'Tantalising Perceptions' - A Progressive, Skeptical view on Remote Viewing

[Lucianarchy]

'Tantalising Perceptions' - A Progressive Skeptical View on remote viewing. (c) Lucianarchy 1998

Dean Radin ( Conscious Universe ) and Dr Lyall Watson ( Supernature ) give plenty of evidence of demonstrations of 'non locality' perception.

The evidence so eloquently demonstrated by Radin and Watson gives significant credibility to substantiate the findings of the "
existence of one or more perceptual modalities through which
individuals obtain information about their environment."

Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ gave evidence of demonstration of the

" existence of one or more perceptual modalities through which
individuals obtain information about their environment."



The SRI experiments involved a number of PK and RV users / experiencers ( a popular dysfunctional 'meme' is that the SRI
experiments centred on only one person ). Claims of poor scientific
method levelled at the experiments has been shown to be mainly
unsubstantiated personal opinion and second hand 'Chinese Whispers', yet its continued repetition has enabled such claims to become a 'meme' for the mantra of pseudo-skeptics.

Unbiased research demonstrates that:

1.The 'editorial' was the opinion of three anonymous
individuals.

2. In the face of three anonymous individuals, the CIA decided
to carry on with Targ and Puthoff and the SRI for another twenty years.

3. The CIA found that the results were "significant".

4. The CIA did NOT find that RV did not work.


Pseudo skeptics rejected the data while the CIA took the SRI research on-board and went on to work with physicists and RV owners in order to exploit any appropriate application.

The CIA / SRI collaborative evidence can be found at:

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

It is impossible to simply dismiss the evidence of the CIA initiated
programme.

"a recent unclassified report [23] prepared for the CIA by the American Institutes for Research (AIR), concerning a remote viewing effort carried out under a DIA program called Star Gate (discussed in detail elsewhere in this volume), cites the roles of the CIA and DIA in the history of the program, including acknowledgement that a cadre of full- time government employees used remote viewing techniques to respond to tasking from operational military organizations." [.quote]

Russell Targ, is quoted as saying:[quote]

" The SRI program was not discredited. The SRI remote viewing experiments continued from 1972 to 1995 for many agencies of the Federal government. I personally showed dozens of government officials (up to the under sec. of defense) and army officers how to do remote viewing. Many of these are teaching it today."

PSI / PK / RV should exist according to Occam. It would be
unlikely for an overwhelming positive reporting significance on
phenomena to be in each and every case false. It is more likely that scientific research currently lacks sufficient comprehension to study the phenomena and understand the action of the effect. This lack tempts dogmatism to insert what human logic demands in such instances, denial of existence.

There is plenty of theoretical underpinning to RV.
Go to Theoretical Physicist, Dr Jack Sarfatti's site.

www.stardrive.org

Col Alexander ( ex director of the Advanced Systems Concept Office, Army Laboratory Command, and later as Chief of Advanced Human Research with INSCOM, moving on to Los Alamos NL ) who has the unusual Ph.D in 'Thanatology' says of 'pseudo' skepticism:

" The overall problem with the professionally sceptical class of
people is that they are very scared. If PSI is true, their world- view is incorrect. I worked with an Army engineer once on a PSI related project, and he actually came out and said, "Don't tell me something that says I have to relearn Physics, because I do not want to hear it." They will just say It's not true, therefore it isn't. When all else fails, ignore the facts. "

John Hasted, Chair of Experimental
Physics at Birbeck, London:

" I found these professional sceptics to be every bit as much a
menace to scientific truth and impartial observation as the worst
psychic charlatans. They write that researchers in the parapsychology field are emotionally committed to finding phenomena, yet forget conveniently that they themselves are emotionally committed to finding there are no phenomena. I was often reminded of a saying:

"Them as believe nowt, will believe owt." "

Indeed.

[alfaniner]

Look at how much work it takes just to bore me...

[chrisberez]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Look at how much work it takes just to bore me...

I'll second that. More unsubstantiated whining from Luiananarchy.

" The overall problem with the professionally sceptical class of
people is that they are very scared. If PSI is true, their world- view is incorrect.

Um, since when? My worldview would now be shaken if Psi turned out to be true. I'm a pragmatist. I'll change with the changing times. But this "scientists just need to open their minds and realize that their methods can't confirm psi" crap doesn't fly. If psi can be demonstrated empirically, then there should be realiable empirical methods to verify it.

But prove us close minded scardy-cat skeptics wrong, Luci. You predicted something bad was going to happen August 4th. Do you stick by this still? Care to clairify your statements any?

But I guess I'm so busy trembling in my boots and weeping over my shattered world view that I'll just dogmatically reject whatever "indisputable" evidence you provide, right?

Hey, does anyone else hear violins....?

:v:

[Lucianarchy]

Given the challenge of applying remote viewing protocols to practical ends, Harold Puthoff worked with a group of parents hoping to raise money for an alternative school for their children.

