Seances: Magick versus Psychic

[thinking]

Originally Posted by scott3x
You could also have asked:

Can you tell me more about these experimental viewers?

I know for a fact that Psi Spies talks a lot about them and am sure I could have found some more information on them. But you let these leads pass by, leaving me to wonder if you're really interested in learning more about these claims.

I also see that you left -out- a bunch of the text that I brought up in post 45. For the sake of brevity, I won't quote it again. I will mention, however, that the section I'm referring to begins with "Despite the fact that remote viewing was developed by various tax-supported government agencies" and ends with "The story of remote viewing- then one of our government's most closely guarded secrets- now has filtered into certain aware segments of the public, where it continues to attract growing fascination and interest.

Psi-spies? Talking about things as if their factual doesn't make them so.

true

but it also doesn't make them non-factual either

its not the first time I have heard about remote viewing

 

[Crunchy Cat]

true

but it also doesn't make them non-factual either

its not the first time I have heard about remote viewing

Once you realize why no evidence of remote viewing exist and why the claim itself exists, you will know definitively that the claimed phenomena isn't real.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Once you realize why no evidence of remote viewing exist and why the claim itself exists, you will know definitively that the claimed phenomena isn't real.

No evidence you say?

5.2 Ganzfeld Results from Four Laboratories

In publishing the ganzfeld results from PRL, Bem and Honorton (1994) excluded one of the studies from the general analysis for methodological reasons, and found that the remaining studies showed 106 hits out of 329 sessions, for a hit rate of 32.2 percent when 25 percent was expected by chance. The corresponding p-value was .002. As mentioned earlier, the hallmark of science is replication. This result has now been replicated by three additional laboratories.

Bierman (1995) reported four series of experiments conducted at the University of Amsterdam. Overall, there were 124 sessions and 46 hits, for a hit rate of 37 percent. The hit rates for the four individual experiments were 34.3 percent, 37.5 percent, 40 percent and 36.1 percent, so the results are consistent across his four experiments.

Morris, Dalton, Delanoy and Watt (1995) reported results of 97 sessions conducted at the University of Edinburgh in which there were 32 successes, for a hit rate of 33 percent. They conducted approximately equal numbers of sessions under each of three conditions. In one condition there was a known sender, and in the other two conditions it was randomly determined at the last minute (and unknown to the receiver) that there would either be a sender or not. Hit rates were 34 percent when there was a known sender and when there was no sender, and 28 percent when there was a sender but the receiver did not know whether or not there would be. They did discover post hoc that one experimenter was more successful than the other two at achieving successful sessions, but the result was not beyond what would be expected by chance as a post hoc observation.

Broughton and Alexander (1995) reported results from 100 sessions at the Institute for Parapsychology in North Carolina. They too found a similar hit rate, with 33 hits out of 100 sessions, or 33 percent hits.

Results from the original ganzfeld work and these three replications are summarized in Table 3, along with the SRI and SAIC remote viewing results. The effect sizes for the ganzfeld replications are based on Cohen's h, which is similar in type to the effect size used for the remote viewing data. Both effect sizes measure the number of standard deviations the results fall above chance, using the standard deviation for a single session.

5.3 Conclusions about External Replication

The results shown in Table 3 show that remote viewing has been conceptually replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters and in different cultures. This is a robust effect that, were it not in such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by science as a real phenomenon. It is unlikely that methodological problems could account for the remarkable consistency of results shown in Table 3.

from http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

 

[scott3x]

Fair enough. Even with what you quoted, however, someone like me would find plenty to work with; you could have asked:

You say that:
"Although recorded by all cultures throughout human history, it was believed to be simply an occult fantasy until scientific studies during the 20th century confirmed its existence."

Can you show me the scientific studies which confirm its existence?​

If you'd done that, I might have said, "I think so, let me take a look in the book", and then perhaps come up with a few select passages.

That is exactly why I thought you didn't understand what a request for evidence meant... and I was correct.

Please define what you mean by 'that'.

So yes please do show me those passages, but using my own "remote viewing", I predict that what you show will not be evidence.

Looks like EndLightEnd has already found some evidence, which he quotes in post 83.

You could also have asked:

Can you tell me more about these experimental viewers?
​

I know for a fact that Psi Spies talks a lot about them and am sure I could have found some more information on them. But you let these leads pass by, leaving me to wonder if you're really interested in learning more about these claims.

I also see that you left -out- a bunch of the text that I brought up in post 45. For the sake of brevity, I won't quote it again. I will mention, however, that the section I'm referring to begins with "Despite the fact that remote viewing was developed by various tax-supported government agencies" and ends with "The story of remote viewing- then one of our government's most closely guarded secrets- now has filtered into certain aware segments of the public, where it continues to attract growing fascination and interest."

