many good
questions AND answers have been
possed by the best.. i.e.Carl Jung and Abraham Maslow.


> Stimulus response is the medium of the mind, but not the totality of the being
or the limit
> of it's potential. Ironic because the direct translation of the word
Psychology means, study of the
> soul. Our science and many religions train us to discredit our essential
selves and replace it with
> memorized facts figures and dogmas, but as you can see from the world we have
created it is time to go
> back inside and trust both who we are and what we know as essential beings and
question or leave
> behind many of the social facades which cripple us.

Yeah... I call it Reductionism --- infinite ability to zero ability.


> It delights me to know end the the military has developed a structured system
that, if followed , will
> lead you exactly there, into a direct experience of your full potential, but
no one ever said it was
> going to be easy, not because the system does not work, but precisely because
it does. In using it
> you will be faced with dismantling false beliefs or discrediting the system
which put your nose in it,
> so far we have a more than 50% drop out rate. Humans are such creatures of
comfort, most would rather
> keep the illusions they are comfortable with, than face a truth that would
change their lives.

I don't know if I should take offense to that having been in the Army. But I am
sure you mean well. :-).
Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute that Remote Viewing is not the
cure all. At the rate of RV
marketing, it is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak
otherwise, or face being
chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. Let's remember, that
the Way of Knowing is
hardly relegated solely to RV.

Aloha
electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Differences Between UK and US Research 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/57)

 09:31:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Paul,

>Thanks for the post.

Thank you for joining the list, and for posting!

I've been up on the Koestler webpage a number of
>times, but never actually read their introductory material--spent all my
>time reading posted papers and such. They've been up to more than the rest
>of their webpage necessarily shows!

I expect that's true, but nonetheless there's a lot of fascinating information
and studies up on their website, and it's certainly intriguing. As an Internet
techie, I found the Psi-Ping experiment -particularly- interesting.

For the non-technies, an Internet ping is a test signal sent to a computer,
which then returns the signal. The purpose is to measure 'lag time',
since ping tests will tell you if a signal was sent and received, and if so,
what
the lag time on it was. (The lag-time varies depending on a variety of
semi-random factors of the way the Internet operates.)

They are asking people to attempt to influence the ping time, both speeding
it up and slowing it down. The results from the first experiment are
interesting.
The results seem to suggest we have the ability to increase Internet lag time,
but not decrease it. (The results show a significant effect for slowing down
Internet pings, but not speeding it up.)

(Anyone interesting in the Psi-Ping experiment can get more information by
visiting the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/
and following the links to the experiments/psi-ping page.)

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/58)

 09:31:27

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Electrix,

You've not replied to any of my posts recently.

I hope I've not said anything to offend you? If there's anything you need me
to explain further, don't hesitate to ask me.

>Can't argue there. But just to be meticulous, I would like to point out a few
>things. I believe it should be that society (people's mental conglomeration and
>agreed upon rules of behavior) dictates our mores and the more we
>acknowledge societies' principles without question the more we reduced our
>perceptions [philosophical introspection].

I certainly agree that the more we blend in with society or a group, and if
we're
not careful, the individual can lose their unique identity within it. As
someone
who grew up the victim of prejudice, I can tell you that people who are
different
are viewed by some cultures and societies as being a threat, and try to force
a certain degree of conformity on those who are different or who hold different
views. Luckily, this is not true of everyone. I would say that only half of
society acts this way. The other half is thankfully more liberal, and not so
threatening to "different" people like you or I.

I believe that a wide range of views and opinions are healthy and should be
encouraged. Otherwise, we risk losing their unique input and insights.
Afterall,
is it not the differences that make us strong?

>Science, by default, is reductionism followed blindly.

I believe it is important to define the difference between a few things here.

First, there is science. In it's purest form, science is based on hypothesises
and theories, which are then tested through a variety of experiments. The
results of those experiments, if validated after peer-review, then guide the
direction of future research.

Second, there are scientists. These are people who are supposed to follow
the rules of science. However, as with any individuals or groups, there are
consensus views, majority views. Some people in society, and this includes
some scientists (they're human afterall!), are highly influenced by the
majority view, and might be more shier, prefering to emphasise results
that tow the consensus view, and being a lot more skeptical and suspicious
of results that go agaisnt the mould.

The towing of a consensus view without critical thinking, I call "scientism",
and I am not sure if it is the same scientism most people are referring to,
but I believe it is. Scientism does not base it's conclusions on results of
independent scientific experiments, but on the prevailing point of view
within the mainstream scientific community.

Taking scientism to it's extremes, we get groups like CSICOP. CSICOP
are an extremely unscientific and religious organisation, which seems to
be based on their own unique blend of scientism and reductionism.

It is important to notice, that scientism is NOT science. This is a
common misconception, and one I had made for many years.
Scientism is a religion. The *only* thing that separates scientism from
most religions, is that the Gods of Scientism are the leading, most
influential scientists and the prevailing scientific viewpoint of the
time.

While scientism may be a reductionist philosophy, based upon
years of research and scientific opinion, it is still a religion. Religions
are rigid, closed-minded, and accepted on faith. Scientists who
accept the word of their prominent peers on 'faith in facts' (facts
being what their peers tell them it is), could be said to be following
scientism. Scientists who, on the other hand, question and
critique the word of their peers, and attempt to replicate their
findings, to see if their theory is correct, are the true scientists.

Science works through open-minded investigation and
experimentation, rather than reliance on what leading scientists
have to say (which is scientism).

This is why I am supportive and sympathetic to remote-viewing
skeptics. Skeptics are often called many nasty names, but there
are honest skeptics out there too, who are following the tenets of
science: question the results, and perform experiments of their
own. I feel these kinds of efforts should be -encouraged-.

>Like constantly using statistical data to prove an esoteric point.

Science has to rely on whatever data is available. Statistical and
mathematical-based experiments are useful for testing for the
existance of psi (figure out the "chance" level, perform tightly-
controlled experiments, collect the results).

In the case of psi, in what other way can we objectively test for
the existence of the phenomenon, if we do not rely on statistical
methods? I'm welcome to hear alternative testing methods,
methods which can be independently and objectivity verified.

>Somehow, the agenda switches to using science to validate
>one's conviction to others, which up to now has been futile
>to the progress of the nature of Psi.

Whenever the agenda becomes to proving the existence of
something, or disproving it, objectivity is lost. Science demands
that no assumptions are made - and that if any are made,
such as in making theories - that the purpose is to allow an
experiment to proced, and that an objective test is created
to determine if the theory is correct or false, BEFORE it
becomes generally accepted. The test should be performed
by objective and impartial individuals. If not such people
exist, then it should be performed by a mixture of
supporters and skeptics who can try and hash out a
middle-ground they can both work within.

>Statistician can't even agree on their figure, muchless the
>dumbfounded, unschooled bystanders that are struck with a
>tower of formulas to INTERPRET. That's reductionism at
>its worst.

I would call it scientific debate. Formulas and statistics can
be used correctly or incorrectly. Those who argue about
the accuracy of a statistical formula, may feel that the
statistical method is misleading or deceptive, or insufficient
in some way. We need to hear their views, so we can analyse
their criticisms and see if they have merit.

Debate and peer-review are an essential part of the scientific
process. This is a fact that followers of scientism often seem
to forget. Scientists are not infalliable. Scientists disagree
all the time. It's because we all view things differently. Even
if we are using the same processes, we may have different
experiences and expertise which causes us to analyse and
view the results in different ways. As wide a range of
opinions as possible should be saught, IMO.

The process of peer-review is designed to create an atmosphere
in which both supporters and skeptics of a subject
can come to a prior agreement on how a test will be performed
and measured, so that both groups can call the experiment
objective - even if they choose to view the results in a different
way (see above on differences of opinion).

Once that is agreed, the test can proceed. No changes should
be made to the agreed parameters of the experiment by either
the supporters or the skeptics, once the parameters have been
agreed to. Then both groups must agree to accept the results,
if they were unable to find fault beforehand in the methods
they chose to use.

Of course, this will not be sufficient for scientists or researchers
who are *outside* of the experiment and unable to monitor
it and be an integral part of it. That's why there are several
psi labs, not just one. And that's also why certain members of
the public want to be able to reproduce the psi labs results,
outside of the laboratory.

>>soul. Our science and many religions train us to discredit our essential
selves
>>and replace it with memorized facts figures and dogmas, but as you can see
>>from the world we have created it is time to go back inside and trust both who
>>we are and what we know as essential beings and question or leave
>>behind many of the social facades which cripple us.
>Yeah... I call it Reductionism --- infinite ability to zero ability.

I would argue that we should not by default accept what someone tells us,
be they part ofa religion or scientific institution, if we feel it is an
important
enough topic to gain correct answers to. In these cases, we should aim to
form our own experiments, set up parameters which are fair and objective,
and do the tests yourself.

>I don't know if I should take offense to that having been in the Army. But I
>am sure you mean well. :-). Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute
>that Remote Viewing is not the cure all. At the rate of RV marketing, it
>is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak otherwise,
>or face being chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there.
>Let's remember, that the Way of Knowing is hardly relegated solely to RV.

I think it is important that we all remember that it is *not* a crime to ask
the difficult questions, and expect answers. True science does not
ask us to accept anything on faith. It asks us to perform experiments and
find our for ourselves, always being on the look-out for possible mistakes
or errors that might contaminate the results and thus the accuracy of the
conclusions.

Unfortunately, it seems that many people training for science degrees are
instead being taught to memorize and regurgitate information, and assured
that the experiments and the results are sound. I do not feel this is healthy.

I believe that true science is a system where no assumptions can be made,
and our belief is guided by the data. Where we have no answers, we
shouldn't resort to speculating or assumptions. Or if we do, because it is
part of a personal belief system for example, then it should be kept separate
from the science that we do, and we should not let it intefere in the scientific
process.

I hope you appreciate my comments are not meant in any way to criticise
you for holding your views. I just feel that scientism and science are being
confused.

Many of the comments you may are true of scientism, but not of science
itself. Science does not take anything on faith; rather, scientific
objectivity and experimentation dictates that we are guided by the data,
always on the look-out for possible flaws or errors that may mean our
data is incorrect.

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/59)

 09:31:39

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> In altered state RV we train to maintain the ability to communicate in
that slim window,
> where the primary consciousness has fallen asleep, because it is in that
window that target can be
> experienced and congruent data retrieved with out the filter of the minds
interpretation. If the
> viewer falls asleep the session is over and the data is useless.
>>
About half true.....In fact when a viewer is performing Coordinate Remote
Viewing they are wide awake, vibrant and alert sitting at a table (not lying
in a bed) in well lit room with only a monitor offering guidance and they
progress through the several phases of activities which "lock" them on to the
target signal and begin delivering data which they write down or even sketch
as the session progresses....In remote viewing in which a state of semi-
conscious response is used...we have learn to call this Extended Remote
Viewing...the viewer does lie in a bed, in a darkened room, silenced to a the
greates extent possible with a monitor to guide them through the session...it
is the monitor's responsibility to "move" them at the target, to note the data
being spoken my the viewer and to insure the viewer maintains a proper level
of altered state...(he keeps them on the edge of wakefulness and sleep)....
There you have it...my first input to the Stargate net...see how nasty I can
be...
Gene Kincaid.....


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/60)

 09:31:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

electrix wrote:

> snip......Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute that Remote Viewing
is not the cure all. At the
> rate of RV
> marketing, it is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak
otherwise, or face being
> chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. Let's remember,
that the Way of Knowing is
> hardly relegated solely to RV.
>
> Aloha
> electrix

I do not mean to imply that RV is a cure all, because it is not, but it has
validity for those who wish to
pursue it. I have meditated and investigated many "consciousness raising
techniques" for 20 years I find RV to
be a refreshingly disciplined and logical technique which when diligently
applied produces amazingly
consistent and verifiable results, not just in data collection but in the
potential for personal growth.

As far as religions go, marketing of RV which focuses the attention on
personalities rather than product
produces just the effects you describe. Any technique with the promise and
impact of RV would generate a
firestorm on it's own but when you combine volatile personalities making failed
predictions who refuse to
submit their work for peer review, this gives people who are threatened by RV an
easy target to discredit the
whole body of work, and for many that is all they hear.

I want to thank Steve for this forum to discuss topics like these. We do not
always have to agree but in the
process of presenting points of view we will educate each other.

When people speak from internalized experience they are the most compelling.
Many times these experiences
have been so complete they did not feel the need to find scientific
justifications for what they KNOW, indeed
until the past few decades with the advent of quantum theory and the like none
was available. In order to
resist the mindless acceptance of reductionism we have to learn to verify, trust
and develop our internal
experience. RV is a very powerful tool in this quest, and therefor is seen as a
threat to those who hold
their secrets most dear because it was born as an intelligence gathering tool.
In the private sector most
students seem more interested in personal development than in busting
conspiracies, but when enough people
become conscious and aware it may have the same effect.

Aloha Yaana


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/61)

 09:32:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

<< I don't know if I should take offense to that having been in the Army. But
I am sure you mean well. :-).
Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute that Remote Viewing is not the
cure all. At the rate of RV
marketing, it is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak
otherwise, or face being
chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. Let's remember,
that the Way of Knowing is
hardly relegated solely to RV.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/62)

 09:32:52

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

I am sure you mean well. :-).
Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute that Remote Viewing is not the
cure all. At the rate of RV
marketing, it is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak
otherwise, or face being
chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. Let's remember,
that the Way of Knowing is
hardly relegated solely to RV.
>>
As a retired member of the Army and former member of the Defense Department's
attempts at professional Remote Viewing...I take special umbrage at the
inference that to be a professional soldier you must become a mindless
automaton....The military is a dynamic and exciting profession offering many
opportunities for freedom of thought and ideas to make the system better...As
to RV be the end all...Crap...it is only a method of accessing data available
to everyone...Marketing of RV has indeed made it a cottage industry for
many..I am, of course, amazed at the RV "miricle of the fishes" that took less
than a total ot three dozen people who were ever involved in the military
program (all of whom I know by their first name) and mysteriously increased
that number to virtually hundreds of people who claim to have been in the
unit....I would caution anyone seeking instruction to discount out of hand,
any offers to teach RV based upon previous membership in the old organization
since there are only five people who were members who actually teach RV...to
of whom do it for free...refusing any monies for personal reasons...So seek
out instruction but be very careful....
Regards...Gene...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/63)

 09:33:02

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Aloha Gene, I agree with your comments on the role of the monitor. The
viewer's approach to functioning at low states of awareness is complimented
by a monitor who can keep the viewer pretty balanced and responsive. I
think the viewer skill lies in being able to function in a sort of inclined
orbit at or near theta. A lazy 8 pattern above theta for monitor
recognition/dialog followed by
a drop in active awareness for insight. No so much a Yo-Yo effect, but more
of a wave cycle or surging of consciousness.
Aloha ... Glenn


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/64)

 09:33:14

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Steve--

How'd you get so smart, anyway? I agree very much with most of what you
have said in this post, with the following minor exception (and I hope I
understood correctly, otherwise I may be objecting to something I might
otherwise agree with!).

At 01:20 PM 6/26/98 +-100, you wrote:

>I believe that true science is a system where no assumptions can be made,
>and our belief is guided by the data. Where we have no answers, we
>shouldn't resort to speculating or assumptions. Or if we do, because it is
>part of a personal belief system for example, then it should be kept separate
>from the science that we do, and we should not let it intefere in the
scientific
>process.

First, we couldn't HAVE science without assumptions. Math and logic are
based on certain elementary, fundamental assumptions that cannot be further
proved, and on those the rest of the structure is built. Speculations and
(other) assumptions are important, because it is upon those that hypothesis
are built which, when tested successfully, produce theories. The progress
that has been made in psi research owes as much to that premise as does
mainstream science. Of course, sometimes hypothesis and theories are
wrong, because the speculations and assumptions were wrong. But that's the
breaks of having only this trial and error system on which to rely for
discovering the basis of truths about the universe. And in fact we could
never progress if students were not taught to assume the knowledge base
they were building on was correct. Human progress rests on the idea that
succeeding generations build on the foundation that was laid before. The
alternative would be every generation having to prove the same things over
again, which means they'd never get around to any new discoveries. But
that doesn't mean we shouldn't go back and replace rotten planks we
discover in the platform of knowledge upon which we stand.

The key is not that we reject speculation and assumption, but rather that
science should insist more strongly on the questioning of assumptions and
"received truth" whenever there seems to be a credible conflict between
observed fact and established notions. (I use "credible" here because there
are claims made every day that are prima facie ridiculous, and if
scientists went chasing willynilly after every crazy claim, they'd never
get around to curing cancer or finding magic bullets with which to clean up
the environment and such ;-).

So anyway, there's my minuscule contribution to the debate!

Enjoy,
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/65)

 09:33:26

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Well, Gene!

I was about to e-mail you. Glad you found your way to Steve's e-mail
group. Don't know how a red-blooded Irish lad like yourself can manage to
participate in a group hosted out of the homeland of the English oppressor,
but I know Steve to be a tolerant sort, so I'm sure he'll manage to put up
with the likes o' ya' .

Enjoy!
Paul



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/66)

 09:33:39

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi everybody.
I was reading another board and found an interesting post. I want to
share it with this group and get some feedback. It is a good topic:
remote influencing. The author of the following is "Jeffery". I hope I am
not violating nettiquete by reposting his post. I mean well.

"Remote Influencing:

Some have asked about the ramifications of remote influencing within
remote viewing.

It is a human ability that we manipulate each other with in different
ways in our every day lives. The
Remote Viewing application is much more focused and specific, remote
healing is in-fact remote
influencing in a positive light.

At the Farsight Institute remote influencing was taught to those in
advanced training, it was not
encouraged, but taught as just one of the many tools available to us all
as remote viewers. I have not
used these skills and have not really seen a need where I could justify
using it yet, but I have felt and
experienced the effects of remote influencing during specific Remote
Viewing sessions.

On one occasion the viewer was not getting any data at all when placed at
the objective, the normal
flow of data just stopped. The viewer felt the change and reported seeing
fog or a gray wall when
asked to describe the objective. On this occasion we used some movements
and penetrated the
gray wall, now the viewer was willing to do this. The viewer suffered a
bloody nose and an extreme
headache, as soon as the wall was penetrated. The objective was then very
clear and the visual
cleaned up accordingly, after we had obtained our goals set forth within
that session, I did some
recon of the source of the Remote influencing and we surprised the" you
know what" out of this
other team of viewers. We made our presence known to them and they were
not pleased with their
failure at all.

So yes this is happening in the now, being a good viewer enables you to
sense when and where
remote influencing is going on to a higher degree than normal. This other
group was well organized
and well financed who knows what their full time mission goals might be.

Hope this information helps a little, if you want to be remote influenced
right now just go turn on the
"Boob tube" and sit down and mellow into a nice alpha state for a few
hours and get your daily
programming folks. Im sure you will be off for some fast food before you
know it. Dont forget
your Crest toothpaste and that favorite beverage uummmm baby .
LOL "


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/67)

 09:33:54

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Curran2106@... wrote:

> I take special umbrage at the
> inference that to be a professional soldier you must become a mindless
> automaton....

Anyone who has listened to these guys go back and forth on PJs list know these
arehighly individualistic persons each with a mind of his own.
And as someone who is in training with Paul, and who debates issues with him
freely,
I can tell you not only do they think for themselves, but they also expect it
from
those
they work with in training.

Steve your list is off to a good start! Your comments re: science vs. scientism
were
particularly appropo. It's easy to get tangled in the throes of identification
with a
particular stance, as we all are prone to do. Clarifying the differences is
important. For instance in any generalized statement which groups people in
order
to make some point
about what you don't like, we end up making false connections. As in, we have to
be clear that the scientists are not all fatally flawed with the disease of
scientism; the
psychologists are not all fatally flawed with the disease of behaviorism; and
army
or
military does not equal automaton.
Learning to RV does not negate my prior interests and utilization of meditation
and
dreamwork. Paul and Joe are artists as well as RVers. Gene as we know is a
familiar with the wee people, and that's quite an accomplishment which requires
vigilance and humor.
Above all, we should endeavor to experiment for ourselves with any discipline or
system to determine whether it will have value within our personal lives. If it
doesn't
that still does not negate the value of it for another individual. In dealing
with
RV
I haven't laid aside all of my personal experience in other disciplines; to the
contrary
I'm now very clear about how they all compliment one another and enhance one
another.

Shelia



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/68)

 09:34:13

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> You've not replied to any of my posts recently.

Actually, I thought you were taking a break from discussions. I didn't see
anything
posted by you lately to comment on.

> I hope I've not said anything to offend you?

Ha,ha,ha...no my friend. It is not often that I find a most engaging formadable
and
friendly nemesis (oxymoron, but you'll get the meaning). I had promise myself
to
minimize my presence on the web and focus on my work, but alas, a few engaging
exchange of thought between Yaana and yourself has dissuade me of my objective.
I am
sure to reach a climax once I am satisfied and exhausted in examining our
thoughts
and arriving at a synthesis (Thesis vs. Anti-Thesis results in Synthesis) :-).

> I believe that a wide range of views and opinions are healthy and should be
> encouraged. Otherwise, we risk losing their unique input and insights.
Afterall,
> is it not the differences that make us strong?

Yes...I thought of this same subject last night. Yaana's view and your view
shows
quite a sharp distinction in how we conceive concepts and view of the world. No
doubt, that there is an implication of truism in what we say. But I think we are
lost
in words that probably arrive at the same destination if we curbed our verbage.
:-)

> >Science, by default, is reductionism followed blindly.
>
> I believe it is important to define the difference between a few things here.
>
> First, there is science. In it's purest form, science is based on
hypothesises
> and theories, which are then tested through a variety of experiments. The
> results of those experiments, if validated after peer-review, then guide the
> direction of future research.

Excellent. Invariably, determining the difference in things is a prerequisite
to
higher conscious awareness and assimilation. But I will use my example of
"reductionism" to what you have suggested. By reductionism I ment the
dissection of
the subject in question and its adherence to that conviction without examining
the
whole aspect of the subject again. When you propose to establish the
"difference" you
initiated the process of dissection. Science takes the general and dissects it
to the
smallest understandable package. Followed down, it is induction. Sometimes we
remain
there without looking back at the forest, so to speak. Others use those
principles,
wittingly or unwittingly, to deny the existence of "natural" psi-ability, a
poit
Yaana made regarding psychologist approach to examining human nature as animal
base.
In essence, I understand that she is stating that the study of animal nature,
doesn't
easily transfer to human. Taking animal studies and applying it to humans is
what I
call reductionism. Blind belief in their animal theory, influences human into
animalistic behavior. Granted, there are occasionally some "animal"
similarities, but
they ought not to be dictated as human principles.

Science in of itself, is not the cause. In that, you are absolutely right. But
it is,
as you once stated, the "spin" that we put on it.

> The towing of a consensus view without critical thinking, I call "scientism",
> and I am not sure if it is the same scientism most people are referring to,
> but I believe it is. Scientism does not base it's conclusions on results of
> independent scientific experiments, but on the prevailing point of view
> within the mainstream scientific community.
>
> Taking scientism to it's extremes, we get groups like CSICOP. CSICOP
> are an extremely unscientific and religious organisation, which seems to
> be based on their own unique blend of scientism and reductionism.

Okay. I have not read on this organization. But if it is religious in its
manifestation, then we have strayed from the categorization of science and are
into
the arena of religion and philosophy. We must argue on their scientific
foundation OR
on their religious and philosophical underpining in order not to blur the issue.
I
suppose this exactly why you consider it to be un-scientific, those categories
are not
easily and convincingly mixed.

> This is why I am supportive and sympathetic to remote-viewing
> skeptics. Skeptics are often called many nasty names, but there
> are honest skeptics out there too, who are following the tenets of
> science: question the results, and perform experiments of their
> own. I feel these kinds of efforts should be -encouraged-.

Here is where we fall into subjectivist view Steve. "but there are honest
skeptics
..." Honesty is not the issue. It is whether they have a CONVINCING argument.
Moreover, their label in itself is a direct contradiction. Being a "skeptics,"
lacks
doesn't the assumption of NEUTRAL view by which to examine psi. Most start off
with
the condition that Psi is bogus. Of course the opposite could be said of a
supporter
of Psi. Belief in excess makes for unrealistic POSITIVE results (refer to the
Jessica
Utts and Ray Hillman AIR report). One of the laws of psi is negative and
positive
influence on the subject. Not necessarily quoting the many studies and
observations
made in the past and present (I will leave it to your examination), performance
of a
psi experiment suffers in the presence of a skeptical mind. It is here whereby I
draw
the analogy of Quantum Theory behavior and Psi. Since I subscribe to the belief
(philosophy) that psi and quantum mechanics have similar correspondence, I
suggest the
process is prominent ---. the examiner INFLUENCES the outcome of the experiment.
This
law is unequivocal. It is one of the first laws that should be identified and
declared
in the Psi thesis.

> >Like constantly using statistical data to prove an esoteric point.
>
> Science has to rely on whatever data is available. Statistical and
> mathematical-based experiments are useful for testing for the
> existance of psi (figure out the "chance" level, perform tightly-
> controlled experiments, collect the results).
>
> In the case of psi, in what other way can we objectively test for
> the existence of the phenomenon, if we do not rely on statistical
> methods? I'm welcome to hear alternative testing methods,
> methods which can be independently and objectivity verified.

Doing so Steve, reduces Psi from its ellusive subjective level to hard science
objective. We are asking to resolve an UN-REALISTIC phenomena. It is the same
argument I have been repeating in most of the posting I have made. Science is
ment to
test REALITY. What is reality made of? Gases, liquid, solids and plasma.
Anything
beyond that is an inference that must be tested by empirical observation or
relegated
to philosophy, i.e. belief system. I once stated that when a psychic individual
exceeds the credibility threshold of an observing or skeptical person, these
individuals will either not SEE what is in front of their face or flatly deny or
distort it. It is like an Indian Shaman performing the lifting of a mountain
... just
watch how many enginneers or scientist take out their measuring tools to find
out how
the Indian is doing it, when in fact he is just DOING IT! They don't SEE the
psi, they
investigate why it is contrary to all physical laws. So, another law that should
be
included in any Psi thesis is that exemplification of a power beyond the
"reality" of
a contemporary mentality should remain in the secrecy of the of the
psi-individual
until its timely and proper introduction into social milieu. Jesus was about the
only
divine person that got away with it, since he realized he was immortal and
would live
in the hearts of man no matter how much he was persecuted or crucified. ;-)

> >Somehow, the agenda switches to using science to validate
> >one's conviction to others, which up to now has been futile
> >to the progress of the nature of Psi.
>
> Whenever the agenda becomes to proving the existence of
> something, or disproving it, objectivity is lost. Science demands
> that no assumptions are made - and that if any are made,
> such as in making theories - that the purpose is to allow an
> experiment to proced, and that an objective test is created
> to determine if the theory is correct or false, BEFORE it
> becomes generally accepted. The test should be performed
> by objective and impartial individuals. If not such people
> exist, then it should be performed by a mixture of
> supporters and skeptics who can try and hash out a
> middle-ground they can both work within.

You missed my point here Steve. If scientific investigation in to Psi
phenomenon has
proven insignificant, or conflicting, we have the wrong method of stating. It
was
Yaana suggestion that where a false problem exist and continue multiplying
itself, it
means that we are mis-identifying the problem. I added that it could also be
the
right CONTENT in the WRONG CATEGORY. An "objective" and mathematical science
should
have, by now, identified the Un-reality, ergo, reality of Psi and its nature,
not
withstanding Time.

> >Statistician can't even agree on their figure, muchless the
> >dumbfounded, unschooled bystanders that are struck with a
> >tower of formulas to INTERPRET. That's reductionism at
> >its worst.
>
> I would call it scientific debate. Formulas and statistics can
> be used correctly or incorrectly. Those who argue about
> the accuracy of a statistical formula, may feel that the
> statistical method is misleading or deceptive, or insufficient
> in some way. We need to hear their views, so we can analyse
> their criticisms and see if they have merit.

Statistics does not and should not inject "feel" into the equation. Again,
refer to
the AIR report. Agenda? most likely.

> Debate and peer-review are an essential part of the scientific
> process. This is a fact that followers of scientism often seem
> to forget. Scientists are not infalliable. Scientists disagree
> all the time. It's because we all view things differently. Even
> if we are using the same processes, we may have different
> experiences and expertise which causes us to analyse and
> view the results in different ways. As wide a range of
> opinions as possible should be saught, IMO.

Idealistic and agreeable statement.

> Many of the comments you may are true of scientism, but not of science
> itself. Science does not take anything on faith; rather, scientific
> objectivity and experimentation dictates that we are guided by the data,
> always on the look-out for possible flaws or errors that may mean our
> data is incorrect.

I couldn't have implied otherwise. I agree.

electrix :-)



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/69)

 09:34:24

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Paul H. Smith wrote:

> Steve--
>
> How'd you get so smart, anyway?

That's the same question I asked myself....I guess Mother Nature don't make
teenagers like it used to!
I AM waiting for an answer.... :-)

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/70)

 09:34:39

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] RV Science

I must concur with Gene K's statement on CRV. In the form of remote viewing I
learned from USSR training techniques in early 60's there was no aspect of
initiating other than light alpha brainwave levels.

In our own work in the Psi Squad,(est. 1971 for those of you who are not
familiar with us) almost 100% of the work is done in the wide awake, alert,
state as well. The level of detachment from immediate surroundings (noises,
other people, etc) is more a level of concentration, than a deliberate
brainwave level or altered state reflex. We have only trained one police
officer in all that time who preferred the 'lie down and go into a deep level
- work with a monitor' methodology.

It is apparent that there are more than one or two ways to skin a cat, and
remote viewing methods do not conform to any one standard. The most useful
standard is: 'does the method work?' 'are consistent results gained?' 'what
is the accuracy level?'

Bevy
PS: Have you seen a copy of Patrick Marsolek's Article in the recent issue
Atlantis Rising? Goes along with the discussion which was taking place on our
old VWR and PSI Lists with PJ.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/71)

 09:34:49

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> It is apparent that there are more than one or two ways to skin a cat, and
> remote viewing methods do not conform to any one standard. The most useful
> standard is: 'does the method work?' 'are consistent results gained?' 'what
> is the accuracy level?'
>

Yes...I concur. In an isolated personal experiment I did with individuals before
my exposure to "proper" RV method and protocol, I got some very impressive
results. When I read Joe McMoneagle "Mind Trek," I realized I was using the
same
method that Robert Monroe was using on Joe to Remote View some targets.

In essence, there are ?th way to skin the cat!

electrix
P.S. the Psi Squad....hmmmm...why does this remind me of the Mod Squad. Psi
Squad... :-) Now, *there* is a prime time T.V. screenplay!


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Two Lists in One 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/72)

 09:35:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All,

I just wanted to point one thing one now, in order to avoid
confusion later. I'm pretty sure most of you have either
been told this already or have probably guess this, but
I figured this should be said anyway.

This list is a hybrid of the Psi List and the Viewer List
that are/used to be run by PJ.

Until this list has a bigger subscriber base behind it, I feel
it is important to have a joint list like this. Both lists and
the topics that are part of them deserve a chance at life,
as I'm sure we'd all agree. A lot of people were upset when
they heard their favourite lists were closing, so I immediately
decided to open up this Star Gate list and try to plug a gap
before PJ pulled the plug and the conversation was all
sucked into a black hole..

There was only two choices. We either have two lists, in which
case there is the danger of dividing subscribers over the two
lists, and since the subscriber level is only mediumish anyway,
that might lead to a problem of not enough members in each list,
and so not enough posts. Merge the two, or rather keep them as
one (as they are here), and we don't have that problem.

Of course, I'm not intending to keep things this way forever.
Once this list has reached a large enough memberbase, I am
intending to create a second list, which we'll call the New Viewer
List for now :) It will be moderated, and topics/discussion will be kept
along similar lines as PJ's list, as I know her list format was very
popular.

Once the New Viewer List is created, this Star Gate list can
become the equivalent of the old rv/psi list. Since the CRV
topics will most likely migrate to the new Viewer List, that leaves
the other psi topics to be discussed in this list, which will
remain unmoderated.

In the meantime, both Psi List and Viewer List topics are "on
topic" for this list. This includes serious discussion of psi
as well as more relaxed and casual discussion about psi,
which can include less structured methods.

I hope people see the logic behind the way I'm trying to
organise this. (You can only start to think about splitting
something up when it starts to get big..)

So in the meantime, we'll carry on as we have been
up until now. In perhaps a week, we'll have two lists,
and hopefully it will minimise the effect of PJ's lists
closing when that eventually happens. People are
welcome to cross-post or cross-reply messages (i.e.
make replies to Viewer List posts on -this- list, or make
a post to -both- the Viewer/Psi List and this this list,
in the meantime.)

I hope no one minds this "hybrid" list in the meantime,
and can understand my reasons for deciding to
transfer things over this way. As the saying
goes, "in unity, there is strength." I figured
that one list was better than two for now.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/73)

 09:35:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Electrix--

At 06:03 PM 6/26/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Here is where we fall into subjectivist view Steve. "but there are honest
skeptics
>..." Honesty is not the issue. It is whether they have a CONVINCING
argument.
>Moreover, their label in itself is a direct contradiction. Being a
"skeptics," lacks
>doesn't the assumption of NEUTRAL view by which to examine psi.

