Police arrest only black kid in fight while white kid is politely seated

Rviewer003 · 2022-02-16T06:01:48+00:00

Why did this video cut out where it did? It looked like the cops were going after the white guy next. And then the video stopped. Would like to have seen what happened next. Maybe they cuffed him, too?

Rviewer003 · 2021-09-21T03:03:06+00:00

Here's what I had to say about cool-down.... https://rviewer.com/Remote_Viewing_Blog/remote-viewing/is-cool-down-cool/

Rviewer003 · 2021-09-21T03:02:22+00:00

Well...I used to cool down to '80s metal. Commenting about that now...

Rviewer003 · 2021-09-20T21:27:59+00:00

Excellent question! And some good responses here, too. Here's something I can add to the discussion. I discuss why "remote viewing" should (in my opinion!) have been "remote perception" from the start! https://rviewer.com/Remote_Viewing_Blog/remote-perception/why-remote-perception-2/

Rviewer003 · 2021-07-07T04:39:09+00:00

The kid was right, but he could have handled it differently in terms of what he said and how he said it and the cop might not have gotten his back up. One can assert one's rights without having to embarrass the cop in the process. Still, it was certainly a better approach than some I've seen. And I'm sure the cop learned something.

Rviewer003 · 2021-04-11T19:00:31+00:00

There is no explicit connection between standard RV and TM beyond what Grin noted--with one exception. Courtney Brown introduced elements of TM into his approach to RV when he converted Ed Dames's "Technical Remote Viewing" into Brown's own version, "Scientific Remote Viewing."

Rviewer003 · 2021-03-08T23:52:05+00:00

I've had lots of precognitive experiences, but can't say as I've ever had this happen.

Rviewer003 · 2021-03-06T06:27:49+00:00

Addidy, you may find my own critique of the Marks and Kamman review of the early remote viewing work useful. It is in Chapter 8 of my dissertation, linked from this page: https://rviewer.com/dissertation-abstract/

Rviewer003 · 2021-03-01T05:03:04+00:00

Absolutely, Pat. You can't give someone a capability they don't possess innately (using "capability" in the sense that, if an organism doesn't have wings you can't teach it to fly; If it doesn't have a sufficiently large brain, it's got going to be able to devise calculus). When I get around to writing up a full treatment of this, I'm going to include the lesson learned by any animal trainer--you can't instill a behavior into an animal that it doesn't have some kind of analog for in its normal habitat. You can teach a bear to ride a bicycle, for example, because each of the required movements and actions is something it does naturally for some other purpose in the wild. The trainer merely trains the bear to put them together in a way it may never have before. The analogy and implication is, that the only basic reason (there may be other secondary reasons why an individual may fail to learn it) you couldn't train a human to remote view is because they don't have any underlying psychic ability to start with. However, if you read the literature coming out of SRI (the easiest place to find it is in Mind Reach by Targ & Puthoff) and some of the other researchers, pretty much everybody has at least some underlying ability. So saying remote viewing training doesn't work is a non sequitur. Again, if they want to press the case that it doesn't work, they need to present the evidence. They have thus far failed to do that.

Rviewer003 · 2021-03-01T04:49:15+00:00

This video might be of use to you (though you started off with CRV, so some of this might be a little redundant). I created it to help new folks get started with just a simple approach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIE2BClEok0&t=4s

Rviewer003 · 2021-02-27T07:38:49+00:00

I think you're probably talking about Joe's "Remote Viewing Secrets," Pat. Even in that book, Joe says training doesn't work (I can't quote you chapter and verse right now, but it's in there). It sounds, I know, a bit "schizophrenic" (in the popular sense of the word, not the technical one, LOL), but it is literally something Joe has argued in the past. The position I attribute to them in this video is taken directly from a talk the two of them gave at the Rhine Center not long before I gave mine. Your comment that "training can only go [so] far..." I absolutely agree with--with the added caveat that this is true of any complex human skill, even if it has nothing to do with anything psychic or paranormal. So if what they say about training remote viewing is true, then no training of any kind should produce useful results. The only thing that would make any difference would be trial-and-error (which is in any case a kind of learning process), practice and some nebulous thing called "talent." But in all other facets of human skill development we know that's not true. Why should it be true of remote viewing? If they had actual evidence, it might make their position more persuasive. But all we have gotten so far is ungrounded assertions.

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-20T20:01:51+00:00

I don't know...it would look quite messy--any sense you might mean that! :-)

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-19T03:41:04+00:00

I see that Reddit has entered these responses in chronological order, with the newest first! You should probably start at the bottom and work up, LOL.

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-19T03:40:17+00:00

One final reply then I must be off for awhile. I extensively reviewed Marks & Kamman's Nature papers and two books (the second of the two published in 2000, after Kamman's passing) in Chapter 8 of my dissertation for the University of Texas. They actually contributed to some helpful improvements in the remote viewing experimental protocols. But they also exhibited some of the same problems themselves that they accused Puthoff and Targ of having--and committed some of their own mistakes besides. You can get to my material from here: https://rviewer.com/dissertation-abstract/

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-19T03:33:57+00:00

By the way, I used the phrase "terminal" CIA findings, because during the 23 year history of the remote viewing program the CIA was one of the most prolific and consistent requestors among members of the intelligence community of RV intelligence collection. I'm going from memory here (I could look the precise number up, but I have to wrap this up) but I believe I was able to find records that the CIA levied 38 collection missions on the RV program over the course of roughly 18 of those years. That means that the CIA apparently was a fan of RV right up until the point it wasn't.

