Seances: Magick versus Psychic

[scott3x]

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.

I have no idea who or what AIG is.

From Wikipedia's entry on the company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group:

According to the 2008 Forbes Global 2000 list, AIG was the 18th-largest public company in the world...

It suffered from a liquidity crisis after its credit ratings were downgraded below "AA" levels, and the Federal Reserve Bank on September 16, 2008, created an $85 billion credit facility to enable the company to meet collateral and other cash obligations, at the cost to AIG of the issuance of a stock warrant to the Federal Reserve Bank for 79.9% of the equity of AIG. In November 2008 the U.S. government revised its loan package to the company, increasing the total amount to $152 billion. AIG is attempting to sell assets to repay the loans. So far the U.S. government has given the company over $170 billion. [number just keeps on going up]

AIG became a target to criticism from Media, Congress, president Obama as well as the public following its allocation of about 165 million USD as bonuses to its executives. AIG CEO was grilled in both Congress chambers about the bonuses spending. This matter, and the large stake US taxpayers own in the company make the limits of US Government involvement in the daily management of the failing company a dilemma yet to be resolved.​

So there you have it. Some people get people to willingly pay for their stuff, because people believe in what they have to say. Others get the tax payer to foot the bill, regardless of what the tax payer thinks about the matter. I seriously suggest you read Jim Marrs book Rule by Secrecy. You might learn a thing or 2 about who's really doing the master con jobs...

 

[Oli]

Marrs' sources for Alien Agenda are mostly flawed or proven false - the intro promised to produce nothing new.
So why should I read more?

PSi Spies itself: why bother reading it when the premise is incorrect.
Remote viewing does not work -

...the CIA shut it down because they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community (Marks: 75).

http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

For example.

 

[shaman_]

Did you actually read it or do you just like discrediting things before giving them a glance?

This is amazingly hypocritical coming from you scott.

Well, I'm glad that you can atleast believe that the U.S. did indeed fund some projects.

It is a well known fact that the US invested 20 million into project Stargate. It was discontinued because, even after all this money, it was not producing results.

There simply isn't compelling evidence to establish that remote viewing works.

 

[scott3x]

Marrs' sources for Alien Agenda are mostly flawed or proven false - the intro promised to produce nothing new.
So why should I read more?

PSi Spies itself: why bother reading it when the premise is incorrect.
Remote viewing does not work -

...the CIA shut it down because they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community (Marks: 75).

http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

For example.

Alright, I mention Jim Marrs, you mention that link. However, there is one source that is much more open to suggestions from both sides of the fence: wikipedia. While it's article on remote viewing may conform to your side of things, I found that its article on Ingo Swann, a man who is fairly well known for his paranormal abilities, to be more interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann

 

[Oli]

Ah, unfortunately Swann was more or less effectively debunked in the seventies. One of the reasons he turned to writing (very bad) novels.

 

[scott3x]

Did you actually read it or do you just like discrediting things before giving them a glance?

This is amazingly hypocritical coming from you scott.

I really don't think so. I think it's safe to say that I've read far more of your posts then you have of mine. Heck, I can list a bunch of posts in response to your posts in the 9/11 thread that you never responded to at all.

Well, I'm glad that you can atleast believe that the U.S. did indeed fund some projects.

It is a well known fact that the US invested 20 million into project Stargate. It was discontinued because, even after all this money, it was not producing results.

Or atleast that's what the government would like you to believe.

There simply isn't compelling evidence to establish that remote viewing works.

I disagree. But if you don't look, you won't find. If you are interested in looking, I suggest you take a look a look at my previous post and its link to Wikipedia's article on Ingo Swann. Otherwise, carry on believing what you will.

 

[scott3x]

Ah, unfortunately Swann was more or less effectively debunked in the seventies.

Based on what I've read concerning him, including what is written in his Wikipedia article, I disagree with that asssessment.

One of the reasons he turned to writing (very bad) novels.

The fact that you consider his books on remote viewing to be novels doesn't make it so.

 

[Oli]

Based on what I've read concerning him, including what is written in his Wikipedia article, I disagree with that asssessment.

Disagree all you like.
Swann has consistently failed to produce results under conditions he himself set IIRC. But it's been a while since I saw the papers.

The fact that you consider his books on remote viewing to be novels doesn't make it so.

No, the fact that I consider his NOVELS to be novels means I'm aware of them and have read some: he tried breaking into the techno-thriller market.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Based on what I've read concerning him, including what is written in his Wikipedia article, I disagree with that asssessment.

