Of Skeptics and Bannings

Then what do you think about them? I am interested!
It's complicated but I think a lot of the apparent successes of Project Star Gate is to do with memory: things get misremembered, stories grow over time. A lot of the successes that people talk about in presentations are based on what they wrote in books after the event, and aren't based on the contemporary documents. Meanwhile, mistakes get forgotten or explained away. And, of course, there are some genuine hits but those are mostly in the training sessions and, besides, you'd expect that by chance over a 23-year period.
 
It's complicated but I think a lot of the apparent successes of Project Star Gate is to do with memory: things get misremembered, stories grow over time. A lot of the successes that people talk about in presentations are based on what they wrote in books after the event, and aren't based on the contemporary documents. Meanwhile, mistakes get forgotten or explained away. And, of course, there are some genuine hits but those are mostly in the training sessions and, besides, you'd expect that by chance over a 23-year period.
Well I didn't talk about Stargate now, but about McMoneagle's public demonstrations of his remote viewing capabilities. He has given in each of them, even the most controlled ones, lots of important data pertinent to the actual target sites, thus demonstrating his psi prowess. Fraud doesn't seem to be the case, as we agree, so I thus fail to see any other explanation than it is psi. You don't agree with this, so I wanted to know how you explain he is giving demonstration after demonstration pertinent data to the target sites?

This is important, because McMoneagle was by far the most prolific remote viewer in the Stargate - he was even awarded Legion Of Merit explicitely for his remote viewing services. You suggest all the hits in the program were due to chance, but McMoneacle's public demonstrations don't support Your claim.
 
Tyler Snotgern up-chuck-ed: (go to post)
Here's access to over 200 Project Stargate files, most were originally classified "Secret"...

https://app.box.com/s/4gu9pa1g76ebj5hbshld

Sweet archive, Dude. Thanks for sharing.
I'm a sharing kind of person oh yes I am. I have to give credit for most of them to Daz Smith, he's my goto guy on all things Remote Viewing, lead to him by Courtney Brown. Brown btw was one of Monroe's student/clients under a government contract from intel guru Stubbelbine. Stubbelbine was the one who sent Skip Atwater into TMI surreptitiously - under false pretense. When Monroe was informed by other intel agents that he was being duped by Ft. Meade, he threw Atwater out. True story and is why Atwater took what seemed to be forever to get back into Monroe's decent graces.

Here's Atwater lying about it. lol 8minutes


I can't say I disagree much with this blogger - halfway down the page

http://eventhorizonchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/06/stuck-in-ft-meade-maryland-with-kunia.html
 
We're kind of running around in circles here.

Let me ask it like this:

How do people who completely reject materialism interpret research and data on consciousness which is based on experiments where brains get zapped with electricity, "simulating" things like OBEs?

Or, is the answer "they don't"?
As a skeptic, I hope that you explore both sides of this question. It's not appropriate for this thread and it's not my job to give you such a basic education on such a far reaching topic in any case.
 
You believe them because you've met them. I see. I guess our personal experiences are very different.

Let me try to explain. I agree that Targ and Puthoff are not fakes, but that doesn't mean they are right. The stories they tell in their presentations are misremembered versions of what they wrote in their books. They're not based on what actually happened. I've read the first hand contemporary reports. Hundreds of them. What have you read?
The big problem: Targ, Puthoff and May claim that their descriptions based on the notes in their notebooks which they made during the exact experiments they describe. Their notes also are "first hand contemporary reports".

So, what we have is one first hand contemporary reports vs. another first hand contemporary reports - one made by actual scientists researching the case, other by CIA officials. According to you, they appear to contradict each other; well, one should decide whose reports one trust more.

My bet is on Targ, Puthoff and May.

However, I do understand that I cannot be sure about any controversy until I studied both sides. I did not read - not even "scanned" ;) - the reports of CIA officials which you mentioned, so I cannot judge them.

But I refrain from basing my judgement on the second-hand non-contemporary reports of a single person, especially if that person claims to criticize a scholarly paper without even reading it (in that case, it appear to be a third-hand non-contemporary report :D).
 
I'll start a thread on remote viewing tomorrow. We can discuss it there.
You know what would work a lot better would be if you opened up a blog on Wordpress or something and put together a post outlining your argument and your sources so that everyone could use that as a starting point. You've looked at the data, you've clearly thought about this and you've reached evidence based conclusions.

In my opinion, what you've done needs a more comprehensive explanation than a simple forum thread in order to properly communicate your views. You're doing a lot of work this is how you showcase it. If all your information gets shared piecemeal, it might not be as effective in making your points.
 
You know what would work a lot better would be if you opened up a blog on Wordpress or something and put together a post outlining your argument and your sources so that everyone could use that as a starting point.
That would be really useful! It would be a resource people could keep coming back to that wouldn't get lost in a sea of new threads. I hope you consider doing this, Ersby.
 
I like my blog to be about random things: whatever I find that interests me. Another blog just for Star Gate stuff might be worth thinking about. I am writing a book, too. Just an ebook for the Kindle store. It'll focus on the remote viewing sessions of the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-81.
 
me said:
We're kind of running around in circles here.

Let me ask it like this:

How do people who completely reject materialism interpret research and data on consciousness which is based on experiments where brains get zapped with electricity, "simulating" things like OBEs?

Or, is the answer "they don't"?
As a skeptic, I hope that you explore both sides of this question. It's not appropriate for this thread and it's not my job to give you such a basic education on such a far reaching topic in any case.
You know, I did my own homework on this about 10 years ago when I was a proponent, and the answer then was basically "They don't."
I was honestly hoping something had changed between then and now. Oh, well.
 
I like my blog to be about random things: whatever I find that interests me. Another blog just for Star Gate stuff might be worth thinking about. I am writing a book, too. Just an ebook for the Kindle store. It'll focus on the remote viewing sessions of the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-81.
If you're going to do an ebook, go to the extra trouble to get a print-on-demand as well. The royalties suck, but hey, book!
 
We're kind of running around in circles here.

Let me ask it like this:

How do people who completely reject materialism interpret research and data on consciousness which is based on experiments where brains get zapped with electricity, "simulating" things like OBEs?

Or, is the answer "they don't"?
First it's - in the way you and other materialists use it - irrelevant. Let's put it this way - does the fact that electrical stimulation be used to simulate the salivation that occurs when eating mean that people don't really eat?

Second, there are usually significant differences between the simulated experience and the actual thing. Although I'd be surprised if one couldn't force an actual OBE through certain electrical stimulation because . . .

Third, we're in a physical framework. If there are no physical components or connections to something we won't be aware of it. The brain is one interface between physical and primary consciousness The nature of that interface is a conversion of "no thing" to electricity/magnetism.
 
Top