Tri Talk HomepageTri Talk EventsTri Talk ForumsBlogsTri Talk TrainingTri TradeTriPlayerWikiTeam Tri Talk
Reality Check Global Forecast
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> Off-Topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14323
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SloggingScotsman wrote:


If you doubt that other nations are using viewers, ask yourself this simple question logically. Given that America declassified sufficient material for the likes of me to get Viewing to work (took me over a decade mind from first reading a book by an ex military viewer) then is it not reasonable, that nations that are actually supportive of such skills, would not equally have realised the potential and developed it, placing them potentially thirty years ahead of us?
:


You mean thirty years to have tried it and moved on perhaps?

Good luck with writing your paper
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2017 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TransitionTed




Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 21430
Location: On It Lika A Car Bonnet

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:
TransitionTed wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
SloggingScotsman wrote:
Ejc

TT confirmed he was a real scientist.

It is interestingly true that a fair number of those in the viewing community have been Scientologists. I am not btw.


Tyrannical Ted is as good at buying cars as he is at identifying scientist credibility...

...whilst being a scientologist doesn't completely rule out scientific credibility in other fields, i think that it's about as close as you can get...


Harsh, not about me, about RT. He received his credentials via Queens College, so as far as physics is concerned at least, he's a learned man

The fact that he went off piste early doors is in no way suggestive of madness.

Anyway, I feel this thread has been filibustered enough by us mere mortals


The scholarly work by which he is best known has been described as careless....I'd rather read about his adventures on a motorbike..l

As I said earlier, he's seems to be trying to convince himself. However, on the subject of lasers, I would say he knows a bit
_________________
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14323
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TransitionTed wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
TransitionTed wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
SloggingScotsman wrote:
Ejc

TT confirmed he was a real scientist.

It is interestingly true that a fair number of those in the viewing community have been Scientologists. I am not btw.


Tyrannical Ted is as good at buying cars as he is at identifying scientist credibility...

...whilst being a scientologist doesn't completely rule out scientific credibility in other fields, i think that it's about as close as you can get...


Harsh, not about me, about RT. He received his credentials via Queens College, so as far as physics is concerned at least, he's a learned man

The fact that he went off piste early doors is in no way suggestive of madness.

Anyway, I feel this thread has been filibustered enough by us mere mortals


The scholarly work by which he is best known has been described as careless....I'd rather read about his adventures on a motorbike..l

As I said earlier, he's seems to be trying to convince himself. However, on the subject of lasers, I would say he knows a bit


Indeed he is very knowledgeable...but the art of a skilled scientist is in trying to prove themselves wrong, and there appears to be little evidence of this on matters of RV...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2017 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tin Pot




Joined: 08 Jul 2013
Posts: 2195
Location: Bromley

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SloggingScotsman wrote:
Tin Pot wrote:
@ss

Sometimes other people can see things that we cannot.

I'm not talking about remote viewing, I'm talking about an external perspective.

Perhaps the people on this forum that are contradicting your world view have a point. Perhaps their world view is a better one in this respect, and you could revise yours.
indeed TinPot, indeed. I have spent my whole life questioning and finding unique solutions to problems, but I in no way think that I know it all. Bearing in mind that I entered viewing as a sceptic myself, I fully understand how others could take differing views. As I have said on here before, one of the reasons that I have posted this stuff is to help enable me make the method more robust, and to find out (which went unanswered) how to get my work into scientific paper shape. Google has been my friend on this latter point.

For many months I have answered continual and detailed questioning, but there comes a point when you just think to yourself sod this for a game of soldiers, publish and be dammned. So I am, carefully and nievely (having never done this before) preparing a scientific styled paper, yesterday when I finished I had just covered my biases and limitations and started ethical implications. Others, mainly in America, and mainly though not exclusively iirc Officers in officer schools, have had remote viewing papers published in mainstream science and guessing without checking military journals, so why not try? Worst case scenario I simply more formally self publish the theory.

At the end of the day it's all about robustness, of the theory, to enable practical application by those with sufficient skills and resources, and in turn to help forward progression.

I am used to being laughed at for my theories, beliefs, predictions, until they happen, but using the Good Judgement Project I am providing independent mathematical evidence that I am not so bad at it, though admittedly only nine of those predictions have been resolved so far, which is a rather small sample. One more at the end of this month and my own mini experiment will be done, and I will get stuck back into it.