Actually, people often misunderstand what the word "skeptic" really
implies--the fault, as I've said in other venues ;-) of rabidly extremist
skeptics as typified by CSICOP. A true "skeptic" is a person who holds
judgement of some reported phenomenon or truth-claim in abeyance until what
has been claimed has been fairly and reasonably demonstrated. A true
skeptic is always prepared to change his/her belief if evidence justifies
such a change. I hope ALL of us maintain a certain healthy skepticism in
our lives, since one thing we should all know by now is that things are
often not as they appear. This especially holds true in the realm of the
paranormal. It can often be very difficult to separate legitimate events
or effects from the fraudulent or just simply misinterpreted.

Most start off with
>the condition that Psi is bogus. Of course the opposite could be said of a
supporter
>of Psi. Belief in excess makes for unrealistic POSITIVE results (refer to
the Jessica
>Utts and Ray Hillman AIR report).

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here--was it that Utt's
evaluation was too optimistic? If so, I would certainly argue with you,
since her assessment was very rigorously done. Or did you mean that
Hyman's response was egregiously and unsupportably negative? In that case,
I would agree with you quite strongly.

>One of the laws of psi is negative and positive influence on the subject.

Ummm, I'm not sure this is actually a LAW of psi. It has been suggested by
some researchers to account for why in some settings results fall off when
the experimenters or observers are skeptics. But this effect doesn't
always necessarily occur. Many times in the SRI RV experiments they had
impressive successes even with quite virulent skeptics present, and in fact
even with virulent skeptics participating. I myself have been party to
demonstration sessions that were notably successful even though the persons
for whom they were done were heavily into doubt and denial. Over the years
not a few of them were converted. The most recent successes have occurred
on the UT skeptics RV site that I've been touting. Even though skeptics
are running the site, we have a had a number of quite good sessions
contributed (amongst an admittedly high number of failures), and with
y'all's support I expect even more.

>process is prominent ---. the examiner INFLUENCES the outcome of the
experiment. This
>law is unequivocal. It is one of the first laws that should be identified
and declared
>in the Psi thesis.

I would acknowledge that the experimenter (monitor, tasker) can indeed in
many cases intentionally or inadvertently influence the outcome. But I
would argue that this is not unequivocal. Again appealing to my own
personal experience, I have been involved in a number of sessions where
monitor intention, whether conscious or unconscious, did NOT effect the
outcome of the session. Sometime the viewer just does what he/she needs to
do, and leaves all the interference behind.

>Doing so Steve, reduces Psi from its ellusive subjective level to hard
science
>objective. We are asking to resolve an UN-REALISTIC phenomena.

Actually, not so. The CAUSE may be "un-realistic" (whatever that really
means), but the phenomenon itself is a real manifestation here in the real
world. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything for us to notice, nor to even
consider testing. The EFFECTS of psi are immenently testable. But I have
my doubts that we'll ever establish a cause-and-effect linkage using any
sort of physical measuring device or testing methodology.

Okay, hope I haven't overstayed my welcome...

Enjoy!
Paul



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Getting the Balance Right 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/74)

 09:35:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear Steve and List :
Here is a bit of feedback from the USA re : "balance"....
Since I am isolated from RV teachers, I would like to be able to
conduct experiments with those who are open to working with me. I am
reluctant, of course, due to possible failures (and ego thereof ?!)
but....it is time to test my own "skeptic hat" (and I wear a good one
some days) and I would be willing to post the messes as well as the
successes. I appreciate the feedback if I fail, and I appreciate the
feedback if it works.
I am looking for practice... even with those who have the "skeptic
hat". I have no credentials of any kind, so those looking for
military experience or scholastic degrees must pass me by. I am
completely untrained by anyone and have been 'on my own' for a few
years.
The only medium I have worked in is via computer. I know, this
sounds odd!!!!
Is there a way we all could agree to set such a thing up? Or are
there 'rules' we must follow?
I hope this is not creating a new problem for our list to think
about .... I realize this is bold, but there are times in life
when one must make such leaps....
My best to all, Laura


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/75)

 09:35:45

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Paul H. Smith wrote:
> not a few of them were converted. The most recent successes have occurred
> on the UT skeptics RV site that I've been touting. Even though skeptics
> are running the site, we have a had a number of quite good sessions
> contributed (amongst an admittedly high number of failures), and with
> y'all's support I expect even more.


Hi Paul & all,

This is precisely what I like about the UT site. I think that the
failures make the hits
stand out even more. RV sorely needs some "down to earth"
publicity/demonstrations.
Sensationalism has put things in a bad light and there seems to be no
one wanting/willing/able
to fix it. To add to the confusion are the various flavors of RV and the
"revelations" that
there were/are apparently more than one people/military groups/projects
who were not aware of
each other going back many years.

In the long run, I think that "RV" will become more and more known as a
version of psi and not stand out
so much. Its too much of a buzz word right now. But then that brings up
other questions for me. Why have not the other types of psi ever caught
on with the general public? Been around a lot longer.....astral
projection
.....OBE....psychometry.....channeling....etc.

One reason may be that none of the others provide any consistency or
high level of success. The same may be
true of RV once the wild claims of 100% accuracy are disproved. And
again I would like to see here or anywhere, samples from those new or
old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high data resolution
claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut
their stuff.


Oh yeah....dont forget your t-shirts.... :)

http://www.remoteviewers.com/clothes.htm


Rich



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/77)

 09:36:13

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> About half true.....In fact when a viewer is performing Coordinate Remote
> Viewing they are wide awake, vibrant and alert sitting at a table (not lying
> in a bed) in well lit room with only a monitor offering guidance and they
> progress through the several phases of activities which "lock" them on to the
> target signal ...snip

Hi Gene, Good to see you join the discussion. I have been a student for just
under
a year, not near the experience you have. I did not mean to imply that RV was
just
altered state work. All of the work we have produced (HRVG) to this point has
been with awake state protocols. Our advanced class is just beginning to learn
altered state protocols which come more than an hour into the session doing
awake
state data collection, if good target contact as been demonstrated. In the last
year our goal has been to improve target contact, consistency and clarity of
data. It is just now we have begun to train in more advanced techniques.

It appears that the work horse data collection comes with the waking state data
collection, but the experiential "carrot" for the viewer comes in the altered
state. The discipline is still to bring back congruent data and not get caught
up
in the experience and that is where a monitor is very important. We are just now
beginning training for monitored sessions to this point we have worked
independently mastering the protocols we have learned to date. The few
monitored
sessions we have done have brought impressive results and we are really looking
forward to this stage of our training.

It is great to see experienced viewers join the discussion group, now we
students
can really learn :)
Aloha Yaana


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/78)

 09:36:29

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Rich Krankoski wrote:

> RV sorely needs some "down to earth"
> publicity/demonstrations. Sensationalism has put things in a bad light and
> there seems to be no one wanting/willing/able to fix it.

This is more a matter of the public paying closer attention. Who can
"fix it"
except you? This is a 'victim' attitude; I don't mean to be abrasive but
I think it's a cop out for folks to continue saying "oh I just can't
figure it out" (especially in todays world of a thousand sensations a
minute). Anyone who is giving you a sensational results prognosis is
giving you .... well I'll be polite and say the guys who are being
honest give you a lower percentage of success (and that's only if you're
really good).


> To add to the confusion are the ..... "revelations" that there were/are
apparently more than one people/military
> groups/projects who were not aware of each other going back many years.

What? Tell me more....I haven't heard anything about this.

> In the long run, I think that "RV" will become more and more known as a
> version of psi and not stand out so much.

I think that RV WILL continue to stand out because it is presented as
not
requiring an altered trance type of psi connection... in that respect it
seems
more rational and on the surface more "respectable" to those with a "I
don't
want to venture tooooo far out there" mindset. This of course is only
an
illusion; as anyone who has listened to the stories told by the RVers
from the
Ft.Mead group or read any of the books that surround the development of
RV
within the army know.... you could travel anywhere at a moments notice:
on
target or not; most often on target, but one has to be flexible and
expect the
unexpected. It does require consistent practice just as so many other
disciplines do. And to tell the truth this is what I think will be the
cutting
point -- there will be those who will persist...and those who don't. And
of
course, as so many of the scientists and psychologists have pointed out,
those
who consciously are willing to go there but whose subconscious fears
block the
way.

> Its too much of a buzz word right now. But then that brings up
> other questions for me. Why have not the other types of psi ever caught
> on with the general public? Been around a lot longer.....astral projection
> .....OBE....psychometry.....channeling....etc.

Well,,,,,,where have you been hiding? I'm 52 years old and to my
knowledge these
things have been around and are accepted within their acknowledged
limits....although, i've known only one really good psychometrist...
don't care for the hype surrounding channeling now, of course that's
because I learned about the phenomena through Jane Roberts and Seth in
the '70s and compared to the work that was done there(in conjunction I
might add with physicists who explored the work with Jane and Rob) most
of what comes out now seems really superficial.
OBE? Lots of folks are still exploring this one...from my limited
perspective there is something to this, but it's not so clear cut as
folks would like it to be. We'd like to think we take a little trip
across town and look at what our friend or competitor is doing and come
back with clear cut valid down to earth information.... But wait a
minute ... i ended up talking to aunt Sally who's been dead for fifteen
years...or, it wasn't EXACTLY as I saw it... some of the data was
correct ... some wasn't... hmmmmmmm sound a little like RV?

> One reason may be that none of the others provide any consistency or
> high level of success. The same may be true of RV once the wild claims of 100%
> accuracy are disproved. And again I would like to see here or anywhere,
> samples from those new or old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high
> data resolution
> claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut
> their stuff.

Who EVER made this claim????????
This is the attitude that baffles me the most. If we are waiting for
someone to
prove high hit rates, and not willing to take say even a 30% rate of
success,
which is an improvement over our normal state of consciousness, what is
this
game about? I've spent a lifetime joyfully developing one inch at a
time and it
is a real disappointment to see this attitude appear on the scene. I
truly don't
understand why anyone would take the path of least resistance when it
applies to
their own psychic development. In all due respect, all of the folks from
the Ft.Mead group on PJ's list (which are all I've heard from) and Hal
Puthoff (whom I met briefly) are all humble fellows with their heads on
their shoulders and a sense of one step at a time. There is no other way
to deal with one's interior landscape which is what it's all about.
Whether it's RV, OBE, meditation, psychometry, scrying, etc. it's all
about knowing yourself enough to trust that you can move outside of the
normal boundaries of self and make it home again.

Shelia


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Congratulations Steve 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/79)

 09:36:40

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Congratulations Steve,

On your growing discussion list ; ) What was that about
only a couple of posts a week...LOL Great to see so many
quality discussions, keep up the good work.

Aloha Yaana


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/80)

 09:36:51

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Science vs. Scientism

At 12:52 AM 6/27/98 -0400, you wrote:

>This is precisely what I like about the UT site.

Gosh, Rich--where were you when I was getting hammered on PJ's list for
cozying up to the nasty ol' skeptics?!? ;-)

>"revelations" that there were/are apparently more than one people/military
>groups/projects who were not aware of each other going back many years.

I'm not sure I've been convinced of this yet, but I'm willing to keep an
open mind!

>again I would like to see here or anywhere, samples from those new or
>old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high data resolution
>claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut
>their stuff.

Rich, you're my hero! I've been hoping for the same thing--though I'm
proud of some of the "amateurs" that have been posting already.

>Oh yeah....dont forget your t-shirts.... :)

Neat idea! Wish I'd thought of it first. Then I could open a haberdashery
and forget about teaching this stuff. Save a lot of headaches... ;-)

Enjoy!
Paul



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/81)

 09:37:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Science vs. Scientism

Hi Paul, Rich, List :)

>>This is precisely what I like about the UT site.
>Gosh, Rich--where were you when I was getting hammered on PJ's list for
>cozying up to the nasty ol' skeptics?!? ;-)

I think me and Rich were being the "nasty, vicious mean-spirited skeptics"
that we secretly are, and that manifested itself by us leaving you to fight the
skeptic's corner all on your own.. ;-)

Seriously, I just didn't feel comfortable with the idea of coming across
as a skeptic on PJ's list. Period. I kept playing with the idea, though..

At least you guys can relax easy now knowing that the List Owner here
is sympathetic to skeptics. I'm not going to rip anyone to shreds for
thinking critically or asking difficult questions here :)

>>again I would like to see here or anywhere, samples from those new or
>>old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high data resolution
>>claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut
>>their stuff.

>Rich, you're my hero! I've been hoping for the same thing--though I'm
>proud of some of the "amateurs" that have been posting already.

I've been crying out for sites like the UT skeptic site for ages. Okay,
so perhaps they're not doing a -perfect- job handling the experiments,
(if all the criticisms are valid, which I wouldn't know, because I haven't
been trained in remote-viewing.. hint ;), but could -anyone- do a
perfect job of running a public experiment like that? I don't think
they're doing that badly.

>>Oh yeah....dont forget your t-shirts.... :)
>Neat idea! Wish I'd thought of it first. Then I could open a haberdashery
>and forget about teaching this stuff. Save a lot of headaches... ;-)

Hey, there's a lot more opportunities to make money out there, Paul!

For example, asking a $20 subscription fee to subscribe to a remote-
viewing e-mail list.. ;-)

(Relax guys, I'm joking!! :)

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/82)

 09:37:27

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Rich Krankoski wrote:
>This is precisely what I like about the UT site. I think that the
>failures make the hits stand out even more. RV sorely needs
>some "down to earth" publicity/demonstrations.
>
>Sensationalism has put things in a bad light and there seems to
>be no one wanting/willing/able to fix it.

Here, here!

Rich, I agree completely. If psi is for real, as I believe it likely
is, there is nothing to lose through public demonstrations, and so
much to gain. By laying down some guidelines on how psi
will be tested for, and then performing these experiments, the
public can participate in experiments to test for psi.

Assuming that those without any psi ability will score chance
results, and those with psi abilities (which many feel, is
everyone), will perform above chance. Statistically, you'd
expect the overall result to be "above chance" if psi exists,
even if we've got a lot of 'bad psychics' doing the experiments
who score at chance level.

(I'm not saying what I'm meaning to say in the way I'm
meaning to say it, but I hope what I'm trying to say is
clear :)

It is all nice and well for scientists to perform lab experiments
to test for psi and gauge it's accuracy, but there is a very
good reason why experiments are not performed at one
lab only, and is repeated at other labs.

It's because the other labs won't take the first lab's conclusions
on faith. They want to see replication - being able to repeat
the experiment and come out with the same results.

Since 95% of the lab's data isn't for the public's eyes, we're
not in a good situation to be able to judge if their conclusions
are accurate, or if the experiments were performed properly.

Many people are crying out to see everything the lab has,
or a public demonstration that repeats the experiments in
a public setting such as a website.

The only way we can do that, is either for the labs to release
their full data, for us to join that lab (unlikely) and see it for
ourselves, or.. to repeat their experiments in a public setting.

That's why I like sites such as the UT skeptics site - they
are attempting to test for psi, and publishing everything
openly. I wish labs could do that, but I realise it's probably
not practical for them to do so. So the UT site and things
like it are the next best thing IMO.

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/83)

 09:38:26

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Well, Gene!

I was about to e-mail you. Glad you found your way to Steve's e-mail
group. Don't know how a red-blooded Irish lad like yourself can manage to
participate in a group hosted out of the homeland of the English oppressor,
but I know Steve to be a tolerant sort, so I'm sure he'll manage to put up
with the likes o' ya' .

Enjoy!
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/84)

 09:38:52

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

In a message dated 98-06-26 21:39:15 EDT, you write:

<<
So yes this is happening in the now, being a good viewer enables you to
sense when and where
remote influencing is going on to a higher degree than normal. This other
group was well organized
and well financed who knows what their full time mission goals might be.
>>
PUHHLLLEEEEZZZ!...I almost left PJ Gaenir's site because of this same sort of
drivel. I find it really amazing that the military remote viewing team was
organized specifically to test whether remote influencing were possible. With
a staff of sometimes as many as a dozen viewers, millions of dollars worth of
the taxpayers dollars and literally thousands of sessions, we were never
REPEAT NEVER NIE, NADA..NICHTS etc...ever able to replicate any incident of
remote influencing and we even brought in some of the most famous folks in the
psychic business to see if they could do...same results....so with millions of
dollars, the best facilities, thousands or hours of practice all of which was
carefully monitored and recorded...not won bloodyu nose, not one
headache...not one pencil raised and stuck into the wall and not won desk ever
got levatated...As to other "groups" being out there (where??????) who were
using RV for some deep dark dastardly plot...well my friends...they never
bothered us as we were as about as deep, dark and dastardly as you can
get...we never "saw them" - "ran into them".."challenged them" or in anyway
encountered them...We wanted very much to use RV for influencing...the idea
being that we could influence political thought in an adversary or reset
guidance systems in missles...SORRY...none of that ever occurred nor could be
ever EVER EVER even "influence" ourselves, lotteries (I say that now before
someone comes on line and says they are winning the lottery with RV...another
load of manure...) or anything else of importance...hell we could not even
keep flowers growing....so before anyone buys into this fecal matter without
an opposing (and knowledgeable point of view)...let me say that this line of
topics will only enrage me further and make more more irritable in the
future...I am not called Ghengis Gene by my students for nothing...
Slainte...(thats Irish for Cheers...and yes being born in Ireland...a bit o
heavan on Earth is probably why I have this type of temper...sorry....)
Gene...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/85)

 09:39:06

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

<<
It is great to see experienced viewers join the discussion group, now we
students
can really learn :)
Aloha Yaana >>
Aloha Yaana...
You know, I was in Hawaii (Oahu) last month for three days on business and I
should add that I come to Hawaii about three times a year...usually for a
similarly short period of time...next time I plan a trip, and if you are on
Oahu, I will make it a point to meet with you and any of you students or team
for a little discussion session or even a remote viewing session where I will
act a monitor..(being one of the best monitors in the business mind
you...hahaha)....Yaana was not enough to find you in the phonebook (I did
tryu)...but next time I will let you know in advance..I always stay at the
Reef in Waikikki...so no matter what...if you get the word late .. just call
the Reef and we can work up something from there...
Slainte...(Irish version of Aloha...)


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/86)

 09:39:27

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> > Its too much of a buzz word right now. But then that brings up
> > other questions for me. Why have not the other types of psi ever caught
> > on with the general public? Been around a lot longer.....astral projection
> > .....OBE....psychometry.....channeling....etc.
>
> Well,,,,,,where have you been hiding? I'm 52 years old and to my
> knowledge these
> things have been around and are accepted within their acknowledged
> limits....although, i've known only one really good psychometrist...
> don't care for the hype surrounding channeling now, of course that's
> because I learned about the phenomena through Jane Roberts and Seth in
> the '70s and compared to the work that was done there(in conjunction I
> might add with physicists who explored the work with Jane and Rob) most
> of what comes out now seems really superficial.

Ditto! Absence of knowledge does not reality make. Among all that New Age
dribble, there are some "legitimate" stuff
going on out there folks!

> > One reason may be that none of the others provide any consistency or
> > high level of success. The same may be true of RV once the wild claims of
100%
> > accuracy are disproved. And again I would like to see here or anywhere,
> > samples from those new or old to the ability...and who make the high hit,
high
> > data resolution
> > claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut
> > their stuff.

> I truly don't
> understand why anyone would take the path of least resistance when it
> applies to
> their own psychic development.

Boy, does this baffle me also! Why would anyone want to prove to themselves that
their inherent psychic ability
doesn't exist through observation of others. That boggles my mind. Funny thing
is, psychic abilities are so strong
that it can't
help "popping out" once in awhile in our daily activities. Instead people prefer
to deny it, ignore it, bash it or
take it for granted. Really weird!


> Hal Puthoff (whom I met briefly) are all humble fellows with their heads on
> their shoulders and a sense of one step at a time.

Surely a genius in our mist....

> There is no other way
> to deal with one's interior landscape which is what it's all about.
> Whether it's RV, OBE, meditation, psychometry, scrying, etc. it's all
> about knowing yourself enough to trust that you can move outside of the
> normal boundaries of self and make it home again.

Wow...a most insightful post, Sheila...the spirit is with you!

electrix


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/87)

 09:39:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello Gene!
Thanks for clearing up the issue about remote influencing. I had never
heard anything like Jeffrey was posting, that is why I posted it onto
Steve's list for comments.
AquaSerene and I have a friend, Bob, who "claims" he does remote
viewing. But in our opinion Bob is a little "off in the head" --but
generally a likeable guy. He claims that when he was remote viewing a
nuclear reactor that his physical legs got burned (like a sunburn) and
that he was sick for several days. He calls it light radiation sickness.
We just stare at Bob when he talks like this. He claims he has witnesses
although we have yet to meet one. I don't believe him. I don't think
AquaSerene does either but I can't speak for her.

He picks targets that we can't verify so we have no idea about the
accuracy of his "remote viewing". I think he just imagines it all.

Jane


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/88)

 09:39:58

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> You know, I was in Hawaii (Oahu) last month for three days on business and I
> should add that I come to Hawaii about three times a year...usually for a
> similarly short period of time...next time I plan a trip, and if you are on
> Oahu, I will make it a point to meet with you and any of you students or team
> for a little discussion session or even a remote viewing session where I will
> act a monitor..(being one of the best monitors in the business mind
> you...hahaha)....Yaana was not enough to find you in the phonebook (I did
> tryu)...but next time I will let you know in advance..I always stay at the
> Reef in Waikikki...so no matter what...if you get the word late .. just call
> the Reef and we can work up something from there...
> Slainte...(Irish version of Aloha...)

Outragious, I am looking forward to it, Given how short your time is, I guess
I
will have to tell the group.... LOL rather than be selfish and have you monitor
just me in a session, and knowing our students and instructor they would all
love
to discuss RV with you and I would never hear the end of it. I guess this is
not our secret any more :)

I will email you my phone number so you can let me know the dates of your next
trip, I do live on Oahu, only about 10 minutes from Waikiki.

Aloha Nui Loa (Aloha very much :)
Yaana


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 RV may make you live longer 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/89)

 09:40:11

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

[stargate] RV may make you live longer

Taken in snips from the current issue of the Spectator:-

Many doctors and psychologists believe that by playing...... mind
stretching games such as bridge, crossword puzzles, draughts or scrabble,
you maximise your chances of a long and healthy life, and, perhaps more
importantly, one remains at a high, even increasing level of mental
activity....

Professor Arnold Scheibel, former head of the Brain Research Institute at
the University of California says" Anything that is intellectually
challenging can probably serve as a kind of stimulus for dendritic growth,
which means it adds to the computation reserves in your brain. Do puzzles,
try a musical instrument, try the arts, tournament bridge or chess; and
remember, researchers agree it is never too late. All of life should be a
learning experience, because we are challenging our brain and therefore
building brain circuitry. Literally, this is the way the brain operates."

Quote ends.

Well, RV is certainly challenging and a consistant learning experience.
And now its even good for you  Now, if I could only get my 50 year
old body to feel like my 35 year young mind, sigh.

Lovely to see so many of my friends here.

In Friendship and Light. MaryD


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Two Lists in One 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/90)

 09:40:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

hello steve

if you ask me i think it would be better if this list wont split cuz i think
rv people intrested in psi and psi people intrested in rv. and wich are both
the same thing...

Eyal


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/91)

 09:40:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> He picks targets that we can't verify

There's your answer: _HE_ picks his own targets? What's the point of the
RV?
My sister ran into a whole load of folks out in NM who had E.D. tapes
months
before they ever came out or better yet had been RVing with ED...one
woman who claimed her son left
the army because they had him RVing - after they did genetic testing on
him
cause his mama's a "psychic".... (i.e., she channels aliens)... oh the
stories are everywhere and getting weirder every day... just listen to
your
gut: if it sounds too good to be true (i.e., 100% hit rate) it is. If
it's
too flakey for you, don't override your good judgment just because the
words
Remote Viewing are attached.
Shelia


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Hi Laura 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/92)

 09:40:56

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello Jane,
Thanks for replying. I am hestitant, for concern we probably didn't
follow 'protocol' correctly....but..here goes.
I will try to summarize what a small group of totally untrained
people did for a short period of time, about six months or so. Three
people had read books and articles on Remote Viewing, and two others
had no knowledge of it per se. A sixth person later joined us,
having not read any literature beforehand, but later went on to read
books and articles. All were very interested in the subject.
Two of us had met in real life, the rest had never seen one another
face to face. After we stopped, two more people met in real life.
Three of the group continue to have contact with one another, with
the rest of the group occassionally communicating through emails.
The group used computer "chat" as a way to meet. All arrangements
were at a specific time and day of the week, usually Friday nights
worked the best.
Since all were total amateurs, we attempted several different
experiments. No one knew who would be accurate Viewers nor Monitors
when we first began, so it was agreed that each person would attempt
each.
The people who had read literature suggested techniques from J.
McMoneagle's book _Mind Trek_ to begin with. We later used other
information from the literature. some of it helpful, some of it not.
One person was selected as a person who had to be in charge of the
target...thus they had to stand down or sit out as Viewer or Monitor.
Five were left.
Of the five, one was a sort of recorder of all events that happened,
thus also not a Viewer or Monitor per se. We named these roles as we
saw fit and agreed among the 6 of us.
We had some problems with how to communicate with the person in
charge of the target...someone had to be told what it was, so this
recorder person was allowed to learn it to begin with. Primitive, but
we had to start somewhere. 
Each of the four people left divided into two sets of pairs, a
Viewer and Monitor, all who were blind and had no idea what the
target was. Strict rule was no communications between the two pairs
and we all created private chat rooms in order to stay away from one
another. We 'recorded' the chats so that we could keep track of
conversations...although sometimes it appeared as if the screen was
blank with no talk at all.
We allowed ourselves 15 minutes to work. The recorder person would
keep track o fthe time and tell the person in charge of the target to
be silent....sometimes those two people paired up, other times we
separated them as well.
When the time was up, the entire group would rejoin and report the
results, whether successful or failures. We would attempt to conduct
three or four targets in an entire night at first, but sometimes we
were unable to do that.
Some people reported in well as Viewers, others seemed to gravitate
to Monitor equally well.
We varied the difficulty of the targets. At first, to give each
other practice we would begin with several objects. This became
confusing immediately, so the we learned it had to be one target only.
Most of these were simple however, such as favorite little objects
or knick knacks in our homes. The best successes worked when we all
knew that whatever the target was, was placed on top of a person's
computer monitor or near the keyboard. We did it this way because we
were working through the electronic medium. Had we continued, we were
planning to have the person in charge of the target "hide" it away
from their home or computer to make it more difficult. We did attempt
one session with photographs from a magazine (tucked inside a white
envelope) which was reported as a general failure all around.
There were some solid failures (with a lot of laughs from all) and
some very good successes. I can't break it down in exact percentages.
Some nights were excellent, others were just a bust.
For the short period of time that we ran this project, it certainly
created good friendships if nothing else.
One member insisted having no ability to RV at all. The same member
had a couple accurate hits so this helped esteem.
One member had no hits at all.
One member came close to being able to describe the targets a number
of times but could not name it exactly.
At least three of the group felt more comfortable as Monitor than as
Viewer.
Each member that RVed reported a "wandering" problem...meaning that
often he or she would see something that was not the target itself,
yet it often turned out to be something near or at the target
person's computer. One night, a Viewer ended up in in the back yard
of a fellow member and although accurate in the description of the
back yard, we had to call it a bust since it was NOT the back yard
that was supposed to be targeted. 
Our locations by the way were from different states...we had
midwesterners, easterners and southerners participating, with no one
from the west or southwest of the country. (Didn't know anyone from
those areas at the time...)
We varied these experiments ...one week the target person would
email the group and say simply "I am ready with the target and will
meet you at our regular time". Target person was NOT allowed to
contact even the recorder or reporter person beforehand and we were
scrupulous about not emailing or phone calling or attempts at
cheating before the meeting.
I know this is primitive, but untrained as we are/were, we still
learned a tremendous amount about RV at least for ourselves.
I hope this helps....I know we made tons of mistakes but it was
understood by all of us that this was to learn together. Thankfully,
no one fell into judgments such as "So and So is the best Viewer of
all of us" or this sort of thing. We proved to ourselves adequately,
that through electronic medium, it can be done if carefully set up.
The main reason why we ended up disbanding was unfortunate problems
in scheduling....two or three people could not come at a time, or
someone had a child to carpool, etc which required delays. Our
personal lives got in the way frequently enough so that we
eventually were forced to call an unofficial "time out" to the
entire idea.
Best wishes, Laura


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Hi Laura 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/93)

 09:41:11

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> ...snip We proved to ourselves adequately,
> that through electronic medium, it can be done if carefully set
> up....snip
> Best wishes, Laura

Hi Laura,You are to be commended for gleening data from books and putting
in so much effort. In the past year I have had many interesting
experiences assiciated with chat, and I have had several friends who do
what I would call tagging, with amazing results. Chat seems to act as
an attention focusing tool, which is the essence of protocols from what
ever the methods.

Keep up the good work :) We here in Hawaii have the benifit of working on
a weekly basis with an experienced veiwer, this is quite rare. The
students have talked many times about not being able to imagine how
difficult it would be to learn RV from a book or tape. Your persistance
is to be remarkable, keep up the good work:)

Aloha Yaana



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism/Psychometry 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/94)

 09:41:22

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Replying to recent Posts on the subject of Psychometry, it is hard to separate
this skill out, as it involves remote viewing against a 'hard' target (and
what else is a photograph? a person? a place?) beginning with the sense of
touch (energy sensing) and then going much much further.
It is part and parcel of what we are talking about; and although the
designation may not be as old-fashioned and awkward as 'clairvoyant' it is in
the same corral.

The skill is merely one way of working a target, and can be a 'doorway' for
beginners to learn to go further.

One of our problems in this place in time is in replacing outdated terminology
with more realistic words and definitions. My 1979 book on the subject of
Psychometry was an attempt to outline and define just what the .....
'psychometry' (mind measure) consists of and how it may be understood,
learned and used.
Florence Sternfels was the most well known of pure 'psychometrists' but she
didn't understand how she did what she did. (and in her time was regarded as
almost some type of 'freak' )
It has turned out to be a fairly popular book, although half the people who
ordered it might not have known or understood just what the word meant. :)
(and many still do not)

I submit, however, that with these replacements and better
definition/clarification of the mind skill/s we are discussing, it has become
easier for scientists to grapple with the dimensions of what is involved in
PSI. As well, it allows for the application of quantum physics and theory to
provide some answers.
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/95)

 09:41:33

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hey you'all Let's not get so aboggled down with the UT site that we forget
Dr. Dean Radin's at www.psiresearch/org/ even if he does think it's
precognition when a hit is scored!
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Two Lists in One 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/96)

 09:41:52

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

I would like to concur.
I believe PJ's thought that the PSI List would 'open the floodgates' has
proven to be untrue, at least so far; and that both Lists should be kept 'face
to face' lol.
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Two Lists in One 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/97)

 09:42:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Two Lists in One

That MAKES 3 concurrences, Steve.

electrix

USPsiSquad@... wrote:

> I would like to concur.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/98)

 09:42:19

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Science vs. Scientism

Yes...a great site...althought I haven't been there in a while since his new
book was release. Will have to check it out!

electrix

USPsiSquad@... wrote:

> Hey you'all Let's not get so aboggled down with the UT site that we forget
> Dr. Dean Radin's at www.psiresearch/org/ even if he does think it's
> precognition when a hit is scored!
> Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Science vs. Scientism/Psychometry 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/99)

 09:42:30

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Science vs. Scientism/Psychometry

NOW we are talking the SAME language....

An organize body of work to test the Psi nature instead of scientifically
reducing
it to JUST figures and "hit" results (i.e. from the ethereal to the concrete)
would seem more expanding and progressive. Certainly, in this world we all want
to
be CERTAIN, but let's face it...not everything that exist comes neatly packaged.
The right tool for the proper project... is my chant....

Will have to check into this Psychometry....

It is indeed a philosophical conundrum of what constitutes low level and high
level concepts as it is. Low-level concept as expounded by James D. Weinland in
"How To Think Straight" "Low-level concepts have obvious referents in the
physical world." Thus we find it easy to perceive with our senses the material
aspect of existence and represent them closely enough to the label we give it.
A
chair becomes an easy referent to visualize and take a solid account of.

But what happens when the concept is far remove from the senses? "Many
high-level
concepts are drawn from other abstractions and consequently have no close
physical
referent." In this realm of thinking we are swiming in ethereal mist, not
dissimilar from the PSI.

So what is a human to do? Weinland further explores "Since the primary function
of concepts is to relate experience, however, value is attributed to high-level
concepts even when they have no direct objective referents. Thus the concept of
morality leads to the examination of many activities with consequent integration
of information and improvement of judgement."

This is the stuff Plato spoke about when he spoke of the Forms. A prestine
"element" that is the template to existence with no referent to the physical.
It
is here where mental manipulation can occur. It is here where cult and mystic
leaders tend to dominate the mental beliefs of unwitting devotees. Nothing to
"physically" prove... since it can't be, yet it can be believed and EXPERIENCED,
and therefore, just accepted as IS.

