Lucianarchy and remote viewing [Archive]

SteveGrenard

19th July 2003, 04:52 PM

Why doesn't Randi just put one or several unusual objects on his desk at JREF and see if a RVer can see his desk and what's on them, keeping more in line with their claims. I am not familiar with their claim that they can remote view the inside of blacked out boxes such as lockers. Randi always seems to want to change the claimant's claim. The penchant for doing this seems to pervade a number of members here who also facetiously offer up feats they think psychics or remote viewers should be able to accomplish. I think it is extremely important to see what the claim is and then stick to it.

When Brig. General Dozer, was kidnapped by the Red Brigades in 1981, remote viewers identified the block, by description he was on, named the city (Padua-He was kidnapped from Verona) that he was in an apartment and in the apartment they had seen a blue tent set-up in the middle of the floor. Dozer was kept inside this tent in the apartment but an RVer could not see inside the darkened tent. Nevertheless, this info passed by US intelligence to Italian anti-terrorist police, and was later verified as veridical.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er this is the account Claus also asked me to report immediately to the authorities. He said I was witholding vital information about this kidnapping and that I must report it. Needless to say I didn't report it but now, do so here:

On December 17, 1981, Red Brigade terrorists kidnapped Brigadier General James Dozier from his apartment in Verona, Italy. Dozier, the highest ranking U.S. NATO officer in Italy, was eventually rescued in Padua by an elite Italian anti-terrorist police unit, which also effected the arrests of five of his captors. The rescue team was comprised of elements from the Nucleo Operativo Centrale di Sicurezza (NOCS).

In January 1982, members of NOCS carried out a lightning raid on an apartment in Padua to free Gen. Dozier. Assaulting at just after 11:30 a.m. to take advantage of the bustle on the streets and the noise of a construction crew's bulldozer nearby, ten NOCS men arrived in front of the apartment building in a moving van and were dressed in civilian clothes (though they wore ballistic vests and balaclavas). One assault team member split off to seal a supermarket door near the apartment entrance so the innocent bystanders could not wander out, while the other nine men assaulted the apartment. One member of NOCS - a competitive weightlifter - took out the door quickly; another NOCS man efficiently took out a terrorist encountered in the hall with a karate blow to the forehead. As still another terrorist prepared to execute Gen. Dozier, a NOCS man felled him with a blow from the butt of his M12. The layout, as given by remote viewers in the U.S. was obviously crucial to the success of this operation.

In a recent interview with Jeff Rense, McMoneagle had this to say, "the only information that I was given was a photograph of the General, his name, and I was asked to describe the location in which he was being held. No one had any idea which country he was even being held in at the time." When asked if he was correct, he responded, "Yes, I was the only one who produced the actual name of the city that he was being held in."

thaiboxerken

19th July 2003, 05:20 PM

Why doesn't Randi just put one or several unusual objects on his desk at JREF and see if a RVer can see his desk and what's on them, keeping more in line with their claims.

Why is having an object in a locker different?

I am not familiar with their claim that they can remote view the inside of blacked out boxes such as lockers. Randi always seems to want to change the claimant's claim.

So, remote-viewers can see without their eyes around the globe.. but put it in a locker and they can't? Is this what you are asserting? Their claim is that they can see anything, anywhere. Inside of a locker qualifies as anywhere.

I think it is extremely important to see what the claim is and then stick to it.

The locker is well within their claimed abilities.

When Brig. General Dozer, was kidnapped by the Red Brigades in 1981, remote viewers identified the block, by description he was on, named the city (Padua-He was kidnapped from Verona) that he was in an apartment and in the apartment they had seen a blue tent set-up in the middle of the floor. Dozer was kept inside this tent in the apartment but an RVer could not see inside the darkened tent. Nevertheless, this info passed by US intelligence to Italian anti-terrorist police, and was later verified as veridical.

So goes the story. But this fictional account is just that. Are you asserting that remote viewers can't see inside of a dark locker? Or they can't see in the dark? Or that they can't see inside of tents? What are you asserting here?

In a recent interview with Jeff Rense, McMoneagle had this to say, "the only information that I was given was a photograph of the General, his name, and I was asked to describe the location in which he was being held. No one had any idea which country he was even being held in at the time." When asked if he was correct, he responded, "Yes, I was the only one who produced the actual name of the city that he was being held in."

Yep, and I turn big and green when I get angry.

So, bring on a remote-viewer that you know and have that person apply for the JREF challenge. I'm sure Randi can cater a test more inline with what that particular remote-viewer claims. Right now, Randi's little challenge is just exactly what it says, he's challenging anyone to use paranormal ability to find out what's in his locker.

If you don't think remote-viewers can do it, just say so and quit making excuses for why they can't.

:rolleyes:

thaiboxerken

19th July 2003, 05:25 PM

I'd like to also point out that self-proclaimed remote-viewer, Lucianarchy, has stated "uncooperative" as the reason he can't do the locker test. He didn't mention that lockers and dark places being a limit.

Why would mundane factors, like lockers and light, be a limit to remote-viewers anyway?

Hexxenhammer

19th July 2003, 05:57 PM

Why would mundane factors, like lockers and light, be a limit to remote-viewers anyway?

All superpowers have a weakness. Superman can't see through lead with his x-ray vision, Green Lantern's powers are countered by the color yellow, and remote viewers can see anywhere except a dark locker. Makes sense to me.

SteveGrenard

19th July 2003, 06:29 PM

THAI: Why would mundane factors, like lockers and light, be a limit to remote-viewers anyway?

Reply: Your remarks ignore my statement. These mundane factors which you call them are not part of their claim. Are you saying you would ask a remote viewer to do something which they do not claim to do? That is what Randi is asking with this new little farce of his. This ishis game and he plays it so well he's got you and a lot of people fooled. He could set up a much simpler experiment that meets RV's relatively simple conditions and fits its claims.

Randi tried to do this with Natalia as well -- placing her reading material inside a black box. This was not her claim. And you thai,
are now doing it also ........... Randi loves black boxes and doing experiments in he dark. I wonder why that is.

If learn anything here, please learn that if you want to test some extrasensory form of perception you should do so in
response to the claim of the posessor and not make up your own
claims.

:book:

Ratman_tf

19th July 2003, 06:54 PM

Of course you are assuming that the inside of the locker is not lit.

Perhaps a remote viewer could take a peek and tell if they need some light on the subject? I'm sure Randi could put a battery powered lamp in there. Perhaps a cooperative lamp for Lucianarchy?

Lucianarchy

19th July 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin

The object in the locker has to co-operate?

The locker has to co-operate?

The air between you ans the object has to co-operate?

Etc, etc, etc.

Some super power... :rolleyes:

No, just the living systems which are consciously involved. You are more likely to get a positive result that way.

thaiboxerken

19th July 2003, 07:09 PM

Reply: Your remarks ignore my statement. These mundane factors which you call them are not part of their claim. Are you saying you would ask a remote viewer to do something which they do not claim to do?

What, exactly, is their claim? Randi is making a broad challenge, it's not a specific challenge aimed at a specific remote-viewer. It's not uncommon for a remote-viewer to claim the ability to see into places.

He could set up a much simpler experiment that meets RV's relatively simple conditions and fits its claims.

Feel free to e-mail Randi and give some advice then.

Randi tried to do this with Natalia as well -- placing her reading material inside a black box. This was not her claim. And you thai,
are now doing it also ........... Randi loves black boxes and doing experiments in he dark. I wonder why that is.

LOL. She claimed she can read without her eyes. A box sufficiently would demonstrate her ability, if she had one.

If learn anything here, please learn that if you want to test some extrasensory form of perception you should do so in
response to the claim of the posessor and not make up your own
claims.

Or that some people will make any excuse as to why remote-viewers fail.

SteveGrenard

19th July 2003, 07:11 PM

Luci: No, just the living systems which are consciously involved. You are more likely to get a positive result that way.

Luci, surely you know that during the cold war our remote viewers rv'd many soviet targets and they were not exactly on friendly terms with us let alone cooperative. If you are concerned about the experimenter effect, which would be present in Randi, then this could be a problem. I do know that all their best known targets have not been locked up in the pitch darkness because they purport to see their targets in the light. I cant think of any precedents for RVing in total darkness but I could be wrong.
Variations including map RVing and coordinate RVing could probably be in the dark but not target RVing such as Randi is
proposing.

I think this is another Randi effort to foist unclaimed abiliies on
claimants and he knows better than all of us that what he proposes is not their claim, its his perception of how to screw them over. Hence the experimenter effect.

Ratman_tf

19th July 2003, 07:16 PM

Lucianarchy, can you do remote viewing? If so, what would it take for you to, say for example, describe the poster on my bedroom wall?

NoZed Avenger

19th July 2003, 07:30 PM

If any remote viewer actually . . . oh, I don't know . . . ACCEPTED the challenge, they could request a lighted area. At the moment, you are throwing out hypothetical objections from hypothetical people with hypothetical powers with hypothetical limitations who might, one day, if the stars align, actually deign to get up off the couch and have world-changing powers tested.

But UNTIL THEN, since no one has actually accepted the challenge, I would say that neither they nor you -- speaking on their behalf hypothetically -- have much say.

If they can see things and if they need light, they can fill out the form and give that as a condition of the test.

The form can be downloaded; many Notaries will verify your document for free; stamps are cheap; the form can be filled out and mailed inside 10 minutes.

It would shut up the critics, it would shake the very foundations of what we know about the human body, it would earn a million dollars for the hypothetical person or their hypothetical charity of choice.

So if any of these gifted people actually need a lighted area for remote viewing, have them use their awsome powers to find a pen or pencil and fill out the bleeding form.

Good night.

SteveGrenard

19th July 2003, 07:49 PM

I absolutely agree. If anyone accepts the challenge they should be able to stipulate the conditions by which they can exert their claim.

Randi's offer, however, is not hypothetical. My understanding is its on the table. He really should not be setting conditions without consulting an actual challenger. In other words he
should familiarize himself with all the flavors of remote viewing
and agree to stipulate to the conditions required before
publicizing any of his own... but what the hey, its his challenge
or thats's what everybody says.

NoZed Avenger

19th July 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I absolutely agree. If anyone accepts the challenge they should be able to stipulate the conditions by which they can exert their claim.

Randi's offer, however, is not hypothetical. My understanding is its on the table. He really should not be setting conditions without consulting an actual challenger. In other words he
should familiarize himself with all the flavors of remote viewing
and agree to stipulate to the conditions required before
publicizing any of his own... but what the hey, its his challenge
or thats's what everybody says.

(1) What "actual challenger?" As no one has come forward to say whether their hypothetical power may or may not hypothetically work this way, -there- -IS- -no- -challenger-.

You seem to be willfully confusing this remote viewing "challenge" with the standard JREF challenge which sets no conditions apart from what both parties agree to.

Me: At the moment, you are throwing out hypothetical objections from hypothetical people with hypothetical powers with hypothetical limitations who might, one day, if the stars align, actually deign to get up off the couch and have world-changing powers tested.

Randi does not have any duty to scout the globe for people who won't fill out a form and accept his challenge to find singularly ill-named "challengers" who don't actually challenge.

(2) As above. If a "challenger" wants input in how anything is set up, then they can "accept" the "challenge."

Again, for those in the back row: If someone with these abilities has an actual problem with this test, they can come to an arrangement with Randi concerning test conditions by taking a very small amount of time and filling out the form. If they want a lighted room, great. If they only view vegetables, fine. If they need a color-wheel plugged in nearby and Nirvana playing in the background, just ask.

NA

UnrepentantSinner

19th July 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

No, just the living systems which are consciously involved. You are more likely to get a positive result that way.

This must be why RVers have such difficulty finded dead bodies.

Steve,

If physical factors such as darkness can be so limiting as to negate the TRV ability, why was Psi Tech so positive that Elizabeth Smart's body was located in the crypt it was supposedly located in. I can't imagine it was would have had any light in there, or any more light than might seep under the door.

I also am continually bemused at how Psi powers that seem to be completely unrestrained by the laws of physics can suddenly be rendered useless by something as mundane as a burned out light bulb.

CFLarsen

20th July 2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
When Brig. General Dozer, was kidnapped by the Red Brigades in 1981, remote viewers identified the block, by description he was on, named the city (Padua-He was kidnapped from Verona) that he was in an apartment and in the apartment they had seen a blue tent set-up in the middle of the floor. Dozer was kept inside this tent in the apartment but an RVer could not see inside the darkened tent. Nevertheless, this info passed by US intelligence to Italian anti-terrorist police, and was later verified as veridical.

Please provide evidence of this.

Could not see inside a darkened tent? Why not??? Since when do RVers need light to see something??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Er this is the account Claus also asked me to report immediately to the authorities. He said I was witholding vital information about this kidnapping and that I must report it. Needless to say I didn't report it but now, do so here:

What on earth are you blabbering about?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In a recent interview with Jeff Rense, McMoneagle had this to say, "the only information that I was given was a photograph of the General, his name, and I was asked to describe the location in which he was being held. No one had any idea which country he was even being held in at the time." When asked if he was correct, he responded, "Yes, I was the only one who produced the actual name of the city that he was being held in."

Evidence? Sworn affidavits? Anything?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Your remarks ignore my statement. These mundane factors which you call them are not part of their claim. Are you saying you would ask a remote viewer to do something which they do not claim to do? That is what Randi is asking with this new little farce of his. This ishis game and he plays it so well he's got you and a lot of people fooled. He could set up a much simpler experiment that meets RV's relatively simple conditions and fits its claims.

Where, specifically, did the RVers say that lockers and light were not part of their claim? Did they say it before or after?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Randi tried to do this with Natalia as well -- placing her reading material inside a black box. This was not her claim.

Steve, Natalie cheated, OK? You are not saying that Natalie really had a paranormal ability, are you?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And you thai, are now doing it also ........... Randi loves black boxes and doing experiments in he dark. I wonder why that is.

Come out in the open, Steve. State your case, don't make these hidden allegations. What are you trying to say here?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If learn anything here, please learn that if you want to test some extrasensory form of perception you should do so in response to the claim of the posessor and not make up your own claims.

So, what were the claims?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If you are concerned about the experimenter effect, which would be present in Randi, then this could be a problem.

The experimenter effect works both ways: Usually, an experimenter favoring the theory being tested can influence the results. Only solid protocols can eliminate (or work to eliminate) experimenter bias.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Variations including map RVing and coordinate RVing could probably be in the dark but not target RVing such as Randi is proposing.

Why not?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I think this is another Randi effort to foist unclaimed abiliies on claimants and he knows better than all of us that what he proposes is not their claim, its his perception of how to screw them over. Hence the experimenter effect.

Then propose something better to Randi, instead of whining about it here.

Lucianarchy

20th July 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Luci, surely you know that during the cold war our remote viewers rv'd many soviet targets and they were not exactly on friendly terms with us let alone cooperative.

They were not consciously aware that they were being 'viewed'. This is crucial and perhaps one reason why it currently cannot be given any 'official' recognition. There are security issues involved here that may still take generations to be fully resolved.

Chupacabras

20th July 2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

They were not consciously aware that they were being 'viewed'.

The Humor forum is elsewere in this site! :roll: :roll: :roll:

So it's the Abracadabra effect or, in retrospective, the Great Conspiration Theory. Now, how in the world could such a claim be tested? Will you argue that someone of all of the involved was not cooperating?

And SteveGrenard, why argue and whine for so long? Where are the RV bounty hunters? Anyway, If I was to claim that million bucks (bad vibes are no problem with me) I would start by stating very clearly my claim, such as:

"I claim that I can Remote View any object if and only if all of the following conditions are met:

* I am given the exact address, city, postal code, etc... one month in advance.
* The object of experiment is not wrapped, boxed or cointained in any form that could block the sight in presence.
* The object is in a first floor.
* The object is atop a table, and this table is in a livingroom or any other open area of the building. No private offices, cubicles, etc... are allowed.
* A list of just three items is provided one month in advance, with one of those three items being the target. This list must include the MSRP for that item in the location of the experiment.
* The object is in a non-aligned country.
* Etc...

I would be willing to design an experiment in cooperation with the tester (just as stated in the conditions for the JREF challenge, BTW) so I can look at any detail that I may have skipped in the above statement".

Now, Lucianarchy, SteveGrenard, can you tell us of any RV event in history in like a detailed form? If you don't want the million, then at least you could shut our mouths up.

Lucianarchy

20th July 2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Chupacabras

The Humor forum is elsewere in this site! :roll: :roll: :roll:

So it's the Abracadabra effect or, in retrospective, the Great Conspiration Theory. Now, how in the world could such a claim be tested?

The SAIC experiments have done this. They used the scientific method. All participants were co-operative. Ray Hyman (CSICOP) was unable to identify any suitable candidate for error or flaw. He wanted other similar replications. The PEAR PRP replicate the SAIC expriments.

The 'experimenter' or 'sheep / goat' effect has been well demonstrated and documented in the scientific literature. I have not heard it called the 'abracadabra effect', but certainly, 'belief' and 'will' play an inherent role in the production of the effect.

EdipisReks

20th July 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The SAIC experiments have done this. They used the scientific method. All participants were co-operative. Ray Hyman (CSICOP) was unable to identify any suitable candidate for error or flaw. He wanted other similar replications. The PEAR PRP replicate the SAIC expriments.

The 'experimenter' or 'sheep / goat' effect has been well demonstrated and documented in the scientific literature. I have not heard it called the 'abracadabra effect', but certainly, 'belief' and 'will' play an inherent role in the production of the effect.