They undertook a 30-trial series in which remote viewing was used to predict the daily outcomes of a commodities market variable (which was then successfully traded in the market).

The technique employed was an ARV (associational remote viewing) procedure. In this method several remote viewers were asked to describe (free-response) a target object to be shown them at the close of the following day, the selection of that object to be determined by that day's market activity (e.g., if market up, an apple; if down, a pencil). The task of the remote viewing judge is to determine from the viewers'transcripts the likely feedback object, and hence (in advance) the associated market movement. The sequence in detail was: (a) remote viewers generate transcripts; (b) without reference to the transcripts, two objects are selected and labeled (by use of a random number generator) market-up, market-down objects; (c) a judge determines a consensus vote as to which of the two objects is being described (and the associated market-movement prediction is passed on to a trader); (d) at the close of the following market day the actual "ground-truth" market-movement object is shown the viewers for feedback, closing the loop.

Seven parents interested in raising funds for the school volunteered as remote viewers. After an evening's instruction on the SRI remote viewing protocols, a series was begun. The number of remote viewing trials per person over the entire series ranged from a maximum of 36 (six pilot, 30 market trials) to a minimum of twelve. Consensus judging yielded a result of 21/30 (70.0%), significant at p < 2.2 x 10-2, and a series of profits/losses at about $1,000 - $2,000/trial, netting more than $25,000 profit for the entire series.

H. E. Puthoff, "ARV (Associational Remote Viewing) Applications," Research in Parapsychology 1984, edited by Rhea White and J. Solfvin (Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ, 1985), p. 121.

http://www.williamjames.com/Science/PSIONIC2.htm

[Ed]

This got published? Oy vey.

Why the baroque protcol, do you think. And what sort of "judging" is necessary to distingush between a pencil and an apple?

[Prester John]

Seven parents interested in raising funds for the school volunteered as remote viewers. After an evening's instruction on the SRI remote viewing protocols, a series was begun.

emphasis mine

If its that easy to learn Remote viewing then why...........

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Prester John


emphasis mine

If its that easy to learn Remote viewing then why...........

... don't you try it for yourself.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


... don't you try it for yourself.

I tried to RV you, Luci. I then exposed the film by holding it to my forehead. So, does this look like you?


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/09/02/lucy.kanfer/story.lucy.vita.jpg

[Lucianarchy]

"Psychic Breakthroughs Today
D. Scott Rogo
Aquarian Press 1987 - ISBN 0850305705

An excerpt from Chapter 17, The failure of Skepticism
"Randi opts for the fraud theory, and he even thinks he knows how Geller carried out the shenanigans. He offers his readers a diagram of the booth and adjoining room where the tests were held. This diagram shows that a four-and-a-half inch hole (used to extend cables in and out of the booth) is situated in the booth three feet above the floor. Randi claims that Geller merely peeked through this hole for at least two of the drawing tests, and either saw the targets or was signalled by a confederate located in the adjoining room. While the magician points out that the hole is usually kept stuffed with gauze, he believes that Geller simply withdrew the material while carrying out his secret observations. This all sounds reasonable enough until you check out the booth, which I was able to do when I visited SRI on 12 June 1981. I found, first, that the hole is not four-and-a-half inches wide at all. It is three and-a-quarter inches and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments. But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn't three feet above the floor but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments."




Remarks


As can be seen in this photograph the hole in the wall was located more than "a little above floor level."
Rogo doesn't state which wall he believes the targets were displayed on but according to Hal Puthoff at least one of the targets in question was displayed on the wall directly opposite the "sheilded room" as Randi claimed. Psychologists David Marks & Richard Kamman had visited Puthoff (June 1977?); in their book "The Psychology of the Psychic" they write:
"He [Puthoff] told us that he taped this drawing 'right here,' pointing to a spot directly across from the covered window."
In the table accompanying their original paper in "Nature" Targ & Puthoff give the distance between Uri and the target on these trials as 4.1 metres which would make sense if hte targets were indeed on the opposite wall.
Marks & Kamman also relate how:

"A reliable source inside SRI told us that after certain experiments the steel room and adjacent room were littered with "hundreds" of discarded drawings, and among these were examples of the bunch of grapes and other drawings later published in Nature. This fact was known to several people on the SRI staff."
It is difficult to see how the experimenters could be monitoring the hole in the wall if it was obscured by an equipment rack.

[chrisberez]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"Psychic Breakthroughs Today
D. Scott Rogo
Aquarian Press 1987 - ISBN 0850305705

Way to pick a realiable source. Good thing the Aquarian Press (whatever the hell that is) managed to scoop up this earth-shattering story before the New York Times or Washington Post.