Psi-spies? Talking about things as if their factual doesn't make them so.

I'm talking about Jim Marrs' book, which is called Psi Spies. You can read it on google books if you like:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=D-1...S52eEK&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No evidence you say?

from http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

There are quite a few claims of evidence in that article. Why not pick one out and we'll examine it. Keep these things in mind when you are choosing:

1) For a perceptual sense, have you ever been wrong about distinguishing differences between objects when those differences were pointed out to you ahead of time?

2) For a skill, have you ever not known that you failed? For example, in basketball have you ever taken a shot and simply not known if it made it in or not but instead needed someone else to tell you?

3) Many (or possibly all) of the experiments listed in the article have failed counterparts which were not reported in the article. Those have big statistical impacts.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Please define what you mean by 'that'.

Your perception of presenting evidence of course.

Looks like EndLightEnd has already found some evidence, which he quotes in post 83.

Oh he found some evidence alright but I don't think he has a grasp on what it is evidence for.

I'm talking about Jim Marrs' book, which is called Psi Spies. You can read it on google books if you like:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=D-1...S52eEK&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

So is there any actual evidence in the book or is it all claims of phenomenon / claims of evidence? I have no doubts that the U.S. invested money in nutty research (they do that).

 

[Oli]

I'm talking about Jim Marrs' book, which is called Psi Spies.

And for the converse view try reading The Men Who Stare At Goats, by Jon Ronson.
Marrs is a fruitcake of the first order.

 

[scott3x]

Fair enough. Even with what you quoted, however, someone like me would find plenty to work with; you could have asked:

You say that:
"Although recorded by all cultures throughout human history, it was believed to be simply an occult fantasy until scientific studies during the 20th century confirmed its existence."

Can you show me the scientific studies which confirm its existence?

If you'd done that, I might have said, "I think so, let me take a look in the book", and then perhaps come up with a few select passages.

That is exactly why I thought you didn't understand what a request for evidence meant... and I was correct.

Please define what you mean by 'that'.

Your perception of presenting evidence of course.

So you don't think that I know how to present evidence. That it? If so, why do you feel this way?

 

[scott3x]

Looks like EndLightEnd has already found some evidence, which he quotes in post 83.

Oh he found some evidence alright but I don't think he has a grasp on what it is evidence for.

Why do you believe that?

I'm talking about Jim Marrs' book, which is called Psi Spies. You can read it on google books if you like:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=D-1...S52eEK&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

So is there any actual evidence in the book or is it all claims of phenomenon / claims of evidence? I have no doubts that the U.S. invested money in nutty research (they do that).

Well, I'm glad that you can atleast believe that the U.S. did indeed fund some projects. I believe it contains a great deal of evidence concerning the phenomenon of psychic powers as well.

 

[scott3x]

I'm talking about Jim Marrs' book, which is called Psi Spies.

And for the converse view try reading The Men Who Stare At Goats, by Jon Ronson.
Marrs is a fruitcake of the first order.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim?

 

[Oli]

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim?

You mean as opposed to Marrs having evidence for his claims?

 

[scott3x]

I'm talking about Jim Marrs' book, which is called Psi Spies. You can read it on google books if you like:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=D-1...S52eEK&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

And for the converse view try reading The Men Who Stare At Goats, by Jon Ronson.
Marrs is a fruitcake of the first order.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim?

You mean as opposed to Marrs having evidence for his claims?

I certainly believe so. But don't take -my- word for it. Read the book yourself. Heck, read a few pages worth (the book is online, no need to pay for it) and come back to me with criticisms of it if you like.

In terms of Jim Marrs' himself, let's take a look at the beginning of Jim Marrs' article over at wiki:

Jim Marrs (born 5 December 1943) is an American former newspaper journalist and author of books and articles on a wide range of alleged cover ups and conspiracy theories.[1] Marrs is an important figure in the JFK conspiracy press and his book Crossfire was a source for Oliver Stone's film JFK. He has also written books asserting the existence of government conspiracies regarding aliens, 9/11, telepathy, and secret societies. He was once a news reporter in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex and has taught a class on the Kennedy Assassination at University of Texas at Arlington. Marrs is a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
​

But enough about Marrs; what about -you- Oli? You been a reporter to a few papers and perhaps have a few books under your belt, with one being a source of information for a very compelling movie? Please, do tell.

 

[Oli]

Read the book yourself.

No thanks, I've read other stuff of his.