*yawn*

Darat

20th July 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...snip...

I think this is another Randi effort to foist unclaimed abiliies on
claimants and he knows better than all of us that what he proposes is not their claim, its his perception of how to screw them over. Hence the experimenter effect.

Here is what some "professional" remote viewers have to say about their abilities (bold by me).

From PsiTech http://www.psitech.net/

PSI TECH, Inc. is home to the breakthrough skill of Technical Remote Viewing (TRV.) Originally developed for and utilized by The Department Of Defense for intelligence collection purposes, Technical Remote Viewing is the trained ability to acquire accurate direct knowledge of things and events — targets — distant in time or space, in the past, present, or future, while conscious awareness remains totally “blind” to details about the target itself. TRV is a highly structured and standardized data collection skill. Like any other skill, practice is required to become proficient.

So they can see past, present and future. Light has no bearing on the “viewing” of targets.

From the videos on the site this is what Dane Spotts , CEO of PSI Tech says in his video in the “Questions and Answers” section. I’ve quickly transcribed some relevant sections, hopefully fairly accurately but anyway just go and view the video yourself.

About where the “viewing” information comes from he says:

“the matrix”

He describes the matrix as

“…gigantic library of information that contains every idea every thought every event that has ever happened is currently happening or is destined to happen…”

And this is what the remote viewers do

…queue/cue (?) a target how to consistently download accurate information about any person place thing or event anywhere in time or place…

In conclusion Randi’s idea to test remote viewing is totally in line of what this “professional” remote viewing organisation claims they can do. And not only what they claim they can do, what they claim anyone can do (and not only do but get better and better at “like going to the gym”).

Mike D.

20th July 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Darat

And not only what they claim they can do, what they claim anyone can do (and not only do but get better and better at “like going to the gym”).

Darat,

If they claim anyone can do it, then that means they claim that you, Darat, can do it too. Have you ever thought of testing this claim by taking a remote viewing class and seeing if you get results?

Mike

SteveGrenard

20th July 2003, 06:46 AM

Clausen asks for evidence of statements made abut the Dozier Kidnapping and Remote Viewing. You can enter these in Google and get that "evidence." Here are a few snippets and their sources. Clausen still hasn't gone on the record with what he considers evidence so folks keeping count can consider this the 40th or 50th time he asks for evidence but refuses to specify what constitutes that evidence. I hope the following helps in placing this story in context and provides the "evidence" at the very least that the kidnapping ocurred, it was RV'd by the U.S government and that most if not all (there are discrepancies in some minor internal details) of information proved veridical.

I mentioned the Dozier kidnapping to Claus a few weeks ago He immediately wrote back and said I was witholding information from the police and should contact them immediately with that info. He probably forgot. I ignored him. Its not that important, just typical of his knee jerk reactions to jump on me re this subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Post
30 December 1996
Military Psychic Unit's 'Hits' and Misses
by Jack Anderson
and Jan Moller

(SG: snipped - much longer critical article on subject, this part refers again to the Dozier kidnapping and remote viewing input as requested by CLaus; the various press accounts all seem to
differ slightly. In the Wash Post article Dozier is chained to a wall heater; in another article below to a bed. None mention the tent which the remote viewer himself mentions in his book which just came out. He was a chained inside the tent to pipes which could have been the railings of the cot or, I suppose, hot water pipes along the back wall).

"An important U.S. Army general was kidnapped in Italy by the Red Brigades terrorists. The U.S. government pulled out all the stops, shook up every intelligence source and scanned every photo but had no luck locating the general.

"The government turned to the ghost-finders -- an ultra-secret psychic unit run by the Army under the code name "Project Grill Flame." Three psychics turned their "remote viewing" vision to find Brig. Gen. James Dozier, being held by the brutal terrorists, in late 1981.

"One remote viewer, Joe McMoneagle, was particularly successful. He zeroed in on the room where Dozier was held, chained to a wall heater. He described it, but couldn't get the house number. Yet he did get the location, the Italian city of Padua.
The information was slowly sent up the chain of command, and finally arrived on the right desk. But it didn't arrive until a day after Dozier was released -- in Padua -- in early 1982.
Some of these events are noted in a highly sensitive secret log that recorded the unit's activities from 1979 to 1989, which was obtained by our associate Dale Van Atta. In the Dozier case, Project No. 8125, it is noted that McMoneagle "provided 'Padua' eight days before [Dozier's] release." The log further brags that "all other info was confirmed during a debriefing conducted by project personnel." (end Wash Post snippet)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is snipped from a much larger article in the Vancouver Courier and is re the Dozier case as Larsen demands. I see from this that McMoneagle claims he can see inside darkened file cabinets so I retract my statement that Randi's non-hypothetical challenege wouldn't apply. I did state that I was not aware of a claim that fit this but I was wrong. (SG)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday June 2 1996
The Vancouver Courier

The Cold War induced powers to explore information gathering through psychic phenomena
by Geoff Olson
Contributing writer

(snipped fr much longer article)

"Under the DIA's wing, however, several successes were cited, including the finding of Brig.-Gen. James Dozier, kidnapped by the Italian Red Brigade. According to the physicist in charge of the DIA Stargate project, one remote viewer gave the name of the town where Dozier was being hid--Padua--and another gave the name of the building. Details down to the bed where Dozier was chained were apparently accurate. "

(SG: he was inside a tent chained to a cot acc to McMoneagle)

This is an account from CBS NEWS snipped from a much larger story they were doing on Remote Viewing:
June 30, 2000 - 48 HRS

(CBS) Although often treated with scientific disdain, the concept of extrasensory perception is well known throughout the world. But as 48 Hours Correspondent Harold Dow reports, a group of researchers in California say they have proof of its existence.

(snip snip snipped)

"Perhaps even more extraordinary was the case of U.S. General James Dozier, kidnapped in northern Italy by Red brigades in 1981. Remote viewer Joe McMoneagle, a Vietnam veteran, was called in.

""I named the city....I drew a street map that was about as accurate as you can get....I gave them descriptions of the building [where] he was being held," says McMoneagle. "My information didn't get there till he was released, but it probably would have resulted in his release.""

(SG) As I indicated, this information was turned over to the Italian authorities and determined to be accurate. Here information was
obtained by the RVer in the US before (8 days) Dozier was released, given to intelligence agents, but as later learned was not received by the Italian authorities until after the raid. It was verified, however.

Darat

20th July 2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.

Darat,

If they claim anyone can do it, then that means they claim that you, Darat, can do it too. Have you ever thought of testing this claim by taking a remote viewing class and seeing if you get results?

Mike

When I found that website - I did consider sending off for some of their materials until I found the cost out! (See https://trv.com/store/productlist.html?storeid=trvtraining)

The prices start at $449.95 for the basic, then $499.95 for the advance.

But to be totally honest the thing that turned me away from even trying their courses is the "special applications", which include

"Find Your Ideal Mate - In this program, you'll learn how to apply TRV Advanced level skills to retrieve detailed descriptions of your optimum mate or partner."

and

"Winning At Gambling - In this program, you'll learn how to apply TRV Advanced level skills to determine outcomes of common games of chance, such as horse races, slot machines, and sports games. "

I get spam emails about these things everyday - and many of them offer a “money back guarantee" - something that PsiTech doesn't seem to do... So I may as well try one of them if I want to find my ideal mate ;)

(Edited to put the back back in.)

Darat

20th July 2003, 07:24 AM

By SteveGrenard

...snip...

This is snipped from a much larger article in the Vancouver Courier and is re the Dozier case as Larsen demands. I see from this that McMoneagle claims he can see inside darkened file cabinets so I retract my statement that Randi's non-hypothetical challenege wouldn't apply. I did state that I was not aware of a claim that fit this but I was wrong. (SG)

...snip...

Good to see that you admit you were wrong Steve.

Have you thought that perhaps this will make you re-consider your opinion about Randi and his "challenges" in the furture? It does seem then that he does do some of the required research beforehand his mouth doesn't it? Perhaps you will be willing to give him more "benefit of doubt" in future?

Psiload

20th July 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.

Darat,

If they claim anyone can do it, then that means they claim that you, Darat, can do it too. Have you ever thought of testing this claim by taking a remote viewing class and seeing if you get results?

Mike
TRV University Enrollment

http://www.trvu.com/

TRV 101 Basic Technical Remote Viewing Skills, Instructor Joni Douriff , Tuition $1295

TRV 201 Advanced Technical Remote Viewing Skills, Instructor Joni Douriff , Tuition $1295.00

TRV 301 Optimum Trajectories $295

TRV 302 Finding Your Optimum Mate $295

TRV 303 Winning at Gambling $295 :eek:

TRV 304 Solving Murders & Abductions $295 :eek: :eek:

TRV 305 Finding Missing Persons $295

TRV 306 Finding Lost Objects $295

TRV 307 In Search of UFO's and Other Anomalies $295 :rolleyes:

How is this not a criminal enterprise?!! Claiming that they can teach you to use psychic powers to cheat at gambling? Claiming that they can teach you to solve murder, and missing persons cases when they themselves have done nothing of the sort?!!

In the words of Ebenezer Scrooge...

"Are there no prisons?!"

SteveGrenard

20th July 2003, 07:48 AM

D: Good to see that you admit you were wrong Steve.

Reply: When I verify something as not to be the case of my original lack of knowledge on a subject, I am always willing to admit it. If you read carefully what I said before, I said I was not aware of this (what Randi was suggesting) as a claim ... not
that it didn't exist. The claim of being able to RV an object in a closed, blackened box was made by McMoneagle in the Vancouver article (which I read in its entirety but which I snipped as irrelevant to the Dozier issue). This was a specific quoted claim by a person who is an acknowledged RVer. It was good enough for me that Randi could expect that his hypothetical set-up met
such a requirement.

D: Have you thought that perhaps this will make you re-consider your opinion about Randi and his "challenges" in the furture? It does seem then that he does do some of the required research beforehand his mouth doesn't it? Perhaps you will be willing to give him more "benefit of doubt" in future?

Reply: This needs to be done on a case by case basis. I will not generalize. I do not support the validity of a particular medium with blind fervor either or give them the benefit of the doubt if you want to call it that. Persons have to be dealt with as individuals as do the nature of claims. My next logical question would be is who is going to witness and corroborate that Randi has such a locker and what the object inside it is?

CFLarsen

20th July 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Clausen asks for evidence of statements made abut the Dozier Kidnapping and Remote Viewing. You can enter these in Google and get that "evidence."

Steve, Steve....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Here are a few snippets and their sources. Clausen still hasn't gone on the record with what he considers evidence so folks keeping count can consider this the 40th or 50th time he asks for evidence but refuses to specify what constitutes that evidence.

Yes, I have:

Thread: Michael Shermer's Cold Reading Demo
My post: 07-20-2003 03:05 AM

And, Steve? My name is "Claus".

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I hope the following helps in placing this story in context and provides the "evidence" at the very least that the kidnapping ocurred, it was RV'd by the U.S government and that most if not all (there are discrepancies in some minor internal details) of information proved veridical.

What? Discrepancies? Nooooo......

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I mentioned the Dozier kidnapping to Claus a few weeks ago He immediately wrote back and said I was witholding information from the police and should contact them immediately with that info. He probably forgot. I ignored him. Its not that important, just typical of his knee jerk reactions to jump on me re this subject.

No, you did not "mention" the Dozier kidnapping to me. Please point to where you did, or retract the claim.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Washington Post
30 December 1996
Military Psychic Unit's 'Hits' and Misses
by Jack Anderson
and Jan Moller

Let's see what you choose to post:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
(SG: snipped - much longer critical article on subject, this part refers again to the Dozier kidnapping and remote viewing input as requested by CLaus; the various press accounts all seem to
differ slightly. In the Wash Post article Dozier is chained to a wall heater; in another article below to a bed. None mention the tent which the remote viewer himself mentions in his book which just came out. He was a chained inside the tent to pipes which could have been the railings of the cot or, I suppose, hot water pipes along the back wall).

Steve, do you have the actual account of the remote viewer?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
"An important U.S. Army general was kidnapped in Italy by the Red Brigades terrorists. The U.S. government pulled out all the stops, shook up every intelligence source and scanned every photo but had no luck locating the general.

Scanned photo - for what?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
"The government turned to the ghost-finders -- an ultra-secret psychic unit run by the Army under the code name "Project Grill Flame." Three psychics turned their "remote viewing" vision to find Brig. Gen. James Dozier, being held by the brutal terrorists, in late 1981.

Please state who and what organization in the "government" "turned to" the ghost-finders.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
"One remote viewer, Joe McMoneagle, was particularly successful. He zeroed in on the room where Dozier was held, chained to a wall heater. He described it, but couldn't get the house number. Yet he did get the location, the Italian city of Padua.

Did they find Dozier because of McMoneagle, yes or no?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The information was slowly sent up the chain of command, and finally arrived on the right desk. But it didn't arrive until a day after Dozier was released -- in Padua -- in early 1982.

"Slowly"? Doesn't seem as if people were all that confident that McMoneagle was all that great.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Some of these events are noted in a highly sensitive secret log that recorded the unit's activities from 1979 to 1989, which was obtained by our associate Dale Van Atta. In the Dozier case, Project No. 8125, it is noted that McMoneagle "provided 'Padua' eight days before [Dozier's] release." The log further brags that "all other info was confirmed during a debriefing conducted by project personnel." (end Wash Post snippet)

Ah, the cloak-and-dagger stuff. A "highly sensitive secret log" means we - conveniently - won't be able to get our hands on how this group really did....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is snipped from a much larger article in the Vancouver Courier and is re the Dozier case as Larsen demands. I see from this that McMoneagle claims he can see inside darkened file cabinets so I retract my statement that Randi's non-hypothetical challenege wouldn't apply. I did state that I was not aware of a claim that fit this but I was wrong. (SG)

Good for you, Steve. Now let's see if anyone can guess what Randi has....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
"Under the DIA's wing, however, several successes were cited, including the finding of Brig.-Gen. James Dozier, kidnapped by the Italian Red Brigade. According to the physicist in charge of the DIA Stargate project, one remote viewer gave the name of the town where Dozier was being hid--Padua--and another gave the name of the building. Details down to the bed where Dozier was chained were apparently accurate. "

Duh! Standard procedure with kidnappers: Chain the victim to something immovable. What is suitable in European houses? Pipes, radiators.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is an account from CBS NEWS snipped from a much larger story they were doing on Remote Viewing:
June 30, 2000 - 48 HRS

(CBS) Although often treated with scientific disdain, the concept of extrasensory perception is well known throughout the world. But as 48 Hours Correspondent Harold Dow reports, a group of researchers in California say they have proof of its existence.

And the rest of the scientific world, as well as victims all over the world, have yet to discover this proof? How has this helped victims, Steve? Has this been incorporated in standard police procedures?

Why not, if it is so successful?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
"Perhaps even more extraordinary was the case of U.S. General James Dozier, kidnapped in northern Italy by Red brigades in 1981. Remote viewer Joe McMoneagle, a Vietnam veteran, was called in.

""I named the city....I drew a street map that was about as accurate as you can get....I gave them descriptions of the building [where] he was being held," says McMoneagle. "My information didn't get there till he was released, but it probably would have resulted in his release.""

If the street map was as "accurate as you can get", that would mean street names. Can we see this map? Why didn't they just go there?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
(SG) As I indicated, this information was turned over to the Italian authorities and determined to be accurate.

How accurate? They sure didn't find Dozier because of it.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Here information was obtained by the RVer in the US before (8 days) Dozier was released, given to intelligence agents, but as later learned was not received by the Italian authorities until after the raid. It was verified, however.

"Verified", how, by whom?

Steve, in what ways did McMoneagle "miss"?

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 08:38 AM

I think this is another Randi effort to foist unclaimed abiliies on
claimants and he knows better than all of us that what he proposes is not their claim, its his perception of how to screw them over.

Maybe you should e-mail Randi and suggest that he place a light in the locker to keep it luminated. I'm positive that the results from a dark locker, vice a well-lit locker will be the same. Except that some remote-viewers might guess that there is a lightbulb in there at that moment.

Lucian: They were not consciously aware that they were being 'viewed'.

Do you think Randi ever knows when and if he's being consciously remotely viewed? Would it not require some sort of belief that people can actually remotely view people in order to suspect that they are being viewed? You have a poor excuse for not viewing what's in the Randi locker. I know the real reason, it's because you really don't have the superpowers you claim to have.

Mike D. :If they claim anyone can do it, then that means they claim that you, Darat, can do it too. Have you ever thought of testing this claim by taking a remote viewing class and seeing if you get results?

I'd be happy to take a class, if someone else pays for it. I'd rather not pay a con-artist my own money.

My next logical question would be is who is going to witness and corroborate that Randi has such a locker and what the object inside it is?

Randi does have other people that work out there. But, I'm sure that if this were an actual, official challenge by an individual, a 3rd party could be introduced. This is just a simple, silly challenge and we can only trust that Randi isn't cheating.

He has shown a picture of the outside of the locker, and he's had the locker for quite some time. If you'd like to see it yourself, the JREF is open to the public during normal business hours. Maybe you can have a friend that lives in Florida check it out.

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 08:39 AM

"Verified", how, by whom?

Steve does like to believe the fiction, doesn't he?

Steve, find a remote-viewer to beat the JREF or the CSICOP tests and I'll believe your fiction.

Darat

20th July 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
D: Good to see that you admit you were wrong Steve.

