Lucianarchy and remote viewing [Archive]

SteveGrenard

19th July 2003, 03:52 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, 04:20 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, 04:25 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, 04:57 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, 05:29 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, 05:54 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, 05:55 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, 06:09 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, 06:11 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, 06:16 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, 06:30 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, 06:49 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, 08:40 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, 08:46 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

19th July 2003, 11:53 PM

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

19th July 2003, 11:55 PM

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, 01:13 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, 02:03 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, 03:19 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, 05:00 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, 05:08 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, 05:46 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, 06:20 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, 06:24 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, 06:24 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, 06:48 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, 07:36 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, 07:38 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, 07:39 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, 07:44 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, 07:49 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, 07:53 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, 08:01 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, 08:11 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, 11:34 AM

CFLarsen

20th July 2003, 11:47 AM

Steve,

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

Martin

20th July 2003, 11:51 AM

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

SteveGrenard

20th July 2003, 12:02 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, 12:06 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, 12:10 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, 12:20 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, 12:26 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, 12:56 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, 01:13 PM

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 01:22 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, 01:24 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, 01:25 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, 01:34 PM

thaiboxerken

20th July 2003, 01:35 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, 01:36 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, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

What the hell are you talking about?

I Lord Babel. :wink8:

Lucianarchy

20th July 2003, 02:23 PM

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

Chupacabras

20th July 2003, 03:24 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, 03:34 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, 05:04 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, 02:22 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, 02:28 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, 07:14 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, 07:44 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, 07:49 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, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Ersby

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

Please, please explain.

c0rbin

21st July 2003, 08:10 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, 08:19 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, 08:31 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, 08:43 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, 08:56 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, 09:05 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, 09:07 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, 09:08 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, 09:09 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, 09:11 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, 09:13 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, 09:17 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, 09:17 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, 09:17 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, 09:21 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, 09:22 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, 09:22 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, 09:26 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, 09:29 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, 09:30 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, 09:33 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, 09:35 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, 09:38 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, 09:39 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, 09:43 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, 09:45 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, 09:48 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, 09:51 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, 10:04 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, 10:05 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, 10:16 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, 10:32 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, 10:36 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, 10:47 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, 10:56 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, 11:05 AM

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, 11:09 AM

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, 11:11 AM

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, 11:13 AM

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, 11:16 AM

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, 11:17 AM

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

thaiboxerken

21st July 2003, 11:18 AM

Luci is silly.

Zoot.

Starrman

21st July 2003, 11:23 AM

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, 11:26 AM

It's a feng shui turtle.

Chupacabras

21st July 2003, 12:08 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, 12:15 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, 12:26 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?