But enough about Marrs; what about -you- Oli? You been a reporter to a few papers and perhaps have a few books under your belt, with one being a source of information for a very compelling movie? Please, do tell.

And that automatically makes him infallible?
No never been a reporter, too busy as a military technology analyst, or doing engineering and developing new technologies.

 

[scott3x]

Read the book yourself.

No thanks, I've read other stuff of his.

Such as?

But enough about Marrs; what about -you- Oli? You been a reporter to a few papers and perhaps have a few books under your belt, with one being a source of information for a very compelling movie? Please, do tell.

And that automatically makes him infallible?

When did I say it made him infallible? As a matter of fact, there's a few arguments in his book "Alien Agenda" that I remember some people online really layed into and I found myself taking their side. He brings up many pieces of information; I can easily believe that not -every- single one is correct. But I do believe the vast majority of it is.

No never been a reporter, too busy as a military technology analyst, or doing engineering and developing new technologies.

Interesting. Well, if you'd like to know a bit more of the history concerning psi spies and its involvement with the military and as a form of technology, you may want to take a look at this:
The True History of Remote Viewing As It’s Never Been Told Before

It's a lot shorter then psi spies anyway, maybe 2 or 3 pages worth of info.

 

[Oli]

Such as?

His stuff on conspiracies, earlier (internet) writings on "psychic viewing etc.

When did I say it made him infallible?

Not as such, but the implication was that with his CV he's got a massive edge over me.

As a matter of fact, there's a few arguments in his book "Alien Agenda" that I remember some people online really layed into and I found myself taking their side. He brings up many pieces of information; I can easily believe that not -every- single one is correct. But I do believe the vast majority of it is.

Oh yeah that was another one his I couldn't finish...

Interesting. Well, if you'd like to know a bit more of the history concerning psi spies and its involvement with the military and as a form of technology, you may want to take a look at this:

I've been looking at/ into this stuff for over four decades.
So why would I want to bother with an inaccurate fluff piece?

It's a lot shorter then psi spies anyway, maybe 2 or 3 pages worth of info.

"Worth" is entirely the wrong word to use...

 

[scott3x]

Such as?

His stuff on conspiracies, earlier (internet) writings on "psychic viewing etc.

I wish we could just discuss some specific article. Vagueries are hard to argue for or against .

When did I say it made him infallible?

Not as such, but the implication was that with his CV he's got a massive edge over me.

Now -that- I could go for, lol . Not so much the reporting, but the books, of which I've read a fair amount (Rule by Secrecy, Alien Agenda, The War on Freedom [on 9/11], Inside job [9/11], The Terror Conspiracy [9/11, didn't get too far though] and a wee bit of Crossfire [on the JFK assination] (just took it out of the library, but have been reading "Stranger in a Strange Land", which I took out before it).

As a matter of fact, there's a few arguments in his book "Alien Agenda" that I remember some people online really layed into and I found myself taking their side. He brings up many pieces of information; I can easily believe that not -every- single one is correct. But I do believe the vast majority of it is.

Oh yeah that was another one of his I couldn't finish...

I liked it quite a bit. The only part I have doubts about is where people criticized him was where he believed some reader of glyphs who interpreted some to mean that Aliens were represented as Gods in ancient times.

Interesting. Well, if you'd like to know a bit more of the history concerning psi spies and its involvement with the military and as

I've been looking at/ into this stuff for over four decades.
So why would I want to bother with an inaccurate fluff piece?

Gasp! It is -not- an innacurate fluff piece. Did you actually read it or do you just like discrediting things before giving them a glance?

It's a lot shorter then psi spies anyway, maybe 2 or 3 pages worth of info.

"Worth" is entirely the wrong word to use...

Au contraire, mon frère ;-).

 

[Oli]

I wish we could just discuss some specific article. Vagueries are hard to argue for or against .

It's hard to remember specifics when you cover as much territory as I do: stuff gets mentally filed under "worth continuing" or "not worth continuing".

[qupte]Now -that- I could go for, lol . Not so much the reporting, but the books[/quote]
So having published makes him more creditable?
Okay, how about being the first person in the world to go into print on certain attributes of a Soviet-era combat helicopter?
Beating every single intelligence agency by 5 years?

I liked it quite a bit. The only part I have doubts about is where people criticized him was where he believed some reader of glyphs who interpreted some to mean that Aliens were represented as Gods in ancient times.

You see, there's problem one.
What aliens?

Gasp! It is -not- an innacurate fluff piece. Did you actually read it or do you just like discrediting things before giving them a glance?