Reply: When I verify something as not to be the case of my original lack of knowledge on a subject, I am always willing to admit it. If you read carefully what I said before, I said I was not aware of this (what Randi was suggesting) as a claim ... not that it didn't exist. The claim of being able to RV an object in a closed, blackened box was made by McMoneagle in the Vancouver article (which I read in its entirety but which I snipped as irrelevant to the Dozier issue). This was a specific quoted claim by a person who is an acknowledged RVer. It was good enough for me that Randi could expect that his hypothetical set-up met such a requirement.

Steve – I think if you had just said something like “Pointless exercise because my information is that RV needs light so Randi has set up a challenge that no RV could undertake and succeed” then I could go along with your restatement of your posts however since you went far beyond that, e.g.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
…snip…

Randi always seems to want to change the claimant's claim. The penchant for doing this seems to pervade a number of members here who also facetiously offer up feats they think psychics or remote viewers should be able to accomplish. I think it is extremely important to see what the claim is and then stick to it.

…snip…

followed with

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
…snip…

Are you saying you would ask a remote viewer to do something which they do not claim to do? That is what Randi is asking with this new little farce of his. This ishis game and he plays it so well he's got you and a lot of people fooled.

…snip…

Randi loves black boxes and doing experiments in he dark. I wonder why that is.

…snip…

followed with

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
…snip…

Randi always seems to want to change the claimant's claim. The penchant for doing this seems to pervade a number of members here who also facetiously offer up feats they think psychics or remote viewers should be able to accomplish. I think it is extremely important to see what the claim is and then stick to it.

…snip…

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
…snip…

He really should not be setting conditions without consulting an actual challenger. In other words he
should familiarize himself with all the flavors of remote viewing
and agree to stipulate to the conditions required before
publicizing any of his own...

…snip…

All showing that you went far beyond any claim that Randi had made a mistake or hadn’t done his research. All your posts show an attempt to portray actions by Randi is a less then “flattering” light.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

D: Have you thought that perhaps this will make you re-consider your opinion about Randi and his "challenges" in the furture? It does seem then that he does do some of the required research beforehand his mouth doesn't it? Perhaps you will be willing to give him more "benefit of doubt" in future?

Reply: This needs to be done on a case by case basis. I will not generalize. I do not support the validity of a particular medium with blind fervor either or give them the benefit of the doubt if you want to call it that. Persons have to be dealt with as individuals as do the nature of claims. My next logical question would be is who is going to witness and corroborate that Randi has such a locker and what the object inside it is?

Steve - you say “I will not generalize.” Yet the above quotes all show that you do! The posts in this thread that talk about the Randi “RV challenge” (by you) shows nothing but generalisation and bias against Randi.

I’m not saying you should generalise or not (or have a bias or not) against anyone – just that you say you don’t when the evidence is plain to see that you do.

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Darat

All showing that you went far beyond any claim that Randi had made a mistake or hadn’t done his research. All your posts show an attempt to portray actions by Randi is a less then “flattering” light.

Yes, the ad-hominem tactic is a popular one among believers. They will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why the locker challenge won't be beaten, while ignoring the real reason... .it's because people do not have superpowers.

Darat

20th July 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Yes, the ad-hominem tactic is a popular one among believers. They will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why the locker challenge won't be beaten, while ignoring the real reason... .it's because people do not have superpowers.

Read your PMs - some of us do have superpowers! ;)

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Read your PMs - some of us do have superpowers! ;)

I have validated all of your predictions, so you must have superpowers.

SteveGrenard

20th July 2003, 09:11 AM

In brief response to Claus questions, the agency of the U.S. Government that initiated the RVing of Dozier is known as The Defense Intelligence Agency. Their website is:

http://www.dia.mil/

In additional to operational responsibility for the original RV program, they also comissioned several studies of psychic warfare programs in the former USSR and other eastern bloc nations. These reports can be obtained under FOIA but are also on the web at:

http://www.dia.mil/Public/Foia/index.html

The paraphysics papers are down near the bottom of the list of released documents.

In response to Claus question as to whether I have McMoneagle's original accounts yes, I do. They are in his recent book which I mentioned. Information on this book can be found at:

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/stargate/index.html

Please forgive me for only describing what the RVer J.Mc says but I cannot quote large portions of text from this work. The book also contains photographic or photocopies back up materials.
I cannot say whether any reviewer or others involved with the DIA have chosen to dispute anything in this book as yet.

Lucianarchy

20th July 2003, 12:34 PM

CFLarsen

20th July 2003, 12:47 PM

Steve,

Thanks for the references. However, you missed quite a few questions.

Martin

20th July 2003, 12:51 PM

You mean Fiona Steinkamp (http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Bio_Steinkamp.html)?

SteveGrenard

20th July 2003, 01:02 PM

thaiken: Yes, the ad-hominem tactic is a popular one among believers. They will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why the locker challenge won't be beaten, while ignoring the real reason... .it's because people do not have superpowers.

Reply: Actually it is extrmely common among cynics, and close minded skeptics as well. The term liar is particularly prevalent and is used like water to characterize just about anything that doesn't fit with the agenda of these folks.

On the other hand, you must forgive me where James Randi is concerned. Randi is a self-confessed hoaxer and trickster .... he
admits this gleefully and has no qualms about it. His involvement in a few projects where he hoaxed investigators has been confirmed by HIMSELF. I would never accuse him of anything,
he does that himself and takes the heat for it. Transcripts of his lectures to college audiences are similarly revealing. Therefore, a lot of folks are leery of him. Its his reputation, he made it and he must live with it. So if it looks like I am generalizing about Randi, his tactics or motives, keep in mind I have been preconditioned by these factors. I am sure he could care less.

NoZed Avenger

20th July 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
If any remote viewer actually . . . oh, I don't know . . . ACCEPTED the challenge, they could request a lighted area. At the moment, you are throwing out hypothetical objections from hypothetical people with hypothetical powers with hypothetical limitations who might, one day, if the stars align, actually deign to get up off the couch and have world-changing powers tested.
Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I have had my "powers tested" by Fiona Steinkemp from the Koestler Inst. the results certainly were very self-evident in their accuracy. The viewing method uses guided meditation / OOB.

Assuming arguendo the truth of the matter asserted, your allegation has something to do with the quoted material from me?!

Mr. Grenard was objecting to the rather informal test offered by Randi on the basis of assumed objections from hypothetical people -- and he has since stated on this very thread that his objection appears to be incorrect, as several remote viewers say that they do not need a lighted area.

Your "testing" has nothing to do with the material quoted or the discussion.

Luci/Robbin, I remember you from usenet -- in several different incarnations and under several different names. I believe we decided early on that we each had no interest in pursuing further conversations. Why don't we keep that policy in force?

NA

CFLarsen

20th July 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Actually it is extrmely common among cynics, and close minded skeptics as well. The term liar is particularly prevalent and is used like water to characterize just about anything that doesn't fit with the agenda of these folks.

It is mainly used to point out lies - like in your case, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
On the other hand, you must forgive me where James Randi is concerned. Randi is a self-confessed hoaxer and trickster .... he admits this gleefully and has no qualms about it. His involvement in a few projects where he hoaxed investigators has been confirmed by HIMSELF.

Did his hoaxes work, Steve? Did they not point out serious flaws, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I would never accuse him of anything, he does that himself and takes the heat for it.

No? Then why did you start an anonymous smear spam-campaign against him?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Transcripts of his lectures to college audiences are similarly revealing.

Where are these? What do they "reveal"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Therefore, a lot of folks are leery of him. Its his reputation, he made it and he must live with it. So if it looks like I am generalizing about Randi, his tactics or motives, keep in mind I have been preconditioned by these factors. I am sure he could care less.

You have been "preconditioned" only by your own biases, Steve. But you are probably right about Randi caring less about you.

SteveGrenard

20th July 2003, 01:20 PM

Indeed. I originally said I was not aware of any sucessful RVing accounts which ocurred in the pitch darkness of a closed box or locker. Since then I read an account where Joe McMoneagle caims this can be done. I am sure Randi would be willing to shed light on the object or objects in question if he was asked. Or at least I would hope so.

The locker is allegedly in JREF office in Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. The address is:

201 East 12th Street, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815.

E 12th is also known as "East Davie Boulevard." I am sure this location can be found on MapQuest for any RVer who works from map coordinates.

The location of the locker within the above pemises needs to be confirmed although some RVers may find it anyway. I understand that a photograph appeared on the commentary website a few weeks ago so this should be verified and checked.

In addition, Randi published a list of object choices contained within the locker. We do not know if this list contains the content item or items but it may. Randi hoaxes sometimes by throwing out red herrings like this so I caution about this. It would be nice if someone can cororborate the list as well as corroborate the presence of the lcoker where Randi says it is. Beyond this, I see no reason for any remote viewer not to attempt to view the inside of this locker. If someone does and Randi says they are wrong, the problem of corroborating with an outside third party becomes paramount. Also RVers often see shapes and textures
so judging is necessary. Since a can of soup doesnt look like a coconut, I see no problem there, etc.

Ballpen
Bar of soap, wrapped
Barbie doll
Bicycle pump
Box of facial tissues
Can of soup
Cap
Clock
Coconut
Deodorant stick
Dictionary
Earphones
Empty bottle
Finger ring
Five-dollar bill
Floppy disk
Furniture spray
Icecube tray
Picture frame
Scissors
Spoon
Sunglasses
Telephone cable, modular
Toy airplane
Toy gun

Lucianarchy

20th July 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Assuming arguendo the truth of the matter asserted, your allegation has something to do with the quoted material from me?!

Mr. Grenard was objecting to the rather informal test offered by Randi on the basis of assumed objections from hypothetical people -- and he has since stated on this very thread that his objection appears to be incorrect, as several remote viewers say that they do not need a lighted area.

Your "testing" has nothing to do with the material quoted or the discussion.

Luci/Robbin, I remember you from usenet -- in several different incarnations and under several different names. I believe we decided early on that we each had no interest in pursuing further conversations. Why don't we keep that policy in force?

NA

I don't know what you are talking about :confused: This thread is about my remote viewing ability. If you don't want to learn / discuss the subject, then that's not a problem for me. I am puzzled that you would contribute to the thread though.

SteveGrenard

20th July 2003, 01:56 PM

This is from the Princetonian on the occasion of Randi's lecture series at Princeton:

Randi spent part of his talk chastising the scientific community's attempts to expose false claims of magic.

"I'm a patient man," Randi commented. However, he went on to say that the statistical and overly lab-oriented focus of modern science when researching miracles stretches his good humor.

Randi allegedly has a history of friction with the academic community. During the lecture, Randi criticized scholars who earn Ph.D.'s as being incapable of saying two important phrases: "I was wrong" and "I don't know."

When asked after the lecture about his last visit to the University over a decade ago, Randi said, "Frankly, the visit was not [satisfactory]" and that he would rather not talk about it.(*)

(*anybody know why?....:))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randi openly admits he will never have to give away his prize because nobody can sucessfully meet his challenge. I agree with him. He hates scientists because they are proving, in the academic arena, that many of the phenomena he decries as his stock in trade, are proven statistically valid. The above account is repeated endlessly in all the lectures he gives on college campuses. He makes light of education and educated persons. This is his privilege but it is also the privilege of his critics to point out that this is a disingenous agenda to follow.

You are lying about the anonymous smear campaign Claus and continue to lie openly about it. It was not anonymous, and it was
based on the truth. It was based on the post made by Ed Dittus, now a moderator here, accusing me and another person of sleeping together; disgusting venal filth that had no truth attached to it whatsoever. Ed also called that person the town whore as well. This was typical of the ad hominem attacks made on people on this forum which no longer occur as a result of reforming the the content of this to live up to the high standards Randi has in mind as objectives of his foundation. Randi, one day, woke up to the fact that his site was being blocked because of foul language. That is now prohibited. This was also part of that effort. Before these reforms took place myself and a lot of others found this a place where points were made that relied on the use of such language. I wouldn't be caught here until these reforms took place. You should be the next to go with your smears accusing people of lying about everything. You are the best of the worst of them in the ad hominem department.

Lucianarchy

20th July 2003, 02:13 PM

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I have had my "powers tested" by Fiona Steinkemp from the Koestler Inst. the results certainly were very self-evident in their accuracy. The viewing method uses guided meditation / OOB.

IN other words, he has his delusions encouraged by a quack.

CFLarsen

20th July 2003, 02:24 PM

Steve,

You are lying through your teeth. Know why I know this?

Because you are changing your story all the time. You said that it was because of filth and obscene posts that were all over the place.

Now, it's because Ed made a joke about you and Pam Blizzard 'schtupping' it.

And, yes, it was anonymous.

If you have complaints about my posts here, please address the mods. I have confidence they will make the right decisions. Your problem is that I can back up my claim.

Go ahead, Steve: Report me. I am not in the least intimidated by your threats.

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 02:25 PM

Reply: Actually it is extrmely common among cynics, and close minded skeptics as well. The term liar is particularly prevalent and is used like water to characterize just about anything that doesn't fit with the agenda of these folks.

I'm open-minded, just produce a super-powered individual to pass the JREF challenge or a CSICOP test and I'll start to believe.

In the other hand, you must forgive me where James Randi is concerned. Randi is a self-confessed hoaxer and trickster ....

LOL. You take his words out of context to paint him as dishonest and uncredible. I guess all magicians should not be trusted, if we decided to use your standards.

Jeff Corey

20th July 2003, 02:34 PM

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 02:35 PM

Randi spent part of his talk chastising the scientific community's attempts to expose false claims of magic.

Yes, I agree that a little bit more should be done by the scientific community to educate people that the paranormal claims are just hoaxes.

Randi openly admits he will never have to give away his prize because nobody can sucessfully meet his challenge.

I don't know where Randi has said this, but I certainly believe that the prize will be safe for as long as the challenge exists.

I agree with him. He hates scientists because they are proving, in the academic arena, that many of the phenomena he decries as his stock in trade, are proven statistically valid.

And yet, you haven't given verified, validated, repeatable evidence that has been reviewed by the scientific community to support this notion. Why do you keep fabricating such nonsense?

He makes light of education and educated persons. This is his privilege but it is also the privilege of his critics to point out that this is a disingenous agenda to follow.

LOL. I think much of Randi's point is that the educated are just as vulnerable to being tricked as the uneducated. Often, the educated seem to think they are too smart to be tricked, which works against them.

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You will note that the 'Ladybrook' attempted Belfast bombing occured within 24 hours of my reference to the name in my first post in this thread.

What the hell are you talking about?

Lucianarchy

20th July 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

What the hell are you talking about?

I Lord Babel. :wink8:

Lucianarchy

20th July 2003, 03:23 PM

Actually, it was only about an hour before.:th:

Chupacabras

20th July 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Actually, it was only about an hour before.:th:

I don't know what is that, but I infere you are bragging of knowing in advance of a bombing that turned out to be frustrated. To that, I would tell you two things:

1.- If you knew something, it was worth nil, zero, nada - nobody else could do anything about what you knew;

2.- But if you really Knew, you would be my suspect in a police investigation.

Did you read the police statement about the girl that was missing because she eloped with a marine? FYI, they said they were glad they didn't follow the leads given by RV's and PSI's, or they would have been driven away.

Wheat silos.

Chupacabras

20th July 2003, 04:34 PM

So, Randi and so many other skeptics are messing with experiments trying to prove RV.

So, as already proposed, is there any way we at this forum could set up something that would be worth to you believers? I have a desk here with several things (easy), or if you would like to come into my bedroom. What else would RV's need to go ahead and make a test? What would skeptics need?

I know already, I am "Gallopant", and not trustworthy, but then again, make your call.

WAIT... I'm having a vision... The family of former Salsa Queen Celia Cruz was given special visas form the Cuban government to attend her funeral in NY. I have a hunch that they will try to deflect...

Jeff Corey

20th July 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I Lord Babel. :wink8:

My psychic anagram machine reveals that this message actually means:
Droll babe, I.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Chupacabras

So, as already proposed, is there any way we at this forum could set up something that would be worth to you believers? I have a desk here with several things (easy), or if you would like to come into my bedroom. What else would RV's need to go ahead and make a test? What would skeptics need?

As I, and many others have pointed out, the effect is often subtle. But the effect does indeed exist. My example of the Ladybrook terrorist attempt was a good one. Often you get a vague impression, in this case I got a name. An hour later the same day the attack ocurred in that place, and your response is to put me down as a criminal suspect.:rolleyes: Perhaps you now understand why many psychics do not want to co-operate with the prejudiced public.

Ersby

21st July 2003, 03:28 AM

I think that Luci has demonstrated something quite impressive. It certainly looks good - a timed unedited post, quoted by others that has one word attached, seemingly unrelated to everything else, suddenly is linked to a major news story.

However, Luci is wrong when he says no other news story contains the word Ladybrook. If you go to the BBC site and do a search and you'll find a reference to a long-running murder investigation.

So how was it done? Any ideas? Surely the clock being wrong is a factor (it is presently tweny minutes slow). And there are, I believe, occasions where you can edit a post without it saying "edited by..." at the bottom. I've done it myself, although only a few minutes after I first posted, and without anyone else posting on the forum.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
I think that Luci has demonstrated something quite impressive. It certainly looks good - a timed unedited post, quoted by others that has one word attached, seemingly unrelated to everything else, suddenly is linked to a major news story.

However, Luci is wrong when he says no other news story contains the word Ladybrook. If you go to the BBC site and do a search and you'll find a reference to a long-running murder investigation.

