Alex,
You wrote:
Sigh... Okay. I'll give this one more shot.
I would have walked away from this conversation a long time ago. I'm really, really tired of beating this dead horse. But I really care about remote viewing. I care about the accomplishments of those who originated it, developed it, and perfected the protocols. They have bequeathed to us - at long last - a means of demonstrating psychic perception that cannot be reasonably, intelligently questioned by the skeptics nor ridiculed by society.
Even the arch-skeptic and debunker Ray Hyman - who has devoted his life to debunking anything and everything paranormal - admitted, after reviewing the scientific protocols of the remote viewing research done at Stanford, that he could offer no non-paranormal explanation for the success of remote viewing. In other words, he could find no flaw in the protocols. He could find no way the information in the remote viewing studies could have been transmitted except by psychic means. I don't know, Alex, if you fully understand the enormity of that admission by one of the world's leading skeptics. You obviously do not seem to understand that IT IS THE PROTOCOLS that all but proved the reality of remote viewing to this arch-skeptic and debunker. Without those protocols, what we are doing is not remote viewing.
You ask who made me the arbiter of what is RV and what isn't? What are correct protocols and what aren't?
You asked me a similar question a few days ago when you asked me who was I speaking for. I'm not the arbiter of what is RV and what isn't, nor did I decide what the correct protocols are. The people who decided that are the scientists who created it. The people who agree with that statement include the following (from one of my previous posts ion this thread):
Alex, you wrote:
No.
There IS a reason RV is "no longer real to the world" (if indeed it ever was; the average person on the street still has no idea of what the words "remote viewing" even means). But RV once had a legitimacy among those who took the time to investigate the research. Among many, RV had overcame the "giggle factor" to some extent. But remote viewing has been shoved right back into the same disbelieved, unproven, sensationalistic, ridiculed box as palm reading, channeling, fortune telling and spoon bending.
And I'm going to tell you how that happened...
I've been civil and I've tried to be gentle about this up until now. But I'm really weary - not just weary of my failure to get you to understand the vital importance of the protocols, but also extremely weary of watching the slow slide of remote viewing, in the eyes of society, back into the ridiculed, non-legitimate box where so many other psychic activities reside.
And this slow destruction of all that was built in the creation and development of remote viewing is being done by you, Alex, and those like you who have decided that the appropriate attitude is (as you posted recently):
Your trainer, Ed Dames, heads up the list of those people. So I can readily see why you feel as you do about the lack of a need for scientific protocols. Completely aside from Dames' regular pronouncements about the impending end of the world (killshots, plant pathogens, etc.) that never seem to happen, he began damaging RV back in the early 1990s. He claimed an accuracy of "a previously never achieved success rate of 100%". He claimed his team would discover the origin of the AIDS virus. He claimed there would be public contact with aliens in Chaco Canyon in August of 1993. On radio, he claimed his students could work frontloaded with 100% accuracy. He claimed the scientific protocols were only important to scientists. He trained Courtney Brown and the complete lack of blinding controls and massive frontloading that he told Brown was "okay" and was "still remote viewing" directly resulted in the fiascos Brown has been associated with.
Almost single-handed, Dames managed to begin the ruination of remote viewing and the turning away of legitimate science. When Dames convinced people that a total lack of rules and controls, the lack of all protocol, massive frontloading and target-informed monitors were still" remote viewing", no scientist could take remote viewing seriously any longer. I say "almost single-handed" because many of the ex-military CRV trainers were just as guilty back then of employing protocols. All but Dames seemed to have now changed their tune. THAT is what has made remote viewing "no longer real to the world". Ed Dames and people like you, who believe that his style of refusing to implement the scientific controls is just fine, are what has put RV now on a par with such unproven phenomena as UFOs, aliens, ghosts, and Bigfoot.
Edwin C. May is the scientist with the most experience in the development of remote viewing. He ran - by far - more RV studies and put in more years than any other scientist. Puthoff and Targ are often publicly mentioned in association with RV but May's experience vastly exceeds that of both Puthoff and Targ. Ed May has written: "In the very beginning of Stargate Chronicles, Joe expresses frustration over the lack of good scientific protocols, which is unfortunately all too common with some of the material that purports to pass as valid remote viewing that can be found on the World Wide Web. Joe is especially qualified to speak on these matters...". (From the introduction, pg. xxiv, of McMoneagle's The Stargate Chronicles).
Alex, note that May is pointing to work EXACTLY like yours - material that purports to be valid remote viewing yet lacks scientific protocol.
May goes on to say that Joe is the "most tested and certified psychic in history".
From the same book, pg. xi, Joe writes his definition of remote viewing (the same one - the only one - accepted by science):
"Remote viewing is a human ability to produce information about a targeted object, person, place, or event, while being completely isolated from the target by space, time, and other forms of shielding. This isolation is guaranteed by following a very specific scientific protocol. This protocol was developed at Stanford Research Institute in the early 1970s and has become more rigorous and specific since then."