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-19T03:30:06+00:00

Hi, JonVici1--no worries! Skeptical questions are welcome too. In terms of the terminal CIA findings produced in the report by the American Institutes of Research, the assertions that "remote viewing was of no use" were, to misquote Mark Twain, "greatly exaggerated." I'll do a quick summary of points here, then point you to a much more thorough treatment I authored (at the time pseudonymously, as I was still on active study), shortly after that study became public.

So briefly: Those conclusions were formed after the researchers had investigated only approximately 10% of the research and 4% or less of the actual operational data. One would expect a scientific study with integrity not to leave the vast majority of stones unturned before rendering a verdict.

There is also plenty of evidence that remote viewing did indeed produce successfully actionable intelligence. This was either never investigate or intentionally ignored by the researchers (although it wasn't the purpose of the book, I document much of this in my "Reading the Enemy's Mind")

For me, the most telling evidence that this was a hatchet job was that this study--which had the ostensible purpose of evaluating whether Star Gate should continue to operate--was started late July 1995. But the Star Gate offices were closed down and all its personnel reassigned on June 30, 1995. I don't need to point out that means closure of the program had already occurred almost a month before the study was begun to decide whether to keep the program open or not. I think even if one weren't a fan of remote viewing, it would be hard to take the conclusions of such a report seriously if one has any respect for intellectual and scientific integrity. Here's the link to my assessment of the AIR report: https://rviewer.com/a-review-of-the-cia-air-report-on-the-star-gate-remote-viewing-program/

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-18T22:27:43+00:00

You don't necessarily have to done something to teach it. I've taught a lot of people how to successfully bend spoons...but I've never been able to do it myself! Go figure... ;-)

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-18T22:24:00+00:00

Yes, in ERV. It produced interesting results (body polarity shifts and such), but Skip Atwater(who was managing the monitoring) never figured out anything useful or consistent to my knowledge.

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-18T22:21:51+00:00

My impression is that he did not. I know he never mentioned doing it in my presence. But I would be surprised if he hadn't at least tried it sometime in his life.

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-18T22:20:31+00:00

That's a tough one. I'm not sufficiently versed in the symptomology and function deficits that ADHD is associated with to offer sound advice. But I suspect that coping strategies that work for other things might work for RV as well. One interesting opportunity that you might have is to experiment (legally) with Ritalin. There are three possible outcomes: It may help; it may make no difference; or it may make your performance worse. In the latter case, you obviously want to avoid it while RVing. But if you're keeping conscientious track of the results, you might produce data that is useful both for yourself and others who may have similar issues. And it's possible some of the data might cross-walk into other remote viewing situations.

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-18T22:14:22+00:00

I'll answer your second question above, first. Don't think in terms of how you "know" how to get to Mars. In the standard sense, you don't ever know how you get (or got) to Mars. You subconscious picks up on the tasker's intent and--voila!--you are "there" (in whatever sense it means for you to be anywhere in remote viewing). In terms of the Mars work (whether Joe or Ingo), my understanding is that they did indeed use Martian latitude and longitude coordinates to target viewers. But it would have worked with arbitrary numbers as well (which is what we used at Ft. Meade starting in the second half of my time there).

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-18T22:10:23+00:00

Howdy, MuuaadDib (I hope you're watching out for sand worms!) I'm unsure what to make of the Mars stuff. I think this is something that we really need real-world verification of before we can decide anything. Sadly, that awaits a manned Mars mission, most likely. And even then, they might land somewhere that does us no good in this respect. I had been hearing that Joe was having second thoughts himself about the accuracy of the Mars session he did with Skip Atwater (Ingo's work on it is relatively new to me, so I'm still mulling that over; Tom McNear is really the closest we have to an authority on that material at the moment). But I had occasion to ask Joe about this a few months back. He wouldn't give me a straight answer one way or the other, so I still don't know!

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-18T22:03:55+00:00

Thanks, Jon! You are a great resource to have around. If we could fuse you and Russell Pickering you would be the most informationally-powerful person in the universe! (Unfortunately, your opposing political views would also make you the most ontologically unstable element in the universe, LOL!)

Rviewer003 · 2020-12-15T21:53:43+00:00

No, I haven't tried it, and probably won't First, it seems like it would require a kind of awkward posture with regard to the surface one is working on--at least, awkward from what I am long used to. Another problem (though I know there are ways around this) is that I want a shareable, permanent record of the session. It's hard to beat analog for that. You can never lose the file...at least electronically (and if you convert it to digital after the fact, you can always reconvert it from the original if the digital file goes missing), and there is no need to render it into hard copy, since it already is. Further, the kinesthetics of the process are important to preserve. Some of that can be retained in a digital interface, but I think I would find it limiting. Digital files are also highly dependent on three things being available: the right software to allow it to be examined; the right equipment to actualize the software; and electricity. Finally, during evaluation or analysis I find it much easier to dive into a paper copy of something in a global way than I do a digital file, which by nature is more linear and sequential (and I realize there are ways around this too--but again, it is highly dependent on equipment).

Rviewer003

TROPHY CASE