So how was it done? Any ideas? Surely the clock being wrong is a factor (it is presently tweny minutes slow). And there are, I believe, occasions where you can edit a post without it saying "edited by..." at the bottom. I've done it myself, although only a few minutes after I first posted, and without anyone else posting on the forum.

Ersby, what do you mean by "how was it done"? One guy here already says I am a terrorist suspect :rolleyes: It looks like the Ladybrook incident ocurred about an hour and a half after I posted and I only discovered that the attack took place from the BBC on Sunday, a day later.

Ersby

21st July 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Ersby, what do you mean by "how was it done"? One guy here already says I am a terrorist suspect :rolleyes: It looks like the Ladybrook incident ocurred about an hour and a half after I posted and I only discovered that the attack took place from the BBC on Sunday, a day later.

I mean "how was it done" as in "how was it done"... I'm a little surprised you'd be confused by such simple English.

Hmm, I just edited my post, and saw there was no announcement about it at the bottom. The clock is still out, by 17 mins, I reckon. What's more this story doesn't seem too big. The BBC site is the only one I can find that carries it. It's becoming clear to me how it all happened.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Ersby

I mean "how was it done" as in "how was it done"... I'm a little surprised you'd be confused by such simple English.

I'm confused as to your assuming it was done through deception. No one knows how it works. But it does.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Ersby

It's becoming clear to me how it all happened.

Please, please explain.

c0rbin

21st July 2003, 09:10 AM

SteveG said:

Randi openly admits he will never have to give away his prize because nobody can sucessfully meet his challenge.

Never played poker, have you? Such games used to be called "Brag." Randi is making a bet. So far, the table has been his. He is bragging.

He knows that so far, anyone with enough courage to step forward and say: "I do what I claim to do and will show you!" has been either foolhardily deluding themselves, or did not know what they were up against when they brought their con to the table (eg, the poor little Russian girl).

Randi is daring people and you are too unconfident to put yourself out there for it--even though you might revolutionize the world like Germ Theory or Atomic Theory has.

So if it looks like I am generalizing about Randi, his tactics or motives, keep in mind I have been preconditioned by these factors.

You admit your mind is closed?

Ersby

21st July 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I'm confused as to your assuming it was done through deception.

This is a discussion board for skeptics - how did you think people would think it was done?

As for how it was done, I need to tie up a few things first. You could help by linking to the story for sites other than the BBC. Cheers.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 09:31 AM

If, what Luci says is true, it's hardly evidence of "remote viewing". I can say a name and something will probably happen somewhere and sometime that involves that name.

Luci has claimed to be tested positive for "remote viewing" capabilities, and yet implies in this thread that it's such a random thing that it can't be tested. :rolleyes:

Luci, I don't believe you have superpowers and your little charade won't convince me either.

I predict Luci will say the following:

"Really? Take 'Ladybrook'. How many times has that been mentioned in connection with a newsworthy story, anywhere, ever? Ersby has mentioned that there has been a long running murder inquiry going on, but nothing has made the news recently, but I can tell you that the Ladybrook terrorist attack happened within an hour after my posting."

I will post my reply before she says it though.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Ladybrook

There are so many places, events and people that could coincide with any vague "reading" such as... "Something will happen and it will involve Ladybrook, it will happen sometime in the future." You can't lose. If it doesn't happen soon, you still have the rest of the future to wait for something to happen that involves the name Ladybrook.

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 09:43 AM

I believe you can sidestep the "Edited at..." additions only by editing your post before anyone else has read it.

So how was it done? Any ideas? Surely the clock being wrong is a factor (it is presently tweny minutes slow)

If the forum times are in GMT as they claim, and not BST, then the forum's clock is 40 minutes fast, so Luci's post, stamped at 15:33, would have been made at about 15:00.

David

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If, what Luci says is true, it's hardly evidence of "remote viewing". I can say a name and something will probably happen somewhere and sometime that involves that name.

Really? Take 'Ladybrook'. How many times has that been mentioned in connection with a newsworthy story, anywhere, ever? Ersby has mentioned that there has been a long running murder inquiry going on, but nothing has made the news recently, but I can tell you that the Ladybrook terrorist attack happened within an hour after my posting.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman

If the forum times are in GMT as they claim, and not BST, then the forum's clock is 40 minutes fast, so Luci's post, stamped at 15:33, would have been made at about 15:00.

David

Which was about an hour and a half before the terrorist attack.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

:rolleyes: Which was still about an hour and a quarter before the terrorist attack. :rolleyes:

Your timestamp can be easily manipulated as well and/or mistaken because of time-zone issues.

I wonder why you want to use such a tragedy for your own agenda of convincing people that you have superpowers?

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Really? Take 'Ladybrook'. How many times has that been mentioned in connection with a newsworthy story, anywhere, ever?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...F-8&q=Ladybrook

There are so many places, events and people that could coincide with any vague "reading" such as... "Something will happen and it will involve Ladybrook, it will happen sometime in the future." You can't lose. If it doesn't happen soon, you still have the rest of the future to wait for something to happen that involves the name Ladybrook.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Ersby

This is a discussion board for skeptics - how did you think people would think it was done?

As for how it was done, I need to tie up a few things first. You could help by linking to the story for sites other than the BBC. Cheers.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=426307

Hexxenhammer

21st July 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=426307

That link doesn't work. Can't tell if it's temporarily down or not.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...F-8&q=Ladybrook

There are so many places, events and people that could coincide with any vague "reading" such as... "Something will happen and it will involve Ladybrook, it will happen sometime in the future." You can't lose. If it doesn't happen soon, you still have the rest of the future to wait for something to happen that involves the name Ladybrook.

The fact is though, the terrorist attack ocurred within a couple of hours of making the posting, and, of course, the fact that 'Ladybrook' is an extremely uncommon word to found in any news coverage, particularly in such impostance as a terrorist attack.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Your timestamp can be easily manipulated as well and/or mistaken because of time-zone issues.

What rubbish :rolleyes: You are really scraping the barrell now, I'll bet you regret that it was you who started this thread now. Corbin replied to my 'ladybrook' post before the incident took place as well. Is he in the deal too? :rolleyes:

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 10:17 AM

That link doesn't work. Can't tell if it's temporarily down or not.

It works for me (maybe you copied and pasted the ellipsised version in the text), but I can't see any mention of the time of the incident in the article.

Your timestamp can be easily manipulated as well and/or mistaken because of time-zone issues.

To play devil's advocate for a mo, can it really be easily manipulated? And what time zone issues exist? IIRC the time zone is only taken into consideration when displaying the time, not storing the time a post was made.

There was some talk of a time bug in Vbulletin - I seem to remember a snippet of code being posted that was very obviously wrong - but I can't remember what it was about.

David

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The fact is though, the terrorist attack ocurred within a couple of hours of making the posting, and, of course, the fact that 'Ladybrook' is an extremely uncommon word to found in any news coverage, particularly in such impostance as a terrorist attack.

LOL. The fact is that a google search comes up with many hits for the name Ladybrook. You've done nothing special here but say a name and wait for something to happen somewhere that you can claim as your prediction.

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 10:21 AM

You've done nothing special here but say a name and wait for something to happen somewhere that you can claim as your prediction.

If only Luci could do something more obvious, like predict lottery numbers. Oh wait, he can, he just doesn't want to prove it to us.

David

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

What rubbish :rolleyes: You are really scraping the barrell now, I'll bet you regret that it was you who started this thread now. Corbin replied to my 'ladybrook' post before the incident took place as well. Is he in the deal too? :rolleyes:

Can you post the thread where you made this "ladybrook" prediction? Can you also post a new article where the time is mentioned as to when the event happened?

You also have to deal with that fact that a google search for ladybrook comes up with over 10 pages of links.

c0rbin

21st July 2003, 10:22 AM

Corbin replied to my 'ladybrook' post before the incident took place as well. Is he in the deal too?

Leave me out of your fantasies.

I know well enough not to argue fine points with you and have not even bothered to read posts containing the word "ladybrook."

That said, I bet I will be called out as being closed minded.

But even if that occurs I will not demand the million because I know the diference between a scientific prediction and a paranormal one.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 10:26 AM

How or why is it that a forum search for "ladybrook", "Lady brook" or "ladybrooke" only comes up with this thread?

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 10:29 AM

Can you post the thread where you made this "ladybrook" prediction? Can you also post a new article where the time is mentioned as to when the event happened?

How or why is it that a forum search for "ladybrook", "Lady brook" or "ladybrooke" only comes up with this thread?

Luci's first post in this thread contains the word "ladybrook", not as a meaningful part of any sentence, as does Corbin's quote of Luci's post.

The link to the BBC news article already given gives the time of the incident as "around 16:45BST", and another BBC article gives the time as 16:30BST.

David

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Can you post the thread where you made this "ladybrook" prediction? Can you also post a new article where the time is mentioned as to when the event happened?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=23702

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3081623.stm

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by c0rbin

I know well enough not to argue fine points with you and have not even bothered to read posts containing the word "ladybrook."

Your reply to my first post in this thread quoted the evidence itself, Corbin.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Can you post the thread where you made this "ladybrook" prediction?

I posted it within five minutes of your opening post in this thread. :rolleyes:

Starrman

21st July 2003, 10:38 AM

Thank goodness for your powers, Lucianarchy. Without them this whole incident in Ladybrook would have gone exactly the way it did anyway.

Starrman

21st July 2003, 10:39 AM

Luci's first post in this thread contains the word "ladybrook", not as a meaningful part of any sentence, as does Corbin's quote of Luci's post.

Do they have police scanners in England? So ordinary citizens can listen in on police radio communication.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 10:43 AM

The psi effect works only through co-operation, that is why Randi has the "Out" in his challenge, a challenge is not co-operation. ladybrook

Ah ha! I see it now. So you are claiming this to be a prediction? If this is a prediction, why didn't you proclaim it as such when you posted it. Ah, I know, that way if nothing happens people will ignore it. This is nonsense, Luci, and it's dishonest. To randomly toss in words in a post and then claim it to be a prediction if the word comes up as anything significant is a sham.

You also mispelled the word, or did you? It's Ladybrooke and not ladybrook.

:rolleyes:

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Starrman
Thank goodness for your powers, Lucianarchy. Without them this whole incident in Ladybrook would have gone exactly the way it did anyway.

Yes, thank goodness the bomb failed to explode and the security forces were quick to act. But maybe you could blame me for not remote viewing other WMD's instead. :rolleyes:

I am not claiming to be Psider Man ( sounds like that title belongs to DB ), I am just trying to demonstrate that the effect is often subtle and elusive in nature.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]

You also mispelled the word, or did you? It's Ladybrooke and not ladybrook.

:rolleyes:

I got the 'name' not the spelling, and besides if you look at the Belfast article, you'll see it's spelled the way I did.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 10:51 AM

Yes, but you completely ignored my point that you didn't make any prediction. You only tossed a word in your post at the end.

Next time you want to claim a prediction, maybe you should actually make a prediction.

BNiles

21st July 2003, 11:04 AM

I once had a dream about a razor, and the next morning before my shower.......I shaved! Of course I didn't tell anyone about the dream, and I shave every morning, but still pretty spookie huh?

Starrman

21st July 2003, 11:05 AM

You will note that the 'Ladybrook' attempted Belfast bombing occured within 24 hours of my reference to the name in my first post in this thread. There is no other newsworthy item using the word 'ladybrook', a simple search will confirm this. This is how RV impressions work, often nothing clear, which is all that I could pick up, a name. More precognition than RV, but RV works across time points.

I am not claiming to be Psider Man ( sounds like that title belongs to DB ), I am just trying to demonstrate that the effect is often subtle and elusive in nature.

If the attempted bombing would have taken place next week, would you have taken credit for the hit? If someone would have been murdered in ladybrook 3 days after you typed the word would you have taken credit? If a lady drowned in a brook a month after you typed 'ladybrook' would you have taken credit?

Do you see what our problem is with you taking just a single word and making into a prediction? If you have 20 dreams and one comes true, is it more likely that you have a 'subtle' and 'elusive' psychic power, or that a coincidence has occurred.

P.S. I think 'Psider Man' is hilarious! :roll:

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Starrman

If the attempted bombing would have taken place next week, would you have taken credit for the hit? If someone would have been murdered in ladybrook 3 days after you typed the word would you have taken credit? If a lady drowned in a brook a month after you typed 'ladybrook' would you have taken credit?

If, if, if..:rolleyes: Which part of the fact that the Ladybrook terrorist attack ocurred 'within a couple of hours' do you not comprehend?

Starrman

21st July 2003, 11:32 AM

If, if, if.. Which part of the fact that the Ladybrook terrorist attack ocurred 'within a couple of hours' do you not comprehend?

Thank you for avoiding the main question of my post. I understand that:

1) You typed a single word, 'ladybrook'.
2) A couple of hours later a terrorist attack was avoided on a bus that routed through ladybrook.
3) You claim that some sort of psychic ability caused you to type 'ladybrook', which was in direct reference to the fact that a couple of hours later a terrorist attack was avoided on a bus that routed through ladybrook.

Now that we have clarified that I understand what you claim, will you answer my questions?

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

If, if, if..:rolleyes: Which part of the fact that the Ladybrook terrorist attack ocurred 'within a couple of hours' do you not comprehend?

Which part of "you did not make a prediction" do you not comprehend? Only a dishonest ass would try to claim that he made a prediction when he did not.

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 11:47 AM

I am just trying to demonstrate that the effect is often subtle and elusive in nature.

Except when it comes to predicting lottery numbers, which you've claimed to do (at least 3 out of 6 balls) for several weeks running.

David

IELWITP

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Which part of "you did not make a prediction" do you not comprehend? Only a dishonest ass would try to claim that he made a prediction when he did not.

:rolleyes: How many times do you need telling? I get impressions, perceptions not predictions. In respect of rv, the word 'ladybrook' was all I had to offer at the time, it seemed urgent and important. It turned out that it was quite germane. You are the dishonest one here tbk. Given that I gave you evidence within five minutes of you asking for it, and evidence which was linked to a terrorist attack within a couple of hours of provision, this leaves your lame rejection of the facts for all to see, in a thread you initiated. Oh, the psirony....:roll:

AlienX

21st July 2003, 12:05 PM

Some people are just so desperate to think they are special when in reality they are simply just like the rest of us i'm afraid.
The worst of these charge money for unsubstanciated claims, claims which mysteriously vanish when scrutiny is placed upon such claims.. amazing.

I'm in the UK and i've placed an object on my monitor that was given to me by a friend (who you would class as very open minded and "thinks" there is something to all this - so there is your believer link).

It's in a well lit room in central England, or does this not work in England or a room or perhaps it rained today at 1230ish so it wont work. Tell me what said item is.

One chance.
No questions.
No replys except one where i tell you (truthfully) if you got it right.
No excuses.
Your reply should take no more than a single sentence and most certainly should not consist of anything but what the item is (e.g. skip the garbage waffle about the wind in the wrong direction etc)

I thought that remote viewing was tested by the CIA etc and found to be total garbage - thats why they shut it down and stopped the funding - how quickly you people forget the recent humiliating failures of these so called remote viewers. One would almost suspect they are just blindly guessing. What about that poor family being told by remote viewers their abducted child was dead when actually they were not - yet these are readily dismissed - whats the problem selective amnesia?

AlienX

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 12:09 PM

How many times do you need telling? I get impressions, perceptions not predictions.

(at the risk of sounding like a broken record)

...except predictions of lottery numbers?

David

IELWITPT

Starrman

21st July 2003, 12:11 PM

How many times do you need telling? I get impressions, perceptions not predictions. In respect of rv, the word 'ladybrook' was all I had to offer at the time, it seemed urgent and important. It turned out that it was quite germane.

After reading this, I had the impression of a gorilla in my mind. I'm not making a prediction, but I can clearly see a gorilla in my mind right now and it feels urgent.

Gorilla.

If a Gorilla escapes from a zoo tomorrow I am psychic. If a gorilla dies in a zoo tomorrow I am psychic. If Koko the sign language gorilla gives a reporter the finger tomorrow I'm psychic.

The problem I am trying to illustrate - is that any news that happened in or near Ladybrook after you typed the word would have been enough for you to claim it was something other than luck.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by AlienX

I thought that remote viewing was tested by the CIA etc and found to be total garbage - thats why they shut it down and stopped the funding - how quickly you people forget the recent humiliating failures of these so called remote viewers.

You are absolutely correct.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

:rolleyes: How many times do you need telling? I get impressions, perceptions not predictions.

You wrote the word ladybrook. No sentence to accompany why you wrote it, no reason for anyone to think you were remote-viewing the word. And now you want to claim it as your remote-viewed prediction/impression/perception. That's BS. Next time you remotely view something, let us in on the "secret". The way you did this, if nothing happened, most of us would've forgotten that you wrote "ladybrook", like I did. The word by itself is insignificant if nothing happens. You've given yourself a "win, win" situation, if somethign happens you claim it, if nothing happens, no one cares because it's just a word.

Hexxenhammer

21st July 2003, 12:17 PM

It's obvious that Luci does have superpowers. The incredible power to see the present.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 12:18 PM

Luci is silly.

Zoot.

Starrman

21st July 2003, 12:23 PM

I'm in the UK and i've placed an object on my monitor that was given to me by a friend (who you would class as very open minded and "thinks" there is something to all this - so there is your believer link).

Can you PM the answer to someone? Not that I am expecting anyone to actually try this.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 12:26 PM

It's a feng shui turtle.