From rereading the Economist article again that started this all off, I realised more fully just how much of a problem finding subs has become again nowadays. (My initial reading had told me that we could track but we're struggling again to initially find) A couple of aircraft carriers have had unknown subs appear close by, that we the public know about, and that is through all of the technological defences. One was iirc a twenty year old sub! So it's not just new boat silence. It's a big problem that I might just have a solution for, and one which is as cheap as chips. The single biggest problem for Britain is that our culture is not supportive of the required skill base, which other things being equal places us at a huge relative disadvantage to more accommodating countries may well have capitalised upon. Having an extremely detailed oceanographic database aside obviously (that really is the key resource, everything else is secondary).

If you doubt that other nations are using viewers, ask yourself this simple question logically. Given that America declassified sufficient material for the likes of me to get Viewing to work (took me over a decade mind from first reading a book by an ex military viewer) then is it not reasonable, that nations that are actually supportive of such skills, would not equally have realised the potential and developed it, placing them potentially thirty years ahead of us?

Anyhow I will get back to preparing my paper by the weekend, though it will take me a while to learn about abstract writing etc. Shock horror it may, if appropriate even be referenced to military and science journal articles on remote viewing Embarassed


Being scientific doesn't mean starting skeptical and giving in, it means constantly being skeptical. A scientific theory is the best description of a bit of the universe we have today, and the people that work on one fully expect it to be revised and at some point to be replaced.

You need to let your mind escape the confines of the parameters you've set up.

Forget about subs for a start. Focus on the mundane. Focus on the mechanism you hypothesise to be at play. Gather evidence objectively. Abstract yourself from the experiments. Do good science.
_________________
Iron '16 14h30
Half Iron '17 7h39!, 6h28 '16 5h53
Olympic '16 3h18 '15 3h33, '13 3h36
Sprint '16 1h17, '14 1h40, '13 2h01
Half Mara '16 2h04, '14 2h07
10 Mile TT '16 00:26:30
Trail 10K '16 54:01 '13 54:46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14323
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tin Pot wrote:
Gather evidence objectively


not sure he (or anyone) can achieve that

Tin Pot wrote:
Abstract yourself from the experiments.


and that is why
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2017 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GrahamO




Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 9858
Location: United Arab Emirates or an airport

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:
Good luck with writing your paper


Writing doesnt work so well on toilet paper and thats all they let him have access to.

Don't ask what he's using for ink .......
_________________
Arguing with engineers is like wrestling in mud with a pig - after a while you realise they like it
newMan : I don't know why you think you can address me like that! Don't ever reply directly to any of my posts again please.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SloggingScotsman




Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2452

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GrahamO wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
Good luck with writing your paper


Writing doesnt work so well on toilet paper and thats all they let him have access to.

Don't ask what he's using for ink .......
Crying or Very sad anyhow, light from a computer monitor most probably. At best it will get others thinking on how to take another forward step, and at worst I will make a few quid in the remote viewing community. Along the way I provide entertainment. Everyone is a winner.

If people don't try and build upon what has gone before, we won't progress.

Luddites the lot of you Exclamation
_________________
Vote Stewart for Secretary General of the UN Smile
Good Judgement Project Brier Score 0.142 (median 0.367) https://www.gjopen.com/
Read: Our Place in the Twenty First Century
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 14323
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SloggingScotsman wrote:
GrahamO wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
Good luck with writing your paper


Writing doesnt work so well on toilet paper and thats all they let him have access to.

Don't ask what he's using for ink .......
Crying or Very sad anyhow, light from a computer monitor most probably. At best it will get others thinking on how to take another forward step, and at worst I will make a few quid in the remote viewing community. Along the way I provide entertainment. Everyone is a winner.

If people don't try and build upon what has gone before, we won't progress.

Luddites the lot of you Exclamation


This is a conflict of ideas, so Phillistine is the more appropriate insult I believe...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2017 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SloggingScotsman




Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2452

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tin Pot

I don't have time today to spend that long here, but after reflection I did want to come back to one of your points.

You said "Focus on the mundane".

Now I can understand why you suggest this. But, and this is quite a big but, but, remote viewing the mundane, as I have explained here before, is terribly difficult. It is common knowledge amongst viewers that contrasts are much more viewable than mundane items like Transition Teds socks for example.

While viewers do have blind spots, e.g. Iirc one of the retired US military chaps said he could never view a waterfall, just could not do it, Typically a waterfall would be doable due to the movement, height etc, depending of the individual talent of the viewer (just as some runners are good at 100m, others marathons).

But a Submarine (and I realise that these vary from one man craft to multi nuclear warhead ones) are theoretically (I say that as I have never attempted to view one), quite viewable. They are manmade objects that are out of place in their environment, hence making them viewable due to that contrast.

