"Fraud" as in "a deliberate attempt to deceive"? No, I don't think that at all.I assume, where you are coming from, you see every one of them as fraud?
"Fraud" as in "a deliberate attempt to deceive"? No, I don't think that at all.I assume, where you are coming from, you see every one of them as fraud?
"Fraud" as in "a deliberate attempt to deceive"? No, I don't think that at all.
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.Then what do you think about them? I am interested!
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?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.
Apologies, I misunderstood. I would need to see the example in question.Well I didn't talk about Stargate now, but about McMoneagle's public demonstrations of his remote viewing capabilities.
You can find some, but not all, here:Apologies, I misunderstood. I would need to see the example in question.
Thanks. I'll start a thread when I get a chance in Critical Discussions (or you could start one, and I'll join in later. Either way is fine.)
So you got interested, that is nice:)Thanks. I'll start a thread when I get a chance in Critical Discussions (or you could start one, and I'll join in later. Either way is fine.)
Wouldn't you need to repeat the process at all four locations for that to be a controlled test?
Sweet archive, Dude. Thanks for sharing.
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"?
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?
I'll start a thread on remote viewing tomorrow. We can discuss it there.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.
I'll start a thread on remote viewing tomorrow. We can discuss it there.
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.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 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.
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.
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.
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"?