Chupacabras

21st July 2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

... and your response is to put me down as a criminal suspect.:rolleyes:

I said "If" and then "I would". Try to think of the simplest explanation, as the police does. Yet another very plausible solution could be that you got notice before the media went to publish the news, which is not too hard, you know.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Perhaps you now understand why many psychics do not want to co-operate with the prejudiced public.

Then, what is it worth?!?? :eek:

Perhaps we could really use a few lottery numbers. What do you say?

BTW - I have noticed that you tend to offer half-answers and avoid the substantial issues. What about setting up a test here?

El piedrón. <------ FYI, I am trying RV here.

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 01:15 PM

Yet another very plausible solution could be that you got notice before the media went to publish the news, which is not too hard, you know.

(Devil's advocate) Luci posted his "prediction" prior to the time of the incident as reported, as well as prior to the actual publication of those reports. (/Devil's advocate)

What about setting up a test here?

If you mean of his procalimed lottery prediction powers, yes, Luci can quite easily encrypt or otherwise encode (for example, by making an md5 checksum) a lottery prediction. This would allow us to verify his prediction after the draw, but wouldn't allow us to read the numbers first which would, according to Luci, affect the draw so as to (conveniently) stuff the prediction up.

David

LWITP

Psiload

21st July 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

:rolleyes: How many times do you need telling? I get impressions, perceptions not predictions. In respect of rv, the word 'ladybrook' was all I had to offer at the time, it seemed urgent and important. It turned out that it was quite germane. You are the dishonest one here tbk. Given that I gave you evidence within five minutes of you asking for it, and evidence which was linked to a terrorist attack within a couple of hours of provision, this leaves your lame rejection of the facts for all to see, in a thread you initiated. Oh, the psirony....:roll: Pray do give us your "impressions" on this one, Luci:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/14/national/main563207.shtml

Missing N.H. Kids Feared Dead

(CBS/AP) Police in New Hampshire who are looking for two missing children want to know more about an argument between one of the kids and their father on the Fourth of July.

The last time anyone saw 14-year-old Sarah Gehring and her 11-year-old brother, Philip, they were leaving a fireworks show at a city park in Concord. Two witnesses have told police that Sarah was in a loud argument with her father, Manuel Gehring.

Police believe he then left on a cross-country drive -- and that the children were with him, at first. But they believe the children were killed somewhere along the way, and their disappearance is now considered a suspected homicide. Authorities say no bodies have been found, and the organized search effort has been scaled back.

Where, oh where is PsiTech when you need them?! Maybe we should take up a collection to scrape together 250 bucks, and enroll Luci in the Psitech Solving Missing Persons and Murders class?

Starrman

21st July 2003, 01:40 PM

I'm in the UK and i've placed an object on my monitor that was given to me by a friend (who you would class as very open minded and "thinks" there is something to all this - so there is your believer link).

Well, Lucianarchy - do you want to give this a go or not?

:)

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by AlienX

I thought that remote viewing was tested by the CIA etc and found to be total garbage

Well you were wrong then.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Starrman

Well, Lucianarchy - do you want to give this a go or not?

:)

I can assure you, having read the replies so far, I wouldn't waste my time with the likes of you and your childish brand of cynicism. You were given a perfectly good example of the nature of the effect and you have been given good information as to what is known of the nature of its ocurrance. If you want to find out about RV, then go here:
http://www.irva.org/

SteveGrenard

21st July 2003, 02:29 PM

Remote viewing was originally a classified program sponsored by the Defense Intelligence Agency. They turned it over to the CIA which in turn contracted with Stanford Research Institute (SRI), SAIC and AIR to test it. In about 1995 its existence was declassified. Although the skeptic community claimed the results of the testing invalidated RVing even Hyman would not go on the record as completely debunking it and he published several papers on his examination of the study as did Dr. Jessica Utts of the University of California Davis. They also issued a joint communiqie. The National Science Foundation in turn selected the negative aspects of the study and issued a statement debunking remote viewing. Shortly after it was declassified, at least one American President, Jimmy Carter, mentioned an RV project, that of rv'ers finding a crashed soviet aircraft in Zaire (Congo).
This was at Emory University.

Allegedly the inconclusive findings of the CIA contractors led the CIA to publicly state they disbanded the program and they may well have but rumours continue to surface that a nucleus of it, scaled back, remains but cannot be proven.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
How or why is it that a forum search for "ladybrook", "Lady brook" or "ladybrooke" only comes up with this thread?

Because that's the only place it has been mentioned.:rub:

Starrman

21st July 2003, 02:34 PM

I can assure you, having read the replies so far, I wouldn't waste my time with the likes of you and your childish brand of cynicism. You were given a perfectly good example of the nature of the effect and you have been given good information as to what is known of the nature of its ocurrance. If you want to find out about RV, then go here:

To be clear it was AlienX's challenge, not mine (I'm just anxious to see you try). So don't decline the test because of your perception of me.

Very surprising response, though.

Hexxenhammer

21st July 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

http://www.irva.org/

Makes me feel better that these IRVA people are associated with the Edgar Cayce foundation. His "remote viewing" of Atlantis and his prediction it would rise were oh so accurate.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Starrman

Do they have police scanners in England? So ordinary citizens can listen in on police radio communication.

I posted about two hours before the terrorist attack in Ladybrook. :rolleyes:

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Chupacabras

Yet another very plausible solution could be that you got notice before the media went to publish the news, which is not too hard, you know.

:hit: How many times are you going to experience cognitive dissonace in this thread!? :hit: I posted about two hours :hit: before:hit: the terrorist attack in Ladybrook:hit:

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Allegedly the inconclusive findings of the CIA contractors led the CIA to publicly state they disbanded the program and they may well have but rumours continue to surface that a nucleus of it, scaled back, remains but cannot be proven.

In other words, they found nothing but garbage.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 02:50 PM

Luci, you don't have superpowers. Get over it.

You didn't do anything special with the "ladybrook" word.

Starrman

21st July 2003, 02:55 PM

I posted about two hours before the terrorist attack in Ladybrook.

Although the piece said the incident happened two hours after you posted, that doesn't mean the police didn't know anything about it two hours earlier. My thought was the police were aware of a threat to Ladybrook, were discussing it on their radios and you heard it on a police scanner.

I'm a skeptic. I am going to try and think of ways you could have done that without being psychic. My main theory is that you typed a town's name, and claimed it as soon as that town showed up in the news (which will happen to any town of any considerable size, eventually). You just got lucky and it happened within two hours - bigger coincidences happen every day.

Asking about the scanner was just another avenue of investigation. Sorry to make you roll your eyes so much, but if you make claims like this you had better be ready for people here to look for rational explanations.

SteveGrenard

21st July 2003, 03:01 PM

For the complete chronology here are a few sites that detail the
government's RV (Stargate) program:

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

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Viewing

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/ciarv3.html

TLN

21st July 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Starrman
Asking about the scanner was just another avenue of investigation. Sorry to make you roll your eyes so much, but if you make claims like this you had better be ready for people here to look for rational explanations.

You're talking to the wrong poster. Luci doesn't like to examine his claims, he just likes to make them then lie about them later.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 03:03 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2846839.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2826693.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk/northern_ireland/1969371.stm

Looks like Ladybrook is no stranger to the media.

CFLarsen

21st July 2003, 03:05 PM

Something stinks here.

Luci posts "ladybrook", at the end of a post. Later, a bus in Belfast is hijacked, close to "Ladybrook".

Evidence of psi? Let's look critically at this:

Apparently, Lucianarchy posts "ladybrook" at 10:33AM Forum time. That's 3:40BST, a full 50 minutes before the bus is hijacked.

However:

It is possible to edit a post so it doesn't show.
The word "ladybrook" is quite obviously posted with no relation to the subject being discussed.
In fact, it is in direct conflict with what Lucianarchy has just said: That the psi effect only works through "cooperation". What, in the actual Ladybrook event "cooperated" with Lucianarchy's claimed psychic abilities?
There are police scanners from all over the world, connected to the Internet.
There are also news wires
The first sure record we have of the "ladybrook" word is the following post from c0rbin, at 11:35 AM Forum time. That's 62 minutes later, a full 22 minutes after the bus is hijacked.

That gives Lucianarchy ample time to pick up a police scanner or a live news wire, then edit her post. The mere fact that "ladybrook" has absolutely no relation to the rest of the post speaks very much in favor of this.

We also have to take into account that Lucianarchy is plain wrong about when she posted. She now claims "about two hours" before the event, when it actually was max. 40 minutes. This is a clear embellishment, which does not speak in favor of Lucianarchy having a clear conscience.

Now, we admittedly don't know much about this, and we sure won't get any information out of Lucianarchy that will help solve this. But we are a far cry from establishing that Lucianarchy really has psychic powers.

Something stinks here, that's for sure...

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
For the complete chronology here are a few sites that detail the
government's RV (Stargate) program:

Thanks, but the final conclusion is enough for me. If they say they found nothing, then I'm pretty sure they did.
10 million dollars of tax-payer money, wasted.

Psiload

21st July 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Remote viewing was originally a classified program sponsored by the Defense Intelligence Agency. They turned it over to the CIA which in turn contracted with Stanford Research Institute (SRI), SAIC and AIR to test it. In about 1995 its existence was declassified. Although the skeptic community claimed the results of the testing invalidated RVing even Hyman would not go on the record as completely debunking it and he published several papers on his examination of the study as did Dr. Jessica Utts of the University of California Davis. They also issued a joint communiqie. The National Science Foundation in turn selected the negative aspects of the study and issued a statement debunking remote viewing. Shortly after it was declassified, at least one American President, Jimmy Carter, mentioned an RV project, that of rv'ers finding a crashed soviet aircraft in Zaire (Congo).
This was at Emory University.

Allegedly the inconclusive findings of the CIA contractors led the CIA to publicly state they disbanded the program and they may well have but rumours continue to surface that a nucleus of it, scaled back, remains but cannot be proven. And most of the "gifted" RVers involved in the Stargate program went on to make a living by selling RV (books, training, lecturing, etc...), rather than doing RV. It seems that RV is much more effective as a marketing commodity than it ever was as intelligence gathering tool.

Starrman

21st July 2003, 03:10 PM

I predict TBK will like the URL of the second site. :)

My favorite from the first link is the double blind study, oh, except they told the viewer what he was looking for:

The only additional information provided was the designation of the target as an R&D test facility

Oh, other than telling the viewer it was a Soviet research and development center, he didn't have any queing at all.

If he can really remote view, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU TELL HIM THAT!

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Starrman
I predict TBK will like the URL of the second site. :)

Holy batman! You must be psychic!

AlienX

21st July 2003, 03:23 PM

Can you please tell me what item is on my monitor BEFORE I remove it.

So i don't believe you, so what.. get over it it's nothing personal against you just the whole phychic thing in general. Your example is a typical unsubstantiated random data.

I know in your own little world you feel vindicated and this is just proof and you simply can't believe people don't see it the same as you. Me personally i'm not trying to be stubborn in the face of what you believe is overwhelming evidence, it's just not even remotely interesting, on a wow rating of 0-10 it's about a 1.
If some woman had drowned in a river you would have claimed that also, or a girl (lady) called brook involved in anything etc the list of combinations is endless.

Really I must be phychic as i made the prediction that you would fail to provide the required answer by avoiding the question.
But i'm sensible enough to realise that you can work things out (or have a bloody good guess) before they actually happen (FFS please don't cut this and prattle on about how you couldn't predict your irrelevent claim as it's not the same as fitting a prediction to anything you can - it's not worth the cut and paste and bandwidth)

You claim Remote Viewing amongst your plethora of special gifts (man you must be REALLY special and better than everyone else to be bestowed with so many when the rest of us get nothing) all I wan't is an example, yet you will avoid the test as you people always do because you are either frauds, desperate "special" wannabies or simply deluded.. you have probably justified not attempting the test to yourself somehow and feel you have nothing to prove (you do or why would you post)

Simple, show me the goods.. it's a simple request, you say you can do it.. well - the item is still there and I absolutely will not cheat.

At the weekend a m8 said he could down a pint in <3 seconds.. so i said ok show me, he didn't get all uppity and cry about how i obviously didn't believe him and was calling him a liar he just downed his pint - there you go if I can doubt a m8 then a complete stranger should not get upset.

If it helps i'll think about said item a bit harder.

If you decide to cut any section of my post and answer then the first line is all i'm interested in .. go on give it a shot, but i predict yet another avoidance post... prove me wrong.

good luck.

AlienX

Dogwood

21st July 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

We also have to take into account that Lucianarchy is plain wrong about when she posted. She now claims "about two hours" before the event, when it actually was max. 40 minutes.

Wasn't it stated earlier in this thread that the forum clock is about 40 minutes fast?

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 03:27 PM

The forum clock IS 40 minutes fast. Hmmm.

c0rbin

21st July 2003, 03:30 PM

The first sure record we have of the "ladybrook" word is the following post from c0rbin, at 11:35 AM Forum time. That's 62 minutes later, a full 22 minutes after the bus is hijacked.

And I had no idea what the hell Lucky was talking about. I never mentioned "ladybrook" prior to that nor was it part of the discussion I was involved in.

There is high comedy here.

Either Lucky is a master Troll or delusional.

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 03:30 PM

The first sure record we have of the "ladybrook" word is the following post from c0rbin, at 11:35 AM Forum time. That's 62 minutes later, a full 22 minutes after the bus is hijacked.

Edit: The following is wrong, because Claus already took the 40 minutes into account

Again, Devil's Advocate, but the forum clock is (at least today it is) about 40 minutes fast. That means corbin's post occured about 20 minutes before the hijack. Also, while it's not crystal clear from the news reports, it sounds like the driver of the bus stopped it and raised the alarm on the same street where the hijackers originally got on with their bomb.

But this bit's all true :)

Of course, Luci's predictive powers are no match for my own. On my last three posts, all of which mentioned Luci's purported skill at predicting lottery numbers, I added these initials:

IELWITP
IELWITPT
LWITP

Translation:

I expect Luci will ignore this post
I expect Luci will ignore this post too
Luci will ignore this post (I was getting confident)

:D

David

CFLarsen

21st July 2003, 03:30 PM

I have - of course! - taken the forum time stamp discrepancy into consideration.

What kinda skeptic do you think I am? :)

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 03:31 PM

With the forum clock being fast, I will have to go with what someone earlier has stated. Luci has the "unique" ability to convey news as it happens, in his local area. Wow, I'm impressed. :rolleyes:

Dogwood

21st July 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have - of course! - taken the forum time stamp discrepancy into consideration.

Ah. Nevermind then.

So what's the complete timeline of events? Including the posts involved, adjusting for the time discrepencies, and the reported event (if some kind soul would like to convert everything into BST)?

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 03:37 PM

Oops, I take back my last bit of Devil's Advocacy.

By forum time, Luci posted at 15:33GMT, but the content of that post could have been edited (assuming no-one read the thread) any time up until corbin's reply at 16:35GMT (forum time).

The forum is 40 minutes fast, so that's actually 15:55GMT, or 16:55BST, 25 minutes after the earliest reported time of any of the events in Ladybrook.

But look on the bright side, Luci has most of the rest of the week to predict the lottery numbers.

Edited to add: If only I could prove I didn't read your post before I wrote that Mark, I could claim psychic powers :)

David

renata

21st July 2003, 03:41 PM

According to my information, the forum is SLOW, not fast. It is now 2:58 PM PST.

The forum clock is 2:41 PM PST.

Also, I believe one can edit with no time stamp only a short while ( 2 minutes?) after the initial post is made.

( Edited to add-You would think all you engineers and computer scientists would have figured it out. :) Let me guess- you show up twp hours early or two hours late when Daylight Savings Time kicks in)

Edited again- see, no time stamp, because I was within 2 min-even though Clancie posted after me.

2:46 forum time edit test- aha! got the time stamp. So it is less than 5 minutes and more than 2 to get the stamp.

Edited to say- Now that I think about it, although my preferences are set for PST, (8 hours off GMT), perhaps it does not account for Daylight Savings time, and the forum IS 40 minutes fast and not 20 minutes slow, and I was being all snooty for no good reason. :o :o

Clancie

21st July 2003, 03:43 PM

Of course, David Copperfield recently accurately gave all six winning numbers in the German lottery in advance (or so it seems).

If he said he was remote viewing, would anyone believe him?

davidhorman

21st July 2003, 03:46 PM

Of course, David Copperfield recently accurately gave all six winning numbers in the German lottery in advance (or so it seems).

How far in advance? Was it live on stage or live on TV? Or was it like Luci, and he just said he did but he couldn't prove it and everyone should just believe him?

I can't speak for PST, but the forum stamped this message at 22:46GMT. That's 23:46BST, but it's actually only 23:04BST - that's 40 minutes fast.

David

CFLarsen

21st July 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Of course, David Copperfield recently accurately gave all six winning numbers in the German lottery in advance (or so it seems).

If he said he was remote viewing, would anyone believe him?

No, and that's exactly the point: Copperfield does not claim to have paranormal powers (outside his showmanship, which really is amazing). John Edward does claim to have paranormal powers.

EdipisReks

21st July 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Makes me feel better that these IRVA people are associated with the Edgar Cayce foundation. His "remote viewing" of Atlantis and his prediction it would rise were oh so accurate.

well, everyone who doubted him is gonna be awfully miffed when R'yleh rises and Cthulhu eats everyone.