There is a strong correlation with high-level concept and aspects of the PSI. So
we should be ever vigilant and avoid the distortion of the metaphysical and the
pre-tense that is dominantly a scientific endeavor. Better
definition/clarification and the scientific analogy and application to Quantum
Physics and Theory sounds legitimate to me.

electrix



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Quantum and Psi 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/100)

 09:42:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear Stargate members,
I posted this to the psi-list but it may have not been seen by most of
you. It concerns and experiment conducted by Joe McMoneagle and Ed May
at SRI in 1987 to actually test whether RV takes place at the quantum
level and obeys quantum physics rules. The experiment ran out of money
before reaching a firm conclusion, but I think it is on heck of a first
try and would love to see it repeated.


Dear George, To cut to the chase: What Joe McMoneagle and coworkers
attempted was the classical double slit experiment that has been done
for 60 years or so. Electrons are emitted towards two narrow slits one
at a time. If unobserved (or whatever interpretation you apply to an
observer) by the experimentalist the electrons will seem to pass
through both slits at the same time and produce an interferrence
pattern when they hit a second target. This occurs even when only one
electron goes at a time. However, if an observer checks WHICH slit the
electron goes through, then the electrons act like individual particles
and NO interference is seen, rather a shotgun pattern is seen. The
recent study in Nature demonstrates as never before that this observer
induced change is not the result of any classical change induced by the
observer { Nature , Vol. 391, pp. 871-874),. It is a typical quantum
effect, non-local and very psi- like in terms that it is induced only
by the seeming knowledge of which slit the elctron goes through. Joes
group repeated this experiment and tried observing the electrons using
RV and using instruments to determine if psychic knowledge of which
slit the electron goes through was tantamount to a real knowledge of
which slit the elctron goes through e.g. does Rving the electron cause
the change tfrom interference pattern to shotgun pattern on the second
target. AS mentioned above. Joe felt that determining by RV which slit
the electron went through was not difficult, and that this observation
did induce changes in the behaviour of the electron. However, no
conclusive results were obtained before the budget ran out, mainly
becasue of instrumental difficulties. Now I ( as best I can) have
used the Bohr interpretation of the double slit experiment just to get
this point accross. But I do not wish to get hung up on which quantum
model is used here. The point is that it should be possible to
determine definitely whether psychic observation equates to (or does
not equate to) real obseration on the quantum level. I think that would
be an enormous advance to the field. You are correct that it will still
depend on measurements and statistics, but it implies a mechanism of
psi ( and probably of mind) that at least interfaces with known physics
and is testable. Now even if successful, one would have to be careful
to see if the changes are similar to those induced by real observation.
PK effects in this interpretation would presumably be do psychic
observation of rare quantum events in the mind of the psychic, thus
collapsing the quantum probablility towards the favored ( visualized)
event. Thus precipitating the unlikely or miraculous from the
mundane. Careful comparisons would have to be done to determine if the
psi effects were justifiably interpreted as observer-like effects or
were do to some other mechanism of PK. That is all that Joe could
tell me at this time. I have not been able to contact other members of
his team. Sincerely, Bill Pendergrass

stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Do personal religious beliefs affect rving? 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/101)

 11:21:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

A friend and I were sitting around talking about remote viewing and
religious beliefs. We wondered if a viewer, who was an aethist, would
react if they were given the target of the cruxification of Jesus? We
also wondered how those with structured religious beliefs (like in the
major Christian religions) deal with information from targets that do not
support their belief systems? For example --- the big bang and orgin of
mankind.

If you came across Archangel Michael, what would you do? Would your
belief hinder or help you view the target? When my friend found herself
face to chest with Michael, she let him make the first move. She was
curious as to what he would do. My friend did a slow merge with Michael
(which was obviously fine with him). He was a massive presence. If my
friend were Catholic or Mormon or whatever, would she had placed a lot of
religious significance to the encounter? My friend basically thought it
was very "cool" but did not wonder why he was appearing to her at the
time.

No, we were not drunk when we had this conversation. This idea came up
over coffee. However, my friend chooses to remain anonymous at this time.
Please address your comments to anonymous -- not to me. I am just the
messenger. Looking forward to an active discussion.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Quantum and Psi 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/102)

 11:21:30

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> Dear George, To cut to the chase: What Joe McMoneagle and coworkers
> attempted was the classical double slit experiment that has been done
> for 60 years or so. Electrons are emitted towards two narrow slits one
> at a time. If unobserved (or whatever interpretation you apply to an
> observer) by the experimentalist the electrons will seem to pass
> through both slits at the same time and produce an interferrence
> pattern when they hit a second target. This occurs even when only one
> electron goes at a time. However, if an observer checks WHICH slit the
> electron goes through, then the electrons act like individual particles
> and NO interference is seen, rather a shotgun pattern is seen. The
> recent study in Nature demonstrates as never before that this observer
> induced change is not the result of any classical change induced by the
> observer { Nature , Vol. 391, pp. 871-874),.

A quantum system may be deterministically driven to a preselected outcome
by repeated resampling (checking to see if it is in the desired states).
This is the Quantum Zeno Effect, if memory serves.

> It is a typical quantum
> effect, non-local and very psi- like in terms that it is induced only
> by the seeming knowledge of which slit the elctron goes through. Joes
> group repeated this experiment and tried observing the electrons using
> RV and using instruments

IMHO they did not do enough thinking about how to construct a meaningful
psi experiment. Most experimenters use an obsolete Newtonian paradigm,
in which they assume that the experimenter and apparatus are Newtonian,
but the psi action is quantum!

> to determine if psychic knowledge of which
> slit the electron goes through was tantamount to a real knowledge of
> which slit the elctron goes through e.g. does Rving the electron cause
> the change tfrom interference pattern to shotgun pattern on the second
> target. AS mentioned above. Joe felt that determining by RV which slit
> the electron went through was not difficult, and that this observation
> did induce changes in the behaviour of the electron. However, no
> conclusive results were obtained before the budget ran out, mainly
> becasue of instrumental difficulties.

I wonder why they did this. There are many good psi studies which could
be reinterpereted from a quantum standpoint.

Now, some people believe that quantum effects occur only in very tiny
measurements. Henry Stapp (physicist) argued this point 5 or 6 years
ago. Henry thought that the macro Universe is classical and the micro
Universe is quantum. --I think that's silly & said so at the time.

Since that time I have come to believe that the Universe all works the
same way, whatever that is, and that the evidence for quantum effects is
really better than *the evidence for classical physics.* To get a good
classical result, the experimenters throw out everything else. Ask them
yourself! The weird stuff early in the experiment is written off to
startup problems and "gremlins". They run the experiment until their
values converge. This assumes that there is a true universal mean from
which their estimates differ by some error factor. *This may not be
true*.

[Note that I have not said the above is categorically true of
experimenters, but only that it is very frequently true.]

The location of an electron is not a quantity we-don't-know-and-must-
estimate-statistically; it is undefined.


Now I ( as best I can) have
> used the Bohr interpretation of the double slit experiment just to get
> this point accross. But I do not wish to get hung up on which quantum
> model is used here. The point is that it should be possible to
> determine definitely whether psychic observation equates to (or does
> not equate to) real obseration on the quantum level.

Shiva's teeth, how can anyone possibly doubt this? If you can *observe*
something and turn in verifiable results, you have observed it in the
quantum sense no matter what mode of observation you used.

I think that would
> be an enormous advance to the field. You are correct that it will still
> depend on measurements and statistics, but it implies a mechanism of
> psi ( and probably of mind) that at least interfaces with known physics
> and is testable. Now even if successful, one would have to be careful
> to see if the changes are similar to those induced by real observation.

You mean, observation by something that has a soul? Or maybe observation
by a human being?

I have always wondered why people don't think Schroedinger's cat would
know whether it was dead or not. My cat would know. I'd like to see a
decent proof that human consciousness can collapse the state vector,
whereas cat or screwdriver consciousness cannot.

> PK effects in this interpretation would presumably be do psychic
> observation of rare quantum events in the mind of the psychic, thus
> collapsing the quantum probablility towards the favored ( visualized)
> event. Thus precipitating the unlikely or miraculous from the
> mundane. Careful comparisons would have to be done to determine if the
> psi effects were justifiably interpreted as observer-like effects or
> were do to some other mechanism of PK.

What method would you use to distinguish them?

> That is all that Joe could
> tell me at this time. I have not been able to contact other members of
> his team. Sincerely, Bill Pendergrass

Shelley Thomson


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/103)

 11:21:46

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 Curran2106@... wrote:
> PUHHLLLEEEEZZZ!...I almost left PJ Gaenir's site because of this same sort of
> drivel. I find it really amazing that the military remote viewing team was
> organized specifically to test whether remote influencing were possible. With
> a staff of sometimes as many as a dozen viewers, millions of dollars worth of
> the taxpayers dollars and literally thousands of sessions, we were never
> REPEAT NEVER NIE, NADA..NICHTS etc...ever able to replicate any incident of
> remote influencing and we even brought in some of the most famous folks in the
> psychic business to see if they could do...same results....so with millions of
> dollars, the best facilities, thousands or hours of practice all of which was
> carefully monitored and recorded...not won bloodyu nose, not one
> headache...not one pencil raised and stuck into the wall and not won desk ever
> got levatated...

These were the remote influencing results you wanted to get? Bloody
nose, headache, pencil stuck into wall, and so forth?

It doesn't surprise me that you failed. The anthropological literature
and historical record are rich in accounts of remote influencing. The
suggestion that none of this actually took place *because you and your
cohorts could not do it* is absurd.

Can yu stick pencils into walls by thought power in ordinary situations?
If not, why should you popose this as a test for remote influencing?
There is a large collection of good laboratory studies of
psychokinesis. These are studies of remote influencing. Do you have a
problem with them?



> We wanted very much to use RV for influencing...the idea
> being that we could influence political thought in an adversary or reset
> guidance systems in missles...SORRY...none of that ever occurred nor could be
> ever EVER EVER even "influence" ourselves, lotteries (I say that now before
> someone comes on line and says they are winning the lottery with RV...another
> load of manure...)

Influencing lotteries is an entirely different problem than influencing
thought of a human being or sensitive electronics. Lotteries are hard
because a) the Universe doesn't care whether a given bit is a 1 or a 5;
and b) most state lotteries are crooked. Lotteries are a wast of time.

Remote influencing certainly does work. Psychokinesis and healing are
remote techniques.

Shelley Thomson



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Do personal religious beliefs affect rving? 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/104)

 11:22:00

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

<< if a viewer, who was an aethist, would
react if they were given the target of the cruxification of Jesus? We
also wondered how those with structured religious beliefs (like in the
major Christian religions) deal with information from targets that do not
support their belief systems? For example --- the big bang and orgin of
mankind. >>
If a viewer were asked to view a ficticious target - something that did not
really ever exist - the viewer would not find it or as a minimum, while
thrashing around the ether, trying to find it..they may actually begin to
Psychic-Overlay the target...in other words go to only place it actually
exists, in the mind of the tasker. On the other hand, if the target did
actually exist in history - the Crucifixion of a man called Jesus ca. 20 BC -
30 AD, a viewer could view the event and view any phenomena which may have
occured, darkening of the skys, piercing of the chest and flow of
water...things described in scriptures. The fact the viewer was an atheist
would make no difference since they are operating in the right side of the
brain and only viewing and reporting what they perceive at face value. They
may even perceive emotional impacts of the gathered masses. This same
aetheist would perceive the impact and activities of a Buddha, a Mohammed etc,
in exactly the same manner. A spiritual encounter with something identified
as St. Michael would be more difficult to absolutely clarify. Keep in mind, a
name or even a title does not translate well in Remote Viewing although an
angelic perception may well overcome this phenomena. As to why a Christian
Saint would appear to a mortal has and will continue be a theological question
and certainly nothing which this poor ignorant Mick from the wrong side of the
tracks in Belfast would want to venture an opinion. A viewing of Apollo,
Zeus, Diana, etc..now that is something else...these were mythical deities
with no real or factual proof of actual mortal existence therefore, viewing
these fairy tales would bring into great doubt the veracity of the viewer. I
should add, that I feel essentially as shortsighted with most (not all)
reports of associations and psychic tea parties and conversations with alien
beings but please not I do not have a similarly closed mind when it comes to
Celtic spirits and Fairies...ironic..but like I said..I am Irish and we are
allowed to be a bit eccentric..it is in our blood...
Gene Kincaid...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/105)

 11:22:19

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

<< Remote influencing certainly does work. Psychokinesis and healing are
remote techniques.

Shelley Thomson
>>
Myself, a couple dozen world class viewers working thousands a test under the
most amazing oversights and controls along with about 20M$ worth of taxpayer
dollars proved you to be wrong..but that is only my opinion...believe what you
will but I assure you, not even four dozen viewers and 40M$ worth of Uncle
Sugars money would have changed the results...sorry...but that is fact...and I
can be just as hard case about it as those who really believe in the parlor
tricks which they claim to be remote influencing...
Gene Kincaid...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/106)

 11:22:34

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> << Remote influencing certainly does work. Psychokinesis and healing are
> remote techniques.
>
> Shelley Thomson
> >>
> Myself, a couple dozen world class viewers working thousands a test under the
> most amazing oversights and controls along with about 20M$ worth of taxpayer
> dollars proved you to be wrong..but that is only my opinion...believe what you
> will but I assure you, not even four dozen viewers and 40M$ worth of Uncle
> Sugars money would have changed the results...sorry...

The fact that you could not do it certainly does not prove that others
cannot. Why don't you read the research literature? There are *many*
studies dealing with remote influencing. Rubik & Rauscher? Robert
Jahn? etc. There is no shortage of evidence on this issue.

Shelley Thomson


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/107)

 11:23:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> the taxpayers dollars and literally thousands of sessions, we were never
> REPEAT NEVER NIE, NADA..NICHTS etc...ever able to replicate any incident of
> remote influencing and we even brought in some of the most famous folks in
the
> psychic business to see if they could do...same results....so with millions
of
> dollars, the best facilities, thousands or hours of practice all of which
was
> carefully monitored and recorded...not won bloodyu nose, not one
> headache...not one pencil raised and stuck into the wall and not won desk
ever
> got levatated...

These were the remote influencing results you wanted to get? Bloody
nose, headache, pencil stuck into wall, and so forth?

Gads . . . . thats not what he said . . . . read the letter again doll ,
use the left side of your brain . . . . . .

It doesn't surprise me that you failed. >>

Gene does not fail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ever.



stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/108)

 11:23:17

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Gene wrote:
If a viewer were asked to view a ficticious target - something that did
not
really ever exist - the viewer would not find it or as a minimum, while
thrashing around the ether, trying to find it..they may actually begin to
Psychic-Overlay the target...in other words go to only place it actually
exists, in the mind of the tasker.

Gene,
My question is: did this happen to Courtney Brown? His book is kind of
off the wall. Was most of it psychic overlay, vivid imagination, or real
remote viewing? I mean is Buddha really governing the Galatic Federation?
Courtney self appoints himself to represent all of mankind! Underground
bases of Martians, etc. What is going on here?
I guess I just don't understand psychic overlay. Could that also be
what happened when he and others saw a companion object with the Hale
Bopp comet?
I hope my questions aren't too elementary. I appreciate your patience
with newbies! I highly value your opinion. Thanks.

Jane


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/109)

 11:23:45

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

It doesn't surprise me that you failed. The anthropological literature
and historical record are rich in accounts of remote influencing. The
suggestion that none of this actually took place *because you and your
cohorts could not do it* is absurd. >>


absurd? Woman.... who are you talking too?
"none of this actually took place *because you and your
cohorts could not do it* "

"Remote Influencing" works if both parties are agreered upon the influence ...
(do ya wanna be...) with the majority of the tested populace at 78-102 IQ
(MENSA) .... ya I would say that if you wanted to remote influence someone you
could ... but only if the recipient was in agreement to accept
suggestion...... Try a 75 IQer.....


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/110)

 11:24:00

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Jane--

I could tell from Gene's typing style that he was either: 1) Really wound
up and writing faster than he could think of the right words in one of the
various languages he knows; 2) Suffering from jetlag from one of his
junkets--er, "business trips to exotic areas of the world on the taxpayers
dime"; 3) A wee bit under the weather from too much association with this
Guiness fellow he's always metioning (no, folks, we ain't talking world
records, here); or 4) All of the above.

I shall therefore graciously undertake to answer for him! ;-)

What Gene was talking about is also known as "telepathic overlay." It was
the subject of much discussion some months back on PJ's VWR group.
Telepathic overlay is tuning in on someone else's thoughtforms instead of
the desired target. This can come about in several ways. One is if the
viewer is undisciplined or inexperienced, and he/she just picks up on
someone's strong "vibes." Another is when several viewers are addressing
the same target, and the viewer's subconscious gets confused and picks up
on one of the other viewers. In this case, one might never know it
happened, if the other viewer was "on target." Very closely matching
reports is a POSSIBLE indicator in this case that TOL has occurred.

A third way TOL occurs is when the viewer is tasked against a target that
doesn't exist in reality, but only in the mind of the tasker. Perhaps, for
example, the tasker believes a certain UFO event occurred, though it turns
out the "event" was made up by someone the tasker mistaenly trusted. When
tasked, the viewer "goes out looking" for the presumed target, but the
subconsious finding nothing, it may sometimes latch on to the strongest
"psychic signal" available--the beliefs of the tasker. In which case the
viewer reports exactly what the tasker expected him/her to report, thus
confirming everything the tasker originally believed.

The irony is that telepathic overlay IS being psychic--it's just being
pyschic in an unuseful and (usually) unfortunate way. I should point out
that, though Ingo knows about this phenomenon, he did not teach us about
it. We had to find out the HARD way!

HaHa Gene--beat you to it!

Enjoy!
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Do personal religious beliefs affect rving? 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/111)

 11:24:14

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

<< angelic perception may well overcome this phenomena. As to why a Christian
Saint would appear to a mortal has and will continue be a theological
question
and certainly nothing which this poor ignorant Mick from the wrong side of
the
tracks in Belfast >>


Well, having a wee bit O Irish blood in myself, most assuredly from the wrong
side of the tracks, guess I am entitled to be a bit eccentric also
(temper included)
Now ... just why wouldn't The Michael, come too, join with, mere mortals.
We are all immortal, as is Michael.... perhaps he has just just been around
the bigger block......?


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/112)

 11:24:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

I thought I would bring out a few fallacy in our arguments.

Gene...one of the first requirements in achieving or observing the reality of
something is *believing.* Granted, we don't necessarily believe ourselves to
richness necessarily, however *believing* does provide a healthy attitude to
allow
for *possibilities.* Your conclusion locks out all possibilities on scientific
method that STILL is unable to provide reliable and CONCRETE evidence on the
nature
of PSI.

But if you are making a formal argument whether Remote Influence is possible or
not,
regardless of whether it is an opinion (since an argument is either valid or
invalid, opinion or not), your argument goes like this:

1. World class (whatever that means) Remote Viewers weren't able to Remote
Influence.
2. Impeccable, strict scientific test with tons of money backing this
"laboratory
research" did not show Remote Influence results.
3. Therefore, Remote Influence experiments shows no results.

So, that was a valid argument.

But you extrapolated this valid argument into.... 4. Remote Influence is a like
"parlor trick." In other words, RI is not possible. THAT... is an invalid
argument. Since the two premises above did NOT indicate whether the nature of
Remote Influence exist or not.

So, the lab experiment ( probably conducted in isolation of other INDEPENDENT
labs
in virtue of its classified nature) ONLY proved that there were NO RESULTS in
the
experimentation process that was undertook at that particular TIME in your
presence
at that location.

I have taken the liberty of applying a philosophic conclusion on your comment.
I am
not stating that RI exist or not. To have a better impact in persuation, I
believe
you will have to look for a better premise to substantiate RI existence or
non-existence.

As for Shelley...as positive as she claims its existence, her only alibi is
research
made on the subject. We are not made aware of the conditions, so we are left
having
to research the material ourselves. That's fine and dandy, but is also doesn't
provide a persuasive argument in the NOW.

A psychic element like this is something I would prefer experiencing first hand,
its parameters defined, and full "statistical" interpretation of its repeated
results, and the players.

Thus, I am ambivalent in accepting either story, since the its much need for
proper
embellishment.

So that we "believe what we will" is a philosophical statement we can argue
forever. But our issue is scientific evidence openly displayed to establish
CONCRETE evidence. An issue like this is much too important and carries
tremendous
ramification for it to be stated dubiously to the readers.

Respectfully,
electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Jeffery's remote influencing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/113)

 11:25:12

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 AquaSerene@... wrote:
> "Remote Influencing" works if both parties are agreered upon the influence ...
> (do ya wanna be...) with the majority of the tested populace at 78-102 IQ
> (MENSA) .... ya I would say that if you wanted to remote influence someone you
> could ... but only if the recipient was in agreement to accept
> suggestion...... Try a 75 IQer.....
>

Ridiculous.

Untrue.

Shelley Thomson


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/114)

 11:57:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hi Paul!
Thanks for providing an excellent definition of psychic overlay. Now I
have a better idea of what is going on. As far as Courtney Brown goes,
well, I guess I can reach my own conclusion based on his book.
I do have another question about psychic overlays and Jesus. A friend
viewed the cruxification of Jesus. She saw the man on the cross. He was
dying. All around his head was ALOT of energies. Are those energies
originating from the man Jesus or are those energies overlays from the
millions of people that send energy/pray to that image? Can current
energy be sent back to a previous event and appear as the original event?
Just wondering.... Thanks!

Jane


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Do personal religious beliefs affect rving? 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/115)

 11:57:50

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Re Saints visiting mortals.

When first starting out in psychic phenomenae, but not really believing
it I took a class in psychic meditation in about 1977. It was sort of a
primitive RVing class..but an argument broke out about whether entities
that were contacted ( and people were claiming this) were trustworthy.
Well the instuctor got carried away about measuring the Love and careing
of the entity and whether it was just trying to boost your ego. He then
went into what I later found out was Pauls speech on Love in Corinthians
13. Suddenly a patch of light appeared next to the leader and formed
into the face of a beared robed man. Iwas nonplussed but silent. then
one of the others described the same face I was seeing and said that
Paul had the same message. Measure your worth by Love and Faith and Hope
but most of all by Love. Thank God he didn't evangelize..I might have
turned Catholic. But he didn't, just looked me straight in the eyes and
said, psychic things were fine but only Love could be ultimately
trusted. Everybody walked out in stony silence.

Thats it folks..honest.

Bill Pendergrass.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/116)

 11:58:10

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Good one.....I definitely can relate to this one....

:-)
electrix

Paul H. Smith wrote:

> Jane--
>
> I could tell from Gene's typing style


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/117)

 11:58:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Dear Paul:

Since we are dealing with a lot of new participants in the new' wedded'
Lists, we might take the time to let them know that we were discussing
'Contamination of Targets' and 'possible contamination of remote viewing
targets' which is a subject of intense interest to us all.
It might be interesting for those who were not 'in' on the original
discussion to take a chogie to PJ's archived VWR and PSI Lists back a couple
of months. :)
Sincerest
Bevy J



stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 No More Remote Influencing Discussions 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/118)

 11:58:32

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Dear List:

The debate over remote-influencing is causing evident tensions
on this list. Since it is such a hotly controversial topic, with many
heated opinions, I would like everyone to halt discussion of this
subject as of the date and time of this post. If you must continue
discussion, please take it to private e-mail.

Could everyone please, for the meantime, refrain from making any
further remote-influencing posts.

Some of the people on this list have made comments which could
be interpreted as offensive (or, perhaps just blunt to the extent that
they can easily be seen as offensive.) I am tempted to remove
access to this list for these individuals, but given the controversial
nature of the topic, I can understand why people may of become
agitated. I am also opposed to "authoritarian" solutions to problems,
so I will instead give these individuals another chance.

But be aware that anyone who makes a post about remote-influencing
past the posting of this message will receive a written email warning.
This will be followed by suspending of their access to this list if they
persist.

I would not like to have to switch this list to moderated discussion,
but this may become necessary if people do not calm themselves
down and try to discuss and debate subjects in a mature, calm
manner.

I am sorry this 'order' is necessary, but as List Owner/Moderator,
it is my responsibility to ensure this list operates smoothly. As I
have repeatedly said, I will *only* bring in rules and moderation
if I feel it becomes necessary. Until recently, I felt the list was
operating fine without the need for rules or moderation. I felt it
provided a great example of self-restraint and self-control on the
part of the contributors.

However, my opinion on this subject may change if people are not
prepared to exercise more self-control.

The offenders (you know who you are!) should feel ashamed for
their conduct. Some may be receiving private e-mails on this
matter.

Best regards,

Steve Crietzman
List Owner and "Moderator"



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/119)

 11:58:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

In a message dated 98-06-30 23:39:23 EDT, you write:

<< ases of Martians, etc. What is going on here?
I guess I just don't understand psychic overlay. Could that also be
what happened when he and others saw a companion object with the Hale
Bopp comet?
I hope my questions aren't too elementary. I appreciate your patience
with newbies! I highly value your opinion. Thanks.
>>
I become immediately suspect when a viewer begins coming across with great
amounts of very detail data...numbers, plans, constructions sites,
discussions, names, clothing, etc...when viewing, a well qualified and honest
viewer weill normally see bits and pieces of a site and after a while, these
bits and pieces will form a more concise whole but they never form a nice
DiVinci or Monet...they will always be just out of reach of full clarity...The
mind is a wonderful tool capable of building just about any image it wishes to
build. The whole Hale Bopp fiasco was - IMHO - a fine example of self
fulfilling RV prophecies...Some people desparately want a great conspiracy to
exisit in which governments / religious leaders / beings from the belt of
Orion etc, are all involved in some sort of mutually agreed upon situation.
It is always amazing to me that a standing President who cannot even conceal a
moment of passion in a private office within in the Whitehouse seems to be
able to conceal something so pervasive within the government that literally
thousands of officials would have to be fully aware of and participate in the
conspiracy. I DON"T THINK SO....So many people saw Hale-Bopp as some sort of
second coming, some sort of clever alien ruse or some sort of deeper alien
cover up that their minds simply made it so...I have told some of my old war
stories so many times, exaggerating and adding now and then to please the
audience, that I am not sure if I remember the real facts anymore...happens to
lots of old soldiers...it is quite understandable how vivid imaginations and
stray memories of old "B" grade black and white movies from the past could
cause even someone as obviously intelligent as a college professor could also
fall prey to the tricks of the mind...
Jane...I love your questions...do not stop...makes me have to think and old
worn out minds like mine need the exercise...hahaha
Gene...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/120)

 11:58:58

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

<<
The irony is that telepathic overlay IS being psychic--it's just being
pyschic in an unuseful and (usually) unfortunate way. I should point out
that, though Ingo knows about this phenomenon, he did not teach us about
it. We had to find out the HARD way!

HaHa Gene--beat you to it! >>
Me Guinness...what...well maybe a bit in the morning just to help the economy
of my struggling homeland...
Yes...messed up my wording...and yes I did mean TOL...oh well...now you have
done it...you have ruined my reputation by forcing me to admit that I was
wrong about something...what will the net think of me now...no longer am I an
invincible icon...my guru status is in great jeopardy...oh no!!!!!!!
Thanx for pulling my irons from the fire...
Gene..


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/121)

 12:01:13

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Gene--


At 09:00 AM 7/1/98 EDT, you wrote:

>Me Guinness...what...well maybe a bit in the morning just to help the economy
>of my struggling homeland...

They tell me that something strange like "a bit of hair of the dog that bit
you" is standard tretment...

>Yes...messed up my wording...and yes I did mean TOL...

Not TOO bad--"Psychic overlay" works as well as anything!

oh well...now you have
>done it...you have ruined my reputation by forcing me to admit that I was
>wrong about something...

And what reputation might that be? ;-)

Enjoy!
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Psychic overlay 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/122)

 12:01:26

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

hello paul

good post!

question : is the a way to check if there is an telepphatic
overlay occured or not ?

for example when remote viewing a target the tasker can
add to the target definition that if the target dont exist then the viewer
would get something else like the statue of liberty or will get nothing?

Eyal



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 innervision invitation 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/123)

 12:01:36

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

The Inner Vision Research Institute is starting up a mailing list
at innervision@.... The list will primarily serve to: send
subscribers the Inner Vision Newsletter on a monthly basis;
inform subscribers about Inner Vision courses, dates and locations;
research; and details about Angela Thompson Smith's new book Remote
Perception's, which is to be published by Hampton Roads in September.
Angela Thompson Smith will be doing talks and book signings around the
country. The list will include dates and locations of these. The areas
covered by the list, for discussion, will include OBEs, remote viewing,
remote perception, PK, and many other topics of interest.

There are several ways to subscribe:

* If you send me an email, I will manually add your address to the list;

* you can send an email message to innervision-subscribe-makelist.com

Look forward to seeing you there.

Kind regards
Angela Thompson Smith
The Inner Vision Research Institute
Catalyst@...
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/innervision



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Moving arond the target? 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/124)

 12:01:54

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

I hope some of you military guy's can help me with a few questions. I get
pretty good general session data during RV, but want to know if there are
better movement exrcises around a target. At the moment I move around like
this:

Move to target centre aquire, describe and sketch,
Move 100ft above target centre describe and sketch.

with exercises similar to these I get good data, but do you have any tips on
how to fine tune this data, possibly by moving around the target, or any
others?

Any help would be appreciated.

All the best...

darryl


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Moving arond the target? 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/125)

 12:02:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>>
Darryl...(Neat name....)...anyhow, movement at a target is a tricky business
at best. Not to be constantly tooting the horn of the monitors of the
world...a monitor in your sessions would be able to assist you greatly in
movement throughout the target areas...Now as to your own developed
protocol....it is your protocol...use it if it works and don't worry what
anyone else might say about it...too damned many experts in this business
already...what we need is some real honest talent...I would caution you,
however, not to become to rigid in your protocols especially those pertaining
to movements...I tell my students the little story that it is quite possible
for a person to eat a whole elephant but only if they eat it one small bite at
a time...try to swallow it whole and the whole thing goes to hell....While on
target, remember, it is not a liesurely tour through the park. There is
probably a central theme to the target...a specific element or item which
makes the target special. If you first focus on this element (while avoiding
"door knobbing" - getting so close that you fail to actually see anything else
....), and spend some time with the central element, filling in the others
bites of the elephant becomes easier and more clear. Try to take all of
Disneyland in with one blink of the eye and you will see nothing...They key is
to focus on key elements individually and then the peripherals and
shazam...the magic occurs...
Warmest Regards...Gene...
P.S...I am being real nice and sweet ... make sure everyone knows...Steve
threatened to toss me off the net if I continued to be my warm obnoxious
self...hahahah


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Sweet Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/126)

 12:02:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

I for one am really enjoying this more human Gene. Good work Steve!

Bill



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Sweet Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/127)

 12:02:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

<< I for one am really enjoying this more human Gene. Good work Steve!
Bill >>


hahahahaahah "Sweet Gene" ? remindes me of a song....

"Sweet like candy to my soul... sweet you rock and sweet you roll...."

Yep... agreed, good work Steve. hmmmm or was the song "Sweet Jane" ???




stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Moving arond the target? 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/128)

 12:02:45

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------


>I hope some of you military guy's can help me with a few questions.
>

snip
>
>Any help would be appreciated.
>
>All the best...
>
>darryl
>
Hi Darryl;
Liam here. It seems to me you have developed a method which works well
for you. Gene's answer was on the mark. I would like to expand on two of
his points.

First, at the military unit, determining when and where to move was the
monitor's
responsibility, not the viewers. The viewer might say " I think there is
something
important inside this structure."
The monitor then MIGHT move the viewer inside the structure. The monitor is
the one on the left side of his brain and capable of making logical
decisions.
The viewer is in contact with the signal line, and IMO is on the right side
of
his brain, and is probably incapable of rational thought (every notice how
your
spelling goes to hell when you are locked on a target. Of course that is
how I spell
normally)
. Of course all this does not help you, if you are working without a
monitor.
When I work without a monitor I try limit my moves to gut level. I move
where I feel I should
move. A second alternative is what you are doing, "rote moves" the same
for every target.

The second point Gene made was the nature of the tasking. Most stage 3
and above sites, IMHO, should be fairly specific. If the tasking is to
describe the
physical condition of the Prime Minister, then that is what, in theory, the
viewer will
focus on. In this instance a description and skecth of the parliament
building
would not be helpful, except to tell the tasker that the viewer was close to
the desired information.

A third point, and I expect to take some heat rounds for this, is you may be
expecting too much form a stage 3 skecth. IMO, the main value of a stage 3
skecth is that it puts the viewer in closer contact with the site. Some
elements in the skecth will
be correct, but others may be wrong or misplaced. The really amazing
skecthes
done at Ft Meade were done, not in stage 3, but at the conclusion of the
session.

After all this, I guess the only advice I have to offer is; If what you are
doing
works for you (and it seems to) then keep on doing it.

Best wishes
slainte
May the force be with you
Liam


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/129)

 12:03:16

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>Thanks Gene,
>for your help, when a problem is staring you in the face it takes an
>outsider to give a much needed point of view.
>All the best...