You see, Alex, I am not claiming to be "the arbiter of what RV is and isn't". What RV is has been known for a long time - for those who are willing to face it and deal with it. It is rigorous and specific. That's what sets it apart.
Joe goes on to write:
"Remote viewing can be considered to have taken place only when the remote viewer and anyone else in the room with the remote viewer are completely blind to the specifically targeted object, person, place, or event of interest. They must remain blind to the target of interest prior to and during the production of information. In scientific terms, this is called a double-blind condition. That is, the viewer and all the people associated with the viewer are unaware of the target material. There are no exceptions to this protocol."
Read that last sentence again, Alex. "There are NO exceptions to this protocol."
That is not me saying that. It is Joe McMoneagle and every scientist ever engaged in the development of remote viewing saying that. The fact that you and Ed Dames don't agree with it doesn't change anything. And it certainly doesn't change the definition of remote viewing.
You wrote:
I have no clue what you are referring to here. Who mentioned Soviet missile silos? Who mentioned Brown's aliens and pyramids issue?
But if you think the stuff from the 1970s is the best we have to display, then you need to take a long hard look at the work done by McMoneagle in just the last couple years.
You wrote:
And:
And:
I mentioned Joe's recent work. Long since the government program shut down, Joe has remote viewed the location of around 20 or more missing people in Japan, some of them missing for over 50 years - documented. On camera. From his dining room in Virginia. I have a little experience in locating missing people myself that I described in a previous post. How's that for tangible results? How's that for "making RV real" to the world? It was certainly tangible and real to law enforcement and those searching for the missing persons. And in my case - and in Joe's - it was done double-blind, with zero frontloading, completely in-protocol.
You wrote:
Oh yeah, that's right. This entire conversation began with you claiming to be the only remote viewer here and with you referring to everyone else here in parenthesis ("viewers"), as if they are not really RVers. That was right about the time that you mentioned how you are working targets totally, completely frontloaded. Others jumped on that, pointing out that you are NOT, in fact, remote viewing. And I said we at least realized that one person here - meaning you, Alex - are not a remote viewer. It looks like we are right back where we started from. All this polite discussion, all this gradual education, all this repeated explanation - and you still defend working frontloaded, without any regard to protocol.
And by the way, I DID take a look at the missing plane - remember? But I termed my effort (since it was done totally frontloaded and out of protocol) as an "Intuitive Session". I did not refer to it as "remote viewing" because it was not remote viewing. Neither was yours. But there was one more difference. I didn't criticize any one else here for not offering a session on the missing plane. Because I do not feel the need to. And because what others choose to remote view or what others choose to make public is none of my business. Don.
You wrote:
Sigh... Okay. I'll give this one more shot.
I would have walked away from this conversation a long time ago. I'm really, really tired of beating this dead horse. But I really care about remote viewing. I care about the accomplishments of those who originated it, developed it, and perfected the protocols. They have bequeathed to us - at long last - a means of demonstrating psychic perception that cannot be reasonably, intelligently questioned by the skeptics nor ridiculed by society.
Even the arch-skeptic and debunker Ray Hyman - who has devoted his life to debunking anything and everything paranormal - admitted, after reviewing the scientific protocols of the remote viewing research done at Stanford, that he could offer no non-paranormal explanation for the success of remote viewing. In other words, he could find no flaw in the protocols. He could find no way the information in the remote viewing studies could have been transmitted except by psychic means. I don't know, Alex, if you fully understand the enormity of that admission by one of the world's leading skeptics. You obviously do not seem to understand that IT IS THE PROTOCOLS that all but proved the reality of remote viewing to this arch-skeptic and debunker. Without those protocols, what we are doing is not remote viewing.
You ask who made me the arbiter of what is RV and what isn't? What are correct protocols and what aren't?
You asked me a similar question a few days ago when you asked me who was I speaking for. I'm not the arbiter of what is RV and what isn't, nor did I decide what the correct protocols are. The people who decided that are the scientists who created it. The people who agree with that statement include the following (from one of my previous posts ion this thread):
Alex, you wrote:
No.
There IS a reason RV is "no longer real to the world" (if indeed it ever was; the average person on the street still has no idea of what the words "remote viewing" even means). But RV once had a legitimacy among those who took the time to investigate the research. Among many, RV had overcame the "giggle factor" to some extent. But remote viewing has been shoved right back into the same disbelieved, unproven, sensationalistic, ridiculed box as palm reading, channeling, fortune telling and spoon bending.
And I'm going to tell you how that happened...
I've been civil and I've tried to be gentle about this up until now. But I'm really weary - not just weary of my failure to get you to understand the vital importance of the protocols, but also extremely weary of watching the slow slide of remote viewing, in the eyes of society, back into the ridiculed, non-legitimate box where so many other psychic activities reside.