Dogwood

21st July 2003, 04:01 PM

I think the only thing that can be said with any certainty at this point is that some of us have our time set incorrectly. :)

Jeff Corey

21st July 2003, 04:34 PM

It could be that the "edited by___ at ____" only comes up if someone posts a reply before you edit your post, rather than having some arbitrary time limit.
Sometimes when the board is inactive, I've edited some silly post of mine a couple of times in a 20 minute period without that message coming up at the bottom.
Now it would be astounding if Luci figured that out and pulled a fast one
Edit to test.
Edit to test 2.
Edit to test 3.
t4
t6
t7
Well, that falsified the original idea. My first post was at 11:34, and the first "Edited by" came after the last test at 11:40.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
With the forum clock being fast, I will have to go with what someone earlier has stated. Luci has the "unique" ability to convey news as it happens, in his local area. Wow, I'm impressed. :rolleyes:

lol. Do you know where Belfast is?

Even with all your supposed slow jref clocks :rolleyes: and supposed undetected editing :rolleyes: :rolleyes: how was I supposed to intercept police messages :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and get them to the forum even before the event took place and even before the terrorists parked the bus rigged with explosives outside the police station!!??

TLN

21st July 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

lol. Do you know where Belfast is?

Even with all your supposed slow jref clocks :rolleyes: and supposed undetected editing :rolleyes: :rolleyes: how was I supposed to intercept police messages :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and get them to the forum even before the event took place and even before the terrorists parked the bus rigged with explosives outside the police station!!??

Let's see...

Because you have a history of lying?

renata

21st July 2003, 04:47 PM

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Even with all your supposed slow jref clocks :rolleyes: and supposed undetected editing :rolleyes: :rolleyes: how was I supposed to intercept police messages :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and get them to the forum even before the event took place and even before the terrorists parked the bus rigged with explosives outside the police station!!??

1. You did not make any prediction at all.

2. We don't know that you didn't cheat, but it's highly possible.

3. Ladybrooke estate seems to be a place that has occured in BBC news a few times.

4. People don't have superpowers.

5. The JREF clock is questionable, meaning that you could very well have placed that word in your post after learning of the news.

6. You have zero credibility.

You have all 6 of these reasons working against your claim, Luci.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Something stinks here, that's for sure...

Yes, it's your fetid cynicism.

CFLarsen

21st July 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yes, it's your fetid cynicism.

Strange that you do not address my points at all.

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 04:58 PM

Maybe Luci's remote viewing skills involve a remote-control and cable TV.

;)

Pyrrho

21st July 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Of course, David Copperfield recently accurately gave all six winning numbers in the German lottery in advance (or so it seems).

If he said he was remote viewing, would anyone believe him?
No, because what he did is a very old magician's trick, and because Copperfield is a professional magician who has not claimed supernatural powers. Now, I suspect that if someone who is not a professional magician claimed supernatural powers and performed the same trick, there are numerous people who would believe the non-magician was remote viewing. There would be skeptics, certainly, but I think enough people want to believe, that a certain number would believe.

TLN

21st July 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Strange that you do not address my points at all.

What's strange about that? Typical Luci I'd say...

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

We don't know that you didn't cheat, but it's highly possible.

If it's "highly" possible, then go ahead and "cheat". You've been shown that you can't edit your posts over that sort of time span and not get it recorded. But don't let that stop you. Go on. Do it.

You can't.

Your so called explanations are completely bogus, weak, lame and, frankly, stupid. I have demonstrated what you asked for, and it is here for all to see. I thought that's what you wanted.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Strange that you do not address my points at all.

What do you want me to address?

You've been shown that your editing nonsense, is nonsense. Talk about straw grasping. What else was there? Straw men too? I've already been accused of being a criminal suspect in the terrorist attack, so you're too late with that one. :rolleyes:

TLN

21st July 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
What do you want me to address?

How about why you're not heading to Flordia to pick up your million?

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2846839.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2826693.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk/northern_ireland/1969371.stm

Looks like Ladybrook is no stranger to the media.

Wow, three whole mentions in the entire BBC news archives, how many of them have ocurred after my post though? A gambling person would have picked better odds than 'ladybrook' turning up, don't you think? In fact, Tbk, I don't think you do actually think for yourself at all do you, you just react.

Pyrrho

21st July 2003, 05:49 PM

Lucianarchy, your "hit" is explainable by coincidence. Next time, try providing some relevant details ahead of time. The single word, "ladybrook" is far too vague to count as a hit. Now, "ladybrook terror bomb" might have been regarded as more significant. As it stands, it isn't.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 05:51 PM

TLN

21st July 2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Ah, right, OK. No problem. Just a coincidence for you then.

Not just for him. And let's not forget cheating, still a very real possibility.

Mike D.

21st July 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Lucianarchy, your "hit" is explainable by coincidence. Next time, try providing some relevant details ahead of time. The single word, "ladybrook" is far too vague to count as a hit. Now, "ladybrook terror bomb" might have been regarded as more significant. As it stands, it isn't.

Lucian,

Pyrrho's post above made me wonder if you feel it might be possible to develop your abilities to the point where sometime in the future you could come up with information that would totally confound the skeptics.

Mike

Pyrrho

21st July 2003, 05:59 PM

Well, we can test my opinion that it's explainable by coincidence:

Langen, Germany.

Let's see what turns up in a couple of hours.

My time: 8:35 pm EST, USA.

Lucianarchy

21st July 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Mike D.

Lucian,

Pyrrho's post above made me wonder if you feel it might be possible to develop your abilities to the point where sometime in the future you could come up with information that would totally confound the skeptics.

Mike

As a skeptic myself, I've asked before what evidence would satisfy some of the other skeptics. The usual response is often silly and based on an ignorance of the subject. My experience of the effect is that is that is subtle and unreliable on demand. I believe the information comes through co-operation with other living systems and is therefore not dependant on my, or anyones elses wishes alone. But since my work with Dr Steinkamp and others and by practising the methods I have learned about, the ability to experience the effect does seem to be getting more significant. As in the case being discussed.

asthmatic camel

21st July 2003, 06:27 PM

Lucianarchy, I have a book on top of my pc tower in a well lit room. I shall leave it there for 7 days, please advise of the author's name and the title.

I can't wait to hear from you.

Regards,

AC

Dogwood

21st July 2003, 06:35 PM

Lucianarchy,

If I may ask, how often do you have these precognitive/RVing insights? Are they with any regularity? Are they spontaneous or do you have to prepare yourself in some way? I ask only because it might be helpful in the future for you to record them here for future analysis and discussion.

Mike D.

21st July 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

But since my work with Dr Steinkamp and others and by practising the methods I have learned about, the ability to experience the effect does seem to be getting more significant. As in the case being discussed.

Lucianarchy,

Forgive me if you've answered this question before, but is there any site online where your work is described and discussed?

Mike

Chupacabras

21st July 2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

As a skeptic myself, I've asked before what evidence would satisfy some of the other skeptics. The usual response is often silly and based on an ignorance of the subject...

And I have asked politely in this thread what do you need to make a test (alas, with no million bucks involved). Me and others have also pointed several times at how you avoid the substantial questions and you still give silly responses. I also clarified my comment of you being a terrorist (I would have called the police if I believed you in the first place). But instead of reasonable and complete answers, I get banged in the head!

BTW, do I get a hit? "El Piedrón" (the big rock) is also used to refer to dumb people - hard-headed people, slow to understand... Your banging must be it so, I get a hit!

Don't mix skepticism and cynicsm. Most of us here are eager to learn and honest enough to admit our mistakes, If you just would shut our mouths. Alas, to stand scrutinity requires integrity.

May the Force be with me!

Hexxenhammer

22nd July 2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by EdipisReks

well, everyone who doubted him is gonna be awfully miffed when R'yleh rises and Cthulhu eats everyone.

HA!

Ersby

22nd July 2003, 12:36 AM

Ah, I see you've worked it out. Luci made the first post at, according to the forum 3.33 GMT+1 (BST), but it's entirely possible (as Lucian knows, despite the use of smilies) to edit a post without it being given a message, if no one's posted in the meantime and it keeps the original time of posting. So the first time we can be sure the "ladybrook" was when c0rbin quoted it at around 4.30 BST, a full hour after the event. Given that the clock is wrong, it's possible that it gave Lucian enough leeway (around twenty minutes or so) to add in the "prediction" just as the story was breaking.

Obviously Lucian knew about the editing glitch, and saw his chance on Saturday to put in a word that made it look like a prediciton. In the limited time, however, he could only chose what was - as it turned out - quite a minor story. The BBC site and the Belfast Telegraph may have covered it, but I can't find it anywhere else.

But applause for ingenuity, Lucian. Very nice trick.

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
Ah, I see you've worked it out. Luci made the first post at, according to the forum 3.33 GMT+1 (BST), but it's entirely possible (as Lucian knows, despite the use of smilies) to edit a post without it being given a message, if no one's posted in the meantime and it keeps the original time of posting. So the first time we can be sure the "ladybrook" was when c0rbin quoted it at around 4.30 BST, a full hour after the event. Given that the clock is wrong, it's possible that it gave Lucian enough leeway (around twenty minutes or so) to add in the "prediction" just as the story was breaking.

Obviously Lucian knew about the editing glitch, and saw his chance on Saturday to put in a word that made it look like a prediciton. In the limited time, however, he could only chose what was - as it turned out - quite a minor story. The BBC site and the Belfast Telegraph may have covered it, but I can't find it anywhere else.

But applause for ingenuity, Lucian. Very nice trick.

Um, Ersby, please show how it is possible to post and edit without it being time stamped. Call me a skeptic, but I just don't believe your story about "no one posting in the meantime" rubbish. I posted at 3.30pm. I did not edit it. Even if we take your scenario, I would have somehow had to have had access to what was going on in Belfast somehow and get the post edited (undetected) :rolleyes: even before the police were wise to the what was going on, let alone the media!:rolleyes: But anyway, please go ahead and demonstrate how this supposed editing can be done. There must be some quiet forums amongst all thje jref ones, go ahead and do it. Please. It's all you have to support your claim. BTW, If you think a bus hijacked by terrorists, packed with explosives, driven through a residential area and parked outside a police station is only a "minor story", then .... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 02:20 AM

if no one's posted in the meantime and it keeps the original time of posting

I was under the impression that you can edit the post transparently only if no-one has viewed the thread. renata did manage to edit her post after Clancie posted her post and the forum didn't add the "Edited at..." stamp, so perhaps there is also this two minute leeway. I'm not sure if renata saw Clancie's post before or after she started editing though.

The chances of testing this out are slim at best, as if any thread is going to invite views, it's one titled "Please do not read this thread" :) Jeff Corey tried it earlier, but I don't know if he started getting the "Edited" stamp because someone viewed the thread, or because two minutes elapsed.

Only 4 days left for Luci to make his lottery prediction!

David

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 02:24 AM

Even if we take your scenario, I would have somehow had to have had access to what was going on in Belfast somehow and get the post edited (undetected) even before the police were wise to the what was going on

We've already seen that if you could edit your post without being detected, up until the time corbin replied (which is Ersby's scenario), then you did have time to add the word after the event.

a bus hijacked by terrorists, packed with explosives, driven through a residential area and parked outside a police station

<pedant>The bus didn't get that far - that's what the bombers wanted but the driver stopped at the end of the road.</pedant>

David

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman

I was under the impression that you can edit the post transparently only if no-one has viewed the thread. renata did manage to edit her post after Clancie posted her post and the forum didn't add the "Edited at..." stamp, so perhaps there is also this two minute leeway. I'm not sure if renata saw Clancie's post before or after she started editing though.

The chances of testing this out are slim at best, as if any thread is going to invite views, it's one titled "Please do not read this thread" :) Jeff Corey tried it earlier, but I don't know if he started getting the "Edited" stamp because someone viewed the thread, or because two minutes elapsed.

I am sure someone has already confirmed that you can't edit a post an hour later without it being recorded by contacting the admin. It would be the correct and skeptical thing to do. Either they haven't, in which case they should, or they have and are not going to report the fact because it proves that I couldn't have edited an hour later without it being recorded. David, have you checked the technical capabilities with the admin yourself yet?

CFLarsen

22nd July 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am sure someone has already confirmed that you can't edit a post an hour later without it being recorded by contacting the admin. It would be the correct and skeptical thing to do. Either they haven't, in which case they should, or they have and are not going to report the fact because it proves that I couldn't have edited an hour later without it being recorded. David, have you checked the technical capabilities with the admin yourself yet?

As usual, I'm way ahead of you. I did contact Jeff yesterday. He told me that it is, in fact, possible to edit your post without it showing, but he wouldn't tell me how! :)

However, I am very certain that I have edited e.g. the "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)-thread (oops, how did that get here? :D) without the "Edited at.." line coming up.

So it is very possible.

There is one, crucial question I'd like you to answer, Lucianarchy: Why did you write "ladybrook" all of a sudden in a post, completely unrelated to the Ladybrook incident?

It seems very likely that the reason it appears, unrelated to the other content of your post, and not in a separate post, is because you needed the initial timestamp of the post.

You had the opportunity. You had the motive.

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 02:52 AM

I am sure someone has already confirmed that you can't edit a post an hour later without it being recorded by contacting the admin. It would be the correct and skeptical thing to do. Either they haven't, in which case they should, or they have and are not going to report the fact because it proves that I couldn't have edited an hour later without it being recorded. David, have you checked the technical capabilities with the admin yourself yet?

Nope, and to be honest I don't know that any of them would know. Vbulletin being commercial as it is, I can't find the source code, but the relevant file is editpost.php. As best I can tell from some posts on the Vbulletin forum, there isn't any setting that specifies that posts can be transparently edited if no-one has read the thread.

As I can't see the source, I can't say it isn't possible to sit there and edit a post every minute, resetting the counter, but I would expect it would be timed from the original posting time, not the last edited time. So I'm leaning towards putting this in the file marked "mildly interesting coincidence", at the moment.

{OT}In all seriousness Luci, and feel free to just give a yes or no answer, neither of which I'll ridicule, is there any chance you'll ever discuss the lottery numbers thing again? I'd seriously like to see it tested, but I don't want to go starting threads about it if you don't want to participate.

David

Ersby

22nd July 2003, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Um, Ersby, please show how it is possible to post and edit without it being time stamped. Call me a skeptic, but I just don't believe your story about "no one posting in the meantime" rubbish. I posted at 3.30pm. I did not edit it. Even if we take your scenario, I would have somehow had to have had access to what was going on in Belfast somehow and get the post edited (undetected) :rolleyes: even before the police were wise to the what was going on, let alone the media!:rolleyes: But anyway, please go ahead and demonstrate how this supposed editing can be done. There must be some quiet forums amongst all thje jref ones, go ahead and do it. Please. It's all you have to support your claim. BTW, If you think a bus hijacked by terrorists, packed with explosives, driven through a residential area and parked outside a police station is only a "minor story", then .... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If you look on page two of this thread, I have three posts. Each one of these was edited. Does it say so at the bottom every time? Nope. So from that I take it I've supported my claim, right? Good.

As for knowing what was going on, lets not forget your claim to working in the judiciary. I'm sure you have some contacts remaining, through which you can get information quickly that isn't known to the media. (I didn't say anything about the police not knowing about it.)

Re the minor-ness of the story, perhaps you'd do better to complain to all the major newspapers of the UK, since they don't seem to think the story is important enough to cover.

The fact is you made a "prediction" in a space of time which extends almost half an hour after the event. I'm happy with my explanation that, through a fortunate series of events (the quietness of the jref board, getting a piece of news quickly), you were able to pull off this trick. I do think that's pretty impressive. But not psychic.

Pyrrho

22nd July 2003, 04:47 AM

If posts are edited before they are viewed by others, the "edited by..." line won't appear.

fsol

22nd July 2003, 06:20 AM

AlienX: I can see your monitor and it has dust on top of it ;)

Jeff Corey

22nd July 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
If posts are edited before they are viewed by others, the "edited by..." line won't appear.

Ok, that's why my late night trivial posts could be edited 20 minutes later, it was the viewing, not posting by others that produced that addendum. So that gave Luci a lot of time to edit, since it is such a waste of time to look at its posts.

I just edited again, let's see if it shows up.

And again.

Saybrook..

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Ersby

The fact is you made a "prediction" in a space of time which extends almost half an hour after the event. I'm happy with my explanation that, through a fortunate series of events (the quietness of the jref board, getting a piece of news quickly), you were able to pull off this trick. I do think that's pretty impressive. But not psychic.

I've rarely seen as much desperate ******** as this.

I posted at 3.33pm. I am happy to swear on mine or anyone elses life that I did not edit that post.

If you want believe, for some reason, that I somehow managed to get hold of the Ladybrook terrorist attack before the press / media ( I didn't even know about it until Sunday on the BBC ) and before the police, and get it post edited somehow ( apparently Jeff is now saying it can be done, but is keeping it a secret :rolleyes: ), and roll it all together quickly just before Corbin posted, then frankly, that's up to you. But I can assure you, in fact I promise you, on my life, that did not happen.

Apart from anything else, as far as I can tell, the forum clock's only out by 20 mins anyway, so all your desperataion is moot.

Also, considering, I posted only five mins after the intital opening post by TBK, and an hour before Corbin replied and in between that time even I witnessed the 'view' register additions, then there are some very dishonest people here who are keeping quiet about the fact that they viewed this post between my posting and Corbin's reply and could therefore disprove that I somehow had access to Jeff's 'secret' editing technique :rolleyes: .