Gene's not such a bad guy.. when he puts his mind to it 

It's me you ought to be worried about! I believe Gene called me
"The English Oppressor" (ooh, the cheek of it, but how true -
perhaps Gene's onto something there! ;-) Or was that Paul..? Oh,
well whoever said it, was right ;-)

Jokingly,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 session Summary! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/130)

 12:03:33

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>>done at Ft Meade were done, not in stage 3, but at the conclusion of the
>>session.
>
>
>Is it possible to clarify some more on these more detailed sketches. I get
>some good sketches in Stage 4 and 6. But are you talking about sketches as
>part of a session summery. I do not have much info on this part of the rv
>process, and by natural curiosity rush through a summery so as to open the
>target envelope. Any help on sessions summaries would be appreciated.
>
>th\anks in advance and for the previous help...
>
>darryl
>


Hi Darryl
Liam again. A word of warning. Everything I am going to say is strictly my
opinion. I have no scientific data to back it up.It is based on my
experience
at Ft Meade and later.

I believe we obtain information from the signal line by three different
ways.
The first is perception: You put your pen on the paper and take what the
signal line gives you.
This is the primary (maybe the only) way we get information in stages 1
through 3.
The second way is "cueing." In stage 4 you "perceive" a structure. You
then
place your pen in the proper place to cue in the dimensions, color,
construction, and purpose.
You are now "cueing" the signal line as to the type of information you
desire.
The third way we obtain information is "knowing." This is information about
the site that you "just know." You did not perceive it, you did not "cue"
it; you
just know it. How many times have you finished a site, looked at the
feedback
and said "I knew there was water at the site. You did not perceive it or
cue and you
did not report it. It was information you knew, but you were not aware you
knew
it. This is more obvious in ERV. an ERVer might report there is a second
man here.
When asked to describe the second man, the viewer might come back with
a whole string of data. This was information the viewer knew already. He was
not aware he knew it until the monitor asked him for the information.

A carefully written summary will produce a lot of that "known" information
that is not
available anyplace else in the session. A word of caution; the monitor will
need to decide if this is "known" information (in which case it is probably
correct)
or if this is post-session- analyses (in which case it is probably wrong.).

Sketches drawn while writing a summary tend IMO to trigger a lot of this
"known" information.
Stage 4 and stage 6 sketches tend to be more accurate than stage three
sketches
because you have more site contact and you have access to "known"
information
and you can cue information while you are sketching.

I did not mean to be so long winded. remember everything I said is only my
opinion.
Hope this helps.

warm regards
slainte
May the force be with you
Liam

The blues ain't nothing but a good man feeling bad





stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Moving arond the target? and more! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/131)

 12:03:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>done at Ft Meade were done, not in stage 3, but at the conclusion of the
>session.


Is it possible to clarify some more on these more detailed sketches. I get
some good sketches in Stage 4 and 6. But are you talking about sketches as
part of a session summery. I do not have much info on this part of the rv
process, and by natural curiosity rush through a summery so as to open the
target envelope. Any help on sessions summeries would be appreciated.

th\anks in advance and for the previous help...

darryl


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Moving arond the target? THANKS! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/132)

 12:04:04

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Thanks Gene,
for your help, when a problem is staring you in the face it takes an
outsider to give a much needed point of view.
All the best...

darryl


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 session Summary! THANKS! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/133)

 12:04:14

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>When asked to describe the second man, the viewer might come back with
>a whole string of data. This was information the viewer knew already. He
was
>not aware he knew it until the monitor asked him for the information.


Thank for the help and input, I know what you mean about just knowing parts
of the target but with nothing to back it up. Would this "known" info be
like stored info, like a cognitron as in stage 5 , I kind of get the feeling
that it's not and that its' direct signal line. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks for the info about cueing whilst sketching in stage 4-6, I never
thought about doing this, yet it seems so abvious now you've mentioned it.
All the best...

Darryl


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Steve! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/134)

 12:04:23

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Steve, have you looked at that session yet? I have alot more that can go
online if it will help others with basics.
I can even supply them already typed up if youd prefer.

All the best...

Darryl


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Online Sessions 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/135)

 12:04:35

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Darryl wrote:
>Steve, have you looked at that session yet? I have alot more that can go
>online if it will help others with basics.
>I can even supply them already typed up if youd prefer.

Hi Darryl,

I received your e-mail, have unpacked the file and taken a quick look.
I haven't been able to do much more with it until now. I'll take
a look at them tonight or tommorrow and will get back to you by e-mail
about it. Promise. I'm sorry about the delay up until now.

This brings up an interesting question: would anyone else like their
favourite xRV sessions (or "sessions of choice") scanned and put online?

I think it would be useful to have sample sessions online, and hopefully
in conjuction with the CRV Training Manual which PJ is due to put online
on the 5th June, should help to de-mystify CRV for many. Just a guess
there, since I've not had professional xRV training or seen the manual
yet. Naturally, I'm looking forward to getting to see this manual. I hope
it's on time. (Has anyone heard from PJ recently, BTW?)

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 innervision invitation 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/136)

 12:04:54

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

I'd like to subscribe, please.

Thank you,

Mary Stanley


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Online Sessions 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/137)

 12:05:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

<< (Has anyone heard from PJ recently, BTW?)

Best regards,
Steve. >>
PJ is doing fine...we continue to correspond over her private E-mail
addresses...she accepts me for the gruff old Celtic bear that I am and manages
to live through it...
Gene...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/138)

 12:05:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> >This is precisely what I like about the UT site.
>
> Gosh, Rich--where were you when I was getting hammered on PJ's list for
> cozying up to the nasty ol' skeptics?!? ;-)
> >Oh yeah....dont forget your t-shirts.... :)

Well.....I been hustling for demos for a long time. I'm sure I brought
it up on PJ's
once or twice...but also been at other sights especially where the
recent RV students
tend to tell how well it works for them. Almost with out fail....but
fail to get up on stage.
Needless to say that at one site all such discussions were deleted and
banned.

Lots of ways to look at it. You guys (and gals) who have been doing
RV/PSI for a long time and what could be called "professional" level
could reasonably get tired of doing "parlor tricks" I guess, but
where is a newcomer to go? The bigger question is where did the
"successful" newcomers go? Has anyone
ever met someone who took up golf.....became good at it from the getgo
and then went and played solo all the
time or just the same 4-some all the time? Down here the place is
teeming with golfers and every one
is on a mission :)

I want to make clear that I appreciate and am gratefull to all of the
participants of PJ's site and this one.
I just like my science books with pictures.


> Neat idea! Wish I'd thought of it first. Then I could open a haberdashery
> and forget about teaching this stuff. Save a lot of headaches... ;-)

Just got back from Orlando/Universal/SeaWorld.....I'm sure there is room
there for PSI_World. ...or some offshoot theme......Hale-Bopp Companion
ride.......grey/reptilian water show.....etc :)

Ohhh...Steve......is it ok to talk about RV/ET or RV/UFO ???


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/139)

 12:06:09

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Shelia Massey wrote:
>
> Rich Krankoski wrote:
>
> > RV sorely needs some "down to earth"
> > publicity/demonstrations. Sensationalism has put things in a bad light and
> > there seems to be no one wanting/willing/able to fix it.
>
> This is more a matter of the public paying closer attention.
> giving you .... well I'll be polite and say the guys who are being
> honest give you a lower percentage of success (and that's only if you're
> really good).

Absolutely true as in anything else. The two people claiming the most
accurate and also the most far out
RV obtained information have pretty much gotten on the stage, did their
thing and came up with absolutely
nothing. Their live demos came up zero %. But notice that they still
have followers and student
practitioners who are echoing their claims. So what is going on? Ed
Dames claims years of experience. courtney
Brown is relatively new...student/teacher/author. Both of their
publicly proclaimed RV data have been
un - verifiable if not verifiably wrong. What is the problem? Their
choice of esoteric/future event targets?
Never mind the Martians under Mt Baldy or the pathogen from space. Let
me see them or their students OR ANYONE do some everyday real world
targets......practice landscapes or pratical problem
solving....whatever.

> > To add to the confusion are the ..... "revelations" that there were/are
apparently more than one people/military
> > groups/projects who were not aware of each other going back many years.
>
> What? Tell me more....I haven't heard anything about this.

Well, there is Glenn's group in Hawaii and Bevy's group in St Louis. I
believe both have said that they were in RV separately from the Intel
group and also earlier. And....according to Courtney Brown....there are
still
government RV groups. (...as I pour salt on my pretzel rods and potatoe
chips.)

>
> > In the long run, I think that "RV" will become more and more known as a
> > version of psi and not stand out so much.
>
> It does require consistent practice just as so many other disciplines do.
> And to tell the truth this is what I think will be the cutting point --
> there will be those who will persist...and those who don't. And
> of course, as so many of the scientists and psychologists have pointed out,
> those who consciously are willing to go there but whose subconscious fears
> block the way.

Don't all forms of psi require practice?

> > Its too much of a buzz word right now. But then that brings up
> > other questions for me. Why have not the other types of psi ever caught
> > on with the general public? Been around a lot longer.....astral projection
> > .....OBE....psychometry.....channeling....etc.
>
> Well,,,,,,where have you been hiding? I'm 52 years old and to my
> knowledge these things have been around and are accepted within their
acknowledged
> limits....

I've been around about as long and spent some time years ago looking for
"Mr Psychic",
the successor to Edgar Cayce, any successfull palm reader, ouija
boarder, astrologer,
etc. I came across ONE event that I would call a "hit". As long as I
can remember, there
were "fortune tellers"....even one of my aunts. ( She was indeed a
family favorite in the
parlor....but alas....to their credit no one bet their houses on the
fortunes told.)
Whatever the case, there is no widespread practice let alone accuracy
and usefull results
from any of these other forms of psi that I am aware of that has been
publicly documeted.
If there is please take my hand and lead me humbly to it.

RV came on the scene quite differently than other psi.....government
funded...documented
results....a "recently" designed methodology....scientific
studies.....widely listened to
radio publicity....and the internet.
I don't think any other form of psi has ever been given the same kind of
publicity.
Usually, it was that a specific individual could perform a specific kind
of psi exteremely
well. Here, it was the method that was given credit first and
individuals secondarily.

> > One reason may be that none of the others provide any consistency or
> > high level of success. The same may be true of RV once the wild claims of
100%
> > accuracy are disproved. And again I would like to see here or anywhere,
> > samples from those new or old to the ability...and who make the high hit,
high
> > data resolution claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere
and strut
> > their stuff.
>
> Who EVER made this claim????????

100%.....Ed Dames.
100%.....Courtney Brown
near 100%....various recent students of RV (mostly SRV and TRV ) and
several who have recently opened
their own schools.
near 100%.....I believe some who are/were in the e-mail group. (I may be
confusing with some who use other
methodologies....not "f(RV)". )



> This is the attitude that baffles me the most. If we are waiting for
> someone to prove high hit rates, and not willing to take say even a 30% rate
of
> success, which is an improvement over our normal state of consciousness, what
is
> this game about?........Whether it's RV, OBE, meditation, psychometry,
scrying, etc. it's all
> about knowing yourself enough to trust that you can move outside of the
> normal boundaries of self and make it home again.

I'll buy that.....really....I spent a few bucks years ago in search
of...and again recently. It was
worth it both times in that it satisfied my curiosity.....left me
somewhat disappointed....
added to my knowledge.....and gave me a perspective that kept me
interested. Now, if anyone can
tell me the significance of the names Nelek and Tibif......they will
perhaps close the circle on
some "knowledge" obtained years ago.



> Shelia


Rich


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Rich on salt and potatoe chips. 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/140)

 12:06:18

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hi Rich, all very good points on RV and psi and ED Danes etc. But youve
got me really guessing on this paragraph. Is there a secret metaphore
here, or are you the only other human being I know that puts salt on his
potatoe chips. We definitely need to start a support group if so.

What? Tell me more....I haven't heard anything about this.

Well, there is Glenn's group in Hawaii and Bevy's group in St
Louis. I
believe both have said that they were in RV separately from the
Intel
group and also earlier. And....according to Courtney
Brown....there are
still
government RV groups. (...as I pour salt on my pretzel rods and
potatoe
chips.)

Bill Pendergrass


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Rich on salt and potatoe chips. 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/141)

 12:06:28

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Aloha Guys,

Saw my name mentioned and thought I would say hello. I have worked pretty
hard with the help of several others in putting the website up showing
exactly what we are all up to out here in the Islands.

We have tried along the way to look at everything as well as do our best to
entice some of the CRV folks out for a working vacation.. We make no claims
about unrealistic accuracy or the future of the world.

A trip to our website should show we are trying very hard and producing
some fair results. We have about 40 active members in the Guild and the big
plus is that we get to train, evaluate, retrain, and practice practice
practice.

Currently we find that communication between ourselves, meeting, classes,
email, phone etc is a very good support base for results. The feeling of
being a part of a team or group makes a comfort zone for us to tackle
problem solving. Any specific inquires just send us some email.

Aloha Glenn




stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Rich on salt and potatoe chips. 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/142)

 12:06:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> government RV groups. (...as I pour salt on my pretzel rods and
> potatoe
> chips.)
>
> Bill Pendergrass
>
Well,

Some things require much more than just A grain of salt. One of those
being Margaritas.
Just don't pour salt in my Augsburger.


Rich


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/143)

 12:07:02

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

On Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Rich Krankoski wrote:

> Absolutely true as in anything else. The two people claiming the most
> accurate and also the most far out
> RV obtained information have pretty much gotten on the stage, did their
> thing and came up with absolutely
> nothing. Their live demos came up zero %. But notice that they still
> have followers and student
> practitioners who are echoing their claims. So what is going on?

It's called "advertising."

> Never mind the Martians under Mt Baldy or the pathogen from space. Let
> me see them or their students OR ANYONE do some everyday real world
> targets......practice landscapes or pratical problem
> solving....whatever.

I agree. Practical problem solving is a worthwhile use of psi skills.
If one had the help of an MD or a psychiatrist, it would be quite easy to
set up exercises along this line. I am thinking of remote diagnosis,
which can yield information that is helpful to all concerned.

Now, if you check out "Mind Reach," by Targ & Puthoff, you will see a
well written and extensive description of the first SRI remote viewing
studies. There is a large collection of research literature on remote
viewing--try your local university library, under the heading
"parapsychology."

Re. practical problem solving, I can offer two examples. (Please bear in
mind that most of my rv work is either astronomical or, if related to
people, confidential.) First, when the Hale-Bopp Companion photograph
was published and Courtney Brown announced he had rv'd it, and identified
it as an alien object, I rv'd the comet myself to see if he was right. I
hoped it was true. (I've seen amazing things in space and I've always
hoped that something large would come close enough to be photographed by
astronomers.)

I was disappointed to find that there was only ordinary comet material
present. There was a lot of this material, because it's a big
comet...but there were no alien artifacts.

Then I rv'd the photograph and saw the hoaxer gloating about his
success. I thereupon sent Art Bell an email informing him that
there was no Hale-Bopp Companion and the photo was a deliberate fraud.

Bell never answered my email. He continued to have Ed Dames on his show,
for reasons that appear to be related somehow to money.

Want a copy of the email? --Re the cylinder filled with brown substance,
the plant pathogen Dames has mentioned, don't worry about it. It isn't
there.

Item 2. It's undignified, but well, here goes. When the Paula Jones
story *first broke* months ago, it was mentioned that in her deposition
she described the President's intimate anatomy. I was curious & rv'd the
situation. I sent emails to a few women friends about the result, because
I thought it was funny. I'm sure they'll remember this email and at least
one of them would be kind enough to serve as a witness if required.

Eventually an English tabloid broke the story. I was right.

It's not hard to get good rv results if the problem is of intrinsic
interest.

> Don't all forms of psi require practice?

Sure. Every skill requires practice.

> Whatever the case, there is no widespread practice let alone accuracy
> and usefull results
> from any of these other forms of psi that I am aware of that has been
> publicly documeted.
> If there is please take my hand and lead me humbly to it.

Try a good university library. Psychokinesis has been very extensively
studied, for instance.

If you want to see good rv accuracy, and don't feel like reading about
the research, you should come up with a worthwhile problem whose answer
is of intrinsic interest, where some kind of verification will be
available in the future. (Don't ask viewers to guess lottery numbers;
alphanumeric information doesn't make transit reliably in rv mode.
Nobody cares whether a number is a 1 or a 4, anyway...) Get people to
view something that is of interest to them. Then you'll see good
results.

Shelley Thomson



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 RV numbers 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/144)

 12:07:16

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> you should come up with a worthwhile problem whose answer
>is of intrinsic interest, where some kind of verification will be
>available in the future. (Don't ask viewers to guess lottery numbers;
>alphanumeric information doesn't make transit reliably in rv mode.
>Nobody cares whether a number is a 1 or a 4, anyway...) Get people to
>view something that is of interest to them. Then you'll see good
>results.
>
>Shelley Thomson
>

hello shelly

do u think nobody care a number is 1 or 4 if they know its worth alot of
mony?

i belive number can be seen in rv steel didnt got to that stage to prove
it, but for those who cant rv numbers what about ingo A.R.V method wich
developed in SRI?

Eyal


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/145)

 12:07:30

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hi Rich, Shelia, List,

>>Whatever the case, there is no widespread practice let alone accuracy
>>and usefull results from any of these other forms of psi that I am
>>aware of that has been publicly documeted.
>>If there is please take my hand and lead me humbly to it.

>RV came on the scene quite differently than other psi.....government
>funded...documented results....a "recently" designed methodology....
>scientific studies.....widely listened to radio publicity....and the internet.

Which all makes this subject a lot more interesting to the general
public and science-minded folks - we're not talking your average psychic
here, we're talking about a long-term project, funded by government
agencies with millions of dollars of tax-payer money, to research,
develop and use psychic ability under a strict, scientific protocol
developed in some of the most prestigious scientific institutions in
the US.

It gives the subject a lot more credibility, and was no doubt enough to
make even the hardened skeptic sit up and pay attention.

Where I have a problem, and perhaps you'll share my concern here,
is that so much of this data isn't out on the table yet. Rich, you are
always calling for demos, and this is exactly what I'd like to see too.

It's not considered to be "doubting" a musician if you use them to
demo their talent. You want to see a demonstration, to gauge it
for yourself, and have them show off their skills. Granted, it's a very
different field, but the principle is still the say: show me the goods,
I'm interested to see how you'll do! Asking a person to perform is not
to imply they can't do it any more than asking the musician to do it.
But perhaps we like to see it for our own eyes, rather than rely on
second-hand stories.

I've read through a lot of the scientific papers that have been
published about psi (what I could understand of them! ;) While they
are fascinating, and if confirmable, offer extremely compelling evidence,
I have one nagging problem with accepting their findings, and that's
we have to rely on the word of the scientists' conclusions and papers.

There is no way to independently verify their findings unless we own
our own lab. We can't get ahold of the data they used to reach their
conclusions - we can only see their conclusions.

Because we can't take a look at their FULL data, we can't do what
so many researchers, including Joe McMoneagle, has said is
important in this field, which is they need to be open to peer-review,
criticism, etc. We can't do that by looking at their conclusions alone.

We can't critique the conclusions (and so "test" them) because we can't
see the "working out", so to speak. We can only see half the deck,
we only know the end-result of their research, and we have no way
of telling if their research was conducted properly, without error,
until we get to look at EVERYTHING, or have that possibility for
people who do want to obtain it.

FAILING THAT, I think the only remaining option is the one that
Rich has been calling for, for god-knows-how long: demos! Public,
open, demos!

So we set up our *own* lab, online. A demo lab. We have protocols,
we have viewers, we follow a set of lab protocols to perform all
the tests, sessions, collect all the data, and work with whatever we
find. Just like a real lab would. Except it'd be an online lab. Okay,
so perhaps it'd be a little more amateurish, but at least we'd all get to
see everything. The entire process should be open to criticism, peer-
review, etc. and should adapt and evolve as people throw criticism it's
way, until the point where there's no more criticism because nothing
wrong can be found in how the experiments are being done.

Then, the real "fun" begins - people do their sessions, and the
hits and misses start to be tallied. We start to build up our very
own statistics, we can make our own conclusions from it, perhaps
write the odd report of our own summarising how things are going
and what we've found so far, etc. The most important thing?
Absolutely everything, from drawing board to all the
conclusions we make, will be on the website (or wherever),
for all to see, to examine, to criticise, etc. No holes barred.

I think if this sort of project existed, and we started to get the
higher-than-chance results that the labs are claiming, we can
say fairly safely "something is happening, and it's got nothing
to do with our procedures etc." We can't say this about the
labs because we can't see how the experiments were run. We
have only the faith in the scientists to go on. But scientists
are notorious for not trusting each other. Why do you think
there are other labs out there trying to duplicate other lab's
finding? Because they don't trust, or distrust: they're repeating
the experiment so they can "see all, know all" and thus be
able to tell if the *original* lab's data/conclusions was accurate.

I've heard that oftentimes sloppy procedures have been used
in the past that allow room for possible fraud, although I am
not making these charges against the labs we're all familiar
with. The point is, that until the entire process is openned
up to proper peer-review (examination by peers) and criticism,
we only know what the labs tell us. That's not comfortable
for people who like to "know all, see all." In other words,
scientists (whether they have a Ph.D. or they're just sitting
at home reading science books, visiting websites and
wanting to do their own bedroom experiments.)

>> This is the attitude that baffles me the most. If we are waiting for
>> someone to prove high hit rates, and not willing to take say even a 30% rate
of
>> success, which is an improvement over our normal state of consciousness, what
is
>> this game about?........

Actually, I'd be satisfied with a demonstrable and consistent above-chance
accuracy
rate *where the entire process has been fully open to examination and
peer-review*,
although if it is dangerously close to chance levels, I'd be more inclined to
suspect the possibility that perhaps some unknown, unseen methodology errors
may be responsible. As the controversial Ray Hyman stated, methdological flaws
are often never spotted, and have assumed to all have been eliminated, only for
years later a flaw is discovered, casting doubt on earlier experiments and
results.

The further from chance, and if protocols are virtually waterproof (I doubt it
is
possible to eliminate every possible vulnerability, all the time), then the more
inclined I am to suspect some kind of paranormal functioning is really at work.

Right now, I am painfully trying to tight-rope between the 'skeptic' and
'supporter' position of remote-viewing. I see merit in both arguments. I
believe
more information is needed before we can settle the debate for good, which is
why I
have so forcefully and brutefully pursued the Freedom of Information Act,
and have attempted to gain information in other ways as well (such as
requesting further information from labs involved in this research, and
being cautiously supportive of projects such as the UT Skeptic site.) I hate
not having solid answers, and I really don't feel there are any water-tight
answers yet. Some might say I'm asking for the impossible. Well, if that's
true, I'm going to lead an interesting life, on a constant quest for new
information.. :-)

>I'll buy that.....really....I spent a few bucks years ago in search
>of...and again recently. It was worth it both times in that it satisfied my
>curiosity.....left me somewhat disappointed....added to my knowledge.....
>and gave me a perspective that kept me interested.

I wish I could afford CRV training. I really do. (Is this some suttle
hint to CRV trainers? No, I don't think so ). Rich, I envy you
here. You're got some training I would love to have. Hopefully
the CRV manual, due to be published tommorrow at PJ's site,
will have some of those answers I've been seeking.

Here's to the search..

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 CRV Stage 5 queries!!! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/146)

 12:07:40

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

I have a query I hope all you CRV'ers, and military guys can help with:

At stage 4, alot of good info comes through from the target, But then for
stage 5, the signal line is broken and info then comes from storage within
the brain synapses. After this Do we go back to the signal line for stage 6
or is all the information from stage 5 onwards from the synapses?

For me it kind of feels like stage 5 is a hiccup between the flow of info
that seems so flowing in clusters in stage 4 and 6. How important is stage 5
to the whole process?

thanks for any help...

All the best...

Darryl


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/148)

 12:08:17

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

In a message dated 7/4/98 1:16:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sthomson@... writes:

<<
Item 2. It's undignified, but well, here goes. When the Paula Jones
story *first broke* months ago, it was mentioned that in her deposition
she described the President's intimate anatomy. I was curious & rv'd the
situation. I sent emails to a few women friends about the result, because
I thought it was funny. I'm sure they'll remember this email and at least
one of them would be kind enough to serve as a witness if required.

Eventually an English tabloid broke the story. I was right.
>>
Let me get this right...you say you used RV to view the structure or alleged
abnormality of the penis of a perfect stranger...then based on a story which
appeared in a British tabloid...you now believe you are correct...and your
prurient viewing was a success...I think Mr. Clinton should have to
opportunity to view you naked body and to make comments on it to the net as
well...fair is fair...I will not even begin to discuss the perversity of what
you did...which would have gotten you a nice personal sex offenders card to
carry with you in many of the United States had you used your true eyes...but
if you think this was a valid use of this thing we call RV...I would caution
those of you who meet Ms. Thomsons students in the future to expect your most
intimate and private thoughts to be fair game according to the way the
instructor uses this gift..My students on the other hand are told that such
prurient use is not only crass and boorish but is gournds for immediate
cessation of instructions...of course I do not charge my students therefore I
guess I am not obligated to come up with slick methods to encourage others to
attend my training....Shame on you Shelly...and if you want ot view my old,
decripit body...save the energy...I will scan you a photo...
gene..


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 CRV Stage 5 queries!!! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/149)

 12:08:26

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>It depends on your purpose, and what the overall task is. If you need
>great detail about something, Stage 5 can be invaluable. It can also help
>you break out useful info that is locked up in AOLs. However, not EVERY
>session requires that you take the detour to Stage 5.
>
>Enjoy,
>Paul
>
Hi paul Thank for the help. I am using Thge classic style from The CRV
(Coordinate) manual that I have had for a while. But as you know a manual
does not tell you everything. Am I right in assuming that it is not
necasarry to use stage 5 in all sessions and that you can skip from 4 to 6.

All the best...

Darryl



stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Military CRV Manual Online 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/150)

 12:08:45

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hi All,

PJ Gaenir now has the full Army CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing)
manual available for free download. The address to her site is:

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/firedocs/

(Archivist's note: that became http://www.firedocs.com later. -- PJ Gaenir 6/2006)

Comments on the manual are welcome on this list.

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Hi... 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/151)

 12:09:50

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

I would ask Steve to pass on to the rest of the folks on the net...after a
fairly exhausting review of candidates for my next student...I have settled on
one person...we will begin formal instructions in a month perhaps six
weeks...and for Liam and the other guys from the old unit...No it was not
based on bust size...
Thanx for the response from all of the other applicants...please note I still
have your little notes and will keep them handy on my screen in case this
student finally comes to her senses and tells me to go to hell...I would ask
those of you who were seeking instructions to keep an eye on the
Stargate...ask questions, read books and articles and if you can put the
ducets together...STRONGELY recommend you arrange formal instructions from
Paul in Texas...his one and two week classes are pricey because he is greedy
but when you leave..you are a good Remote Viewer...then you can come to me and
I will make you a GREAT remote viewer (if I have the space open)...
Warmest Regards...Gene...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/152)

 12:10:13

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> <<
> Item 2. It's undignified, but well, here goes. When the Paula Jones
> story *first broke* months ago, it was mentioned that in her deposition
> she described the President's intimate anatomy. I was curious & rv'd the
> situation. I sent emails to a few women friends about the result, because
> I thought it was funny. I'm sure they'll remember this email and at least
> one of them would be kind enough to serve as a witness if required.
>
> Eventually an English tabloid broke the story. I was right.
> >>
> Let me get this right...you say you used RV to view the structure or alleged
> abnormality of the penis of a perfect stranger...then based on a story which
> appeared in a British tabloid...you now believe you are correct...and your
> prurient viewing was a success...I think Mr. Clinton should have to
> opportunity to view you naked body and to make comments on it to the net as
> well...fair is fair...

Listen, fella, this response is disgusting and completely out of line on
this list. I did not flame anyone. I offered an example of a remote
viewing in which I announced the result before the information was
publicly known, and confirmation was subsequently available.

I point out that I did not describe the information gained by the viewing
on this list, or in any other public place. The Presidential privacy was
not invaded by my disclosure of the fact that I was able to rv him.

This is again, out of line. Where is our list moderator?

Shelley Thomson


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Hi... 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/153)

 12:10:24

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Gene--

At 09:28 PM 7/5/98 EDT, you wrote:

>weeks...and for Liam and the other guys from the old unit...No it was not
>based on bust size...

Yeah, right!

>ducets together...STRONGELY recommend you arrange formal instructions from
>Paul in Texas...

That's "ducats." Gene, you never were any good with money ;-)

Enjoy,
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/154)

 12:10:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------


On Sun, 5 Jul 1998 Curran2106@... wrote:
> My students on the other hand are told that such
> prurient use is not only crass and boorish but is gournds for immediate
> cessation of instructions..

Well, you can order people not to think certain thoughts or entertain
certain images, but you'll have just as much luck ordering bees not to
buzz.

I think it is more important to educate students in the value of privacy,
and the appropriate use of any information they may obtain. You are not
committing an error by obtaining information, because we can all do that
by reflex when we learn proper techniques. But if you learn someone's
secrets you are responsible for what you do with them.

Note that the chain of circumstances that led me to rv the President
started when he displayed himself to a woman who did not want that to
happen. He is a public figure and not an inhibited man in any case.
Furthermore, elements of Ms. Jones's description have become public
knowledge without any effort from me, so my remarks on the list do
not further infringe his privacy. And I point out again that I did not
describe the anatomical feature--I merely mentioned that I had rv'd it and
I was right.

With reference to my "slick methods"-- I knew I'd get
recognition if I hung around this list long enough--very early in
my lessons I teach students how to preserve their privacy against remote
viewing by other persons.

I'd like to see a discussion on the list, of methods of defending
against remote viewing.

Is anyone up to this?

Shelley Thomson


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/155)

 12:10:50

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

shelley thomson wrote:

> I think it is more important to educate students in the value of privacy,
> and the appropriate use of any information they may obtain.

excuse my confusion .... but how is it that you exemplify this directive with
posting yourinformation on the world wide web?

> You are not committing an error by obtaining information, because we can all
> do that
> by reflex when we learn proper techniques. But if you learn someone's
> secrets you are responsible for what you do with them.

my point exactly.

> Note that the chain of circumstances that led me to rv the President
> started when he displayed himself to a woman who did not want that to
> happen.

You're buy in to the media.......

> He is a public figure and not an inhibited man in any case.
> Furthermore, elements of Ms. Jones's description have become public
> knowledge without any effort from me, so my remarks on the list do
> not further infringe his privacy.

Although I personally think you had a major AOL drive going, since I'm from
the gateway of the wild west excuse my comment, but BS!

> And I point out again that I did not describe the anatomical feature--I
> merely mentioned that I had rv'd it and I was right.

You assume you were right. Short of a photo you have no real feedback.

> With reference to my "slick methods"-- I knew I'd get
> recognition if I hung around this list long enough--

gag!

> very early in my lessons I teach students how to preserve their privacy
> against remote
> viewing by other persons.

Geez!.... let's see, if we cultivate constant vigilance against intrusion
where do weend up folks? Same place as any abused child: paranoid,
dissociative, and confused.

> I'd like to see a discussion on the list, of methods of defending
> against remote viewing. Is anyone up to this?

WELL, I thought you were the master.... lead the sheep....

Shelia


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/156)

 12:11:01

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Perhaps, the topic should be Ethical Responsibility in Remote Viewing or the
Code of a Remote Viewer. Then perhaps people wouldn't have to be "defending"
themselves against unathorized intrusion in a person private life. I
mean...if I find myself intruding on someones lifestyle, it should be equally
fair for someone to intrude on mine, wouldn't we say? But since I wouldn't do
that...I would like to think the same privacy is due me.

This kind of mentality only serve to foster tresspasing and espionage (which
I am sure there is enough of it going around already) and rampant degradation
of a tool that could be utilize for the "benefit" of Mankind. I don't think
scanning the Prez helps in this regard. And so that we know that I am
biased...I am a supporter of the Man, whether is sexual appetite is verocious
or not. I couldn't think of a "better" Presidents that could be in the White
House today. But the Man is what we have. Why degrade what is in the tabloid
and newspaper already. By the way, I am not here to argue politics.

I believe Gene has properly address this invasion of privacy...as much as he
considers himself a "Celtic Bear." At least he knows where to curbs his
limits. This issue (Ethics), of course, falls under philosophy, and as we
know...philosophers have flogged this horse to death and arrive at no
pragmatic conclusion. I don't see this being resolved anytime soon on a
mailing list like this. But before establishing a "defensive" posture and
start the RV Cold War...it would be nice to codify the "proper" behavior for a
Remote Viewer. That would be far more rewarding. And sure, just like there
are "evil" doctors out there who would violate their Codes of Ethics, at least
it serves to maintain balance and differentiate the bad apples from the good
ones. The Code of a Remote Viewer would serve the Remote Viewers of the world
just as well.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/157)

 12:11:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> shelley thomson wrote:
>
> > I think it is more important to educate students in the value of privacy,
> > and the appropriate use of any information they may obtain.
>
> excuse my confusion .... but how is it that you exemplify this directive with
> posting yourinformation on the world wide web?

I didn't post my information. I said I had done the viewing and could
produce a witness if asked; and that a tabloid had subsequently disclosed
the information, which agreed with my viewing.


> > Note that the chain of circumstances that led me to rv the President
> > started when he displayed himself to a woman who did not want that to
> > happen.
>
> You're buy in to the media.......