Disagree all you like.
Swann has consistently failed to produce results under conditions he himself set IIRC. But it's been a while since I saw the papers.

If you ever find this alleged evidence for your case, I could take a look.

The fact that you consider his books on remote viewing to be novels doesn't make it so.

No, the fact that I consider his NOVELS to be novels means I'm aware of them and have read some: he tried breaking into the techno-thriller market.

Alright, I don't know tons about him, if you're saying that he wrote some novels as well as his books on remote viewing, I can buy it. There can be truth in fiction, which is why I like reading a fair amount of sci fi works at times. Anyway, I think that the wikipedia article on Swann alone has quite a bit of evidence so support the case that he does indeed have paranormal abilities.

 

[shaman_]

I really don't think so. I think it's safe to say that I've read far more of your posts then you have of mine.

No. You ignore or discard any material critical of your pathetic 9/11 conspiracy and yet you accuse others of discrediting material without it. You refuse to read sceptical material and wont leave the safety of the crackpot conspiracy sites. That's fine it is your reality but I can't help but comment when you throw accusations of the same thing.

Heck, I can list a bunch of posts in response to your posts in the 9/11 thread that you never responded to at all.

Here we go again. Out of literally hundreds of your posts which I responded to, I missed a few because I was barely on the internet for a few weeks. Now you bring them up as a defence against any criticism……

You have missed plenty of my posts as well scott.

Or atleast that's what the government would like you to believe.

Oh please. You have compelling evidence otherwise? Something better than 'Jim Marrs said so'.

If it is still going then why does Bin Laden continue to elude them? Oh right the US government really did it so they were never really looking for him.

I disagree. But if you don't look, you won't find. If you are interested in looking, I suggest you take a look a look at my previous post and its link to Wikipedia's article on Ingo Swann. Otherwise, carry on believing what you will.

I have looked Scott. I have read more on psychics, remote viewing ect than I have on 9/11. Swann is a joke (mountain ranges on Jupiter?) as are Targ and Puthoff. These are the guys who verified Geller’s amazing powers.

 

[scott3x]

I really don't think so. I think it's safe to say that I've read far more of your posts then you have of mine.

No. You ignore or discard any material critical of your pathetic 9/11 conspiracy

Please. If I simply discarded such material, all the 9/11 threads in sci forums would have died long ago. I remind you again of a certain post of yours, in the WTC collapses thread, post 394. You spent little time writing it; you essentially provided a brief intro to a link you provided, an article written by Gregory Ulrich. I, on the other hand, spent a very long time responding to Gregory Ulrich's article: posts 544, 551, 567, 580, 597, 608, 614, 616, 618-626 and 628 are all dedicated to my response on that article from Gregory Ulrich. Even psikey made a response, in post 627.

Your response to all those posts on the subject? 0. Given this, I think I'm in a much better position to casually state that you discard any material that is critical to your views. But I don't, because I know it's untrue. You -did- respond to many other posts of mine and spent a very long time defending your views. Unlike how you treat me on the matter, I respect you for it.

 

[Oli]

If you ever find this alleged evidence for your case, I could take a look.

The Jon Ronson book is a start: try googling "Swann debunked". The material I saw was extant in the seventies, so it's probably out of print now.

Alright, I don't know tons about him, if you're saying that he wrote some novels as well as his books on remote viewing, I can buy it. There can be truth in fiction

And there's a lot of fiction in there as well.
I wonder if that's why "contactees" change their minds and go into self-admitted fiction writing.

Anyway, I think that the wikipedia article on Swann alone has quite a bit of evidence so support the case that he does indeed have paranormal abilities.

And it would depend WHO wrote the wiki article - I did note that unlike a number, ah, subjects of dubious veracity, there was no particular section on counter-claims.
Not what I'd call a particularly balanced article.
Wiki is hardly a reliable source for anything.

 

[Read-Only]

The Jon Ronson book is a start: try googling "Swann debunked". The material I saw was extant in the seventies, so it's probably out of print now.


And there's a lot of fiction in there as well.
I wonder if that's why "contactees" change their minds and go into self-admitted fiction writing.


And it would depend WHO wrote the wiki article - I did note that unlike a number, ah, subjects of dubious veracity, there was no particular section on counter-claims.
Not what I'd call a particularly balanced article.
Wiki is hardly a reliable source for anything.

Hi, Oli,

Just a couple of observations in passing...

First, despite the fact that there are die-hard kooks out there (like Scott and company), the audience for that sort of nutty material is pretty limited. The reason for that is pretty obvious - most people are smart enough to be able to tell fact from fiction (most of the time.) Scott's problem is that he most certainly is a NON-thinker - he would rather believe what some nut-job says that supports his kookiness rather than use his own mind - even a little.