Most people know damn well that I did not / could not have accomplished such a bizarre convoluted scam within such a short space of time, and some people also know damn well that they saw the post before Corbin posted anyway.

The fact that you and a few others here are trying to spin this into some extraordinary denial speaks volumes about the personal need you have for RV not to exist.

Ersby, in short, we both you know that you are wrong.

You are wrong, and the implications of your building an extraordinary denial are enormous, far, far worse than any 'psychic scam', in fact the wilfull denial and dishonesty being employed here by a few people is exactly the sort of thing which is censoring the true development in the understanding of frontier science. You should be ashamed of yourself. One day, I can assure you, this will come back to haunt you, and you will have to deal with that shame.

Think about that before you sleep, when there is no one else around you to lie to, but yourself.

Starrman

22nd July 2003, 08:57 AM

Even with all your supposed slow jref clocks and supposed undetected editing how was I supposed to intercept police messages and get them to the forum even before the event took place and even before the terrorists parked the bus rigged with explosives outside the police station!!??

Again - you ignored my point. Man, you are dense. There is no reason to believe that the exact time of the event was the very first moment the police knew about it or were discussing it on their radios.

Posted by me - yesterday:
Although the piece said the incident happened two hours after you posted, that doesn't mean the police didn't know anything about it two hours earlier. My thought was the police were aware of a threat to Ladybrook, were discussing it on their radios and you heard it on a police scanner.

This would explain why you weren't more specific, and only threw out a single name.

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Starrman

Again - you ignored my point. Man, you are dense. There is no reason to believe that the exact time of the event was the very first moment the police knew about it or were discussing it on their radios.

Posted by me - yesterday:

This would explain why you weren't more specific, and only threw out a single name.

Whatever.:rolleyes: I can tell you that I know Jack Straw about police scanners, maybe you know more, are they able to detect and pick up the police in Belfast, Ireland, from the UK mainland?

Even so, how come the terrorists managed to drive a bloody bus packed with explosives through residential Ladybrook and park the bugger outside of a police station and scarper before the police caught them? According to you, the police and presumably everyone else in the entire UK was listening in whilst this was going on. You'd think they'd at least give them a ticket for double parking outside of the police station.:rolleyes:

Starrman

22nd July 2003, 09:18 AM

Whatever. I can tell you that I know Jack Straw about police scanners, maybe you know more, are they able to detect and pick up the police in Belfast, Ireland, from the UK mainland?

Fine - I was only trying to demonstrate why I thought it was a possibility. If you say you did not use a police scanner, fine with me.

Even so, how come the terrorists managed to drive a bloody bus packed with explosives through residential Ladybrook and park the bugger outside of a police station and scarper before the police caught them? According to you, the police and presumably everyone else in the entire UK was listening in whilst this was going on. You'd think they'd at least give them a ticket for double parking outside of the police station.

I didn't say the police knew there was a bus with a bomb on it two hours before. I said the police may have known there was a threat to Ladybrook in general.

I don't care to argue the scanner any more - again, it was just one possibility I thought of and presented for discussion. Don't you ever get tired of rolling your eyes at any view point that isn't exactly like yours?

And you again ignored my question about AlienX's challenge - what about it does not seem reasonable to you?

CFLarsen

22nd July 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Whatever.:rolleyes: I can tell you that I know Jack Straw about police scanners, maybe you know more, are they able to detect and pick up the police in Belfast, Ireland, from the UK mainland?

With the Internet, nothing is local anymore.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Even so, how come the terrorists managed to drive a bloody bus packed with explosives through residential Ladybrook and park the bugger outside of a police station and scarper before the police caught them?

How far did they actually go, Lucianarchy? How long was the bus hijacked?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
According to you, the police and presumably everyone else in the entire UK was listening in whilst this was going on. You'd think they'd at least give them a ticket for double parking outside of the police station.:rolleyes:

It is exaggerations like these that really make me suspect foul play from you, Lucianarchy. If you are right, you have absolutely no reason for this hyperbole.

If you are wrong, on the other hand, it makes perfectly sense.

thaiboxerken

22nd July 2003, 09:32 AM

I posted at 3.33pm. I am happy to swear on mine or anyone elses life that I did not edit that post.

You can swear all you want, but if you lied or not is not something we can really tell right away. A liar would not admit to lying and might even go so far as to "swear" a life or two on their honor. Your credibility is zero, so your appeal to your honesty doesn't fly.

If you want believe,... happen.

The fact is, you didn't make a prediction, you only posted a word. You could've very well posted the word after you saw it on BBC or some other news source. You could've posted it after hearing about it from other mundane sources. It could also be just a coincidence, you posted a word hoping something would happen sometime in the future. The one word alone is something that many would just not even give a second thought about if nothing happened that was significant to "ladybrook". You placed yourself in an unfalsifiable position, if nothing happened.. you made no prediction and you're safe. If something happened, "look at me, I wrote ladybrook" and you're something special. But, your scandalous tactics and tricks won't work on skeptics, we're not gullible enough to fall for your nonsense.

Apart from anything else, as far as I can tell, the forum clock's only out by 20 mins anyway, so all your desperataion is moot.

It's about 40 minutes, actually.

dishonest people here who are keeping quiet about the fact that they viewed this post between my posting and Corbin's reply and could therefore disprove that I somehow had access to Jeff's 'secret' editing technique :rolleyes: .

One could've read your post and not even noticed "ladybrook", since it was an insignificant word at the time. I didn't notice it when I first read your post. As you recall, I didn't know where you put that word until I went back to search for it. Again, this illustrates your win/win tactic of not making a prediction yet claiming one.

Most people know damn well that I did not / could not have accomplished such a bizarre convoluted scam within such a short space of time, and some people also know damn well that they saw the post before Corbin posted anyway.

We know that a person could perform such a feat, given the right tools.

The fact that you and a few others here are trying to spin this into some extraordinary denial speaks volumes about the personal need you have for RV not to exist.

Or it speaks volumes of how desperate you are to try and convince people that you'll use dishonest tactics, cheating or coincidence as your tools.

Think about that before you sleep, when there is no one else around you to lie to, but yourself.

I suggest you follow your own advice, I've been sleeping very well lately.

Editted as a test.

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Starrman

Fine - I was only trying to demonstrate why I thought it was a possibility. If you say you did not use a police scanner, fine with me.

Thank you. I did not.

Now, the bus was hijacked by gunmen at 4.30pm and the driver was forced to drive the bus to the police station, when the gunmen fled and the driver then raised the alarm. How on earth was I supposed to pick up that information and get it post edited and undetected to the jref forum before the 4.35pm post by Corbin?

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 09:46 AM

Now, the bus was hijacked by gunmen at 4.30pm and the driver was forced to drive the bus to the police station, when the gunmen fled and the driver then raised the alarm.

Just because I like facts for their own sake, the gunmen ordered the driver to drive through the Ladybrook estate and on to the police station, but he didn't. He stopped the bus at the end of the same street were the gunmen got on and raised the alarm.

How on earth was I supposed to pick up that information and get it post edited and undetected to the jref forum before the 4.35pm post by Corbin?

Because Corbin's post wasn't made at 4.35pm. That's it's forum timestamp, and what's more it's in GMT, not BST.

16:35GMT
-40 minutes because the forum clock is wrong:
15:55GMT
Add an hour for BST:
16:55BST

David

PS Luci, a test of your lottery powers - yes or no?

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman
[B]

Because Corbin's post wasn't made at 4.35pm. That's it's forum timestamp, and what's more it's in GMT, not BST.

16:35GMT
-40 minutes because the forum clock is wrong:
15:55GMT
Add an hour for BST:
16:55BST

David

David, it says on the bottom of this page " All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 PM." It is indeed that time right now. There is no BST added and the time is correct. So, according to the forum times stamp and the slow clock, I posted at 2.53pm and Corbin at 3.55pm, well before the incident took place. Now what?

Starrman

22nd July 2003, 12:15 PM

I wrote:
And you again ignored my question about AlienX's challenge - what about it does not seem reasonable to you?

davidhorman wrote:
PS Luci, a test of your lottery powers - yes or no?

AlienX wrote:
Can you please tell me what item is on my monitor BEFORE I remove it.

Don't you want to see us all eat some crow? Come on, show us what you can do?

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 12:15 PM

Yep, it's GMT Western Europe, it has the BST accounted for.

So Corbin's post was time stamped by the forum as 4.35pm GMTWE and the forum clock was - 40mins, then he actually posted at 3.55pm. This is clearly before the hijack even took place.

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 12:46 PM

Yep, it's GMT Western Europe, it has the BST accounted for.

You don't know anything about time zones. GMT doesn't "account for" BST, your computer, or wherever you're getting the time from, does (during the Summer). The forum says GMT. Why do you assume that means "GMT Western Europe", which I assume is your way of saying GMT+1?

GMT is Greenwich Mean Time, also known as Zulu time. It doesn't move forward or backward during the year, we just move to BST and back again. The forum clock is 50 minutes fast.

Take a look:

http://greenwichmeantime.com/

Compare the time on this page (green writing, black box) with the clock on your computer - there's an hour difference.

BST (Britain's current "effective" time) is always one hour ahead of GMT.

The forum clock is 50 minutes fast.

Will you admit defeat on this point at least?

Edited to add more proof:

From the site above:

Remember: Clocks Spring Forward & Fall Back (Fall = Autumn) - details here but GMT remains the same all year around.

And here is an automatically generated image that displays the current GMT (an acronym which has apparently been superceded by the term UTC) time:

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/utc.gif

David

CFLarsen

22nd July 2003, 12:55 PM

This is going to be interesting.

If Lucianarchy admits defeat in this, then she also has to acknowledge the possibility of her cheating.

If she does not admit defeat, then we know that she cheated. Why else would she not admit defeat??

Either way, Lucianarchy loses.

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by davidhorman

You don't know anything about time zones. GMT doesn't "account for" BST, your computer, or wherever you're getting the time from, does (during the Summer). The forum says GMT. Why do you assume that means "GMT Western Europe", which I assume is your way of saying GMT+1?

David

Yes, David. That is the system which the JREF Forum operates under, GMT Western Europe. You can check for yourself quite easily, because if you are a registered member you will discover that if you look at your settings options under the user cp, the default setting is GMT Western Europe.

Now what?

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have - of course! - taken the forum time stamp discrepancy into consideration.

What kinda skeptic do you think I am? :)

A stupid, over zealous cynical one.

Now, the honourable thing for you to do now is apologise, it has been proven that the Forum runs under the default of GMT (WE) and given that it has been stated that the forum was running at -40mins, then I posted at 2.53pm and Corbin at 3.55pm, both well before the incident took place.

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 01:28 PM

Yes, David. That is the system which the JREF Forum operates under, GMT Western Europe. You can check for yourself quite easily, because if you are a registered member you will discover that if you look at your settings options under the user cp, the default setting is GMT Western Europe.

Look at the image I posted. The forum clock, obstensibly GMT, is an entire hour different to the time on that image, which is GMT/UTC.

This "Western Europe" business means nothing. BST is GMT+1. GMT does not change during the year.

I've started a post in the Admin Discussion Area about the clock. According to one user it's varied by 20 minutes already today. I'd say that's enough evidence that it's unreliable.

David

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by davidhorman

This "Western Europe" business means nothing. BST is GMT+1. GMT does not change during the year.

David

:rolleyes: David, please look at this: http://greenwichmeantime.com/local/europe/uk/ OK? Now, do you see where it says GMT Western European? Do you see the little asterisk? What does it say it means? :rolleyes:

c0rbin

22nd July 2003, 01:38 PM

God, I feel so soiled to have been drawn into this.

When I replied to Lucky, I don't remember the word "ladybrook" appearing in her post. Like a critically thinking fool, I focused on the "substance" of her post.

I had to go back and find the first mention of it well after it was mentioned again on page 2. It does seem tacked on, whether from editing on the fly or stream of conciousness, Lucky only knows for sure.

Some super power :rolleyes:

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 01:39 PM

The forum runs on the default GMT Western European.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
A stupid, over zealous cynical one.

Why? It is because I am right?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now, the honourable thing for you to do now is apologise, it has been proven that the Forum runs under the default of GMT (WE) and given that it has been stated that the forum was running at -40mins, then I posted at 2.53pm and Corbin at 3.55pm, both well before the incident took place.

Excuse me?

You want me to "apologize"?? For what? You are plain wrong, Lucianarchy!

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin
God, I feel so soiled to have been drawn into this.

When I replied to Lucky, I don't remember the word "ladybrook" appearing in her post.

Well, Corbin, you are not very observant, because it was included within the post which you quoted. :rolleyes:

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 01:45 PM

Luci, WET is like GMT. It doesn't change during the year. What we call BST is just an extra that we add during the summer. The underlying WET/GMT/UTC time remains the same.

Look at that page you linked:

Western European Standard Time (WET) is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

Now look at the main page that I linked:

but GMT remains the same all year around.

Now, back to that page you linked:

After the Summer months the time is shifted back by 1 hour to Western European Time (WET) or (GMT)

How can it be shifted back to WET/GMT, when you maintain we are always on WET/GMT?

Anyway, it's pretty clear the forum clock is screwed. There's probably no way now of accurately figuring out the time of yours or Corbin's posts.

David

thaiboxerken

22nd July 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Well, Corbin, you are not very observant, because it was included within the post which you quoted. :rolleyes:

It's likely that you relied upon people not observing the word. That way, if nothing happened, no one would notice. Now that something happened that contains 'ladybrook', you can claim a prediction. A prediction that you didn't make.

A random word tossed at the end of a post is not "RV", even if an incident comes up where that word appears.

So, we have a couple of possibilities.

1. You cheated and placed the word there as a prediction of an event you came through to find out about using mundane methods.

OR

2. You tossed a word in there in hopes that something would happen somewhere that has a connection to "ladybrook", knowing full well that if nothing happened, people wouldn't have picked up on the word.

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by davidhorman
Luci, WET is like GMT. It doesn't change during the year. What we call BST is just an extra that we add during the summer. The underlying WET/GMT/UTC time remains the same.

David, I can't believe you are finding this so difficult!

The forum runs on default GMT Western European! Check it out under the settings! The WET system accounts for the + 1 hour BST and reverts to the base GMT in the winter!

Aye Carumba! :rolleyes:

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 02:04 PM

The WET system accounts for the + 1 hour BST and reverts to the base GMT in the winter.

Once again:

GMT remains the same all year around.

Western European Standard Time (WET) is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

That's all it says. It doesn't say "WET is GMT, plus an hour during the summer" does it?

Perhaps your confusion comes from where they show the current GMT time next to what they say is the current WET time (works in IE only). But see that little asterisk? That indicates that they've added daylight savings time. It's a very confusing, not least because it directly contradicts the statement on the page that WET is the same as GMT.

David

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by davidhorman

That's all it says. It doesn't say "WET is GMT, plus an hour during the summer" does it?

Perhaps they should put that in then to be a bit more helpful for people like you. :rolleyes: The WET system accounts for +1 in line with most of western Europe and reverts to base GMT in winter, though it is still referred to as WET all year round regardless of the winter /summer time shifts.

David, let's make this simple for you. Look at the bottom of this page. It says times are in GMT. OK? Well, does that time reading displayed there show base GMT or does it show the +1 hour BST adjustment? It shows the adjustment. Now, if you go check your user cp, you'll see that the default for the forum actually says 'GMT Western European' which is a system which accounts for the Euro summer / winter time shifts. OK? Do you understand now?

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 02:45 PM

David, let's make this simple for you. Look at the bottom of this page. It says times are in GMT. OK? Well, does that time reading displayed there show base GMT or does it show the +1 hour BST adjustment? It shows the adjustment.

Okay, let's look at this page:

http://www.worldtimezone.com/wtz-names/wtz-wet.html

This says WET is equivalent to UTC which is equivalent to GMT.

Let's not forget the one I've already quoted:

Western European Standard Time (WET) is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

Here's an even more interesting one:

http://www.timeanddate.com/time/abbreviations.html

WET - Western Europe Time - UTC - Lisbon during winter
WEST - Western Europe Summer Time - UTC+1 hour - Lisbon during summer

WET does not include any kind of savings time - it just doesn't fall under the function of a time zone. When Lisbon goes into Summer, it uses WEST, not WET.

David

Starrman

22nd July 2003, 02:49 PM

Lucianarchy,

Obviously no one is going to give on the clock. You can render the point meaningless by taking and passing Alienx's remote viewing test or davidhorman's lottery test.

What do you say?

Thanks,
Jeff

Martin

22nd July 2003, 02:57 PM

I advise everyone who actually cares to take Luci's advice and check your options in the control panel. The options for time zone are listed as GMT - 12, GMT -11...etc etc. The option marked GMT is identified as Western European Time, making it patently obvious that WET and GMT are exactly the same thing. GMT does not change throughout the year, according to the official GMT website. Case closed.

In any case, to get from BST to 'forum time', yesterday I had to subtract 19 minutes. Today when I checked, it was 7. The forum clock is clearly unreliable, and cannot be used as proof of Luci's claims.

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by davidhorman

Okay, let's look at this page:

http://www.worldtimezone.com/wtz-names/wtz-wet.html

This says WET is equivalent to UTC which is equivalent to GMT.

Let's not forget the one I've already quoted:

Here's an even more interesting one:

http://www.timeanddate.com/time/abbreviations.html

WET does not include any kind of savings time - it just doesn't fall under the function of a time zone. When Lisbon goes into Summer, it uses WEST, not WET.