Also I got to where I am with this due to several months of chewing over the specific submarine problem identified by the Economist, so it is an appropriate object to use.

And from a remote viewing perspective, out of the six declassified crv stages (I personally struggled getting past stage three, though some viewers are right up there at the stage six detailed modelling stage), the specific challenges of viewing a Submarines location, only require stage two data, which even a relative beginner at viewing like myself can do fairly competently. (Though I have never tried the specific variable involved e.g. Salt).

So, a submarine all in all, is easier scientifically to prove than transition teds mundane socks. If you have a very detailed global oceanographic database obviously, as that is what you are viewing against, and it is the database that spits out the likely path of the submarine.

This is a problem that has stumped the viewing community as "the oceans are full of water so how do you locate?" This is the problem that I have conceptually solved. By scaling back the viewing to stage two, and linking that, through maths, to oceanographic data, which can then be verified by drones.

Anyhow hope that helps you understand this point Tin Pot. I do think hard about what you write and appreciate your words. I am not a scientist which is why I asked for help on here.
_________________
Vote Stewart for Secretary General of the UN Smile
Good Judgement Project Brier Score 0.142 (median 0.367) https://www.gjopen.com/
Read: Our Place in the Twenty First Century
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tin Pot




Joined: 08 Jul 2013
Posts: 2195
Location: Bromley

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SloggingScotsman wrote:
Tin Pot

I don't have time today to spend that long here, but after reflection I did want to come back to one of your points.

You said "Focus on the mundane".

Now I can understand why you suggest this. But, and this is quite a big but, but, remote viewing the mundane, as I have explained here before, is terribly difficult. It is common knowledge amongst viewers that contrasts are much more viewable than mundane items like Transition Teds socks for example.

While viewers do have blind spots, e.g. Iirc one of the retired US military chaps said he could never view a waterfall, just could not do it, Typically a waterfall would be doable due to the movement, height etc, depending of the individual talent of the viewer (just as some runners are good at 100m, others marathons).

But a Submarine (and I realise that these vary from one man craft to multi nuclear warhead ones) are theoretically (I say that as I have never attempted to view one), quite viewable. They are manmade objects that are out of place in their environment, hence making them viewable due to that contrast.

Also I got to where I am with this due to several months of chewing over the specific submarine problem identified by the Economist, so it is an appropriate object to use.

And from a remote viewing perspective, out of the six declassified crv stages (I personally struggled getting past stage three, though some viewers are right up there at the stage six detailed modelling stage), the specific challenges of viewing a Submarines location, only require stage two data, which even a relative beginner at viewing like myself can do fairly competently. (Though I have never tried the specific variable involved e.g. Salt).

So, a submarine all in all, is easier scientifically to prove than transition teds mundane socks. If you have a very detailed global oceanographic database obviously, as that is what you are viewing against, and it is the database that spits out the likely path of the submarine.

This is a problem that has stumped the viewing community as "the oceans are full of water so how do you locate?" This is the problem that I have conceptually solved. By scaling back the viewing to stage two, and linking that, through maths, to oceanographic data, which can then be verified by drones.

Anyhow hope that helps you understand this point Tin Pot. I do think hard about what you write and appreciate your words. I am not a scientist which is why I asked for help on here.


Understood, but to be scientific we need to reject what any particular community thinks or feels - either there is a mechanism in this universe that allows people to do remote viewing or there isn't. For rational people to accept a new idea there must be evidence, and evidence of causation, otherwise it's just the same as any idea anyone could make up.

If there is a mechanism that allows remote viewing, in an objective universe, what people feel about the targets should have no impact whatsoever on experimentation...but you can prove it: carry out tests on a variety of targets with a variety of subjects, record the results and perform your analysis.

This will give evidence to support or decry the phenomena itself, and whether the nature of the target has any impact.

You could have ten subjects bring in five personally significant items, and also have a selection of five mundane items. Have your team secrete all of them around a national park or some other appropriately large area Ina randomised fashion, record the lat/longs then begin your testing of the subjects such that you the experimenter know nothing of the objects or their locations.

If they locate things by seeing them, maybe you could have a numbered marker secreted alongside the object to make it clearer when an item has been found.
_________________
Iron '16 14h30
Half Iron '17 7h39!, 6h28 '16 5h53
Olympic '16 3h18 '15 3h33, '13 3h36
Sprint '16 1h17, '14 1h40, '13 2h01
Half Mara '16 2h04, '14 2h07
10 Mile TT '16 00:26:30
Trail 10K '16 54:01 '13 54:46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SloggingScotsman




Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2452

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tin Pot wrote:
SloggingScotsman wrote:
Tin Pot

I don't have time today to spend that long here, but after reflection I did want to come back to one of your points.