No I read it: and it's a fluff piece to build a business a non-existent "phenomenon".
It over-emphasises the founder's role in the original programme, way over emphasises the "successes" of the programme and ignores completely the utter (and sometimes massively public) failures of previous clients.
It's written to extract money from gullible fools who want to be "psychic", and believe so hard that psychic powers actually exist they're willing to be fleeced like the sheep they are.

 

[scott3x]

Such as?

His stuff on conspiracies, earlier (internet) writings on "psychic viewing etc.

I wish we could just discuss some specific article. Vagueries are hard to argue for or against .

It's hard to remember specifics when you cover as much territory as I do: stuff gets mentally filed under "worth continuing" or "not worth continuing".

How convenient for you

Now -that- I could go for, lol . Not so much the reporting, but the books

So having published makes him more creditable?

Okay, how about being the first person in the world to go into print on certain attributes of a Soviet-era combat helicopter? Beating every single intelligence agency by 5 years?

If the combat helicopter in question really existed, that's swell and suggests a thorough knowledge of combat helicopters on the person who got it to the press. The problem is that we're not talking about combat helicopters here, but psi spies. On -that- topic, I have a strong feeling that Jim Marrs knows a fair amount more about the subject then you do.

I liked it quite a bit. The only part I have doubts about is where people criticized him was where he believed some reader of glyphs who interpreted some to mean that Aliens were represented as Gods in ancient times.

You see, there's problem one.
What aliens?

How far did you get in that book?

Gasp! It is -not- an innacurate fluff piece. Did you actually read it or do you just like discrediting things before giving them a glance?

No I read it: and it's a fluff piece to build a business a non-existent "phenomenon".

There was not an -ounce- of fluff in that piece. Not one fluffy morsel I say. There is plenty of evidence for the phenomenon in question too .

It over-emphasises the founder's role in the original programme, way over emphasises the "successes" of the programme and ignores completely the utter (and sometimes massively public) failures of previous clients.

Perhaps it needs a little fine tuning . Also, ever consider that some if not all of the failures were set ups? Anyway, you got a report on a failure or 2? I think I may be willing to do a little more investigating into such possibilities.

It's written to extract money from gullible fools who want to be "psychic", and believe so hard that psychic powers actually exist they're willing to be fleeced like the sheep they are.

The book is relatively cheap and he's not of the jet set. What's more, the money he earns is willingly given, not fleeced from tax payers to finance AIG's bonus packages. In summation:
Boldly said. But I remain unconvinced (it's at about 2:50 of the video ).

 

[Oli]

How convenient for you

So I should read everything?
Even from a source that previously proved to not be reliable?

The problem is that we're not talking about combat helicopters here, but psi spies.

Ah I see, we've now gone "He's reliable BECAUSE he's published what have you ever done" to "Well it's a different topic"

On -that- topic, I have a strong feeling that Jim Marrs knows a fair amount more about the subject then you do.

No Marrs is more gullible than I am, or merely using the public's gullibilty.

How far did you get in that book?

The intro: what aliens?

There was not an -ounce- of fluff in that piece. Not one fluffy morsel I say. There is plenty of evidence for the phenomenon in question too .

Incorrect on both counts.

Perhaps it needs a little fine tuning . Also, ever consider that some if not all of the failures were set ups?

Set ups? By whom?

Anyway, you got a report on a failure or 2? I think I may be willing to do a little more investigating into such possibilities.

[
Jon Ronson's book (as mentioned above) gives several: an interview with a guy who on the programme and several classic failures by people "trained" by ex-members of the programme.

The book is relatively cheap and he's not of the jet set. What's more, the money he earns is willingly given

Doesn't alter the fact that he's making money from gullibility.

not fleeced from tax payers to finance AIG's bonus packages.

I have no idea who or what AIG is.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

How convenient for you

So I should read everything?
Even from a source that previously proved to not be reliable?

Apparently you don't even remember what you've read from Jim Marrs, other then his intro to Alien Agenda. After reading his book Rule by Secrecy, which my brother passed me, I read Alien Agenda in its entirety, then read Psi Spies, 2 of his books on 9/11 (The War on Freedom: The 9/11 Conspiracies and Inside Job) and read a bit of a third (The Terror Conspiracy, which I used to great effect over in the pseudoscience forum back when it hosted 9/11 threads).

Now I've begun reading his very first book:
Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy.

Oliver Stone later used it and Jim Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins for a film adaptation that I found to be very persuasive, JFK.

Looks pretty good so far. As to your question, the 'what aliens?' bit? I suggest you pick up Alien Agenda again and get a bit further then the intro this time...