Not at all. I rv'd the event and concluded that Paula Jones was telling
the truth.

>
> > He is a public figure and not an inhibited man in any case.
> > Furthermore, elements of Ms. Jones's description have become public
> > knowledge without any effort from me, so my remarks on the list do
> > not further infringe his privacy.
>
> Although I personally think you had a major AOL drive going, since I'm from
> the gateway of the wild west excuse my comment, but BS!
>

I see. I can't help wondering what our list manager thinks of remarks like
yours, which are rude and devoid of information value.

> > And I point out again that I did not describe the anatomical feature--I
> > merely mentioned that I had rv'd it and I was right.
>
> You assume you were right. Short of a photo you have no real feedback.
>

But you had no problem characterizing my remark as "BS". What's your
basis? Do you, perhaps, have a photograph?


> > With reference to my "slick methods"-- I knew I'd get
> > recognition if I hung around this list long enough--
>
> gag!
>

It's called humor. Have someone explain the concept to you.

> > very early in my lessons I teach students how to preserve their privacy
> > against remote
> > viewing by other persons.
>
> Geez!.... let's see, if we cultivate constant vigilance against intrusion
> where do weend up folks? Same place as any abused child: paranoid,
> dissociative, and confused.

You are mistaken. There are techniques for this purpose. I tried to
invite discussion of this area. So far I've received only this silly
flame.

I'd like to see a discussion with some substance.

Shelley Thomson


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 President Clinton, Shelley and Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/158)

 12:11:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

List:

>This is again, out of line. Where is our list moderator?

I was lying on my bed with my eyes closed! Believe it or not,
we do sleep here in the UK! It's now 7am and I've just woken
up. I can't be expected to be awake 24 hours a day. And
please remember this list is unmoderated - I do not screen
posts. I did not think it would be necessary. I am starting
to have second thoughts.

When I went to sleep, there was Shelley's post and Gene's
post. I very nearly posted a message asking everyone to
stop and now regret not doing so earlier. I am now doing so

Please, everyone, stop the President Clinton discussion. I do
not feel we can learn anything worthwhile from this discussion
at all, and since there is no verifiable feedback, discussion of
RV sessions about him don't add anything worthwhile to
anything at this point.

Shelley, I do not like you telling me how I should run my list.
Let me do that. Just a few days ago, you, in your own words,
"attacked an innocent". Now, yet again, you seem to be in the
center of a flame war, and Gene is also again involved with his
razor-wit.

Shelley and Gene, I do not like to do this, but considering that
you have both been at the center of two provokative arguments
lately, I must ask that in future you send mails to the list to
steve@... for review first, until further
notice. I will notify you if/when I feel this is no longer necessary.

In the meantime, *everyone* - halt discussion on this topic. Anyone
who persists on this subject line will be warned privately by e-mail,
and/or have their subscription immediately revoked. You have
been warned.

Now, let's get back to: the recently posted CRV Manual, and
to serious RV/psi theory and discussion.

There will be no further discussion on the matter of President Clinton
in public. If there is, you can expect to lose your subscription.

Shelley and Gene, please e-mail your posts to the list to me for
review in future - do not post them directly to the list in future (until
further notice), or your access *will* be revoked. Likewise,
everyone should end this topic be prepared to lose their access
to the list.

Regards,

Steve Crietzman
List Manager


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Psi-Blocking 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/159)

 12:11:56

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Shelley,

> I'd like to see a discussion on the list, of methods of defending
> against remote viewing.
>
> Is anyone up to this?

You can try, it can't hurt! We need some new brain food after recent
events, that's for sure.

I already realise that some people may want to turn around and say
"this is not possible, case closed", but we have to allow discussion
on this topic, even if it's controversial. I do not want to get to the
situation where controversial topics are being banned because some
people over-react when the subject comes up. I encourage critical
questions to/about remote-viewing and remote-viewers on this list. I
do not expect anyone to have to accept the validity of psi based on
'faith in experts', and would rather people ask the difficult questions. (I
see 'faith in experts' tantamount to the problems of scientism, as
discussed earlier. When it comes to RV, I encourage people to have
faith in facts and figures, not people.

Everyone, keep replies polite, and if you've got something to say that
you are not sure about posting (possibly offensive? Possibly impolite?),
first send it to the list moderator for review: steve@...,
and I will let you know if I feel the post is appropriate for posting.

[--All the below is not to be quoted in public replies--]

I would like to add that this is how I see the (previous!) situation, an
elaboration.

Shelley posted a post, in which she may or may not have been referring
to the President's private parts when she said she'd "viewed the case."

I would consider it impolite and offensive to talk about people's sexual
parts on this list, even if they *are* in the public eye, but even worse so
when remote-viewing is brought into the fold. She certain *did* refer to
the Prez's private parts, but did she *view* them? Her language on that
part is difficult to decern.

Gene's reply, while heated, is certainly understandable. If we take that
small step and say that Shelley was not posting about having viewed the
Prez's private parts, just the case in general, and Gene misunderstood
(giving both the benefit of the doubt), then that would just about "clear"
both individuals from causing deliberate harm. But if we take a different
small step - that Shelley *was* saying she'd viewed the Prez's private
parts, then Gene's reply is tolerable and understandable under the
circumstances, but that Shelley's was suspicious to say the
least. And finally, if Shelley's post was meant innocently enough, just
bringing the subject up under perhaps the assumption that people might
get a quick smirk out of it and the subject would drop, then it would be
Gene who really started off the fireworks, by turning around and calling
Shelley many nasty names. So: we can see all as innocent, just
Shelley as innocent *or* just Gene as innocent. Are any "proven
guilty"? I'd say no.

So, who to "blame"? As List Moderator, what matters to me is the
smooth running of this list, not in casting blame or in dishing out
punishment. I feel it necessary to air on the side of caution, without
being too harsh, in order to keep this list from going down a
questionable path.

Shelley and Gene must now have their posts
screened before posting to the list. This will continue to be the
case for at least a couple of weeks, maybe later. After a certain
amount of time, and I feel their posts have all been non-
objectionable in that period, I will probably allow them to post as
everyone else does - unscreened - until/if another problem
arises. I will do the same for any other questionable subjects
and posters that arise here. This is now official list policy
for dealing with "a situation," although by no means do I
relinquish the right to use a different judgement in different
circumstances, with perhaps varying degrees of harshness.

I have not banned anyone, I have not suspended posting
privilleges for anyone. I am merely keeping a closer eye on
Shelle and Gene's posts by pre-screening them, and this
situation will probably be temporary. I think this is reasonable.

My hope is that this will restore the list to normal, without having
to resort to more drastic measures. I hope everyone will allow
this topic to end now. Discussion of RV ethics is welcome to
continue, if no mention of sexual behaviour is included. People
who are submitting possibly controversial posts are asked to
send them to the list moderator for review. This will reduce or
eliminate any risk of action being taken against you, instead of
having posted the post without screening, with it later deemed
to be inappropriate.

[-- End non-quotable part of post. -Private- feedback welcome.--]

Regards,

Steve Crietzman
List Moderator


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 President Clinton, Shelley and Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/160)

 12:12:04

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Steve Crietzman wrote:
>
> Shelley, I do not like you telling me how I should run my list.
> Let me do that. Just a few days ago, you, in your own words,
> "attacked an innocent". Now, yet again, you seem to be in the
> center of a flame war, and Gene is also again involved with his
> razor-wit.

As you know, I apologized for my rude remarks to AquaSerene. I failed to
read the header and thought it was an inappropriate remark from someone
else. This was, incidentally, a transaction in private email, which you
have seen fit to publicize on the list. This cures me of sending private
mail to you.

Please unsubscribe me. This is a waste of time.

Shelley Thomson




stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Military CRV Manual Online 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/161)

 12:12:37

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

As one who is a great believer in the ability of people to train
themselves, and as one who has had up to Stage 4 training with Paul, I
can say that if I had had the manual I would have 'gone it alone' and
as a result would have missed a whole world of information that is
just not present in the manual.
If you are in the position of having to forgo training at present, I
would
encourage you to go to PJ's site and scour all the additional
information
available there in the archives to add to the information in the manual.

Pay particular attention to what Paul, Gene, Joe, and Lyn have to say
in response to questions, and continue to ask your questions here.
Note that even though PJ has discontinued her public work re: RV, she
is continuing her training with Lyn.
Thanks to Steve, the process is ongoing.
Shelia


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 President Clinton, Shelley and Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/162)

 12:12:49

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>Please unsubscribe me. This is a waste of time.

Per Shelley's request, she has been unsubscribed from the list.

Comments on this matter from now on should be addressed to the
list moderator by private mail, or taken to the Star Gate Discussion
BBS at:

http://www.progressiveweb.net/local-cgi-bin/config.pl

I do not feel that they are either appropriate, or productive for this list.

Discussion on this matter is welcome at the BBS - I certainly don't want
to be unaccountable for my actions as list moderator. I believe in
accountability, and I have often stressed how important this is in
science. Comments of all types, supportive or not, are welcome at the
BBS above, just not here.

Thank you.

Now let's get back on track, folks. Comments on the CRV
manual, anyone?

Best regards,

Steve Crietzman
List Manager


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Science vs. Scientism 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/163)

 12:12:58

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

electrix wrote:

> Perhaps, the topic should be Ethical Responsibility in Remote Viewing or the
> Code of a Remote Viewer. Then perhaps people wouldn't have to be "defending"
> themselves against unathorized intrusion in a person private life.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to this issue. And I do apologize to
the list
members for my spontaneous and quite visceral response in my earlier
message.The
ethical issues are many and provide endless food for discussion.
When is it appropriate to intrude into another person's space just
because
you can without their knowledge? I can not think of very many instances.
It is something each of us has to think about seriously and answer. I do
think that the greatest protection lies in one's own ethical behavior.
(Steve just woke up and now it's 3:30 am here and I'm headed for
sleep...) but I agree, it would be productive for us to discuss this
topic.

Shelia


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/164)

 12:13:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hello everyone,

I was just going through my drawers today and came across.. some playing
cards! My mind immediately flitted back to when Lyn, Paul and Joe were on
the Art Bell show, and Lyn was talking about his success with black and red
cards (so-called "binary" experiments because there are only two possible
answers, with a 50% chance of each card being red or black.) I remembered
Lyn claiming he'd managed 58.?% accuracy, and Joe McMoneagle once
scoring 100% on 52 cards.. versus the average Joe's 50%. As a "semi"
skeptic, I would find this kind of clear-cut demonstration/test of psi,
showing these kinds of high scores, accuracy, VERY impressive.

Then my thoughts flited to the UT skeptics site and all the criticisms that
had surrounded it, plus all the confusing statistics we're always hearing
about psi when it comes to remote-viewing distant targets: something
(statistically speaking) that is far more difficult to analyse and understand
for the laymen.

So I thought.. what about trying a real, online, binary, black-or-red card psi
test, which we can all take part in and contribute in? So no one could accuse
me of cheating, I could encrypt the answer to the sequence of red and
black cards into a file, and provide the key to unlock it after everyone had
submitted their results. (Does anyone here use PGP who can vouch for
this?)

How about it? Anyone game? If enough people are interested in participating
in these experiments, I'll look into drawing up some basic protocols to make
sure the experiment is conducted fairly and properly. I'd welcome comments.

And as for those of you who'd like anonymity - people can choose to be anonymous
if they like, just like the UT skeptic site. I would like to be able to give
people
ID numbers though, like in the former RV unit. This will allow
us to do experiments and better analysis later, e.g. focusing in on those
people who seem to show a special talent at this, and perhaps working with
them separately. It also allows us to refer to people individually without
naming
them, e.g. "viewers #4, #7 and #8 seem to have some very significant scores,
obtaining a fairly consistent 60% accuracy rate. Viewers #1, #2 and #6 are
getting ambiguous scores of 53%, while viewers #3, #5 and #9 are getting
scores of between 48-52%."

But why black and red cards? Because it should be an easy enough experiment to
run,
and the results shouldn't be too ambiguous. If the averages all point to a
sum of 48-52%, with no exceptions, we can rule out that psi has been
sufficiently demonstrated.. but that doesn't necessarily mean psi won't work
in a different situation or different experiment, etc. It just means we
wouldn't
of had luck demonstrating it in this experiment.

And if it shows a higher score than, say, 55% consistently? Well, I'm be
blown away by it :) But I would encourage others to do similar
experiments. I wouldn't want people to take my word for it. I'd welcome
other people running experiments of their own, which they're in charge
of and can be confident of the results of. Or perhaps we can change
Experiment Managers after a certain number of trials, and someone else
gets to randomise their cards, type it up, encrypt it, post it, etc.

Any comments or suggestions on this idea would be welcome. Anyone
interested? Would anyone like to take part? Anyone got any comments or
ideas they'd like to share on this idea?

(Note to Viewers: Would this kind of test be in the domain of Associative
Remote Viewing? My point of view is that people should be allowed to
use whatever methods they like. The interest will probably be on those
who are scoring the highest marks, and from a scientific point of view,
method is not important: results are. People will probably be monitoring
those who are scoring continuously higher than 50%, and whatever form of
psi is being used seems here to be unimportant, although declaring what
method they are using might be interesting for those of us who are monitoring.
Comments, suggestions anyone?)

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 President Clinton, Shelley and Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/165)

 12:13:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Re: [stargate] President Clinton, Shelley and Gene

End of steave list

your acting like a brutalik censor

mailing should be owned by their members
we arnt in miletry its the internet

Eyal


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/166)

 12:13:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Re: [stargate] Red and Black Cards

please remove me thanks


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 "China's Super Psychics" 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/167)

 12:13:51

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Howdy Stargators,

I just got on this list in the last couple of days so it may be that the
aforementioned book by Paul Dong and Thomas Raffill has already been
discussed... If it has not, I'm curious about the thoughts of any others
who have read this. (ISBN 1569247153, Marlowe, 1997, $12.95)

From the back cover:

"China's vast population, encouraged by a government that assiduously
promotes psychic research, has developed an unusually high percentage of
practitioners with psychic abilities. It is estimated that China now has
five thousand psychic children, three to five-hundred psychic adults, and
more than thirty super psychics who can be categorized in three essential
ways:

Healing Psychics (including cancer and AIDS healing)

Predictive Psychics (able to envision the past and future)

Regular Psychics (includes the ability, for example, to stop running carrs,
walk through walls, change colors and molecular structures; it includes
also telekinesis and unobservable flight.)

These powers naturally came to the attention of the Chinese government, who
wish to exploit psychic energy for military purposes."

Regards,

TB


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Military CRV Manual Online 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/168)

 12:14:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>As one who is a great believer in the ability of people to train
>themselves, and as one who has had up to Stage 4 training with Paul, I
>can say that if I had had the manual I would have 'gone it alone' and
>as a result would have missed a whole world of information that is
>just not present in the manual.

Hi Shelia,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am glad that the CRV Manual
is finally online. If anything, I think it has reassured me a little on
CRV and convinces me that training is probably a good idea 

But I am VERY glad it IS online. At least I had a rough idea of what
CRV is about now, and have a good idea of what I'll be paying for.
I'm a "try before you buy" kind of person, or at least, a "show me before
I buy" person :)

I think three things would convince me to pay for RV training (IF I
could afford it):

(a) knowing what I was paying for (which I now do,
thanks to the manual being online - - PJ has been ever-lasting
thanks :)

(b) seeing example sessions and good recommendations so I know
what the training and teacher are like (recommendations from friends
are always helpful if you're not sure what you're getting yourself into..),

and

(c) Seeing a demonstration - "try before you buy." This is the one thing
I'm still waiting for. Hopefully, if the Red and Black Card Test/Binary
Test idea picks up, is workable, and enough people show an interest
to make it worthwhile, it won't be long before I get a chance to see a
test being performed.

Then I'd be prepared to fork out my cash and get the professional tutoring.
The CRV Manual has reassured me that professional training is important,
the kind of reassurance that I needed. I wasn't convinced until now that
CRV could not be lead from a manual. Even now, I think, given enough
practice, it's still possible to learn CRV from the manual, albeit very
difficultly..

>If you are in the position of having to forgo training at present, I
>would encourage you to go to PJ's site and scour all the
>additional information available there in the archives to add to
>the information in the manual.

I would have to agree with this. From my point of view, it was always
the case I knew what to do, what not to do, what to look out for,
what to avoid, what I should expect, what the limits were, what
the weaknesses were, etc.. just.. not HOW to do it! :-)

The CRV Manual answers that one, final, nagging question. Even
if it does take a bit of work to understand it in places ;-)

PJ's Viewer List was an invaluable tool (here in the UK that means
"more than just valuable", BTW), and with the publication of the
CRV Manual, I expect there would have been a barrage of new
posts from new CRVrs who are manual-trained.. or are being
manual-trained and need some help.. :)

>Pay particular attention to what Paul, Gene, Joe, and Lyn have to say
>in response to questions, and continue to ask your questions here.
>Note that even though PJ has discontinued her public work re: RV, she
>is continuing her training with Lyn.

She's helped us so much in moderating a forum where everyone can
develop their CRV skills, that I think it's only fair we give her the time
to develop her own skills now. But she'll be missed.

>Thanks to Steve, the process is ongoing.

Well I try my best, even though my stubborn "no moderating
posts" policy occassionally causes problems.. :-) I think there
may be a temptation when moderating posts, to get into a situation,
where you are making judgements on what is an appropriate
or non-appropriate post, though your opinions might disagree
with other people's. And if you're not sure if a post is
appropriate, and you have high traffic, it might be tempting to
put it to one side 'for now', and then just never get around to it
again, as you start dealing with lots of other peoples you have
to accept/refuse, accept/refuse, accept/refuse.. etc.

I would like to try and keep this list open and unmoderated for
as long as possible, and only made requests for topics to
end if I think some list members are straying from discussion about
serious psi/rv discussion. Not only does that save me from a lot
of bother, but it means the list is somewhat more liberal, even if
that makes it a little less secure. But after having a 'secure'
list for over a year, I thought it would be interesting to try cracking
open the floodgates a little, and allowing people to exercise
their good judgement in deciding if their post is acceptable or not.

I'll only complain if I think things are straying too far (such as
the recently shot-down topic..)

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 President Clinton, Shelley and Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/169)

 12:14:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Ditto from me Steve....open forums are just that...opportunities to express
ideas in an open manner....Unsubscribe me...
BTW...Shelly...lets continue this face off privately...I am at
CURRAN2016@... have much more in common than most of the net
believe...
Gene...
It's been nice Stargate...sorry if I offended your sensibilities...


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Open Forums and Larger Universe 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/170)

 12:14:41

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>Ditto from me Steve....open forums are just that...opportunities to express
>ideas in an open manner....Unsubscribe me...

Gene,

You should have been at Larger Universe if you want to see "free and open
debate." Dozens of people digging at each other, making constant insults
and personal threats, being rude and offensive, hurting people's feelings, and
frightening off a lot of people.

If you want a list where there are no rules, where people can insult others
freely, be downright rude, and talk about everything from psi to UFOs,
to alien abductions, government conspiracies, paranoia, big foot, Yeti,
ghosts, .. go ahead and unsubscribe. This list *does* have boundaries:
that is: polite and intelligent debate, not down-and-dirty insults.

Am I alone in thinking this? Do people really want a free-for-all
flamefest mailing list with no boundaries?

Or would people rather I only limit posts that are off-topic or
offensive? Because that's all I've been doing. Trying to keep
things stable, friendly, and intelligent.

I do not operate a moderated board. I let posts through. But when people
like you and Shelley start insulting each other in public, talking about
sex scandels etc.. on what is supposed to be a list about psychic
functioning and professional remote-viewing procedures and methodologies,
scientific protocols, etc.. it affects the entire list. I have received quite a
few
emails from people who have been upset by all this already.

Does anyone here remember Larger Universe's BBS? It turned into
a grave yard and was closed down because of heavy and constant
abuse. It was a "free board." No rules. It died because of insults
and abuse.

Do you really want a list where people can freely and willingly
insult others? That's not intelligent debate. Or where the signal-to-
noise ratio is about 5:1? Then try a Usenet newsgroup.

If you do, perhaps you should leave. I do not want to be seen
running a BBS like that. I want this to be a professional forum for
serious, intelligent, adult discussion on psi and RV topics. I
would hope I'm not alone in that opinion.

Comments are welcome at the Open Chat BBS, but *please*
le's try and get back on-topic folks?

Open Chat BBS:
Http://www.progressiveweb.net/local-cgi-bin/openchat.pl

Regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 The CRV manual! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/171)

 12:15:01

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hi Darryl!

>I can say that I am more than happy to see the CRV manual online where it
>should have been at laest a year ago. But I would like to say to those who
>are seeing it for the first time, that You will still need help and teaching
>from those who have been doing this for years.

After reading it, I have to say I agree with you completely. The manual uses
very technical language, and there was more than a few times I felt like
turning around and asking "how do I do this part..? Do I learn this in stages?",
only.. no teacher was standing behind me :)

I think the publication of this manual will, in anything, *encourage* people
to seek training - because they know what they'll be buying, and why the
training is important, after reading/skimming through the manual.

>I have been taught basic CRV,
>and have had the manual for nearly a year now, but still have hundreds of
>questions that unfurl the more you practice. But don't be put off, the most
>important things are structure and practice.

I'm hoping, if things get back to normal around here, that people will be
able to ask structure-related questions and seek half the answers they need
to "learn" CRV, from this list. Although I by no means expect the CRV
manual or an email group to "replace" professional training; I believe that
if anything, it will encourage more people to seek training, now fully
aware that learning it from a manual is neigh-on impossible, certainly
very tough.

>The best thing the manual can
>achieve are stopping some of the fraudulent people starting to take over the
>RV field.

Here's hoping!

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 The CRV manual! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/172)

 12:15:15

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

I can say that I am more than happy to see the CRV manual online where it
should have been at laest a year ago. But I would like to say to those who
are seeing it for the first time, that You will still need help and teaching
from those who have been doing this for years. I have been taught basic CRV,
and have had the manual for nearly a year now, but still have hundreds of
questions that unfurl the more you practice. But don't be put off, the most
important things are structure and practice. The best thing the manual can
achieve are stopping some of the fraudulent people starting to take over the
RV field.

All the best...

Darryl



We came...
We saw...
We wrote a session summery...



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 "China's Super Psychics" 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/173)

 12:15:24

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

>I just got on this list in the last couple of days so it may be that the
>aforementioned book by Paul Dong and Thomas Raffill has already been
>discussed... If it has not, I'm curious about the thoughts of any others
>who have read this. (ISBN 1569247153, Marlowe, 1997, $12.95)
>
>>From the back cover:


Hello,

I just saw that Ingo Swann reviewed this book on his Web-site.
You can check it out at:

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/9-ChinaPsychics.html

Frank V


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/174)

 12:15:40

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

[stargate] Signal direction

Dipstick question. You'll get used to them folks....

Never one to make my own life easy, I always thought the viewer sent their
awareness _to_ the target to get the information, presumably as a result of
the bilocation stuff I have heard mentioned. The CRV manual implies the
information (signal) comes to the viewer.

Could this be another reason for my wondrous "fubar" rate?

In Friendship and Light. MaryD


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/175)

 12:15:49

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

[stargate] Red and Black Cards

Dear Steve and List,
An interesting idea, especially for this novice. I am interested!
Oddly, I've been playing a similar game with myself lately with a
software CD called Avery Cardoza's "Casino". In it is a roulette game
which basically mimics the real thing. I stink at the numbers part of
this game, I can assure you. One day however, I was astounded by how
many times I was able to "hit" with betting the color black vs. the
color red. (I almost wrote Cardoza himself to ask if the software is
'fixed'!)
Here is a question to put in the back of your mind regarding red vs
black, at least in terms of roulette...do you suppose that because
black attracts, and keeps HEAT that this would be why the blacks
overwhemingly appeared as I mock-played?
With cards, it would be different, yes?
At any rate, I'm still testing this out....perhaps I can give more
feedback as I progress.
Best to all, Laura


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/176)

 12:15:59

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Re: [stargate] Signal direction

Actually, Mary, this is interesting as I'd never given "travel" much thought
when it comes to doing this. For me the senses of space and distance
disappear and are irrelevant. There is simply a tuning into "something"
which is neither near nor far.

I've heard CRV' ers refer to the "signal line", a metaphor which, to me,
suggests distance. I imagine pluggin myself into a cable which feeds me a
signal from some distant point. I like the metaphor but it's not my experience.

I don't know if your thinking that the viewers "send" their awareness
somewhere could have anything to do with the viewing anomalies you've been
experienceing lately. After all, each of us has to have _some_ kind of
simplistic model to explain something which is probably ineffable. No matter
how we conceptualize it (within limits, I suppose), it works. May as well
agree with Liam that it's magic. It's as good as any other theory. :<)

By the way, never heard a "dipstick question" from you on VWR. Don't expect
to encounter them here either.

>Dipstick question. You'll get used to them folks....
>
>Never one to make my own life easy, I always thought the viewer sent their
>awareness _to_ the target to get the information, presumably as a result of
>the bilocation stuff I have heard mentioned. The CRV manual implies the
>information (signal) comes to the viewer.
>
>Could this be another reason for my wondrous "fubar" rate?
>
>In Friendship and Light. MaryD

Rick Stordeur
Vancouver Island



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/177)

 12:16:12

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

An interesting aside:
When my children were young (ages 10-12) I did an experiment with them to
see if they could "feel" color. I placed a series of 8 different colored
cards face down and asked them to hold there hand over each one and tell
me what color it felt like. I cued them that the greens to blues and
violets felt cooler than the yellows, oranges, reds. They all (my neice
also participated) had high hit rates of 70-80% on three runs each. They
being young and enthusiastic and having been told by me that it was
possible to feel color did not approach the task with any skepticism and
I believe that partially explained their success rates. (By the way, I
was blind to which color was where in the sequence).
Just a fun thing to try.
Shelia


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/178)

 12:16:21

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Having experience two aspect of RV...TDS and Workhop RV Healing, I have "felt" a
type of spatial sense. In the Workshop scenario I had an impulse to "go
somewhere"
instead of maintaning the Workshop RV static type movement in having someone
enter
my space. In TDS RV The images pops and hovers slightly above and outside my
head.
I kind of envision this as an extroverting experience. In the Workshop RV, I am
"looking at the inside of the mind."

Biofeedback meditation provides even more of inner spatial field more so than
the
above. There I learn what it is to experience fleeting images with the intention
of
"grabbing it" before it evanesce, but way inside my head.

One of my favorite exercises is visualizing. My objective is to find out the
qualitative difference of imagination vs. memory vs. flash of insight.

electrix



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Military CRV Manual Online 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/179)

 12:16:43

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> Pay particular attention to what Paul, Gene, Joe, and Lyn have to say
> in response to questions, and continue to ask your questions here.
> Note that even though PJ has discontinued her public work re: RV, she
> is continuing her training with Lyn.
> Thanks to Steve, the process is ongoing.
> Shelia

I completely agree. The day before I started Paul's course, Courtney
Brown
put his SRV manual on the web and I said "Do what ????". Imagine my
surprise
when CRV turned out so similar, but with the added info and insight
obtained
in class. Yeah, even with all the info available thanks to PJ's site and
all
the contributers I think that some kind of personal instruction from an
experienced person is invaluable.....especially for us less talented
folk.

I would think that there ought to be a way/market/opportunity for
individualized
classes/guidence/evaluation for those who start with the manual and
cannot
spend the time away from home or bigger dollar commitment.


Rich


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 President Clinton, Shelley and Gene 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/180)

 12:16:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Sorry to loose 2 interesting and valuable members of the group.

Rich


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/181)

 12:17:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Mary D
lol which end of the pencil writes?
Picture a fisherman wetting his line. The fish strikes the hook. Who has
hooked whom? ;)
The 'signal' line is already in existence. We access it. There is no to and
fro in actuality, imho. Whether it extends itself in space, or in time, we
just 'tap' into it.
We will let the physicists amongst us do the explaining as to who holds the
hook and who bites it.
lol
Bevy J


http://www.slipstrym.com/uspsisquad/
http://www.slipstrym.com/remote-viewing


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/182)

 12:17:22

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hello,

My 14 year old son and I have frequently played a game suggested by Rob
Abbot where you place 5 cards in a tableau and one turns his back and
the other visualizes which card hes thinking about. My son and I both
scored with p values < .01, but he was usually < .00001 using the
binomial theorem for stats. Also if the sender "gazzed" at the card like
in mirror gazzing "burning" in the position it got higher p values. If
we used colors instead of postition to identify the cards the pvalues
dropped to almost insignificant. So for us the color was not as strong a
signal as was the relative position in the tableau.

Bill


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/183)

 12:17:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hello Electrix,

John Grimes posted on psi list one time a report from a schiztophrenic
who grew up with such severe delusions that he could not tell reality
from imagination. However, he was able to finally screen his
hallucinations by testing there content for stability and something else
he did not clarify to well. This way he taught himself to functiontion
in the normal world, AND ALSO he found that a third class of object
exhisted the precongnitive vision. This was qualitatively different from
hallucinations and from reality. It was much more stable and
unchangeable than imagination, but not as much as reality. I am still
trying to find him to get more incite into this fascinating screening
process, which is at the heart of determining a true signal from noise.

Bill Pendergrass


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/184)

 12:17:52

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

> My 14 year old son and I have frequently played a game suggested by Rob
>Abbot where you place 5 cards in a tableau and one turns his back and
>the other visualizes which card hes thinking about. My son and I both
>scored with p values < .01, but he was usually < .00001 using the
>binomial theorem for stats. Also if the sender "gazzed" at the card like
>in mirror gazzing "burning" in the position it got higher p values. If
>we used colors instead of postition to identify the cards the pvalues
>dropped to almost insignificant. So for us the color was not as strong a
>signal as was the relative position in the tableau.

Thanks for sharing that here, Bill. I'll get to your own experiment
a little further down this post. I just wanted to make a few statements
re: red and black cards first, to explain why I was interested in this
kind of test.

I based my own comments about colours on something that LynB
said on the Art Bell show near to the beginning of the show (I know it
was in the first hour, I believe the first 30 minutes.) Lyn mentioned he'd been
doing an experiment involving red and black cards, and I'm sure
the number he mentioned was 58.3% The amount of times I've
re-listened to that Art Bell show! (..Mostly because only about
10% of his shows are credible, if that.. with 90% gone, it's
either listen to repeats all the time, or tune into his usual array of
sensationalism and fear-mongering to kill time..)

Re: Your own experiment. I'm not sure I completely understand.
Perhaps I'm just being a dumb Englishman and not listening/
reading closely enough.. ;-)

What's a "tableau"? I'm sorry if this sounds like a dumb question -
I've -heard- the word before, but don't know what it means or
is refers to. Sorry. Perhaps it's an American/English cultural
difference of some kind?

Could you tell me a little more about this experiment? Was the
name of the game to guess the colour, a symbol on the card?
Perhaps if I knew what a tableau was, I'd have my answer. So,
what's a tableau, Bill? Over to you! :)

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Summerys and profiles! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/185)

 12:18:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

I'm hoping some of you long time viewers can help me out with a few
questions. i have until recently always written a session summery, and a
very basic profile just listing all the corrects against all the
non-corrects. I have seen the profile on pj's site and decided to give it a
try, BUt it was real hard, I could not decide where to put things like
dimentional data. My sessions contain clusters like:

layered, structured, beams, supports.

Very solid, thick, surface, floor.

how do I break this down for profileing. Do I break it down?

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated as at the moment I am finding
profileing harder than learning Rv itself.

All the best...

Darryl




We came...
We saw...
We wrote a session summery...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Summerys and profiles! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/186)

 12:18:52

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Darryl--

At 11:09 AM 7/8/98 +0100, you wrote:
>I'm hoping some of you long time viewers can help me out with a few
>questions. i have until recently always written a session summery, and a
>very basic profile just listing all the corrects against all the
>non-corrects. I have seen the profile on pj's site and decided to give it a
>try, BUt it was real hard, I could not decide where to put things like
>dimentional data. My sessions contain clusters like:

The session profiling you find on PJ's site is not something we did at the
RV unit, but rather something Lyn Buchanan later developed as a way of
making it possible to create data-bases to help track viewer performance.
As such it is very useful, and you are certainly free to try it. I
recommend to my students, however, that they NOT get involved in it until
they are well advanced--not because it isn't useful, but because I think it
gets in the way of learning to RV. It's hard enough to get around to doing
the session. When confronted with the further drudgery of analyzing it all
and breaking it down into various categories, you end up with two problems:
1) a great deal of inertia to overcome and a procedure that takes a lot of
the "fun" out of RV; and 2) too much of an emphasis on analysis, when the
whole idea is to get AWAY from analysis. This is not meant as a criticism
of Lyn, merely an explication of my own assessment of this feature.

I'd say I hope that helps, but it probably doesn't ;-)

Enjoy!
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/187)

 12:19:04

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Bevy--

At 04:00 AM 7/7/98 EDT, you wrote:

> The 'signal' line is already in existence. We access it. There is no to
and
>fro in actuality, imho. Whether it extends itself in space, or in time, we
>just 'tap' into it.
> We will let the physicists amongst us do the explaining as to who holds the
>hook and who bites it.

Cleverly put! I suspect the answer is somewhere in the neigborhood of
where you've placed it. Ingo theory has it "coming to" you, whatever that
means, but I think your expressions here are close to capturing the essence
of what he meant by it!