So those writers - who want to do nothing but sell books and make money in the first place - often turn to admitted fiction because the audience is larger. People like to be entertained and fiction does an excellent job of that. Just look at all the hundreds of movies that have made millions over the years - which kind made the most money? Documentaries or pure fiction? Even fiction based partly on fact does well because it's still fiction.

And as far as Wikipedia goes, it's actually pretty reliable in most cases. Meaning that it does present what the writer is trying to get across. And while the writer may be heavily biased on his subject, Wiki is under no obligation to make sure the article is 'balanced' in any way. Many times another writer WILL come along and present another side but it's still understood that Wiki isn't in the same category as a peer reviewed publications. So, for general information - and at least one side of a topic - it's still a pretty good source.

 

[scott3x]

If you ever find this alleged evidence for your case, I could take a look.

The Jon Ronson book is a start...

I've been thinking about the issue of books and links; people tend to read entire articles and books when they find that the author's views are similar to one's own. I believe this is why you never got very very in Jim Marrs' "Alien Agenda". Because of this, I believe that the approach we should follow isn't to actually expect our opponent to read books that we've read but rather to provide excerpts of such books for dicussion. This is the strategy that I followed in the 9/11 threads and I found that it worked relatively well.

try googling "Swann debunked". The material I saw was extant in the seventies, so it's probably out of print now.

As I've said to shaman_ many times, and which even 9/11 debunkers have chided, is that I'm not going to do your homework for you. Think about it- I don't believe in your position so why would I be looking for information to support it? I think it's fair to say that my interest lies in defending my position, not yours. If you have no real interest in defending your position, perhaps we should just leave things as they stand.

Alright, I don't know tons about him, if you're saying that he wrote some novels as well as his books on remote viewing, I can buy it. There can be truth in fiction

And there's a lot of fiction in there as well.

You can claim whatever you like, but without evidence to back up a claim, the claim is questionable. From what I've heard from him through Jim Marrs and corroborated on the wiki page, Ingo Swann has apparently been responsible for some truly remarkable events.

I wonder if that's why "contactees" change their minds and go into self-admitted fiction writing.

The line between fiction and truth can blur at times; I also believe that at times, it's easier to pretend to write fictions then admit to writing unpalateable truths.

Anyway, I think that the wikipedia article on Swann alone has quite a bit of evidence so support the case that he does indeed have paranormal abilities.

And it would depend WHO wrote the wiki article - I did note that unlike a number, ah, subjects of dubious veracity, there was no particular section on counter-claims. Not what I'd call a particularly balanced article.

So excerpt a piece that you disagree with and explain why you disagree. Or add a counterclaim in the article yourself. In a way, wikipedia functions a lot like a forum; most people are allowed to state their believes; they're simply a little more meticulous when it comes to providing evidence .

Wiki is hardly a reliable source for anything.

I strongly disagree with that assertion, although I certainly agree that some of the articles in it need work; however, it's work that I believe can be done, if people believe it merits it.

 

[Oli]

Hey Read,
So those writers - who want to do nothing but sell books and make money in the first place - often turn to admitted fiction because the audience is larger.

The two I had in mind turned to fiction because their original work was debunked so thoroughly - but they continued the theme and implicitly ADMITTED that that the prior work was fiction.

And as far as Wikipedia goes, it's actually pretty reliable in most cases. Meaning that it does present what the writer is trying to get across. And while the writer may be heavily biased on his subject, Wiki is under no obligation to make sure the article is 'balanced' in any way. Many times another writer WILL come along and present another side but it's still understood that Wiki isn't in the same category as a peer reviewed publications. So, for general information - and at least one side of a topic - it's still a pretty good source.

Oh yeah, not knocking it at all as a general source: I often use it myself as a lead-in to a new subject.
But I'd never quote it as a supporting source unless everyone involved in the "argument" was also aware that the article in question was reliable.

 

[Oli]

I've been thinking about the issue of books and links; people tend to read entire articles and books when they find that the author's views are similar to one's own. I believe this is why you never got very very in Jim Marrs' "Alien Agenda". Because of this, I believe that the approach we should follow isn't to actually expect our opponent to read books that we've read but rather to provide excerpts of such books for dicussion. This is the strategy that I followed in the 9/11 threads and I found that it worked relatively well.