You said "Focus on the mundane".

Now I can understand why you suggest this. But, and this is quite a big but, but, remote viewing the mundane, as I have explained here before, is terribly difficult. It is common knowledge amongst viewers that contrasts are much more viewable than mundane items like Transition Teds socks for example.

While viewers do have blind spots, e.g. Iirc one of the retired US military chaps said he could never view a waterfall, just could not do it, Typically a waterfall would be doable due to the movement, height etc, depending of the individual talent of the viewer (just as some runners are good at 100m, others marathons).

But a Submarine (and I realise that these vary from one man craft to multi nuclear warhead ones) are theoretically (I say that as I have never attempted to view one), quite viewable. They are manmade objects that are out of place in their environment, hence making them viewable due to that contrast.

Also I got to where I am with this due to several months of chewing over the specific submarine problem identified by the Economist, so it is an appropriate object to use.

And from a remote viewing perspective, out of the six declassified crv stages (I personally struggled getting past stage three, though some viewers are right up there at the stage six detailed modelling stage), the specific challenges of viewing a Submarines location, only require stage two data, which even a relative beginner at viewing like myself can do fairly competently. (Though I have never tried the specific variable involved e.g. Salt).

So, a submarine all in all, is easier scientifically to prove than transition teds mundane socks. If you have a very detailed global oceanographic database obviously, as that is what you are viewing against, and it is the database that spits out the likely path of the submarine.

This is a problem that has stumped the viewing community as "the oceans are full of water so how do you locate?" This is the problem that I have conceptually solved. By scaling back the viewing to stage two, and linking that, through maths, to oceanographic data, which can then be verified by drones.

Anyhow hope that helps you understand this point Tin Pot. I do think hard about what you write and appreciate your words. I am not a scientist which is why I asked for help on here.


Understood, but to be scientific we need to reject what any particular community thinks or feels - either there is a mechanism in this universe that allows people to do remote viewing or there isn't. For rational people to accept a new idea there must be evidence, and evidence of causation, otherwise it's just the same as any idea anyone could make up.

If there is a mechanism that allows remote viewing, in an objective universe, what people feel about the targets should have no impact whatsoever on experimentation...but you can prove it: carry out tests on a variety of targets with a variety of subjects, record the results and perform your analysis.

This will give evidence to support or decry the phenomena itself, and whether the nature of the target has any impact.

You could have ten subjects bring in five personally significant items, and also have a selection of five mundane items. Have your team secrete all of them around a national park or some other appropriately large area Ina randomised fashion, record the lat/longs then begin your testing of the subjects such that you the experimenter know nothing of the objects or their locations.

If they locate things by seeing them, maybe you could have a numbered marker secreted alongside the object to make it clearer when an item has been found.
Tin Pot you are focusing more on dowsing here, a slightly different skill.

This type of experiment was precisely what Targ and Puthoff did, and subsequently done as a day job over decades by the US military, and in the decades since then, by people like me. I have already published my research results, and the backing papers are available to those with a genuine and appropriate need to see and audit them.

Remote viewing has been proven time and time again.

The problems:-

1. It is tricky to get reliability. Different viewers are good and different things, and there are still so many unknowns. Clearly this needs to be resolved.
2. Sadly remote viewers can be their own worst enemy, by making claims that they can't really substantiate. All of my data is in the public record and I claim no more and no less. It is databased, perception by perception.
3. It's usefulness in any practical and commercial manner has been limited, because of a number of factors, including but not limited to:- different viewers getting different results for the same target, or different aspects of the target, the rather huge expectations gap (if you can do what you did in your videos, what is written on my fridge door etc), and again sadly I have to admit, without meaning to be unprofessional to fellow viewers, but the wild claims made by some (and that is wild by my standard!).

So there are real problems and issues that the viewing world do still need to overcome, but remote viewing itself has been shown to work time and time again for decades. With limitations on reliability, usefulness and expectations gaps.

Overall my own results, as but one example, I have done around 150 sessions, about 80 of which I databased (I have not databased the earlier ones as it would be diffficult to objectively summarise and database now, it's something that you really need to do immediately you finish a session to do properly, and some of my earliest ones have so little information that they would be either showing 100% or 0% neither of which would be a true reflection. Overall when I was viewing, over those c80 databased targets (not selective in any way, complete and continual from when I started databasing) I was averaging overall around 69% accuracy, though clearly I was much better with some types of perceptions than others. But perhaps 30-40% of any session could be applicable to almost any target so that needs discounted, so I think it reasonable to say that (and I can back this up with evidence) that I was getting on average over those eighty random blind targets, around 30% reliable reasonably target specific accuracy. But that still doesn't make it useful.