Enjoy,
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 CRV Stage 5 queries!!! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/188)

 12:19:14

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Darryl--

At 10:08 AM 7/6/98 +0100, you wrote:

>Hi paul Thank for the help. I am using Thge classic style from The CRV
>(Coordinate) manual that I have had for a while. But as you know a manual
>does not tell you everything. Am I right in assuming that it is not
>necasarry to use stage 5 in all sessions and that you can skip from 4 to 6.

Exactly right!

Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/189)

 12:19:24

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hi Steve,

I'd be happy to explain the experiment a little further. It's not mine
though its Rob Abbott a psychic in Portland, Ore. He said this was the
easiest way he knew for beginners to demonstrate psi. And it certainly
was for us.

you place 4-5 cards in a geometrical arrangement.

x x x

x x

for instance. then one partner turns his back closes his eyes and on
signal thinks of NOTHING. The other partner focuses 100% of his
intenstion on one of the 5 cards at the same time he says "blank your
mind" ( its hard to keep a blank mind for to long even for Americans).
The "receiver" then turns back and points to the correct card. You can
use the bionmial theorem for calculating your probability. The sender is
just as important as the receiver. My Son got the first 5 trials right
and a longer series gave very small p vales (< .00001 that it was
chance). I was a little worse p<.01-.001.

Now repeating the experiment with red and black playing cards and cueing
on color only gave worse results p<.05 at best. Cueing on numbers alone
was also bad, whether or not it was a face cards gave intermediate
results. So it seemed that geometrical position was an easier thing to
cue psi with than color to us. Of course I did not try feeling the
colors as temperature variations as Sheila suggested, and color
differences on playing cards are not as extreme as one might wish, but I
think there is some basis for thinking geometry is an easier cue than
color.

Yours Warmly,

Bill Pendergrass

Is that clear now Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/190)

 12:19:48

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

That is interesting...hopefully John gets on this line so that I can bug him to
post the report again. I find this area to be very key in determining signal
from
noise. As a musician, I remember having to learn scales, intervals and certain
tones. That part of my "hearing" at first wasn't there. So I had to learn how
to
listen to tones in my head to differentiate. I was able to establish relative
pitch, although I understand some people are able to attain perfect pitch. This
would imply that if we can attain command of frequency sound vibration by
extended
our Musical Hearing perception....perhaps we are not too far in determining
Image
Visual vibration by extending our Visual Image perception potential. I am
exploring... who knows.

electrix

Bill Pendergrass wrote:

> Hello Electrix,
>
> John Grimes posted on psi list one time a report from a schiztophrenic
> who grew up with such severe delusions that he could not tell reality
> from imagination. However, he was able to finally screen his
> hallucinations by testing there content for stability and something else


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/191)

 12:19:58

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Dear Electrix,

the music analogy sounds quite cogent, but you lost me with that last
bit. Could you expand on it . Also the self healed schizophrenic said
that stability of a vision was not duration, but rather changeability.
REmember in a dream looking at your dream watch. the face will always
change and be nonsense, never stable. But true psychic visions, were
essentially unchangeable for as long as they lasted. Ring any bells you
RVers?

I would love to hear him expand on that concept, and also on the effect
of various treatments and drugs on the psychic as opposed to the
imaginary visions.

Bill Pendergrass


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/192)

 12:20:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hi Bill!

>Is that clear now Steve.

Yes thanks, I understand now :) I know now what you mean by "position",
and I think that psi is probably better at doing certain things better than
others, or at least.. we're better at interpreting/receiving/understanding
psi data better on certain assignments then others, such as pointing
to a correct card - identifying by position - than by, say, choosing the
right colour between red/black.

But I also had another reason for proposing the red/black card experiment/
test, and that is I would like to construct some clear, straightforward,
black-and-white demonstration/test/measurement of psi, that can be
performed online and in which everyone can participate.

Red/black would seem to be a simple and effective way of testing psi,
which shouldbe useful/interesting *whatever* "side of the fence" people
happen to be on. Skeptics get to monitor a mini "test for psi", though I'd
hope skeptics would not base their entire belief/disbelief in psi on one
online experiment :)

And supporters (and open-minded skeptics who become convinced/
supportive of psi through all this), get to see the difference between
chance vs. actual accuracy in the experiments. I've ever heard
statistics of 25%, 30%, 33%, 35%, 40%, 50%, 75%, 85%, 100%
(and probably a few I've missed) referred to as "the accuracy of remote-
viewing." To make things even MORE confusing, the particular
answer you choose for accuracy depends on how you wish to view
the results. (e.g. is it 35% accuracy overall, or just 70% accurate,
half the time? etc. etc. ad infinitum)

I think, for skeptics and supporters alike, a way to reliably measure
and test for psi, in a way we can all participate and be involved with,
wouldbe very beneficial. An online system to explore the
boundaries, abilities, weaknesses and short-comings of psi,
I believe, would be useful and interesting, whatever 'side of the
fence' you happen to be on.

Would anyone be interested in taking part in such a 'exploring
the boundaries of psi' online test?

Thanks for your contributions, Bill. I'll certainly be considering
everyone's ideas about how we could do this, and if there's
enough support for the idea of some kind of online testing
system, I'll get to work on setting one up, in which we can
all be involved, at each step of the way. But of course,
it depends how interested people are in the idea first.

Anyone interested out there? Or even intrigued? :-)

Best always,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/193)

 12:20:19

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

To expand on it would be pretentious of me since I am still a baby crawling
in imagery. But I have notice that their is a difference between fleeting
images (as in observing images during biofeedback) and let's say picture
memories (when someone ask to remember something recently). For lack of
better word...one seems to be "lighter" the other more "concrete"...or more,
let's say "present." I am assuming there is some kind of frequency level
resonation to these imagery. The reason the ear can perceive different
tones is because they are resonating at a certain frequency level. Middle
tone "A" is vibrating at a 440Hz. or there abouts (if my memory serves me
right).

Dreams, on the other hand, is a type of memory which has the quality of
etherial...imagination. Turns out that I am also a natural artist
(although, I have abandon exercising that aspect of me). But in developing
a painting, I would imagine scenes , scenarios...which remind me of
dreaming. Come to think of it, one of my favorite painters is Salvador
Dali. He used hypnogogic state to paint some of his masterpieces. He would
device a way of alerting him just when he was about to fall asleep and then
visualize what he was about to paint.

So, I think where I lost you is in the arbitrary assignment of frequency
level to each mode of mental imagery. Presently, I don't think that kind of
stuff can be measured. I can only go by "texture" at this point.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/194)

 12:20:28

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hello Steve,

I'm definitely interested and would participate ( along with my more
psychic son). The simpler the test the better, than statistics can be
uesd to assess the results relative to chance. Terms like 25% , 50%, 75%
etc. don't mean much statistically. Even 1% success could be way above
chance and 95% could be only chance depending on the way the experiment
is set up and the number of possible answers. Also you need almost
immediate feedback to keep the players going, and computation of odds.
Also, a comparison of scores with other RVers, and psychics might be
challenging. It could be called "Beat the Psychic--challenge". Hey I'd
even donate in on the winning pot!

Good Ideas in my book,

Bill



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/195)

 12:20:43

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hello Bevy,

I owe you an e-mail, I believe...but I am getting swamped with mailing list
communication, I am unable to get around to every posting. Each day, it seems
acknowledgements fall behind. I have Steve to blame for my resurgent activity in
posting..rats! I was suppose to be on a sabbath.

I sent for your Correspondence kit just the other day. I also listen to your
interview at Sightings. Your views align very well with mine regarding ESP.
Through out these years I have developed ideas that are in tangent with things
you
said in the interview. It is always great to hear that I am not the only looney
in town, LOL! So, I am looking forward in exploring the path you have already
set.

A friend of mine once did a Psychometric reading on me. I was astounded at what
he could tell about me from holding my watch. He dipped in the present (about a
certain person in my family and my feeling and relationship with her) and then
told me about my future. Although, I can't say it was a concrete (it was
somewhat
general) future reading, I can say that what came to pass was not so far off.
Of
course, at the other end of the skeptic stick, we can say it was
self-prophecy...but no doubt, he had me convinced that our vibration embeds
itself
in what we wear.

The signal direction...logically stated, would necessarily have to be static.
Of
course all this is irrelevant to the results and more of interest to
anatonomist.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/196)

 12:20:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

lol the color-sensing experiments was one of the basic skills being taught by
the Soviets where I came in in their training processes.
It is still one of the mainstays in thepractical training process of PSI we
use, as it is a 'doorway' to the extended sense of touch.An extended version
of this color experiment is in my next book as well.

Aries Productions has just completed a new 25 card Color-sensing Deck which
is available from Aries, Inc. Dept. L, POB 29396, St. Louis, Mo. 63126 USA at
$6.50 plus $1.75 postage US, $3 foreign. for these very interesting
experiments.

Working with children is rewarding as they tend to DO what you tell them they
can do. It is best to explain that it is merely a game, however, for obvious
reaons.

Many who are working on developing the PSI abilities from telepathy and
psychic touch to remote viewing can work with a child quite easily. Keeping
it on a 'game' footing helps to allow them to regard the 'games' as normal.
Having done this many years ago, I can verify that it works very well done in
this way.
Bevy J
U.S. Psi Squad


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/197)

 12:21:06

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

imho working the red/black online might be a big bite for some people. It is
an extremely efficient way of learning touch-sensing when you use an ordinary
deck but remove all the Court cards. (they include yellow too)
When in my learning phase in the early 60's I kept a deck on the bedside table
and made myself 'do' ten every night.
The experiment you are proposing here is similar to one of Rhine's where the
shuffled symbol deck he used (confusing as 2 of the figures are composed of
right angles) was to be predicted, as it would appear in order.
I think some experiment involving red/black might work on the Stargate List,
but I think the one you have had in mind is probably a bit advanced for most.
Why not just start with 5 of them, and go from there?
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/198)

 12:21:39

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Thank you Paul. I appreciate your comments.
Although there are numerous 'ideas' and 'conclusions' about the 'signal line'
I believe that my explanation is the most realistic.
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/199)

 12:21:51

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

owing me a letter is not a big problem. Sometimes I am offline for days
myself.

By the Way, it is not 'vibrations' that affect what we use, wear, hold, it is
the energies of our atomic structure. you'll find out a lot of that when you
get your Course. :)

Everything is energy, Einstein said that and he was right. And energies do
'throw off ' or radiate and affect other types of energy, and these throwoffs
are what affect and interpentrate the supposed 'solids' around us, rocks,
soil, etc.' and our own non-solid bodies throw off the same, which is captured
'inflight' so to speak, in these things we use, wear and hold. This is why
your ring can provide solid information about you to a touch sensitive. Or a
rock can provide information about seismic events in its former position in
space and time. Or as in one of our current experiments, a dinosaur bone can
hold the exact appearance, habits and living routines of its former owner...to
be relayed to a remote viewing experimenter and/or touch sensitive.

If you want to Post any of this on Stargate, feel free.

Glad you ordered the Course. It's basic stuff. Have fun with it and let it
take you wherever you want to go with this. After you learn what it teaches,
just go on....and on...for this journey has no ending, there is always
something else to study and learn. I've been on this journey for 36 years and
no end in sight.... lol. ;)
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Colored cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/200)

 12:22:02

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------

Hello Bevy!

I will soon be getting your colored cards from your starter kit and
will be anxious to compute stats on that method vs the placement method.
I'll feed back, Perhaps Electrix will also.

Best Regards,

Bill

stargate : Message: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/201)

 12:23:50

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hello,

This is my first posting to this list so here goes:

I suffer from tinnitus, so to see if there is any problem with my ears
my consultant booked me in for an MRI scan. When I got near to the
appointment (last Tues afternoon), I thought 'Here's an experiment just
asking for it!'. So I decided that I'd try rv'ing when the scan was
actually taking place (I'm always on the lookout for experiments).

As well as participating in target viewing on a number of web-sites, I'm
in email contact with a guy in Israel, and we send each other targets
(.jpg file nos.) followed up by session summaries and then the actual
.jpg file and comments; about 3 times a week. So, when the scanner was
up and running (very noisy too), I concentrated on the latest target
number and tried to rv it.

BTW I don't follow any particular protocol, I just close my eyes, try to
relax, think about the code no., and try to keep my conscious mind from
'interfering'. I then wait for impressions, which may come by way of
visuals (liberally sprinkled with AOLs of course :-/), tactiles,
emotions/feelings etc...as you all know. I know I have a lot to learn,
and could do with structuring my sessions somewhat......but we have had
some success, enough to convince me that rv really happens.

Well, I was fed to the 'doughnut', and told to keep perfectly still and
try to relax. (Obviously total relaxation is a bit of a 'no-no' in such
a situation; especially when there's always the thought that the scan
could reveal something drastically wrong....)

I must admit it felt very different, although that could have been
because I was expecting it to. It felt as if my mind was much more
'open', hard to describe really. No, I didn't get a direct hit :-(, and
perhaps not even qualified for a 'near-miss' on the UT site, but I got a
great deal of basic information which appeared in the .jpg picture. The
sheer *amount* of information coming in impressed me......my problem was
interpreting it. The only other time I've had such an over-abundance of
data was when I tried a 'beaconing' target on the UT site.

Thought I would share this, because what I really want to know is
whether anyone has done any research, or read anything anywhere about
the affect that magnetic fields may have on performance re rv... or psi
in general.

BTW my friend said that he was impressed, (which made me feel good :-)
), and he wants to know how I did it; as all I said was that I tried an
experiment. I've now got to tell him that it's unrepeatable...hopefully.

Thanks for reading this.
--
Regards,
Glyn


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
  Sony psi research closed down 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/202)

 12:24:06

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Everyone,

I thought you might find this interesting. Posted to PJ's Psi
List, which after much email pressure, is still alive! I believe
the Viewer List has closed down, however.

--

South China Morning Post
Internet Edition
Tuesday July 7, 1998
Japan
Sony sees sense to discontinue ESP research

BENJAMIN FULFORD in Tokyo

Japan's Sony Corporation says it has proved extra-sensory
perception exists - but has closed down its ESP research facility
because there did not seem to be any way to turn the knowledge
into marketable products.

Sony had a team of five researchers, who spent seven years
inviting people who claimed to have psychic powers into their
laboratories for a series of scientific tests to see if they
really did have these powers, company spokesman Masanobu
Sakaguchi said.

"We found out experimentally that yes, ESP exists, but that any
practical application of this knowledge is not likely in the
foreseeable future," he said.

Mr Sakaguchi said a typical experiment involved having a qi gong
practitioner put qi, or spiritual energy, into a glass of water
and then having another practitioner detect which glass contained
the qi.

"They were right 70 per cent of the time, and if it was random
guessing they would have been right only 50 per cent of the
time," he said. The experiments were repeated so often that any
chances of a statistical fluke were ruled out, he said.
Other experiments produced similar results for things like
discerning hidden objects and detecting colours without looking,
he said.

"We were unable to detect qi with any machine; it seems only
people can detect it," he said. Possibilities like packing qi
gong energy in batteries were thus too remote to justify more
research, he said.

Masaru Ibuga, one of Sony's founders, set up the ESP research
centre in 1991 after he became interested in qi gong and other
unexplained aspects of Chinese medicine. His death this year may
be the real reason the research was discontinued.

--end--



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/203)

 12:24:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

...my consultant booked me in for an MRI scan. When I got near to the
>appointment (last Tues afternoon), I thought 'Here's an experiment just
>asking for it!'. So I decided that I'd try rv'ing when the scan was
>actually taking place (I'm always on the lookout for experiments)...

Hi Glynn,

Quite creative and resourceful of you to think of incorporating rv'ing during
an MRI scan. I don't really know much about the studies regarding the effect
of magnetic fields on psi (I'm sure someone else on the list will address
this),
but I wonder whether having to concentrate intently on something else than
the
MRI and implications, where you forced yourself to block out distractions
helped
you to access the target.

Regards,

Roger


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Sony psi research closed down 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/204)

 12:24:35

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hi Steve,

It seems incredible to me that the conclusion was that no practicale
applications were possible. Is this another cover up denouncing psi so
that the practical applications go underground.

Surely, as the many RV groups have found, psi even at a low level can
aid in finding Oil, people, etc. A very bizzare conclusion!

Puzzeled in Seattle,

Bill Pendergrass


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/205)

 12:24:45

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hello Glyn,

I don't know whether I should mention this but a very good friend of
mine, who has since left the country claimed to have been part of a
government black project to enhance psi with alternating EMF fields.
She claims her nervous system was severely damaged when the black ops
closed it down and left her abandoned. Was this true? I don't really
know. I kind of doubt it, but her symptoms were those of someone
suffering from damage from extremely high EMF fields. She said it did
work BTW. I know nothing more about her claimed experiment. Any black op
people out there, stay away or I'll oscillate your fields!

Dr Barry Taff who has a tape on both Art Bell and Jeff Renses
(sightings on the radio show realaudio archives) claims that he also
participated in a similar effort which was abandoned because of
secondary damage. However, he mentioned no serious injuries. Still it
makes one really wonder. Barry also said it worked but was too
dangerous. I think Dr TAff is pretty reliable, although he may be
leaving things out. I don't thing he made things up for the show.

There is also evidence I've seen on Discovery Channel that stimulating
the temporal lobes of the brain with an oscilating field of certain
frequencies causes psi like effects. OOBE's, voices etc. although these
investigators did not try to determine if these manifestations were
truly psychic or simply hallucinations in fact claimed the opposite
without any experiments.

Sincerely,

Bill



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/206)

 12:25:02

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Aries Productions has just completed a new 25 card Color-sensing Deck which
>is available from Aries, Inc. Dept. L, POB 29396, St. Louis, Mo. 63126 USA at
>$6.50 plus $1.75 postage US, $3 foreign. for these very interesting
>experiments.

Hi Bevy,

Thanks for this. Do you happen a have phone number for them handy? More
info on what the deck is like would be nice too (are they just coloured cards?
I'd think for a psi experiment, the fewer distractions on the card, the better,
unless they are somehow supportive to a good psi result?)

The name of the game here, so to speak, is to create what is supposed to be
the most favourable conditions for psi, and then perform a simple test to
measure chance vs. actual scores. Aside from 'proving psi' for skeptics,
it would hopefully have the added bonus of allowing us to flesh out the
weaknesses and strengths of psi through ongoing online experiments, in a way
we can all be involved with.

So in that way, these kinds of experiments, apart from hopefully being
just "fun" and also easy to try, should be useful in, for skeptics, showing us
whether psi can really be demonstrated to exist this way, and for the
supporters or to-be-converted skeptics, it can allow us to probe the
boundaries of psi through ongoing online experiments.

Either way, whichever side of the fence people are on, I'd hope these kind
of experiments would provide some useful information.

>Working with children is rewarding as they tend to DO what you tell them they
>can do. It is best to explain that it is merely a game, however, for obvious
>reaons.
>
>Many who are working on developing the PSI abilities from telepathy and
>psychic touch to remote viewing can work with a child quite easily. Keeping
>it on a 'game' footing helps to allow them to regard the 'games' as normal.
>Having done this many years ago, I can verify that it works very well done in
>this way.

That makes sense. I suppose children do not consider it yet to be an
"unnatural" or
impossible task at that age, plus they're not as concerned about statistics at
that age as your average adult playing a similar game ;-) I'm sure this must
help in
developing psi skills. They just see it as a game, like you say, and they're
too young
to realise that something is going on that most adults in today's world would
probably
regard as "strange" or "spooky" if they were a witness or participant in it.
Children
on the other hand, probably don't see the 'big deal' over it. Bringing children
up
to regard this as a natural talent/ability can only be a Good Thing(tm) IMO.

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/207)

 12:25:13

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>I think some experiment involving red/black might work on the Stargate List,
>but I think the one you have had in mind is probably a bit advanced for most.
>Why not just start with 5 of them, and go from there?

Hi Bevy,

The idea of a red/black card test is still "in the works", so it's probably a
good
idea to regard all my ideas as "preliminary ideas."

There are many questions I need answering before I can even begin this
type of experiment, though, such as how many cards to do at a time,
how often they should be changed, and any special procedure I have
to do (memorise the order? Etc.)

Since I've never done an online experiment like this before, I'd like to hear
from anyone who has done this type of experiment in the past, especially
if they've done a "remote" experiment like this before.

How many cards per day or per week do you think would be a "not too
high, not too low" number? It would be nice to collect as many stats
as possible, but without giving people too much work to do, or -
on the flipside - making it easy, such as one card per week, but then
making realistic stat work impossible for at least six months or so.

Apart from giving people a chance to brush up on their skills and
to perhaps test different approaches, it's also a valuable chance
to gather some statistics (and to test claims, such as that everyone
has natural psi abilities, that some are better then others, etc.) An
online experiment where everyone is given a unique number (and
they can choose to tell people who they are only if they want to),
allows us to see the differences between individuals, without anyone
knowing who those individuals were (i.e. people would still be
'anonymous' in the sense they're only recognised by a number,
unless they *want* to be identified.)

Comments, suggestions, tips, ideas etc. are welcome on this idea!

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/208)

 12:25:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<<
Comments, suggestions, tips, ideas etc. are welcome on this idea!

Best always,
Steve.
>>
Not gonna beat this horse .... rigamortize has already set in...but here are
some "facts" you need to file away...
1. The good Psychic / Remote Viewer may start off with a good "score" but very
quickly they will tire of this parlor trick and the scores will begin to look
very wierd....

2. Lets say that a viewer consistently hits 50/50..what does that
mean....hmmmm....any comments.....Does it mean anything?..Well actually it
does..it usually means the viewer/Psychic is playing with the mind of the
tester...

3. Let;s say that a viewer gets a consistent 75% correct hits...then all of
sudden they begin to get only 25% correct hits...What does that mean..?..Have
they burned out?...Have they lost it?...hmmmmm???...Actually getting 75%
correct hits is the same as getting 25% correct hits...ask any
mathematician...

4. How do you plan on eliminating tester bias...I like red better than
black...will my body temp, eyes, voice, brathing etc.etc change when I see a
red card and will I "transmit" these to the Viewer/Psychic...

5. .......and besides card tricks are just that...card tricks...they prove
nothing...if you want to test things on the net...do like Paul does...come up
with some nifty targets and let people view them...then check the number of
"rookie successes" with the number of "pros successes"...check the accuracy of
hits...check similarity of responses...do people use the same words to
describe same items...do they use these words every time this type of object
is observed....see there are lots of ways to learn things about RV without
resorting parlor games...
Gene...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/209)

 12:25:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Glyn:

Dr. Andrija Puharich did a great deal of work on PSI fields operating while in
or out of magnetic fields. He used a Farraday (sp) cage for some of the
experimental trials and found that magnetic fields did not seem to be a factor
either for or against the operation and efficiency of PSI. (Dr. P. also found
correlation between some phases of the lunar orb to create a small effect) (no
comment)

I think the scientific thinking on PSI and what does or does not affect is has
definitely shifted away from any operation of EMF fields, of any sort.

However, as I have always felt that the questions we cannot answer are to be
contained in the field of physics and specifically quantum physics, it is
interesting that even such early research tended to elminate thinking along
EMF lines.
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/210)

 12:25:51

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Steve:

The Aries Color-Sensing Deck is an original design of a brilliantly-colored
triangular shape on a series of 25 white cards, done in red, yellow, green,
blue and black. There is no 'color' on the back of the cards, which was one
of the 'noise' factors with Rhine's Zener deck, which had white squiggles and
a sort of starburst on blue on the reverse side (which led to a lot of people
'guessing' the wavy lines were on the opposite.)
The other problem with it is that students in PSI often see only a portion of
the design, and not the whole design. Since 2 of the zener cards were a
square and a t-cross, both of which are composed of 4 right angles, students
tended to confuse them continuously.
Imho, this factor alone could conceivably do great damage to Rhine's
mathematical statistics on his tests, as students saying 'cross' when the
target was a square, may have been entirely correct but had to choose one of
two 'possibles'.
Given this problem, his percentages of 'right' choices may have been very
much higher than they were.

It is well known that persons studying telepathy and remote viewing do run
into the 'not a clear picture' or 'not a whole scene' problem, sometimes
for as long as a period of years until they get clear 'eyes' and can scan
whole detailed targets. It took me a lot of time until that 'dark veil'
problem, misting out some of
the target, cleared up, and I am aware of students who may have found it a
problem for even longer periods. Concentrated deliberate visualization and
mnemonic exercises do help to clear it, too, but found that direction of
attack only in the late 1960's.
Hope this helps out.
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Signal direction 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/211)

 12:26:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Bill, I recall that he mentioned he had gotten a lot of his information from
a person who had spent twenty
years of research on hallucinations. I believe his name was Claude de
Contrecoeur. Try http://dog.net.uk/claude/ The paper on controlled
dreaming is very interesting.....Ken



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/212)

 12:26:18

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------


This is REALLY cool information...keep 'em coming.
Thanks :-)
electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/213)

 12:26:35

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Gene,

Welcome back to the list. Some thoughts on your reply to my
red/black post..

>Not gonna beat this horse .... rigamortize has already set in...but here are
>some "facts" you need to file away...
>
>1. The good Psychic / Remote Viewer may start off with a good "score" but very
>quickly they will tire of this parlor trick and the scores will begin to look
>very wierd....

If people tire of this "parlor trick", they should be all means quit while
they're ahead.
No one's forcing them to take these experiments, least of all me. It's all a
matter
of choice of participation. They can start whenever they like, leave whenever
they like.

Incidentally, did the viewers in the mil unit "start well, then it looked weird"
in the
laboratory? If not, I do not see why they'd be a difference in similar people's
performance in an open setting, where if anything, they should be more relaxed
and cosy, because they are doing it from the comfort of their own home? What
causes you to suspect that a different setting will lead to dramaticly different
experiments with dramatically different conclusions, that cause laboratories'
findings to be unrepeatable?

Also, why would any conditions be different outside the lab than in them?

Because if we follow the basic rules of science in performing these experiments,
(first be open and accountable) and we replicate the experiment in every
possible
conceivable way, then surely there would be very little difference between the
two
settings and experiments? And we should be able to replicate the findings, if
the
original findings were sound. That's the whole point here. That's why I'm
proposing
these experiments. Replicability. Trying to replicate findings, to confirm
them.

Apart from the viewers/psi-gifted individuals doing it from home and the amateur
researchers doing it from home (hopefully replicating the experiment as closely
as
humanly possible), what reason is there to believe that there is anything
different
apart from the fact it is being done openly and publicly? I cannot see a reason
why they'd be a significant impact on a good viewer's performance. If they
have the ability, they have the ability. If they'd demonstrated it before, it
should be demonstrable again in similar circumstances.

>2. Lets say that a viewer consistently hits 50/50..what does that
>mean....hmmmm....any comments.....Does it mean anything?..Well actually it
>does..it usually means the viewer/Psychic is playing with the mind of the
>tester...

There is no scientific basis for that assertion ("playing" with the mind of the
tester), that I'm aware of, (please do point out any studies that show this if
there are any). I prefer to stick to pure, cold scientific investigation,
which
includes the accountability, peer-review and repeatability I talk about above.
All forms of faith, except in scientific procedure, fly out of the window for me
when I talk about performing a scientific experiment.

Now of course, you may be right Gene! I'm not dismissing your suggestion. But
until I see scientific evidence that I can validate and repeat, I must treat it
as an opinion that I cannot prove. And I want to *validate and repeat* the
assertation that psi results are higher than chance, which I have heard soo
frequently. Lyn said he's been able to get 58.3% if I recall correctly on the
red/black experiment. I'm trying to see if I can repeat those findings.

For your information, behind this experiment, I am working on the following
premise:

- Results are equal or bordering on chance: Psi ability has not been
unambiguously demonstrated to exist in this particular experiment. This
cannot prove that psi does not exist, however.

- Results are higher than chance: (56%+ for example) If no errors can be
found, then psi ability most likely exists, probability increasing if there is
a large run in experiments and the score remains above 50%.

The two "conclusions" above will of course be declared invalid and the
experiment re-started if methodological flaws are later found.

>3. Let;s say that a viewer gets a consistent 75% correct hits...then all of
>sudden they begin to get only 25% correct hits...What does that mean..?..Have
>they burned out?...Have they lost it?...hmmmmm???...Actually getting 75%
>correct hits is the same as getting 25% correct hits...ask any
>mathematician...

That would assume the existence of "negative psi," getting consistently WORSE
than chance. I cannot logically reconcile how "negative psi" could exist,
but for the purposes of this post I will talka bout my feelings as if it does.
Personally,
I think if negative and positive psi both exist, and they have this effect of
cancelling
each other out, causing the average to be chance, 50%, then sticking with ways
of
calculating things by chance is, in the long run, just as effective. Thus, of
what
benefit is psi? It has little practical application if in the long run, if the
long-term
results generated are no better than if we'd relied on chance. Perhaps you
are right and this does show that both positive and negative psi exist and had
an influenec on a viewer's session, causing them to get lower-than-average
after higher-than-average runs. But a tthe end of the day, their average is
equal to chance. So there was *no benefit* in psi in such an experiment
even if it existed.

Also, lab findings seem to show that there are *higher-than-chance* results.
These findings should be replicable.

Please note I am speakign from only a moderate understanding of statistics.
I'm not genius at statistics. I am planning to just run the experiments
and allow people to draw their own conclusions.

When I say I want to repeat lab experiments, that's exactly what I mean.

Science is about: repeatability, peer-review, accountability.

>4. How do you plan on eliminating tester bias...I like red better than
>black...will my body temp, eyes, voice, brathing etc.etc change when I see a
>red card and will I "transmit" these to the Viewer/Psychic...

The experiments will be performed online. Therefore, there won't be
any transmission of body heat, eyes, voice, etc. However, this would
be an important issue if, indeed, the test was being conducted
in other "non-remote" circumstances.

>5. .......and besides card tricks are just that...card tricks...they prove
>nothing...

It seems to me you have already dismissed the value of this experiment before
there is so much as a single result. And why do you use the
word "trick"? "Trick" implies a gimmick. Why would it be any more a
gimmick if done publicly, then if it was done privately in a lab? It only
means the results, INCLUDING FULL DATA, are published openly,
instead of kept filed away for internal reference and review only.

I'm suggesting we perform a scientific experiment, based on repeating
previous experiments, to test for a useful and practical psi ability, and if
found, attempt to charter it's boundaries throuh follow-up experiments. My
definition of "useful and practical psi ability" is: results that average out at
above-chance levels. If they average out at chance levels, what benefit
does psi provide other than something we could of guessed? If psi makes us
do better than chance, then do worse than chance, with no way of knowing
without feedback which is the case, and with negative/positive psi averaging out
at "chance", while it may exist, it doesn't sound particularly valuable or
useful
above "guesswork." (Incidentally, I have never said chance results = no
psi exists.)

Also, why is it when science is done behind closed doors it is
called parapsychology, a "highly scientific field of investigation",
but when someone proposes that the same be done openly and
accountably, it is immediately condemned and dismissed by so
many as a "parlor trick"? Personally, from an open-science point of view, I
think the latter is more useful. The former is secretive and denies
the public the chance to participate fully in the experiment. This
reduces accountability of the field and the ability for a third
party to check/verify their results (without, as I'm proposing, repeating
them.)

What is the difference between a psi experiment performed in
secret, and a psi experiment performed in public? It seems here
we're calling the former "scientific research" and the latter a
"parlor trick" which is of no use. I find the idea of support for a
closed, private investigation, yet such skepticism for open, public
investigations, to be disturbing. Joe McMoneagle talks about
openness, peer-review, criticism and accountability in his interviews.

I agree. But where is the peer-review, openness, criticism and
accountability if we (a) can't look at the lab data, (b) aren't
supposed to 'set up our own lab' to do something similar?
There's no "peer-review", no "openness", no ability to
criticise, and no accountability in that system. We have to
rely on faith in the scientists in order to accept the premise
that psi is "for real" in this scenerio, because the majority of
lab data is unobtainable and thus unexaminable, unreviewable.

I am not entering the experiment under the assumption that psi
either does or does not exist. I am entering the experiment in
order to attempt to replicate the experiments and findings of
similar studies. That IS science, and it's done all the time. Science
does not have to be done by scientists, or in a lab. Science is
a methodology, a way of testing, experimenting, arriving at
conclusions, etc. That's what I'm proposing. A scientific
run of experiments. An attempt to replicate the findings of
psi laboratories.

>if you want to test things on the net...do like Paul does...come up
>with some nifty targets and let people view them...then check the number of
>"rookie successes" with the number of "pros successes"...check the accuracy of
>hits...

Given the complexities of measuring psi in this manner, I would rather stick to
simpler, more clear-cut experiments. They've been done before and
apparently got above-50% scores, so what's the problem in repeating the
experiments?

Besides, there is always the UT skeptic site for things like that. Not that
many people want to acknowledge that the idea behind the UT skeptic site
is a sound one, either. Even if (perhaps) they're not perfect. You can hardly
blame them on such a complex psi experiment for perhaps getting things wrong.
Some might say they should of tried red and black cards, instead, it'd be
much easier :)

Lyn has claimed on air that he has got, I believe, 58.3% accuracy in viewing
red and black cards in his experiments. I am proposing we perform our own
experiment, and try to replicate those findings. Is that really so unthinkable?