And this slow destruction of all that was built in the creation and development of remote viewing is being done by you, Alex, and those like you who have decided that the appropriate attitude is (as you posted recently):
Your trainer, Ed Dames, heads up the list of those people. So I can readily see why you feel as you do about the lack of a need for scientific protocols. Completely aside from Dames' regular pronouncements about the impending end of the world (killshots, plant pathogens, etc.) that never seem to happen, he began damaging RV back in the early 1990s. He claimed an accuracy of "a previously never achieved success rate of 100%". He claimed his team would discover the origin of the AIDS virus. He claimed there would be public contact with aliens in Chaco Canyon in August of 1993. On radio, he claimed his students could work frontloaded with 100% accuracy. He claimed the scientific protocols were only important to scientists. He trained Courtney Brown and the complete lack of blinding controls and massive frontloading that he told Brown was "okay" and was "still remote viewing" directly resulted in the fiascos Brown has been associated with.
Almost single-handed, Dames managed to begin the ruination of remote viewing and the turning away of legitimate science. When Dames convinced people that a total lack of rules and controls, the lack of all protocol, massive frontloading and target-informed monitors were still" remote viewing", no scientist could take remote viewing seriously any longer. I say "almost single-handed" because many of the ex-military CRV trainers were just as guilty back then of employing protocols. All but Dames seemed to have now changed their tune. THAT is what has made remote viewing "no longer real to the world". Ed Dames and people like you, who believe that his style of refusing to implement the scientific controls is just fine, are what has put RV now on a par with such unproven phenomena as UFOs, aliens, ghosts, and Bigfoot.
Edwin C. May is the scientist with the most experience in the development of remote viewing. He ran - by far - more RV studies and put in more years than any other scientist. Puthoff and Targ are often publicly mentioned in association with RV but May's experience vastly exceeds that of both Puthoff and Targ. Ed May has written: "In the very beginning of Stargate Chronicles, Joe expresses frustration over the lack of good scientific protocols, which is unfortunately all too common with some of the material that purports to pass as valid remote viewing that can be found on the World Wide Web. Joe is especially qualified to speak on these matters...". (From the introduction, pg. xxiv, of McMoneagle's The Stargate Chronicles).
Alex, note that May is pointing to work EXACTLY like yours - material that purports to be valid remote viewing yet lacks scientific protocol.
May goes on to say that Joe is the "most tested and certified psychic in history".
From the same book, pg. xi, Joe writes his definition of remote viewing (the same one - the only one - accepted by science):
"Remote viewing is a human ability to produce information about a targeted object, person, place, or event, while being completely isolated from the target by space, time, and other forms of shielding. This isolation is guaranteed by following a very specific scientific protocol. This protocol was developed at Stanford Research Institute in the early 1970s and has become more rigorous and specific since then."
You see, Alex, I am not claiming to be "the arbiter of what RV is and isn't". What RV is has been known for a long time - for those who are willing to face it and deal with it. It is rigorous and specific. That's what sets it apart.
Joe goes on to write:
"Remote viewing can be considered to have taken place only when the remote viewer and anyone else in the room with the remote viewer are completely blind to the specifically targeted object, person, place, or event of interest. They must remain blind to the target of interest prior to and during the production of information. In scientific terms, this is called a double-blind condition. That is, the viewer and all the people associated with the viewer are unaware of the target material. There are no exceptions to this protocol."
Read that last sentence again, Alex. "There are NO exceptions to this protocol."
That is not me saying that. It is Joe McMoneagle and every scientist ever engaged in the development of remote viewing saying that. The fact that you and Ed Dames don't agree with it doesn't change anything. And it certainly doesn't change the definition of remote viewing.
You wrote:
I have no clue what you are referring to here. Who mentioned Soviet missile silos? Who mentioned Brown's aliens and pyramids issue?
But if you think the stuff from the 1970s is the best we have to display, then you need to take a long hard look at the work done by McMoneagle in just the last couple years.
You wrote:
And:
And:
I mentioned Joe's recent work. Long since the government program shut down, Joe has remote viewed the location of around 20 or more missing people in Japan, some of them missing for over 50 years - documented. On camera. From his dining room in Virginia. I have a little experience in locating missing people myself that I described in a previous post. How's that for tangible results? How's that for "making RV real" to the world? It was certainly tangible and real to law enforcement and those searching for the missing persons. And in my case - and in Joe's - it was done double-blind, with zero frontloading, completely in-protocol.
You wrote:
Oh yeah, that's right. This entire conversation began with you claiming to be the only remote viewer here and with you referring to everyone else here in parenthesis ("viewers"), as if they are not really RVers. That was right about the time that you mentioned how you are working targets totally, completely frontloaded. Others jumped on that, pointing out that you are NOT, in fact, remote viewing. And I said we at least realized that one person here - meaning you, Alex - are not a remote viewer. It looks like we are right back where we started from. All this polite discussion, all this gradual education, all this repeated explanation - and you still defend working frontloaded, without any regard to protocol.
And by the way, I DID take a look at the missing plane - remember? But I termed my effort (since it was done totally frontloaded and out of protocol) as an "Intuitive Session". I did not refer to it as "remote viewing" because it was not remote viewing. Neither was yours. But there was one more difference. I didn't criticize any one else here for not offering a session on the missing plane. Because I do not feel the need to. And because what others choose to remote view or what others choose to make public is none of my business. Don.