So you're not going to read the book that you said you would?
And as for your assertion "people tend to read entire articles and books when they find that the author's views are similar to one's own" that would explain why I've read, for example, every UFO/ ghost/ psychic powers book in the seven libraries in my home and buy others :shrug:
And I've already stated that I didn't get far in "Alien Agenda" because his sources are flawed.

As I've said to shaman_ many times, and which even 9/11 debunkers have chided, is that I'm not going to do your homework for you. Think about it- I don't believe in your position so why would I be looking for information to support it? I think it's fair to say that my interest lies in defending my position, not yours. If you have no real interest in defending your position, perhaps we should just leave things as they stand.

So although I've read extensively on YOUR position you're not even going to google for stuff from my position? I like that, it's balanced.

You can claim whatever you like, but without evidence to back up a claim, the claim is questionable. From what I've heard from him through Jim Marrs and corroborated on the wiki page, Ingo Swann has apparently been responsible for some truly remarkable events.

Everyone gets lucky sometime.
It's no indication of psychic powers though.
What evidence did they present you with?

The line between fiction and truth can blur at times; I also believe that at times, it's easier to pretend to write fictions then admit to writing unpalateable truths.

And when you openly admit that it's fiction it sorta puts the prior claims of veracity into doubt doesn't it?

most people are allowed to state their believes; they're simply a little more meticulous when it comes to providing evidence .

Or not...

I strongly disagree with that assertion, although I certainly agree that some of the articles in it need work; however, it's work that I believe can be done, if people believe it merits it.

Yeah okay, rather than say it's "hardly reliable" I should have added "as a primary source".
It's an acceptable start to a topic, but the furore over its accuracy keeps on going.

 

[Read-Only]

The two I had in mind turned to fiction because their original work was debunked so thoroughly - but they continued the theme and implicitly ADMITTED that that the prior work was fiction.


Oh yeah, not knocking it at all as a general source: I often use it myself as a lead-in to a new subject.
But I'd never quote it as a supporting source unless everyone involved in the "argument" was also aware that the article in question was reliable.

I see that once again we are in complete agreement. And yes, it's a good thing that both of those guys actually admitted their prior 'work' was nothing but a sham!

One more thing about Wiki: It should be treated as any other source of information and taken with a grain of salt. That's exactly where brains are supposed to come into play. It's a very sad thing that some people have none to apply to the task.

 

[scott3x]

I've been thinking about the issue of books and links; people tend to read entire articles and books when they find that the author's views are similar to one's own. I believe this is why you never got very very in Jim Marrs' "Alien Agenda". Because of this, I believe that the approach we should follow isn't to actually expect our opponent to read books that we've read but rather to provide excerpts of such books for dicussion. This is the strategy that I followed in the 9/11 threads and I found that it worked relatively well.

So you're not going to read the book that you said you would?

What book do you believe I said I'd read?

And as for your assertion "people tend to read entire articles and books when they find that the author's views are similar to one's own" that would explain why I've read, for example, every UFO/ ghost/ psychic powers book in the seven libraries in my home and buy others

You didn't seem to get very far with Jim Marrs' "Alien Agenda". Or do you mean that you just read the intros?

As I've said to shaman_ many times, and which even 9/11 debunkers have chided, is that I'm not going to do your homework for you. Think about it- I don't believe in your position so why would I be looking for information to support it? I think it's fair to say that my interest lies in defending my position, not yours. If you have no real interest in defending your position, perhaps we should just leave things as they stand.

So although I've read extensively on YOUR position

You claim to have done so, but I haven't seen any evidence of such. The only book that we've both mutually taken a look at, you only got as far as the intro.

You can claim whatever you like, but without evidence to back up a claim, the claim is questionable. From what I've heard from him through Jim Marrs and corroborated on the wiki page, Ingo Swann has apparently been responsible for some truly remarkable events.

Everyone gets lucky sometime. It's no indication of psychic powers though. What evidence did they present you with?

"In my experience, there's no such thing as luck." - Obi Wan Kenobi, Star Wars. Anyway, here's an excerpt from Jim Marrs' book Psi spies, describing one noted event describing just how "lucky" Swann has been. Starting on page 86 from Psi Spies:

Taking his suspicious colleagues at their word, Puthoff looked around and located a superconducting magnetometer, sort of a supersensitive magnetic compass needle that can register magnetic fields down to one millionth of the Earth's field. This particular magnetometer had been devised along with other multi-million-dollar equipment to detect quarks, the theoretical building blocks of matter. Stability and dependability were absolute necessities in this work.