An excerpt from Chapter 17, The failure of Skepticism
"Randi opts for the fraud theory, and he even thinks he knows how Geller carried out the shenanigans. He offers his readers a diagram of the booth and adjoining room where the tests were held. This diagram shows that a four-and-a-half inch hole (used to extend cables in and out of the booth) is situated in the booth three feet above the floor. Randi claims that Geller merely peeked through this hole for at least two of the drawing tests, and either saw the targets or was signalled by a confederate located in the adjoining room. While the magician points out that the hole is usually kept stuffed with gauze, he believes that Geller simply withdrew the material while carrying out his secret observations. This all sounds reasonable enough until you check out the booth, which I was able to do when I visited SRI on 12 June 1981. I found, first, that the hole is not four-and-a-half inches wide at all. It is three and-a-quarter inches and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments. But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn't three feet above the floor but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments."

I tend to trust Randi more than an obscur woo-woo press. The article just claims Randi is wrong- I'd like to see their evidence backing that up. This argument reeks of ye ol' strawman. They Say, "ah-ha! Randi is wrong! The hole isn't three feet above the floor but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. " Anyone could simply make up that data. I'd like to hear Randi's responce to this.

And I'm sure he'll be rushing to respond right away to something as formidable as the- gasp- Aquarian Press.[/B][/QUOTE]

"A reliable source inside SRI told us that after certain experiments the steel room and adjacent room were littered with "hundreds" of discarded drawings, and among these were examples of the bunch of grapes and other drawings later published in Nature. This fact was known to several people on the SRI staff."


What reliable source, which issue of Nature, what article?

[Ed]

Luci, if you were, Gaia forbid:D , being tried for a serious crime would you think it just to be convicted of evidence of this quality? Seriously.

[Lucianarchy]

"[...]It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which shows Geller successfully guessing the uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their Nature report describes these tests and phenomenal accuracy. The critical film was taken by Zev Pressman (an SRI staff photographer) and it shows Geller correctly making a guess. Randi claims that Targ and Puthoff lied when they stated that this film was taken during the actual tests. He further asserts that the film was a re-enactment. Basing his charges on information he claims came from Pressman himself, Randi maintains that the film was taken after the photographer had gone home and was merely staged. 'Pressman revealed that he was told Geller's eight successful throws [my emphasis] were done after he (Pressman) had gone home for the day, writes Randi, 'and that this film was a re-enactment of that supposed miracle'

Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of Flim-Flam! to him. 'Not one millimetre of that film was a re-enactment, he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly I did.

l spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When l read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labelled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!) [...]"

Psychic Breakthroughs Today
D. Scott Rogo
Aquarian Press 1987 - ISBN 0850305705

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[...]

Fool.

[Lucianarchy]

[...]Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of Flim-Flam! to him. 'Not one millimetre of that film was a re-enactment, he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly I did.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

If remote viewing worked (and especially if all it took was a single evening's training session, as claimed here), what could we expect the world to be like?

[Ladewig]

Geller?
Geller?

You're referencing Uri fecking Geller!?
The man who was photographed cheating by "Popular Photography" magazine? The man who claims he spent time on an alien spaceship? The man who was not able to perform on national television because of the controls set up by an amature magician and talk-show host? That Uri Geller?

Quite clowning around, Lucianarchy. If you've got real evidence then present it. Oh, I forgot, real evidence is hard to obtain because of the decades-long international conspiracy by powerful governments to buy out or kidnap the world's best psychics. As described in another kooky thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42592&perpage=40&pagenumber=4)

[SezMe]

Luci quoted "...if market up, an apple; if down, a pencil"

I guess it would be too much for the RVers to just say "up" or "down"

[Lucianarchy]

All that matters is that it worked for them.

$25,000 of "worked".

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


[Why] don't you try it for yourself.

at http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php !

(Cheers, Luci!)

[Zep]

I'm amazed that Luci continues to refer to:

a) Uri Geller

b) Targ and Puthoff

c) Dean Radin

d) Some ex-Army kook with "an unusual Ph.D in 'Thanatology'" :confused:

e) Other same old suspects

f) SRI stuff that has been SO thoroughly compromised as to be useless

g) nothing later than roughly 1984, ie. at least 20 years old.


I think Lucinarchy is easily impressed by titles and letters after people's names, even if some people bought them off the back of a cornflakes packet.


:s2:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


at http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php !

(Cheers, Luci!)

What are the controls? Double blinded?

[TheBoyPaj]

What does magnetic wine taste like?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
What does magnetic wine taste like?

I guess sooner or later, someone else will ask you what your controls are. Considering your repeated evasion, it is probably because you have no controls at all, or worse, you are cheating.

[TheBoyPaj]

I'll detail my test when you tell us what methods and controls YOU used before encouraging people to buy those coasters. Simple as that.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I'll detail my test when you tell us what methods and controls YOU used before encouraging people to buy those coasters. Simple as that.

Maturity is not your strongest point is it. :rolleyes:

[TheBoyPaj]

The truth is not yours, is it?