David

:rolleyes: Yes, WEST is WE Summer Time and WET is WE Time, fortunately for people like you they haven't got WEWT too, it would probaly blow your mind in the complexity of it all! WE Time is a system which accounts for either WEST / WEWT and uses the base GMT, which is independant of either, to account for the seasonal time changes in Western Europe. Are you still having trouble here?

The real issue here is about the JREF Forum time system. I repeat, as you seem to have glazed over this crucial issue: Look at the bottom of this page.

It says times are in GMT.

OK?

Well, does that time reading displayed there show base GMT or does it show the +1 hour BST adjustment?

It shows the adjustment.

Now, if you go check your user cp, you'll see that the default for the forum actually says 'GMT Western European' which is a system which accounts for the Euro summer / winter time shifts.

The bottom line, whether you want to get more wet or not over this, :rolleyes: is that the forum displays what is commonly called BST GMT+1. As you said, the clock was - 40mins when Corbin posted, which puts his post at 3.55pm BST.

This was well before the terrorist attack took place.

What now? Huge coincidence? Am I a terrorist suspect?

Martin

22nd July 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now, if you go check your user cp, you'll see that the default for the forum actually says 'GMT Western European' No, it doesn't. It says GMT, and identifies this as Wester European. Big difference.

c0rbin

22nd July 2003, 03:20 PM

Am I a terrorist suspect?

Nope. Just a fish trying to breath in a shallow puddle, thrashing in hopes that the water will splash on her gills.

thaiboxerken

22nd July 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

What now? Huge coincidence? Am I a terrorist suspect?

I think that logic and honesty are the things that you terrorise most.

:D

Oh, huge coincidence? I think not, a small coincidence is what I see. That's assuming that you didn't cheat.

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Starrman
Lucianarchy,

Obviously no one is going to give on the clock.

Then it shows how dishonest they are and unable to admit to a mistake.

Anyone here in the UK can look at the bottom of the page here and see that it says 'all times are in GMT' and look at their own watch or ring up 'Tim' and see that the forum is not reading base GMT at all it is actually reading BST / GMT+1, / Western European Time. It also confirms the default GMTWET status in the cp settings.

So if you don't "give in" to something you can look at on your wrist or by any other simple checks, then you are clearly, quite, quite stupid.

Lucianarchy

22nd July 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Martinm
No, it doesn't. It says GMT, and identifies this as Wester European. Big difference.

:rolleyes: OK, just forget whatever you want to call it. :rolleyes: Martin, what time does it read on the forum now? Is it GMT or GMT+1/BST?

Ceinwyn

22nd July 2003, 03:27 PM

If I may point out something that has nothing to do with timestamps...

I looked up a bit of info on Ladybrook and found this (http://belfast.local.ie/content/41571.shtml/ladybrook):

"As with most parts of west Belfast, Ladybrook has been at the epicentre of the Troubles. A peace line separates the estate from parts of neighbouring Suffolk."

Therefore it doesn't really take a psychic to figure out that every now and again there are folks lurking around with explosives hidden under their coats.

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 03:30 PM

GMT and WET are separate but identical time zones. Neither has any rules about savings time. Savings time/Summer time as a concept is completely separate from the concept of time zones.

The forum clock is wrong. Maybe it's been set this way so it at least tries to show a time that is consistent what most of us use as our local time, i.e. savings time included.

Sorry, but WET is identical to GMT. Neither changes during the year. What we have here is either a server with the wrong time, or a bad fix applied to save us the trouble of changing our time zone option every 6 months.

When a WET zone country goes into daylight savings time, they move into the WEST zone. It's equivalent to Britain, a GMT zone country, moving into the BST zone during the summer.

I see the last time you quoted me, you conveniently didn't quote this bit (or perhaps the forum won't quote quotes):

WET - Western Europe Time - UTC - Lisbon during winter
WEST - Western Europe Summer Time - UTC+1 hour - Lisbon during summer

David

Starrman

22nd July 2003, 03:39 PM

Why wont you take Alienx's remote viewing or davidhorman's lottery tests?

If you don't want to answer fine - just say so. Just quit pretending not to see the question.

thaiboxerken

22nd July 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by buki

Therefore it doesn't really take a psychic to figure out that every now and again there are folks lurking around with explosives hidden under their coats.

But if I say.... Palestine, would it be more impressive?

I shall demonstrate my ability to do exactly what Luci does.

Iraq.

Martin

22nd July 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Martin, what time does it read on the forum now? Is it GMT or GMT+1/BST? Right now, it's pretty close to BST. Yesterday, it was about halfway between the two. The day before, who knows? That's kind of the point, really.

renata

22nd July 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by renata

Well, maybe there is something to it. Let me test my RV powers.
New York
Trenton
Van Nuys
Houston

While you guys are arguing about the clock, my psychic powers have been confirmed

New York: thudnerstoms knocked out power to about 87,000 customers
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/07/22/severe.weather.ap/index.html

Houston: Jackpot! The tourist who smelled smoke in Eiffel tower was from Houston
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6797534%255E1702,00.html

If that is not enough, American Michael Phelps beat his own world record in the 200 butterfly in Houston
http://www.news24houston.com/content/sports/sports_headlines/default.asp?ArID=11202

Trenton: Lightning storm ignited grass fires in the vicinity
http://newspapers.mywebpal.com/partners/754/public/news476132.html

Van Nuys : 85 year old man crashed car while waiting for driving test (obviously recalling the horrible accident of a week ago when 86 year old man killed 10 in Santa Monica
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_802184.html

thaiboxerken

22nd July 2003, 03:51 PM

It's pretty obvious that Lucky just won't concede the FACT that the forum clock is unreliable.

And, Lucky won't even address the FACT that his one word coincidence means nothing to the rational person.

Starrman

22nd July 2003, 04:01 PM

...but check me out

I posted yesterday:
After reading this, I had the impression of a gorilla in my mind. I'm not making a prediction, but I can clearly see a gorilla in my mind right now and it feels urgent.

Gorilla

Gorillas (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/iraq/main564159.shtml)

davidhorman

22nd July 2003, 04:09 PM

Nah, I think you were seeing this:

http://www.durrellwildlife.org/index.cfm?p=253

David

Dogwood

22nd July 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Anyone here in the UK can look at the bottom of the page here and see that it says 'all times are in GMT' and look at their own watch or ring up 'Tim' and see that the forum is not reading base GMT at all it is actually reading BST / GMT+1, / Western European Time. It also confirms the default GMTWET status in the cp settings.

This seems simple enough to confirm. We have plenty of UK posters here. If you place your browser time on default (GMT) and compare it to your houseclocks, watches, etc. Does it show GMT, or the adjusted BST?

AlienX

22nd July 2003, 04:35 PM

I fail to see how scientits can be called not open minded or fixed in their ideas. The whole point of scientific approach is to effectifly constantly try and break their current theories about everything.
Yes some theories are hard to budge as they have lots of validating data, but all it takes is one spurious repeateable result to throw a spanner in the works.
Then an explanation is sought - either a totally new theory or a modification - whaterver.

All we ever seem to have is a single item of non reproducable data, thus until the point whereby we have some nice solid data to back all this up then pointing at specific examples (many of which can be explained by normal means) is rediculous really.

So far we have yet to see any real work that does nothing but destroy all of these claims. Every single proffesional study has drawn a blank so far in over a hundred years of trying. Yes you can hang on to your claims but please at least agree to us testing your abilities properly.

Why don't we do a real test of your abilities, so far i think your example to be questionable, even if no foul play was used then i hate to tell you it's totally unimpressive anyway for obvious reasons.

Would you care to perform some repeat tests of your abilities on these boards. Maybe we can come to an agreement about how you can show your powers with as much of the inherant flaws we see here removed, then we can argue over some more significant data other than this very weak case.

Look arguing over a time stamp about a highly unspectacular one word prediction (well it wasnt even a prediction now was it) really is rediculous and we should discard it and do a proper test i feel, this line of discussion is pointless and will get neither "side" anywhere.

AlienX

AlienX

22nd July 2003, 04:38 PM

So how about a proper test then Luni or do you fear the T word ;-)

Ratman_tf

22nd July 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by AlienX
I fail to see how scientits can be called not open minded or fixed in their ideas.

In most cases, it's a sad attempt by some believer to deflect attention away from them and towards the skeptics.

Ratman_tf

22nd July 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by renata

While you guys are arguing about the clock, my psychic powers have been confirmed

New York: thudnerstoms knocked out power to about 87,000 customers
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/07/22/severe.weather.ap/index.html

Houston: Jackpot! The tourist who smelled smoke in Eiffel tower was from Houston
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6797534%255E1702,00.html

If that is not enough, American Michael Phelps beat his own world record in the 200 butterfly in Houston
http://www.news24houston.com/content/sports/sports_headlines/default.asp?ArID=11202

Trenton: Lightning storm ignited grass fires in the vicinity
http://newspapers.mywebpal.com/partners/754/public/news476132.html

Van Nuys : 85 year old man crashed car while waiting for driving test (obviously recalling the horrible accident of a week ago when 86 year old man killed 10 in Santa Monica
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_802184.html

I think we all know who the most convincing remote viewer is in this thread. :D

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by mark tidwell

This seems simple enough to confirm. We have plenty of UK posters here. If you place your browser time on default (GMT) and compare it to your houseclocks, watches, etc. Does it show GMT, or the adjusted BST?

It shows BST. But you are unlikely to get David or any others who have claimed it is GMT to admit to their mistake. They have the evidence in front of them as they read this, but they don't have the honour or integrity to confirm its status.

The fact is, given their claims of -40min forum clock, even discounting my posting which they contend must have been somehow edited undetected using a sooper seekrit method :rolleyes: , then Corbin posted at 3.55pm, significantly before the Ladybrook terrorist attack took place.

They are now down to claiming 'ladybrook' was a coincidence, yet anyone can do a search for that term and see that newsorthy events like that, which happened in ladybrook shortly after my ladybrook post, in response to tbk taunt on my RV ability, are so remote that such a 'coincidence' would be bloody huge.

I have been accused of using police scanners, using unknown editing techniques, criminal involvement and been told the clock was GMT and should be an hour different. All these suppositions have been shown to clearly false. Yet not one of those claimants has come forward to offer an apology.

The data, and the deception and silence which followed it speaks for itself.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by mark tidwell
Lucianarchy,

If I may ask, how often do you have these precognitive/RVing insights? Are they with any regularity? Are they spontaneous or do you have to prepare yourself in some way? I ask only because it might be helpful in the future for you to record them here for future analysis and discussion.

Hi Mark, sorry I missed your earlier post.

How often? Often daily, but vague and the sort of thing which would not qualify as a lead in this forum, it would just generate ridicule and taunts. However, often I act on these leads in daily life and use them to positive effect. Spontaneous? Difficult to say really, yes, sometimes, like in this case, the information seems to come 'through' me - bolt from the blue so to speak. Usually a compelling seemingly important word or impression of something. These sorts of perceptions seem to be immiment forms of precognition and often occur within the same day. I can and do prepare myself for some work though and use meditation these days, directing my consciousness and visualising in what I see as a 'universal' point in space-time. I would add though, that my experience is that there needs to be a lot of what you might call 'spiritual fitness' and an understanding of free will and responsibility in order to develop the effect. If you think I would "record them here" after the kind of treatment I have experienced here, think again. It is exactly the sort of behaviour which stops many 'psychics' from coming forward, although I would suggest that if anyone is genuinely interested and has experienced an ability to either RV, precognition etc, to do yuor own research and follow the leads to the places which feel right to you. And be prepared to be skeptical of everything you may have been lead to believe before, have the humility to learn again. One thing I can say - like minds attract - have belief in yourself - and you will not go far wrong.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by davidhorman

16:35GMT
-40 minutes because the forum clock is wrong:
15:55GMT
Add an hour for BST:
16:55BST

David, the forum clock defaults account for the +1 BST, you know that now. If you don't, look at the bottom of the page at the forum clock, then look at your wristwatch.

This makes your calculation for Corbins time stamped post to be:

15:55.

The Ladybrook terrorist attack occured at 16:30

Do you have anything to say about this?

Ersby

23rd July 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You are wrong, and the implications of your building an extraordinary denial are enormous, far, far worse than any 'psychic scam', in fact the wilfull denial and dishonesty being employed here by a few people is exactly the sort of thing which is censoring the true development in the understanding of frontier science. You should be ashamed of yourself. One day, I can assure you, this will come back to haunt you, and you will have to deal with that shame.

Think about that before you sleep, when there is no one else around you to lie to, but yourself.

Wow, such vitriol! You’ve never really forgiven me for your humiliating defeat over the UK Lottery, have you?

Right now the clock is either spot on, or one hour out, depending on how you look at it. The time in Italy (CET) is 11.06, and the time on the forum (GMT+1) is 11.05. According to the GMT site, GMT is actually 9.05, so the "GMT" of the forum is actually BST, as far as I can tell.

This makes no difference, since I’d already assumed that “GMT”, as listed at the bottom of the forum, was actually showing BST, since the clock on my computer says “GMT+1” and then gives the same time as it is locally. However, just now CET is GMT+2, so I guessed that in this forum at least GMT must actually be BST. According to the forum on my computer Lucian’s post was 4.33 GMT+1, really meaning it was 3.33 BST. Add twenty minutes for the slowness I noticed a few days ago. 3.53. Corbin’s was one hour later, which makes it 4.53. Lucian’s right in that my theory may be unlikely and it relies a lot on fortuitous coincidence, and indeed my openness to the idea that you have some psychic power has increased. Not much, but there’s a little room for doubt that wasn’t there before. But at the end of the day one thing remains: c0rbin’s quoting of Lucian’s post is the earliest that we, as true sceptics, can be absolutely sure Lucian’s post contained the word ‘ladybrook’, ie, half an hour after the event.

even I witnessed the 'view' register additions, then there are some very dishonest people here who are keeping quiet about the fact that they viewed this post between my posting and Corbin's reply

If they were to come forward, then yes, that would rule out my theory. Nevertheless, it also shows that you did return to the forum after your initial post. Hmmm.

The fact that you and a few others here are trying to spin this into some extraordinary denial speaks volumes about the personal need you have for RV not to exist.

How tedious. For someone who refuses to debate RV in any length, that’s a laughable statement. For the record I think there is evidence that RV may exist. If you look on the thread begun by sgrenard – I suggest a series of experiments that I consider the strongest in the field. Now, why would I do that if I had a deep seated need to disprove it? I just want to know what’s going on. In your eyes, that makes me a bad person: so be it.

Of course, renata has demonstrated how such results can be gained by chance, which is another compelling argument.

davidhorman

23rd July 2003, 03:39 AM

Do you have anything to say about this?

The original assumption was that the forum clock was 20 minutes slow - this quote from Ersby confirms that:

Surely the clock being wrong is a factor (it is presently tweny minutes slow).

(and from then on we assumed it was 20 minutes slow at the time of your post)

However (and I'm sure Ersby will confirm this - edit: he has, thanks Ersby!) he was looking at the time as though it was BST, not GMT as it states.

Then I noticed that the forum clock is claiming to be GMT, which means it was (at the time of the discussion) 40 minutes fast. That makes corbin's post... oh, 16:55, exactly the same, because you still have to add an hour to get from GMT to BST.

It really doesn't matter which way you consider it - you can't retroactively change the actual time of corbin's post simply by thinking about the clock differently. I'm sorry if I confused you or anyone else by getting stuck into the semantics of the forum's time reporting.

Do you accept that GMT does not change throughout the year? Do you accept that WET is the same as GMT?

David

PS Well, bugger me with a fishfork - I'm sure the clock was 20 minutes slow 10 minutes ago, now it's right (if we assume it means BST when it says GMT). This server has to be the worst timekeeper on the planet.

AlienX

23rd July 2003, 03:47 AM

Why do you post then?, you are ridiculed because your evidence is laughable in most peoples eyes.

Don't get upset about this many new ideas are rideculed at first but through proper testing and some very clever people we get closer to the truth. Yet this stuff has faced 100+ years of ridicule and has still not produced any +ve data???

The only solution is to be tested - come to a site where people demand proper scientific methodology then what do you expect?.

Once we start to get some proper studies producing validated data that is +ve then and only then will you get any respect for your beliefs and that's all it is a belief.. which does not mean it is true.

Look I don't care about time stamps of some irrelevent so called premenition.
You obviously seem very frustrated that we are just not even in the slightest bit impressed, I feel the same but from the other side that you can't see my opinion that it's just meaningless with no validity whatsoever.

Once again we see these so called phychics avoiding any form of testing - Luci simply follows the rest of them in making unsubstantiated claims, holding aloft any example that does not show any flaws in the claim. Scientits have the opposite approach of holding aloft the things which show their theories/beliefs to be false as this is where the intrest lies and more importantly the truth.. well getting that little bit closer anyway.

I know you will never agree to be tested and will either ignore or selectivly answer these posts. I don't think your a total fraud just selective in your evidence and what you answer because you fail to see anything which could mean your wrong.

If you will not be tested they why not cancel your account and stop posting, this i fear is your only real avenue to avoid all the ridicule and taunts until the day you stand up and be counted.

At the end of the day i'm open to you being tested and all the others because no matter how much I think your wrong it's possible that I am. You seem to be the only person here who is 100% convinced they are correct. You will not be tested because this means that you would have to be <100% convinced you are correct, thus you are not open minded at all until you accept the fact that you could be totally wrong. Testing yourself properly would be a good first step, but it's a step you obviously fear to take and feel justified somehow in not taking.

AlienX