Or because we are outside a lab, does psi suddenly cease to exist and become
unrepeatable, protected by a variety of pre-prepared explanations to explain
why this sort of thing can only ever be done in labs?

>check similarity of responses...do people use the same words to
>describe same items...do they use these words every time this type of object
>is observed....see there are lots of ways to learn things about RV without
>resorting parlor games...

Why are you so resistent to rerunning a simple laboratory experiment that
evidently many people would be interested in contributing in? What is there
to lose?

I honestly believe that it's way past time that this field moved into a new era
of
openness, where it does not condemn or dismiss any attempts to publicly test and
measure psi vs. chance accuracy, where instead these kinds of tests and
scrutinisations are encouraged, and where everyone can be involved from start to
finish in the *entire* process, from planning, to application, to the trials
themselves,
through to the presentation of results, to the analysis of the data, to.. if we
ever
get that far.. the stage of drawing up summarises, analysis and conclusions
based on the experimental trials.

I simply do not understand why people can call an open public environment
a "parlor trick", and the same thing done in a lab, in a closed private
environment, "scientific research." Why the disparity?

What separates the two? As far as I can tell, one is public, one is private.
There is nothing else to stop the experiments being basicly identical
in purpose and practice, if enough research is performed to make sure
that's exactly what they are.

Science is about repeatability. If an experiment cannot be repeated with
similar or same results the second we step out of a lab, one has to ask
why? And why such resistence to the idea of giving it a try? Why don't
we want to attempt to repeat these experiments and the findings,
conclusions etc? Is this some kind of sin? Must the conclusions be
taken on pure faith in the scientists and the labs, and that their
conclusions are true based on our faith or respect for those scientists,
having -nothing whatsoever to do with having reviewed their data- or
having attempted to repeat their experiments and got similar results?

I honestly feel an open, objective, fair, rational, peer-reviewable,
public, repeatable set of experiments cannot hurt, and can only advance
our understanding, if anything. I am bemused that laboratory findings
are used by some individuals (not talking about you here, Gene) to
bolster their argument that "psi is real", then become resistent to the
idea of re-running those experiments publicly.

From my heart, Gene - honestly, all I want to do is to re-run those
experiments publicly. I am doing my best right now to obtain as much
information as possible on how to best do these experiments, before
beginning. I may indeed have made a few mistakes in my post
here, because of my lack of familiarity with some scientific "truths".

However, I understand fully the concept of peer-review, accountability,
openness, repeatability etc, and it is these concepts I am latching onto, and
are the
reason for my desire, my need, to re-run these experiments publicly.

I want to repeat lab experiments and attempt to replicate their
findings. Is that such a bad idea? I can only think it's good science, not
bad science, to try to do this.

If you'd like to be helpful, you are welcome to suggest ways to ensure that
a proposed red/black or other "binary experiment" can be performed and operated
under controlled conditions to test for psi. Any information you might have on
how previous experiments were performed, under what conditions etc., would
be extremely useful in the "setting up" phase of this project.

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/214)

 12:28:10

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Bevy,

Thank you for the information on the cards, I found it useful :)

It might be worth me getting these cards eventually, but part of
me definately wants to try a binary psi experiment. If I ever do
do an experiment, binary or not, then I'll want to make sure I've
researched it properly before anything begins. There's no point
spotting a mistake mid-way through the experiment and having to
restart, afterall, if you can instead know the ground rules from the
very beginning of the experiment.

If anyone reading has been involved with red/black card experiments
in a laboratory (i.e. controlled) setting, I'd appreciate them getting in
touch with me here or (perhaps better) by private e-mail. Anything
anyone could tell me on the controls surrounding those experiments,
statistical methods that were used, general methods used to
'receive'/'transmit' the colour etc.. basically, anything at all about
how the experiment was performed, would be useful. Since LynB
remembers card experiments (red/black?) being performed in the
RV unit at some time, I can only hope that someone reading here
from the ex-RV unit was involved in one of the card test experiments
and is able to help, hopefully by providing enough information to as
closely re-create the experiments as possible. If anyone reading
CAN help, please get it touch. Thanks, it's appreciated! :)

And thanks again, Bevy, for the information :)

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
  Mind Race 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/215)

 12:28:18

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

From Marilyn Huff (huff@...):

I have found several copies of Russell Targ and Keith Harary's Book
"Mind Race" in a used book store. I bought them, hoping to sell them,
Not for profit, but only for my expenses, since there seemed to be such
an interest.

I have 4 copies that are in very good shape, first edition, hard back,
complete with outer paper cover. One has a bit of pencil underlining and
an inscription and another has the hard cover on upside down. They are
very clean. My cost, including postage, packaging comes to about $14.00.
(I just had a scare where I sent one to someone and it didn't get there,
so maybe I need to insure them. It turned out that it arrived OK.) I
would need to include that cost also. I will send to the U.S. only, the
cost to England is $23.00, unless I can find another way to send it. The
books are quite heavy.

Of course, the bookstore people thought I was totally nuts for buying so
many of the same book. But we RV'rs in training can't be bothered by a
little thing like insanity now, can we?

Please let me know if you want one. I also found several other copies,
but they were more expensive. I would be willing to try to get them down
in price if people want more than I have. I did it on the 4th book I
bought and I can do it again.

Let me know at huff@...

Marilyn


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Sony psi research closed down 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/216)

 12:28:29

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

> It seems incredible to me that the conclusion was that no practicale
>applications were possible. Is this another cover up denouncing psi so
>that the practical applications go underground.
>
>Surely, as the many RV groups have found, psi even at a low level can
>aid in finding Oil, people, etc. A very bizzare conclusion!

Hi Bill,

Well, you'd think they'd find applications, wouldn't you? Perhaps they're
just being a pragmatic, hard-headed businessmen, and like corporations
can easily be, find it very difficult to adapt to new circumstances, preferring
to stick to their home terriority, where they know the grounds. Corporations
tend to enter new markets by buying up companies that are established in
those markets, rather than through their own resourcefulness. Companies
like Microsoft come to mind.

If the story is accurate, they're probably wondering what consumer products
they can mass-manufacture, sell and market from it. Not exactly visionary,
but for an electronics company, they might have felt psi was incompatible
with the sort of things they like to make, sell, etc.

Say a large psi corporation or company really took off. Perhaps Sony,
if still interested, would buy out the company if they saw the market was
heading that way. That's how corporations tend to "think" - acquisitions,
joint ventures and mergers.

But of course, you could easily be right! Sony might simply be denying any
interest in the subject because it was a potential source of embarassment
(remind us of anyone, folks?) Whether they're still doing anything is up for
debate really. It's hard to say. Companies do often keep secrets, and are
very protective of their trade secrets, so perhaps they're just trying to throw
their competitors off-track, and are really taking it "underground."

But some how, intellectually, the idea of a consumer-products corporation
researching psi with an idea to making money out of it seems - incompatible.
It's hard enough to say what psi *is*, no one really knows what it is or what
lies behind it, so how do you turn that unknown force/whatever into a
marketable product? I think of their statement about wanting to put chi
energy into batteries. Sounds like typical conservative corporation
thinking.

Something tells me that building interactive and digital TVs, etc. are a
high-priority for Sony right now, and the psi research was something of
a bafflement for the existing management. Perhaps they just felt
there wasn't enough $billion's to be made in it to keep them
interested in pursueing it any further (corporations think "profit.")

Best always,
Steve.




stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/217)

 12:28:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hi Bill,

> I'm definitely interested and would participate ( along with my more
>psychic son).

That's great news! :)

>The simpler the test the better, than statistics can be
>uesd to assess the results relative to chance.

My thinking exactly. By chance we can get it right 50% of the time.
Whether the lack of psi or the existence of anti-psi/negative-psi (see
my reply to Curran2106), something I have intellectual problems in
accepting as an explanation for a 50% accuracy score personally, the
real test is to see if psi can do better than chance in a reliable way. If we
start getting consistently an average of 55% or more over a long period
of time, then something interesting is happening whichis more than
statistical fluke.

>Terms like 25% , 50%, 75% etc. don't mean much statistically. Even 1%
>success could be way above chance and 95% could be only chance
>depending on the way the experiment is set up and the number of
>possible answers.

Exactly right. Hence my problems with the varying statistics of
25%, 33%, 35%, 50%, 70%, 85%, 100% etc. offered as "the accuracy of remote-
viewing." Which one's the "right one"?? IS there a "right one"? And what is
"chance"? (But then, if the rules let us score sessions as low as 25% and as
high as 85% depending on the system you're using, it's reasonable to assume
that as the accuracy level moevs, so does the chance level as the parameters of
scoring it are changed.)

A red/black or "binary" experiment, in theory, gets around this problem,
as we can deal with clear-cut statistics. At least, that's the hope. Chance
is 50%. For psi to be useful practically, it needs to score above 50%. We
can just "stay tuned" to watch the overallscores, and the scoresof the
individuals. Perhaps certain individuals will be better at this then others.

>Also you need almost immediate feedback to keep the players going,
>and computation of odds.

I was planning to provide feedback every week or so. I'm still
working out the specifics, though. I could do with a lot more information
then I have so far.

>Also, a comparison of scores with other RVers, and psychics might be
>challenging. It could be called "Beat the Psychic--challenge". Hey I'd
>even donate in on the winning pot!

Cool! ;-) Actually, I was thinking of something along those lines - not
a "winning pot", although that sounds like it'd add excitement to the
thing (incentive to viewer? Improve psi performance? I wonder.)

I was thinking of giving each viewer a unique number, like in the
ex-military unit, perhaps label people as V01, V02, etc :) People
would be anonymous though, unless they *wanted* to be identified.

This way, it also opens up some interesting possibilities. If we see
"gifted" people scoring 70% accuracy regularly, we can perhaps focus our
attentions on them.. there's nothing to say we have to stop with
a red/black experiment, afterall :)

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/218)

 12:29:02

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Steve--

At 10:27 AM 7/9/98 +-100, you wrote:


>Exactly right. Hence my problems with the varying statistics of
>25%, 33%, 35%, 50%, 70%, 85%, 100% etc. offered as "the accuracy of remote-
>viewing." Which one's the "right one"?? IS there a "right one"? And what is
>"chance"?

You must remember--these "percentages" thrown around about RV are not
deviations from CHANCE--they are estimates of what percentage of RV
sessions produce unambiguous results. Chance calculations for RV
experiments are a different animal altogether--they have to do with whether
a judge can pick the right target an RV session describes out of a pool of
five or six other decoy targets. As such they are as much a measure of the
judge's discriminative abilities as of the rmeote viewer's success. In an
RV session against a target that was picked from an inifnite target pool
(in other words, the target could be anything in the world), it is
essentially impossible to calculate deviations from chance. The viewer
shouldn't get such a target even *once*--the odds against it are
incalculable. But even when a viewer succeeds several times (among perhaps
several misses), there are those who simmply can't accept the fact that
something "psychic" is happening!

>>Also you need almost immediate feedback to keep the players going,
>>and computation of odds.

>I was planning to provide feedback every week or so.

Nope, that's not often enough; if you're going to have a binary
color-guessing experiment the feedback has to be IMMEDIATE--with every
choice. Since you want to do this online you will need to automate it in
some way. You could have a neutral-colored square that turns red or black
periodically, determined by a random number generator (there are software
versions of these--checkwith Angela Thompson Smith). You can have two
buttons underneath which the subject can click on with a mouse--one button
for red, the other for black. The color-square turns what ever color the
RNG specifies as soon as the subject clicks on whichever button he/she
chooses. The computer then keeps track of which button was clicked,
together with what color turned out to be correct. You'd limit a "run" to
probably ten tries, but the subject could do as many or as few funs as
desired. you'd have to have a computer-maintained account for each subject
so you cold keep track of the results without a HUGE amount of bookkeeping.

More about your red/black experiment in other posts.

Enjoy!
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/219)

 12:30:01

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Steve--

At 09:04 AM 7/9/98 +-100, you wrote:

>If people tire of this "parlor trick", they should be all means quit while
they're ahead.

One of the issues Gene is talking about is a very real problem I'll here
call "experiment boredom" (it has a real name, but it escapes me right
now--I stayed up too late and got up too early! ;-). In effect, the
subject WANTS to do the experiment, but after numerous repeats of the same
old repetitive tasks, scores fall off dramatically, likely because the
subsconscious has gotten bored with the lack of variety. It is
analogically similar to apetite boredom, where people who have nothing but
one food--say unsweetened oatmeal--to eat for years might starve to death
rather than eat another bite of oatmeal!

What Gene is referring to is that sometimes surprising and unintentionally
creative things started happening--just as if the person's subconscious
decided to play tricks to alleviate the boredom. BTW, that was one of the
reasons Ingo's experiments at ASPR evolved into remote viewing. In RV,
there is always variety, becuase every target is different, and challenging
in different ways. There is much less opportunity for experiment boredom
to develop.

Before you even launch into your experiment, I suggest you read Dean
Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" (available from Amazon.com or perhaps
at a local library). He shows the resultant statistical and
metastatistical analyses of thousands of these and related sorts of
experiments, providing an airtight case in my opinion for the existence of
psi.

You might, BTW, also want to look into the research JB Rhine did--there are
a number of books out on it, probably available at a library near you. He
did literally thousands of card-guessing experiments of various kinds (many
using the ziner (sp?) cards mentioned by Bevy). I don't know if any of
them were binary colors or not.

>For your information, behind this experiment, I am working on the following
>premise:
>
>- Results are equal or bordering on chance: Psi ability has not been
>unambiguously demonstrated to exist in this particular experiment.

I'm not sure this is the case. I think there have been binary psi
esperiments that demonstrated conclusive statistical effects. Again, see
Radin and Rhine.

>>3. Let;s say that a viewer gets a consistent 75% correct hits...then all of
>>sudden they begin to get only 25% correct hits...What does that
mean..?..Have
>>they burned out?...Have they lost it?...hmmmmm???...Actually getting 75%
>>correct hits is the same as getting 25% correct hits...ask any
>>mathematician...
>
>That would assume the existence of "negative psi," getting consistently WORSE
>than chance. I cannot logically reconcile how "negative psi" could exist,

Actually, it does, and in some experiments is as robust as positive
effects. It is known in the literature as "psi-missing," and happens when
a subject produces results significantly *below* chance outcomes.

>I think if negative and positive psi both exist, and they have this effect
of cancelling
>each other out, causing the average to be chance, 50%, then sticking with
ways of
>calculating things by chance is, in the long run, just as effective.

I would suspect that statistical meta-analysis could be used to sort
through such problems as Gene presents.

>benefit is psi? It has little practical application if in the long run,
if the long-term
>results generated are no better than if we'd relied on chance.

Don't get experimental results confused with practical applications. They
are entirely different things. Lab experiments are designed to be
quantitatively evaluate-able (couldn't think of a better word right
now). But that says nothing about the QUALitative aspects which--after
all--are where the practical applications are.

>>5. .......and besides card tricks are just that...card tricks...they prove
>>nothing...

What "card tricks" can prove is an effect. They cannot demonstrate a
causal linkage. But that is the case with ALL psi experiments, even RV.

>Besides, there is always the UT skeptic site for things like that. Not that
>many people want to acknowledge that the idea behind the UT skeptic site
>is a sound one, either. Even if (perhaps) they're not perfect. You can
hardly
>blame them on such a complex psi experiment for perhaps getting things
wrong.
>Some might say they should of tried red and black cards, instead, it'd be
>much easier :)

Actually, they wanted to do something like that, but I talked them into
something more interesting. Right now they're still trying to quantify an
approach, with the current idea of making a multiple-choice form where you
indicate the presence or absence of various gestalts, sensories, etc. This
also has been done before, at SRI and SAIC--but as far as I know the
results haven't been released.

FYI, the format for the experiment at the RV unit was to use a limited
number of cards from a regular deck of playing cards with the face cards
removed. They would be shuffled, then the placed face down on a table.
The subject would declare "red" or "black" for whichever color he/she
thought would be on the top most card. The card was then turned over, and
the subject's response and the actual color recorded. The subject could
stop any time, and could do as many or as few "runs" at a sitting as
desired. On any given run, the subject might try all ten, or stop after
getting three in a row right. Statistics were kept on how many cards were
guess in each run, and what the correct "guesses" were (I hate this term
"card guessing," by the way; if we're presuming there is psi afoot, there
has to be more than "guessing"involved!).

Enjoy,
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/220)

 12:30:40

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

At 09:43 AM 7/9/98 +0000, you wrote:

>One of the issues Gene is talking about is a very real problem I'll here
>call "experiment boredom" (it has a real name, but it escapes me right
>now--I stayed up too late and got up too early! ;-). In effect, the
>subject WANTS to do the experiment, but after numerous repeats of the same
>old repetitive tasks, scores fall off dramatically, likely because the
>subsconscious has gotten bored with the lack of variety. It is
>analogically similar to apetite boredom, where people who have nothing but
>one food--say unsweetened oatmeal--to eat for years might starve to death
>rather than eat another bite of oatmeal!
>
>What Gene is referring to is that sometimes surprising and unintentionally
>creative things started happening--just as if the person's subconscious
>decided to play tricks to alleviate the boredom. BTW, that was one of the
>reasons Ingo's experiments at ASPR evolved into remote viewing. In RV,
>there is always variety, becuase every target is different, and challenging
>in different ways. There is much less opportunity for experiment boredom
>to develop.

I wonder if this could be handled by making the target interesting but
continuing to require only a binary choice. In experimental design, this
technique is known as separation of stimulus and reponse complexity. It seems
to me that the simulus could be as complex as you wanted it to be. The
response
could still be simple -- red vs. black, dark vs. light, tall vs. short,
structure vs. land vs. water.


Best regards,
Michael


R. Michael O'Bannon, Ph.D.
42 Lenox Pointe
Atlanta, GA 30324



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/221)

 12:30:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Michael--

Glad to see you up on Stargate!

At 11:10 PM 7/8/98 -0400, you wrote:

>could still be simple -- red vs. black, dark vs. light, tall vs. short,
>structure vs. land vs. water.

Hhhhmmm. Interesting notion--and sounds kinda fun. It would be a little
complicated to set up, but still doable, seems to me. Any alphageeks out
there who might be interested in tackling the programming aspects (but make
sure it's y2k compiant!;-) for poor Steve? ('Course, maybe he's competent
himself to do it. He's often surprised me in the past!)

Also, sorry I haven't responded about your EEG experiment query, Michael.
Send me a quick outline of what you have in mind.

Now, back to work.

Enjoy,
Paul



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/222)

 12:31:12

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<<
Lyn has claimed on air that he has got, I believe, 58.3% accuracy in viewing
red and black cards in his experiments. I am proposing we perform our own
experiment, and try to replicate those findings. Is that really so
unthinkable?
>>
I ran some of those experiments with Lyn using the most stringent control
measures and scientific protocols...If Lyn scored 58+% then he is to be
congratulated...but take into account, Lyn (and the rest of us) were so
"shotgunned" in our repsonses that there weas no way we could continuously
score anything better than chance...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/223)

 12:31:29

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<< Why are you so resistent to rerunning a simple laboratory experiment that
evidently many people would be interested in contributing in? What is there
to lose?
>>
Steve...pull in your dagger...I am not resisting anything..I am not
participating..I was just sending you the wisdom of twenty years in this
business and calling to challenge the statement of 58.3% for Lyn...he is a
dear friend and he knows he could not consiostently score above 50/50 like the
rest of us..some days it was higher some days it was lower...its your test and
if you feel it will give you some sort of imperical data on which to vbasae a
clear defendable position...what the heck to to I care...I am already a proven
Pshchic ...don't have to prove it to anyone ever again...
gene...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/224)

 12:31:40

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>I ran some of those experiments with Lyn using the most stringent control
>measures and scientific protocols...If Lyn scored 58+% then he is to be
>congratulated...but take into account, Lyn (and the rest of us) were so
>"shotgunned" in our repsonses that there weas no way we could continuously
>score anything better than chance...

Thanks for your comments, Gene.

I'm pretty sure that Lyn had said he had 58.3% average, and that Joe once
(only once) scored 100% on 52 cards.. I'll re-listen to that part of the Art
Bell
show to check and will let you know when I find.

I appreciate your comments on red/black, etc. Michael's suggested we could
try a similar binary experiment but with something different. My main concern
is in attempting a binary experiment, and there's no reason we can't find some
way to make it interesting, but still keep the experiment fairly simple. I'm
game
to any suggestions! I'm not hell-bent on having a red/black card test, that was
just a suggestion.. I'm interested in proposals for a "binary" experiment,
though..

Again, thanks for contributing. Any ideas on possible binary experiments that
would be "interesting" to the viewer but are basically binary in nature?

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/225)

 12:31:50

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hi Bevy!

Thanks for the reply. I agree 100% that psi is not mediated by EMF.
However, I think these experiemnts and stories I posted are indicative
of stimulating certain areas of the brain, which may be more sensitive
to psi. The brain is clearly influenced by EMF and magnetics, and it is
this rather than psi signal or psi reception that is effected by EMF
osccilating fields. Is the difference clear? All psi seems to be
received initially at a subconcious primitive level in the brain, and
accessing this primitive area may be stimulated by EMF, or altered
states, or protocols such as CRV.

Best Regards, Bill


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/226)

 12:32:00

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Steve...pull in your dagger...I am not resisting anything..I am not
>participating..I was just sending you the wisdom of twenty years in this
>business and calling to challenge the statement of 58.3% for Lyn...he is a
>dear friend and he knows he could not consiostently score above 50/50 like the
>rest of us..some days it was higher some days it was lower...its your test and

Hi Gene,

I've just been re-listening to the Art Bell Show of 25/3/97. Play from about
20 minutes in the show (Lyn starts talking about it at about red-black cards
at 22 minutes but there's a small prelude IYSWIM) (time includes adverts etc),
Lyn actually says his extended experiment on red and black cards puts it at
at 68.3%, not 58.3% as I had remembered (well, 2 numbers out of 3 isn't bad ;).

Although perhaps Lyn had only just started the experment. You'd have to ask
him.
(I would ask myself, but he does not seem to be replying to emails at the
moment and I don't fancy calling international-direct :)

RealAudio/RealPlayer users can go to the show by select 'Open Location'
and typing:

http://ww2.audionet.com/artbell/abell/9703/ab0325.ram - then skipping
forward to about 20-22 minutes.

Lyn's stats of 68.3% was what originally got me thinking about doing binary
experiments with red/black cards, and lately after finding some playing cards,
got me thinking about doing an experiment similar to the one where Lyn
referred to 68.3% accuracy on the Art Bell show.

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/227)

 12:32:16

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>I wonder if this could be handled by making the target interesting but
>continuing to require only a binary choice. In experimental design, this
>technique is known as separation of stimulus and reponse complexity. It seems
>to me that the simulus could be as complex as you wanted it to be. The
>response
>could still be simple -- red vs. black, dark vs. light, tall vs. short,
>structure vs. land vs. water.

I agree it should be interesting. I don't know much about the processes
involved, but presumably this would be on a web-site, and some sort of
random-number type generator would have to be behind the scenes to
ensure that the colours or whatever come up as randomly as possible
(??).

Say red and black are decided upon. Then perhaps, if it's not too
complicated (and I know nothing about programming, so sorry if it's too
outlandish a suggestion), some sort of scoring could be fed back to
us...in money terms....it would be as if we were all playing roulette,
and the one that accumulates the biggest 'pot' gets the 'prize' (or just
the satisfaction, if no-one's buying ). Further analysis could be
done behind the scenes of course.

This is a light-hearted suggestion, and may not appeal to some, but I
think that if there's an element of fun in the experiment then all the
better.

Whatever is decided, I'll definitely join in though.

BTW you may/may not know of the little applet on enchantedmind.com that
uses colours.
--
Regards,
Glyn


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/228)

 12:32:48

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<<
Again, thanks for contributing. Any ideas on possible binary experiments
that
would be "interesting" to the viewer but are basically binary in nature?

Best regards,
Steve. >>
One final note and then I let it die...If we psychics could consistenty score
better than chance on binaries...we should all be millionaires...many times
over...by simply playing the daily/weekly lotteries or even the stock
markets...on a binary Yes/No protocol...but GUESS WHAT!!!!...we tried that
also...including Lyn...and we are all still working stiffs not living the
lives of luxery one would expect of people who supposedly should be able to do
something as simple as picking six numbers...
Gene..


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/229)

 12:33:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<<
Lyn's stats of 68.3% was what originally got me thinking about doing binary
experiments with red/black cards, and lately after finding some playing
cards,
got me thinking about doing an experiment similar to the one where Lyn
referred to 68.3% accuracy on the Art Bell show.

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/230)

 12:33:24

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>There is also evidence I've seen on Discovery Channel that stimulating
>the temporal lobes of the brain with an oscilating field of certain
>frequencies causes psi like effects. OOBE's, voices etc. although these
>investigators did not try to determine if these manifestations were
>truly psychic or simply hallucinations in fact claimed the opposite
>without any experiments.
Thanks for that Bill, very interesting. I'll do some 'searching' on the
web and see what I can find.

As for the 'black ops'.........Who knows what goes on behind closed
doors? Nothing would surprise me. It's enough to give you the 'heebie-
geebies' though! Shame it always seems to be for military purposes, but
I guess they get the funding, and we can always hope for 'good' spin-
offs.......like getting us all interested in rv :-)

--
Regards,
Glyn


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/231)

 12:33:37

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Dr. Andrija Puharich did a great deal of work on PSI fields operating while in
>or out of magnetic fields. He used a Farraday (sp) cage for some of the
>experimental trials and found that magnetic fields did not seem to be a factor
>either for or against the operation and efficiency of PSI. (Dr. P. also found
>correlation between some phases of the lunar orb to create a small effect) (no
>comment)
Hello Bevy,

Dammit, I've just gone to look amongst my collection of dusty books, and
guess what I've just found..'Beyond Telepathy' by Andrija Puharich. I'd
completely forgotten about it until you mentioned his name. I bought it
back in 1975. The experiments are there......I'll re-read it. Thanks.

I've also 'found' 'Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain' by
Sheila Ostrander & Lynn Schroeder, which I got in '73. There's mention
re experiments with electro-magnetic fields in that too.

That'll teach me. Look first, ask questions later!

Many thanks,

ps. I didn't do too well on your first target...:-(. Try try again....
--
Regards,
Glyn


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/232)

 12:33:52

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Quite creative and resourceful of you to think of incorporating rv'ing during
>an MRI scan. I don't really know much about the studies regarding the effect
>of magnetic fields on psi (I'm sure someone else on the list will address
>this),
>but I wonder whether having to concentrate intently on something else than
>the
>MRI and implications, where you forced yourself to block out distractions
>helped
>you to access the target.

Hello Roger,

Yes, I think that such a different *environment* may have been the key.
Difficult to say without being able to repeat it, but I also agree with
other posters that exposure to very strong electro-magnetic fields over
time, could prove dangerous. The operator of the scanner left the room,
shut the door and observed things through the window in the next room !

The security was very tight, passcodes to get in doors, warning signs
everywhere, questions (same set by two different people) to make sure I
had no metal plates or splinters in my body...or was wearing metal (gold
was OK though...and nobody asked about fillings in my teeth so they must
have been OK too). Potentially dangerous physically, let alone mentally!

Perhaps I'll buy me a *little* magnet :-)
--
Regards,
Glyn


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/233)

 12:34:01

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Dear Michael,

I appreciate what you said about peer review. I am a research scientist
and used to that system. But when a peer reviewed article comes out
demonstrating psi...the great majority of scientists conclude unfairly
that the researchers were just to stupid or self deluded to find the
flaw in there analysis, or as the skeptics frequently say simply
cheeted. Therefore, the peer review process breaks down totally in an
area like psi or like UFO's where the peer scientists know that simply
agreeing with the possibility of such concepts can and has gotten them
fired. On the other hand a simple wide open for anyone to view test on
the web, (actually better on a completely public site) has alot to offer
if done in a manner that can't be questioned. The experiements and
stats. are relatively simple, its the fool proof open design that can't
be rigged that would finally impress.

Regards,

Bill Pendergrass Ph.D. ( Biochemistry).



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/234)

 12:34:11

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Kopfjaeger wrote:

> I know it seems like it should work, but it doesn't. After a steady
> diet of lousy results, your subconscious will run screaming from the
> project.

It is my experience/sense that the subconscious is about as interested
in games of chance (after the first few trials) as the conscious mind is
in being stalled in traffic on the freeway. Which is why an individual's
results with RVing are likely to be most successful when viewing
targets that have some real purpose (real life application) behind the
viewing.
Although I must admit on a conscious level I love to play those games
of chance.
Shelia



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/235)

 12:34:40

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Excuse me, forgot to say that Aries does not have means to take orders by
phone....sorrry to say. Only snail.

Secondly, forgot to say that they have a better symbol deck than the zener
deck, same price and shipping.

'scuse.
Bevy J


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 MAGNETIC FIELDS 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/236)

 12:34:50

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Actually, doing a scan while in a MRI is a new 'take' on an experiment Dr.
Karlis Osis wanted to do at one time. We discussed something of that nature
being applied while a student was learning to RV. His interest was in 'what
happened to the brain' while performing this task.
I know that there have been some experiments along these lines here and
there, but have no data on the use of an MRI during rv. Does anyone?
Bevy J
Only thing reported professionally was that there was 'excess electrical
activity in the rear brain during 'psychic' work'. (Not Osis's statement)


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/237)

 12:35:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

> I appreciate what you said about peer review. I am a research scientist
>and used to that system. But when a peer reviewed article comes out
>demonstrating psi...the great majority of scientists conclude unfairly
>that the researchers were just to stupid or self deluded to find the
>flaw in there analysis, or as the skeptics frequently say simply
>cheeted. Therefore, the peer review process breaks down totally in an
>area like psi or like UFO's where the peer scientists know that simply
>agreeing with the possibility of such concepts can and has gotten them
>fired.

Bill,

Actually the peer review process *works* because the article is evaluated
by the review panel for the research journal. This review panel consists
of other researchers working in the field, and these are the "peers"
referred to by the term "peer review." It a review of the experimental
design chosen, analysis methods, and the logic behind the conclusions
drawn. It is not an observation of the experiment or inspection of the data.

I also work within the publication system, and we both know there are
weaknesses there. I am not disputing that. I merely wanted to point out
that experiments published in most research journals does go through peer
review this term is generally understood. The response of the wider
scientific community is another issue, not an issue of peer review.

>On the other hand a simple wide open for anyone to view test on
>the web, (actually better on a completely public site) has alot to offer
>if done in a manner that can't be questioned. The experiements and
>stats. are relatively simple, its the fool proof open design that can't
>be rigged that would finally impress.

I am fully in favor of these kinds of tests. The more often effects can be
replicated and observed, the better.

Best regards,
Michael
R. Michael O'Bannon, Ph.D.
42 Lenox Pointe
Atlanta, GA 30324


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/238)

 12:35:16

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Dave and I sometimes go down to the Casinos for fun. We usually take
about $20.00 and that lasts all evening! We get $5 of nickels, some
quarters, and play red and black on the roulette. One time, we thought we
had found a sure fire method of winning. We would watch the roulette
whell before playing and check to see if we were psi hitting or psi
missing (about 10 spins of the wheel). If we were psi hitting ie getting
more than 50% correct, then one of us would bet and the other would call
the color - red or black. If we were psi missing - hitting less than 50%
- one of us would bet against the one who was calling the numbers. The
first time we played we bet $10 and came away with $50 - exactly what we
needed to buy a christmas tree and some decorations. We thought we had
hit on a sure fire winning method. Then we played again - and lost
miserably. Since then we have played the psi hit/psi miss method a couple
of times and won several times - more than we put into the game. However,
we soon got bored with the game and haven't played for a long time. The
Decline Effect kicked in!

Kind regards
Angela Thompson Smith
Inner Vision


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 RV Targets 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/239)

 12:35:26

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Would any of the stargate list subscribers be interested in participating
in some Inner Vision pilot research? next week, I will be placing some
target envelopes in my office on certain days and at certain times. Some
of the target sessions will be real time i.e. the target will be
generated and placed in the envelope just prior to the time the viewing
is conducted. Other targets will be generated after the viewing is done
ie the viewing effort will be precognitive. You will not be told which
condition you are participating in until after the pilot study. If you
are interested email Catalyst@... to arrange a day and date
for your session. Hopefully, I will be able to email your picture target
following your effort. You will not be judged on the quality of your
viewing and any method/protocol will be accepted (ERV, CRV, TRV, SRV
etc.) Just send me your session summary, I don't think my current
computer system will handle large files and graphics. I would be
interested to hear which method you choose to do the viewing. The results
of the pilot project will be posted on the psi, innervision and stargate
lists.

Thank you
Angela Thompson Smith
The Inner Vision Research Institute
Catalyst@...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards reply to Steve 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/240)

 12:35:36

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Steve, I

I feel your points about doing an open psi experiment are all founded.
I think a wide open study on the net is possibly more valid than in a
closed lab. where the conditions of the experiment could have been
faulty or the data juggled. Everything is above board and
unreproachable.