Tin Pot if you go to the International Remote Viewing Association website you will find many articles in journals etc on remote viewing, I have no idea how credible those journals are, but I am told that some are mainstream and peer reviewed.http://www.irva.org/library/articles/

They include: Nature, IEEE, a journal,of intelligence studies and Thesis for the National Defence Intelligence College amongst others.

Testing remote viewing works has been done many many times, often successfully. It's getting it reliable, useful, and getting expectations of what is realistic properly set, that need further work.

Personally I decided to test it by doing it, over a period of a year on c150 targets, and published my results in three short books, to help others benchmark (as that was missing).

Anyhow thank you Tin Pot, I do appreciate your thoughts, and will include my own already published experimental results along with my paper, with a commentary of how those could be advanced to the task at hand.
_________________
Vote Stewart for Secretary General of the UN Smile
Good Judgement Project Brier Score 0.142 (median 0.367) https://www.gjopen.com/
Read: Our Place in the Twenty First Century


Last edited by SloggingScotsman on Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:01 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SloggingScotsman




Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2452

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meant to say Tin Pot, evidence of causation is tricky as no one knows exactly how Viewing works, there is much disagreement. For me I feel energy, though I know that sound out there and barmy, but we are where we are.

I think about the target coordinates, data flows into my mind, I write it down, it was (when I actually viewed c18 months ago now) generally approaching 69% accurate (out of what is verifiable one way or another, but I personally don't normally have that much that is unverifiable). [sometimes I would be completely off target but that is included in these stats]

Others are far far better than me, but sadly few database, most just post videos or make claims. I follow the ex US military remote viewer Lyn Buchanans database methology.
_________________
Vote Stewart for Secretary General of the UN Smile
Good Judgement Project Brier Score 0.142 (median 0.367) https://www.gjopen.com/
Read: Our Place in the Twenty First Century
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SloggingScotsman




Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2452

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you want to see how a viewers mind actually works I will redo some links below


Edward doing my distraction target (part 3 is where to go, I think part one was taken down for copyright infringement..by Edward not by me it was his video) [I set up a target I did on DNA for a University of Kyoto mooc, and "hid" it behind habernera from Carmen. First public demonstration that it is possible to distract a viewer, admittedly only temporarily in this case, but until that point in time the viewing community had generally considered it impossible. It isn't, though I accept this could be one off chance or coincidence.
http://stewartedwardssloggingscotsman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/remote-viewing-tasking-protection-and.html

And one of my own, where I nail a location pretty precisely and get the elements broadly correct, e.g. Someone standing in a circle....it was rectangular pipe fencing etc. Start about 28 minutes in or so from memory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayMvNBeGiGQ
_________________
Vote Stewart for Secretary General of the UN Smile
Good Judgement Project Brier Score 0.142 (median 0.367) https://www.gjopen.com/
Read: Our Place in the Twenty First Century
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tigger




Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2756
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SloggingScotsman wrote:
Remote viewing has been proven time and time again.


Ah. Now I understand. This is just a difference in how we use language. You use "has been proven" to mean what I would describe as "there is no credible evidence". I understand now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SloggingScotsman




Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2452

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tigger wrote:
SloggingScotsman wrote:
Remote viewing has been proven time and time again.


Ah. Now I understand. This is just a difference in how we use language. You use "has been proven" to mean what I would describe as "there is no credible evidence". I understand now.
well it was sufficiently proven by Targ and Puthoff, for example, for the US government to refund their extensive project annually for decades, now at least partially declassified. To the tune of millions of dollars at 1970s? Prices.

Look given advice I have received privately from a forumite, I am going to stop posting on this here. I only posted again as TinPot made some sensible comments I wanted to respond to.

I will self publish given that my viewing books do sell.

Believe it or don't that is up to you, but there are plenty of people in the world doing it, sufficient for viewing conferences to run every year.

To those who have tried to help me, thank you.

And to the pmer, I am a Chartered Accountant so I do know how much half a trillion pounds is. I guess my humour did not come through re that.
_________________
Vote Stewart for Secretary General of the UN Smile
Good Judgement Project Brier Score 0.142 (median 0.367) https://www.gjopen.com/
Read: Our Place in the Twenty First Century
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> Off-Topic All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9
  Share
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





Home | About TT | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Advertising | Contact TT
Copyright ©2003-2015 TriTalk®.co.uk. All rights reserved.