As far as statistics I'll ask around. But I think that each person
should have a training period on the task and when ready to start
accumulating data, ALL TRIALS AFTER THAT POINT have to be accumulated
and the odds recomputed to give valid results. So if he has a hot string
and his p value is 1 in 10,000 for 20 tries, then the next 20 tries,
he is just chance, the two should be combined otherwise a selection bias
can enter in.

When a predetermined number of trials have been completed ( say 20),
that final result should be considered a final for say that month. There
are statistics that will show that after alot of trials ( say 200
trials, this will vary according to the way the experiment is set up)
the result is not going to change on a random basis significantly in the
next 200 or 2000 trials. And if the psi candidate repeats 200 more
trials again in a month or so it can be considered a new experiment.
When set up this way, If scores do change on subsequent complete
complete experiments done in another month,then the change can be
considered a true change in the skill level of the psi candidate rather
than any ramdom purterbation.



The contributors could post new results but not more than one whole
experiment per month and track there skill level.


Bill





stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Sony psi research closed down 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/241)

 12:36:15

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

> It seems incredible to me that the conclusion was that no >practicale
applications were possible. Is this another cover up >denouncing psi so
that the practical applications go underground.

>Surely, as the many RV groups have found, psi even at a low level can
>aid in finding Oil, people, etc. A very bizzare conclusion!

I think this is a typical example of the narrowmindedness of corperate
execs, more than anything.. First off, they obviously weren't familiar
with RV, and even had they been, I doubt they would've managed to snag a
copy of the Tech. Transfer Protocols from the farsight site before they
were removed, as I have.. Hehe.. I wanna see if, at some point I can
scrape together the resources to start a company based on the
application of these protocols.. Anyone interested, drop me a line..

-Tao_Sk8r


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/242)

 12:36:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hello Gene, The point is that you could be very psychic with a score of
say 58% if you did enough trials, but to make money on 58% you would
have to play alot of roulette or craps. Picking six numbers correctly in
the lottery would still be a huge longshot when you are only 56%
correct. But $$ could be made on a roulette wheel or craps playing all
night long. Ever try it? You wouldn't walk away breaking the bank , but
could probably make a living and supplement your pension and some
gamblers do. Ever try it that way?

Regards

Bill


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/243)

 12:36:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>I agree. But where is the peer-review, openness, criticism and
>accountability if we (a) can't look at the lab data, (b) aren't
>supposed to 'set up our own lab' to do something similar?
>There's no "peer-review", no "openness", no ability to
>criticise, and no accountability in that system. We have to
>rely on faith in the scientists in order to accept the premise
>that psi is "for real" in this scenerio, because the majority of
>lab data is unobtainable and thus unexaminable, unreviewable.


Steve,

I applaud your efforts to replicate the card guessing experiment. I do
need to point out, though, that you have misunderstood the meaning of "peer
review" as it is used in research. Peer review means that a scientist's
work has been reviewed by scientific colleagues, peers in the scientific
community, and judged worthy of publication. Most scientific journals use
peer review to determine whether an article should be published. ( A few
do not. You can tell by reading their editorial policies.) So most
studies you see in print are peer reviewed.

Most researchers also practice openness. It is also considered the
scientist's responsibility to preserve raw data from an experiment for a
period of time. Most researchers will give you access to that data if you
ask within a reasonable time. I have gotten data for re-analysis several
times this way, just by calling and asking.

Best regards,
Michael




R. Michael O'Bannon, Ph.D.
Corporate and Clinical Psychologist
42 Lenox Pointe
Atlanta, GA 30324


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/244)

 12:36:51

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<<
Ah, Gene--but many of them are electronic these days! ;-)

Paul
>>
Ah yes but Paul...these same people who claim to be able to influence such
things should have no problem making the grand leap to influencing as simple
as computer programs since they are in reality only a binary code...yes/no
type influence shoudlbe a piece of cake...
Gene..


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 RV Targets 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/245)

 12:37:14

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

I'll participate - How are you judging? Will you be mixing the target in
with 3 other decoys then having a 3rd party judge, rank the images to the RV
perceptions as per typical protocol?

I've done lot's of precognitive research (well, actually associative remote
viewing). If you are interested in my results, I'd be happy to discuss them
with you.

gk

Angela Thompson Smith wrote:

> Would any of the stargate list subscribers be interested in participating
> in some Inner Vision pilot research? next week, I will be placing some


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/246)

 12:37:29

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

---Curran2106@... wrote:
...but Gregg..I can assure you those who think they can
> beat the stock market, find the Lost Dutchman or whip up on the
craps table
> are not the type of people who will listen to reason anyhow...Thanxs
for the
> support anyhow...how have you been...?
> Gene..

I'd complain, but nobody wants to listen. I'm afraid I haven't quite
had all the idealism beat out of me, yet, due to some tantalizingly
near-misses. That time-slip foible of RV is a mutha!...especially when
you're paying for the recovery team out-of-pocket.

Greg



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/247)

 12:37:51

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Yes, but I can't think of a better way to attract attention to the whole remote
viewing/psi phenomenom. You give people the kind of proof where you put your
money where your mouth is, and they tend to pay attention.

> I can assure you those who think they can
> beat the stock market, find the Lost Dutchman or whip up on the craps table
> are not the type of people who will listen to reason anyhow..

http://www.remote-viewing.com/


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 RV Targets 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/248)

 12:38:02

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------


Thanks for the imput Greg and I would appreciate any help on this that
you think I could use. The targets will not be judged at this time, this
is solely a pilot phase. Later, the targets will be put through a judging
procedure. I don't want the viewers to be worried about whether they will
be judged at this point. Please email me privately at
Catalyst@... with any suggestions, thank you.

Kind regards
Angela


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Sony psi research closed down 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/249)

 12:38:12

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

I doubt they would've managed to snag a
> copy of the Tech. Transfer Protocols from the farsight site before
they
> were removed, as I have.. Hehe.. I wanna see if, at some point I can
> scrape together the resources to start a company based on the
> application of these protocols.. Anyone interested, drop me a line..
>
> -Tao_Sk8r

As the Operations Director of just such a recovery firm, I dare say
this work is difficult enough without using ANYTHING related to
Courtney Brown as a basis for operations. Do yourself an enormous
favor and get some training from Lyn Buchanan or Paul Smith (both
top-flite CRV instructors)... unless you are trying to gather intel on
the Hale-Bopp Companion.

Good Luck,
Greg


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/250)

 12:38:55

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

In a message dated 7/9/98 8:09:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
williamrichard@... writes:

<< Ever try it? >>
Yes...and I did not better than if I took straight gambles at the numbers...RV
is not a money making proposition...though some swear they have made money in
the stock market...and Lyn even claims to have made money in the lotteries...I
do not believe it had anything to do with pre-cognitive abilities for a lot of
reasons..I have stated them before and most people have selected hearing when
I tell them why it does not work so I am no longer going to flog this horse
either...check out the bankbooks of the old pros...no different than the rest
of middle class America...hmmmm....doesn't that tell you something other than
we were all incredibly stupid or incredibly ethical...(neither was the
case...).but don't believe me...State lotteries love to try to prove it to you
as do the casinos...
Gene...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/251)

 12:39:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<< However,
we soon got bored with the game and haven't played for a long time. The
Decline Effect kicked in!

Kind regards
Angela Thompson Smith
Inner Vision >>
You came away with what most 10$ bettors come away with...a few petty wins and
a few petty losses...I would remnd many of you that tore my head off on the
issue of Remote Influencing that if you really believe you have the Vulcan
Mind Meld capability...put your quarters into the slots and "influence" the
simple and inorganic metal and springs of the machine which so many of you say
you can do...ought to be sure winners...
Gene..


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/252)

 12:40:00

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

.but don't believe me...State lotteries love to try to prove it to you
> as do the casinos...
> Gene...

Gene, you've been the lone stick-in-the-mud voice of reality, with a
little help from Angela, and I gotta get your back on this one.

Gene's not just being a party pooper, guys, he's tellin' ya straight.
He's been there. Even Lyn will tell you CRV doesn't work on numbers.
Supposedly, ARV (associative) will, but I can't get it to work for me,
and I'm a damned good CRV'er. I can even work the CRV protocols from
an altered state, but the numbers and red/black thing just shreds the
learning curve.

I know it seems like it should work, but it doesn't. After a steady
diet of lousy results, your subconscious will run screaming from the
project.

Greg



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/253)

 12:40:10

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

In a message dated 7/9/98 9:54:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
heimdallassociates@... writes:

<<
Gene, you've been the lone stick-in-the-mud voice of reality, with a
little help from Angela, and I gotta get your back on this one.
>>
So far tonight I have read at least three or four people who are absolutely
certain that the future of RV is finding oil and mineral deposits or breaking
the bank at Vegas...I have never taken any money for RV and never
will...personal choice but I do know that I have never seen any of the world
class viewers with whom I have dealt make any money at RV except by sheer
sweat of the brow...hard work..not RV..just hard work such as teaching RV or
working with RV or altered state institutions like the Monroe Institutes..no
free lunches out there...but Gregg..I can assure you those who think they can
beat the stock market, find the Lost Dutchman or whip up on the craps table
are not the type of people who will listen to reason anyhow...Thanxs for the
support anyhow...how have you been...?
Gene..


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Real World 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/256)

 12:40:22

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hi all;
Liam here. We live in a real world. A world where things are as they are
and not as we think or wish they would be. In the real world the biggest
bar to RV is a giggle (or as we called it at the project, "the giggle
factor.") No elected official can be seen as to supportive of psi, lest it
become common knowledge, and the voters begin to giggle. Old Senator Smith
is talking to angels, won't vote for him again. No CEO can invest millions
of his company's dollars on what a psychic says, or he will not be CEO very
long. I get the feeling, that the dedicated researchers in academia are
considered a "little odd" by their peers in other branches.I do not believe
that the military or the intelligence community will dive back into RV (even
though it has been proven to them to be effective and resource efficient)
because the public does not want to see it's tax monies being wasted on
psychic nonsense. What I do find strange is when we, who know that RV
works, become indigent and outraged, when businessmen, elected officials,
and
researchers choose to live in the real world. Yes the truth is out there,
and we should look for it. We being the people in this group. But lets not
expect the people who have chosen to live in the "real world" to share our
views. All the scientific studies, all the intelligence coups, cannot
withstand one good loud belly laugh. I did not know I had become so
cynical.

slainte
May the force be with you
Liam


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/257)

 12:40:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>I know it seems like it should work, but it doesn't. After a steady
>diet of lousy results, your subconscious will run screaming from the
>project.
>
>Greg


Hi all; Liam here. I have to go along with Greg and Gene on this one.
Maybe it is because making money is not all that important. Maybe it is
because RV is magic and a gift. Using it to make "easy money" seems a waste
of the gift and a perversion of the magic. Even ARV has not proved to be
terribly effective from the Targ silver futures to the many attempts to
break the bank at Vegas or win the Literary. There seems to be one
exception. Pat Price evidently made money by RVing. Unfortunately he
allegedly died before he had a chance to enjoy most of it.

I would like to see RV used to make the world a better place. If that is
not possible, then I would like to use RV to make me a better person. I do
not think winning a few million and retiring would make me a better person.
Enjoying the magic and recognizing there may be a spiritual aspect to RV
seems more important to me than taking early retirement, buying a big
house, and making Guinness a richer man

slainte
May the force be with you
Liam



stargate : Message: [stargate] 
  Online Psi Experiments 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/258)

 12:40:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>fired. On the other hand a simple wide open for anyone to view test on
>the web, (actually better on a completely public site) has alot to offer
>if done in a manner that can't be questioned. The experiements and
>stats. are relatively simple, its the fool proof open design that can't
>be rigged that would finally impress.

Hi Bill,

My own intentions re: the 'binary' experiment, I am hoping will fill
the criteria you're talking about here. One of the big frustrations
I've had with psi research is that it is very difficult to get a look
at the raw data. I made some enquiries but was told that it is
rare for even labs to share data with other labs.

So for about a month now I've been planning a possible series of online
psi experiments. I want to use the strictest, most disciplined
scientific protocols and procedures in this experiment - I want to
avoid an amateurish experiment and I'm very conscious of some of
the comments that have been made on the list - I'd like the only
difference between my own attempts at an online psi experiment
(whatever experiment I eventually choose) and the same one done in a
laboratory setting being - the setting, and the higher degree of openness
and accountability. I'd want it to be, literally, fool-proof - including strong
peer-review - namely the Star Gate list and/or the participants
in the experiment. If the innerds of the experiment are in
any way suspect, I would want people to shout up, but I'd hope they'd
be supportive of the general aim of the experiment and everyone would
"play fair."

I feel there are a lot of potential benefits to performing such a series
of open, online psi experiments.

Re: "its the fool proof open design that can't
be rigged that would finally impress.", I have to say I agree completely
with this and it's part of the plan behind the experiment. I believe openness
in science is paramount to it's being verifiable without the need to repeat
experiments or set up your own lab (which most people would not have the
resources and/or volunteers etc, online or off.) If everything is on the table,
from start to finish, and the experiment is sound in every conceivable way,
they'd seem to be very little for the skeptics to gripe about.

An open experiment offers many possibilities that previously couldn't
be explored. Apart from the chance to view everything, through from
initial planning (which, if I do go ahead with, could include the discussions
that have gone on in the Star Gate list already), through performing trials,
analysis, summaries and conclusions.. with every single shred of data
inbetween available for full public (peer) review, it also offers the public
the chance to *participate* fully in the experiment, as a 'peer-reviewer',
as a participating viewer/psychic, or any other role they care to take.

Obviously the first stage in any such experiment would be to obtain
every single possible shred of scientific data on the setting up and
administrating of this type of experiment, and that's what I'm
currently involved with.

I'm also off to see if I can obtain a copy of the recommended
'Conscious Universe' here in the UK, otherwise I'll have to get it from
the US. (Time for me to go rummaging in those trouser pockets for
change.. :)

Cheers,
Steve.



stargate : Message: [stargate] 
  Target the accumulator!! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/259)

 12:41:04

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Gene said
>put your quarters into the slots and "influence" the
>simple and inorganic metal and springs of the machine which so many of you
say
>you can do...ought to be sure winners...

Mary quietly suggests you _could_ Target the accumulator!!!

Having been fruit machine designers from the days of the Old Jennings, to
the latest computerised gizmos, I can give you some insight to the slot
machines.

The moment you put your coin in the slot and trip the microswitch, the
machine already knows the outcome of the game. The odds are run by the
computer and accumulator, the % payout is set at about 72% over £10,000
put in, in the UK. The payout cannot legally go lower than that, and in
club machines it has to say % on the glass.

Its all down to the accumulator. Every coin that goes in is registered as
coins in, and everything that is paid out is also registered. So, if a lot
has gone in, and not much out, then the liklihood of winning gets much
better. Simillarly, if a lot has gone out, then it has to rebalance, by
reducing the win factor. This is usually done by the nudge or hold
availability, through the accumulator.

Then there is the skill factor, where you compete against the machine to
win, based around the gamble or take scenario. HINT. The music is attached
to the sequencer. Hit the stop buttons at the highest note, or the last
note in the sequence. You can react faster by sound, than watching the
sequence of lights. The odds at the first shot are 50-50. Then 60-40,
70-30, etc. The parameters are set up by the machine. The machine cannot go
broke. If the machine hasn't paid out much, then the chance of winning is
much higher, but still against you.

Theoretically, the odds should be equal. In practice it isn't. Its worked
it out. The trick comes in the tickle. The machine keeps chucking in little
wins to keep you going, and it can and will set up holds or nudges when it
has worked out you are down to your last coin, or so. Holds may be
successful. Nudges are set up and predetermined as to how many, and where.
It also makes this assessment on the style of play. The only way to alter
things is by introducing a level of chaos to the programme and the
accumulator. Playing stupidly, nudging daftly, holding obvious losing
lines. Then if you're really lucky, win and walk away.

If after all this, you have sat and watched it, targetted the accumulator,
and it hasn't paid out for ages, and it feels right, the advice is still
never put in more than the highest win you can take out. Or better still,
don't play the things at all.




In Friendship and Light. MaryD


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/260)

 12:41:15

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Ah yes but Paul...these same people who claim to be able to influence such
>things should have no problem making the grand leap to influencing as simple
>as computer programs since they are in reality only a binary code...yes/no
>type influence shoudlbe a piece of cake...
>Gene..

Aloha Gene, I think one would have to examine the methodology of what
influences machines. Surely thought has little if any effect on a simple
machine. The state of the machine under power in operation would only be
affected by certain things. Electromagnetic fields would be the primary
tool to cause a machine to burp so to speak, or a surge or drop in power. I
do not think that it is impossible to train someone to be able to disturb
the operation of a machine. Some people cannot wear a watch, I cannot wear
a digital watch for long before it comes to a stop. It's a sad thing I was
forced to buy an analog Rolex :). So I would say that the real problem
would actually be the intelligent manipulation of a machine that is really
the problem.
Aloha ... Glenn



stargate : Message: [stargate] 
  Peer Review 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/261)

 12:41:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hi Michael,

>Actually the peer review process *works* because the article is evaluated
>by the review panel for the research journal. This review panel consists
>of other researchers working in the field, and these are the "peers"
>referred to by the term "peer review." It a review of the experimental
>design chosen, analysis methods, and the logic behind the conclusions
>drawn. It is not an observation of the experiment or inspection of the data.

I think you've hit upon the very point I was trying hard to make. As the
kind of person who likes to dodge words, talk and testimonials, and immerse
myself fully in solid data and facts, I'm much more concerned about the
parameters of the experiments, the procedures, the raw data, etc, then I
am about the people involved. Scientific research, to me, is not about
personalities and opinions, but procedures, methods, experiments, raw
data, replicability and peer-review, etc. People just happen to be there
to see that these processes are in motion (I'm not aware of scientific
research that was performed without at least one human involved, but
I'd be extremely interested to hear if there is ;)

I try very hard to separate personalities from the information,
and focus solely on the information - information I have some means by
which to verify for myself. Testimonies are only good, IMO, as supportive
evidence. I do not use personal credibility to establish the credibility of
information they give - I prefer to see solid experiments, solid data,
and instructions on how I can repeat those experiments should I wish to,
plus I'd like to see those curious enough encouraged to set up their
very own experiments, with the same parameters etc, in order to
verify/validate/replicate the findings of the originating lab, etc. You
could say that when it comes to science, I'm pretty distrusting and
skeptical of human beings. And that might be true  But I think
science works better, as an objective form of analysis, when the
personal, emotional, element is removed from it.

For a long time I have been hoping to be able to obtain/see full
data published on these types of lab psu experiments so that the entire
process, from start to finish, can be reviewed and disected, etc.

Because I understand it may be impractical or extremely difficult
for laboratories to implement this kind of system, I decided
to propose an online psi experiment, which I hope to back with
the same rigorous scientific controls/protocols etc as the original
experiments in the laboratories, in order to attempt to replicate
the findings of the labs. The only difference being the *entire
process* is open to peer-review by *the entire public*, and the
entire public is also free to contribute and participate throughout
each and every stage of the experiment. The only changes I'd
make to be the experiment would be anything that would need to
be modified in order for the experiment to work 'online'.

I feel that there are tremendous opportunities in performing such
an experiment, if properly approached and applied.

Right now, I'm in the process of researching the innerds of a
lab psi experiment similar to the types I've been proposing. It's
lucky we have a psi lab here in the UK - it might prove useful! 

Once I feel I have the grasp of what's needed to do the experiment,
to make it identical to a lab experiment (minus the fact it's open and
public, and that it's being done on the Internet and not a lab room),
I'll lay down some proposals here, and hopefully, if there aren't
any objections to it, we can get started..

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/262)

 12:41:37

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>I would like to see RV used to make the world a better place. If that is
>not possible, then I would like to use RV to make me a better person.
>
>slainte
>May the force be with you
>Liam

Hi Liam,

Jerry here. I think you put it very eloquently - RV (or any other psychic
ability) has a purpose far beyond money. If you can make money with it -
that's great, more power to you. It's just that I feel that I'm subverting
the gift when I do that.

Jerry


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/263)

 12:41:59

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Hi all; Liam here. I have to go along with Greg and Gene on this one.
>Maybe it is because making money is not all that important. Maybe it is
>because RV is magic and a gift. Using it to make "easy money" seems a waste
>of the gift and a perversion of the magic. Even ARV has not proved to be
>terribly effective from the Targ silver futures to the many attempts to
>break the bank at Vegas or win the Literary. There seems to be one
>exception. Pat Price evidently made money by RVing. Unfortunately he
>allegedly died before he had a chance to enjoy most of it.

Another example is Hal Puthoff's story about raising funds for a private
school by training members of the Board of Directors in ARV. Their results
were used to determine investments in the commodities market. The
experiment was successful in raising 50K, if I remember correctly. I heard
the story from Hal last year.

Best regards,
Michael


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/265)

 12:42:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Mind Meld capability...put your quarters into the slots and "influence" the
>simple and inorganic metal and springs of the machine which so many of you
say
>you can do...ought to be sure winners...

Ah, Gene--but many of them are electronic these days! ;-)

Paul



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Sony psi research closed down 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/270)

 12:42:24

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Yep.. It is called PR.....

electrix

Bill Pendergrass wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> It seems incredible to me that the conclusion was that no practicale
> applications were possible. Is this another cover up denouncing psi so
> that the practical applications go underground.


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
  The 'Gift' 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/271)

 12:42:32

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Jerry here. I think you put it very eloquently - RV (or any other psychic
>ability) has a purpose far beyond money. If you can make money with it -
>that's great, more power to you. It's just that I feel that I'm subverting
>the gift when I do that.

Hi Jerry, welcome to the list!

I've got to add.. if I ever develop workable psi skills (and I'm not having
much luck at it yet), I'd like to use this ability to help others and try to
make this world a better place in whatever small way I could. I have to
join this growing choir who've been saying so far that such an ability should
not be used for selfish ends.. I'd consider psi a gift too, and I wouldn't
want to abuse such a precious gift by using it purely for my own self-
gain.. it seems such a shallow use of such a potentially valuable tool.

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/272)

 12:42:45

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

>Another example is Hal Puthoff's story about raising funds for a private
>school by training members of the Board of Directors in ARV. Their results
>were used to determine investments in the commodities market. The
>experiment was successful in raising 50K, if I remember correctly. I heard
>the story from Hal last year.
>
>Best regards,
>Michael

Hi Michael;
You are right. Hal also told me the story. However I would like to point
out that
the RVing was done for an altruistic purpose. People were not doing the
RVing to make
themselves rich. As I said I believe there is a spiritual side to RV. I
think selfish motives and
materialism tend to degrade results. But then I believe in Leprechauns,
fairies, ghouls and ghosts.
slainte
May the force be with you
Liam


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Real World 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/273)

 12:43:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Yes...it is an oppressive and resistant world. Full of stress and
inhibition...enough to dampened the PSI factor, but not enough to prevent it
from popping out once in a while in our being. And certainly, not enough
oppression to prevent the few and undaunted from exercising our
birth-right...against the Emperor.

electrix

Liam wrote:

> Hi all;
> Liam here. We live in a real world. A world where things are as they are
> and not as we think or wish they would be. In the real world the biggest


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Real World 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/274)

 12:43:27

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<< I did not know I had become so
cynical.
>>
Liam...It comes with old age...your cynicism is a forerunner to being accused
of arrogance and combattiveness...you know...acting like a stupid
Irishman...heck it almost got me tossed off Steve's net so now I have become a
kinder and sweeter Gene...so be very careful about your cynicism...keep it in
check since there are those on this system..great academics and sholars who
see not "giggle" factors in anything and lead very serious and refined
lifestyles which have long ago failed to see humor in the most unlikely places
and see only the seriousness of all they do...I have learned to survive with
them and can now use such terms as "Peer Review", quantum mechanics,
replication of details, statistical analysis without so much as one guffaw...I
know have my forehead permanently squinched up into a frown as I contemplate
the importance of the difference between 50/50 chance and 58.3 % results and
the impact this 8.3% could have on the world at large....
PS...Nice to see another Mick on the net...
Gene..


stargate : Message: [stargate] 
  Psi and money 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/275)

 12:43:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

[stargate] Psi and money

Hi, gang. Thought I'd change the subject line, since we'd strayed from
"Red and black cards" quite a ways.

At 03:22 PM 7/10/98 -0400, you wrote:

>Jerry here. I think you put it very eloquently - RV (or any other psychic
>ability) has a purpose far beyond money. If you can make money with it -
>that's great, more power to you. It's just that I feel that I'm subverting
>the gift when I do that.

For the time being, I'm agnostic about whether one can make money by
directly using RV or other psi techniques for making money in games of
chance. however, the whole issue of money and psi is a sticky one. There
are those who think that it's okay to make money by charging money for
training or services (I'm obviously squarely in that camp! ;-), there are
those that think that making money with it at all is wrong, and there are
others who only think that making money by using psi in gambling games is
wrong.

But there is a further variable that is often forgotten--the REASON one
wants to make money in the first place. I suspect that if one has worthy
goals for the money, one may well be successful in many pursuits involving
psi and money. If one wants money for selfish reasons, it's often
self-defeating. People who are selfish seem to have more of a difficult
time being open enough to psi to accomplish such goals. In a sense, the
New Testament may apply here--you have to "lose" yourself to "find"
yourself. Ironically the end result is this: the altruists don't care
about making money from psi, so don't make any. The selfish ones defeat
themselves in trying to make money from psi, and so don't make any either!
Kind of funny, if you ask me. Interestingly, Hal's ARV project was indeed
very successful (but involved a huge amount of work)--but it was a
worthwhile project--making money for a Waldorf School.

Enjoy!
Paul



stargate : Message: [stargate] 
  Psi Testing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/276)

 12:43:54

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR),
( http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ ) has been conducting many experiments
on the relationship of Psi mediated events.
A bit more esoteric than card selection is Mind Song
Technologies Shifter Cell(tm), (
http://www.pearinc.com/products/dev.html ), this electronic apparatus
reacts to a person's random deviation above or below chance. Ostensibly,
this device incorporates a random event generator that produces an
viable output which is proportional to the mind's conscious attempts to
"shift" the signal beyond or below chance expectations.

On the interactive software side, the Shape Changer (r),
( http://www.pearinc.com/products/shch.html ) produces two overlapping
graphic images which, by user's influence, biases the pixel display to
uncover the user's selected graphic image.

There are several web sites that offer online Psi testing:

Electronic Psi Test ----- http://stud1.tuwien.ac.at/~e8926506/epsi.htm
Psi Explorer ----- http://www.psiexplorer.com/indexnm.htm
Enchanted Mind -----http://enchantedmind.com/remote/remote.htm




stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Real World 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/277)

 12:44:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Gene--

At 08:34 PM 7/10/98 EDT, you wrote:

>check since there are those on this system..great academics and sholars who
>see not "giggle" factors in anything and lead very serious and refined
>lifestyles which have long ago failed to see humor in the most unlikely
places
>and see only the seriousness of all they do...

Well, Gene--it's about time you started to see things my way! ;-)

I have learned to survive with
>them and can now use such terms as "Peer Review", quantum mechanics,
>replication of details, statistical analysis without so much as one guffaw...

Okay, but now let's see you do it closed-book!

>know have my forehead permanently squinched up into a frown as I contemplate
>the importance of the difference between 50/50 chance and 58.3 % results and
>the impact this 8.3% could have on the world at large....

Come, come. That frown originated years ago and has something to do with
waylaying Orangemen...

Enjoy,
Paul



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Real World 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/278)

 12:44:23

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

<<
Come, come. That frown originated years ago and has something to do with
waylaying Orangemen...

Enjoy,
Paul
>>
Oh sure...your a fine one to look at my version of seriousness...a Doctoral
Candidate...yeh yeh..lots of humor in your life lately I'll bet...hahahah
Gene....


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Red and Black Cards 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/279)

 12:44:32

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Dear Steve and List,
I thought to take the red-black idea into a roulette wheel ....
literally gambling to see if I had any ability to see if I could
"guess" black or red colors. I will honestly report I lost $23.
 However....there were patterns...and though it isn't cards....
and though I am untrained again, I sure enjoyed "holding my own" on a
$70 bet for two hours while others around me lost hundreds. I learned
however that my idea of black retaining 'heat' had no merit at all.
Heat had nothing to do with why I was doing well or not.
I did see patterns on a roulette wheel, at least on the one we
watched...this time the pattern was red for the most part. So blows
my idea that black wins more on a roulette wheel. 
Was it movement of the wheel, different momentum of spin ( two
different dealers spin at different rates of speed?) and general
physics of the wheel that enabled me to watch the patterns steadily
for two hours without a major financial loss? I have no idea to be
honest. Remember that I am reporting a loss on a $70 investment
after two hours.....is TIME a factor we should account for in our RV
online experiment for red/ black cards?
For the sake of reporting, I would say this was a "failure" as I was
unable to get ahead of the odds and win, say hundreds, based on mere
black and red appearing.
Compared to cards, is there a difference?
I am willing to go out there again and try it of course.
Feedback? Thanks,
Best to all, Laura


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Psi and money 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/280)

 12:44:46

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

HI Paul,
It would seem that the issue of making money from RV or PSI related activities
brings out the same emotions that come up when people charge for healing gifts.

People are really schizophrenic when it comes to money issues, they want you to
use your "God given gifts" to help them for free on demand, which if you are
any good would take 24/7, but have severe judgments if you charge for your
time. It's funny but the landlord and utility company do not understand this
arrangement. It is even funnier that these same people will spend their
precious moneys on a variety of less than honorable or frivolous goods and
services without hesitation.

Your explanation goes right to the heart of the issue. Which is the character
of the practitioner, as demonstrated by how they direct their resources. But
one step further, attempts of people to hold others to standards higher than
those they are willing to live up to, in an attempt to shame these others into
giving free services is pure and simple manipulation.

In a free market economy, if you value a service you pay for that service. If
the service is honestly represented and delivered, that is the end of the
story. The idea that one group should try to shame another to "share their God
given talents" for free is ludicrous. The idea that we as practitioners would
feel wrong for asking fair exchange of our services, demonstrates an illogical
belief system. The idea that "God" would frown on the use of healing or PSI
gifts, is also illogical, are not our artistic, athletic, or intellectual gifts
also "God given". The use of our gifts in integrity is all "God" demands.

Unlike a retail store I have modified my fees or even given free services for
those in need. I have also found that in most cases people only value what
they pay for, and if there is not some sort of exchange for services it is like
casting your pearls. I have worked on people who experienced major relief of
pain and debilitating symptoms but felt that some how, I , a stranger, owed
them this for free to make up for a life where they felt taken advantage of by
others... bizarre.

Over the years I have come to see these emotional positions taken by people to
be more a symptom of their own journey than an indication of some intellectual
proof of the morality of fair exchange for the use of ones "God" given gifts.
As innately spiritual beings we are all endowed with many gifts, singling out
some of them as inappropriate to value, as demonstrated by the exchange of
currency, is much more immoral than the implied argument.

Aloha Yaana


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Warning 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/281)

 12:44:56

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Hi all; Liam here. Recently there has been some discussion of RV ethics
(No Steve, I am not going to open that can of worms, at this time). At Ft
Meade, we informed everyone, before they began training, of the potential
dangers of RV. This is a requirement of the Department of Defense (DOD)
Human Use Regulation and also the US Codes. More important it is the
ethical thing to do. A person has the right to know the risks associated
with any undertaking. Before I except any student for training I make sure
they understand the following:

I can promise you that learning RV will change you. Your world view will
change. Your priorities will change, and many things about you will change.
These changes will begin shortly after you begin training. What I cannot
promise you is that these changes will be for the better. I believe that
most RVers I know have been changed for what I beleive to be the better.
There are those however, whom I consider to not only be different people
than
they were, but to have changed for the worst. Priorities will change. The
ability
to go anyplace in the world or out of it takes a lot of the urgency out of
getting your
monthly report on telephone usage in on time. This is fine if your boss is
also on RVer.
If he isn't, he may not understand your lack of acknowledgement of the
importance
of routine paperwork. Learning RV will make you humbler or more egotistical.
I cannot predict
before you begin the thee training which one you will become. You will
become more or less sensitive. You will become more or less intuitive.
You may experience short term memory loss. Did I say that earlier? I forget
if my memory loss is from RV, old age, or from pouring oceans of Guinness,
Tullmore Dew, and Paddy's over my declining number of brain cells for an
extended period of time. You will come to realize that the world is
different
than you thought it was. The rules of physics do not really apply. I
believe
your spiritual outlook may change. I cannot say if that is good or bad. If
you
have a history of mental illness RV is probably not for you.

What I look for in an RV student is a sound spiritual (not the same as
religious)
foundation, mental stability, a sense of humor, and humility. Gene and I,
being,
Irish, come by our humility naturally. In fact I have achieved perfect
humility. I am probably the most humble person in the world. A fact I am
very proud of .

Having done, what I consider to be, my ethical duty to warn everyone, I will
now climb off my soap box.

slainte
May the force be with you.
Liam




stargate : Message: Re: [stargate] 
 Warning/ memory loss? 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/282)

 12:45:44

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000201-000300---------

Liam,
I am interested in a comment you made in your WARNING post which mentioned
short term memory loss? I say this because I feel my short term memory
capabilities have decreased since serious training in RV. Its almost as if
something has to be compramised in order for there to be facility for Rv.
Do you have any info on this you can share?

All the best...

Darryl

We came...
We saw...
We wrote a session summery...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]