Puthoff found Swann to be a thoughtful and knowledgeable man- and one who wanted to be an integral part of any experiment. "I was to find out what has now been reported to me from other labs, that Ingo would often be the first to discount an apparent success, pointing out some potential loophole in a protocol or possible misinterpretation of the data", recalled Puthoff.26

On June 6,1972, Swann was taken to the basement of Stanford University's Varian Physics Building, where the magnetometer was housed. There, as somewhat amused observers, were Dr. Arthur Hebard, who had agreed to Puthoff's use of the magnetometer, Dr. Martin Lee, a physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and an assortment of physicts students.

Swann was initially taken aback. He had expected the usual array of electrods, boxes with targets inside, and so on. Here he found, to his dismay, that he was to try to affect a small needle on a magnetic probe located in a vault beneath the basement floor that was shielded by a magnetic shield, an aluminum container, copper shieldind, and a superconducting shield- one of the best shielding known to man.

As Puthoff explained, a decaying magnetic field had been set up inside the magnetometer, which provided a steady background calibration signal expressed as oscillating lines on a chart recorder, Swann was asked to mentally affect the magnetic field, which should then be expressed by a change on the lines of the chart recorder.

"This made me made", recalled Swann. "How was I expected to produce results if I did not know what the experiment entailed?"

Swann said that, after the initial shock wore off, he began mentally probing the inside of the magnetometer, even to the extent of "seeing" how the mechanism looked.

"I sketched it out and asked, 'Is this it?'" he said.

"Yes, that's it", he was told. "So now that we had gotten the experiment straightened out, "Swann said, "I took a look at this thing."

Within seconds, the oscillation of the recorder doubled for about 30 seconds.

"Everyone stopped breathing", recalled Swann.

According to Puthoff, Dr. Hebard, the physicist in charge of the magnetometere "looked startled", as his own work was greatly dependent on the undisturbed operation of this equipment.

Despite the fact that the magnetometere had been working smoothly prior to Swann's attempt to mental manipulation, Hebard immediately suspected that something must have gone wrong with the machine. He suggested he would be more impressed if Swann could stop the magnetometer's field output altogether. Swann agreed to try.

Puthoff described the results: "n about five seconds, [Swann] apparently proceeded to do just that... for a period of roughly 45 seconds. At the end of the period, he said that he couldn't "hold it any longer" and immediately "let go" at which time the output returned to normal... I was absolutely amazed."27...

Swann recalled that researchers were denied further access to the magnetometer because it was torn down in an attempt to discover if anything was wrong with it. "They rebuilt the machine", Swann recalled with a laugh, "and they wouldn't let me back in the building."

Puthoff later criticized his own test for not arranging multiple recordings, thus not being able to objectively validate that the machine's interruption occurred internally. He said it took two years for the SRI lab to duplicate Swann's magnetometer test using another subject. "We were able to set up more complete protocols", Puthoff said. "Swann's case was a pilot observation, and later we had a controled experiment, but with the same results."​

 

[Oli]

What book do you believe I said I'd read?

If you ever find this alleged evidence for your case, I could take a look.

Ring a bell? Jon Ronson: The Men Who Stare At Goats.
Again.

You didn't seem to get very far with Jim Marrs' "Alien Agenda". Or do you mean that you just read the intros?

How many more times: I only got as far as Marrs' intro because he promised no new sources and the sources he was using have already been thoroughly shown to be wrong.

You claim to have done so, but I haven't seen any evidence of such. The only book that we've both mutually taken a look at, you only got as far as the intro.

See above. Again.

"In my experience, there's no such thing as luck." - Obi Wan Kenobi, Star Wars.

You really cannot be serious!
Quoting a fictional character as support

Anyway, I'll give you an example of just how "lucky" Swann has been. Here's a... blah blah balh... etc

Doesn't this come under the heading of "only reading sources that support your view"?
Most of this controversy was going on the late seventies, early eighties and has been shown to be wishful thinking and self-deception.
Please do try to keep up with the times and don't read re-hashed speculation on a subject already dead.

The fact that these experiments were conducted in the same laboratory, with the same basic protocol, using the same viewers across experiments, the same targets across experiments, and the same investigators aggravates, rather than alleviates, the problem of independent replication. If subtle, as-yet-undetected bias and flaws exist is the protocol, the very consistency of elements such as targets, viewers, investigators, and procedures across experiments enhances the possibility that these flaws will be compounded.

http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

 

[scott3x]

The line between fiction and truth can blur at times; I also believe that at times, it's easier to pretend to write fictions then admit to writing unpalateable truths.

And when you openly admit that it's fiction it sorta puts the prior claims of veracity into doubt doesn't it?

Have you seen the movie "The Illusionist"? In the movie, I believe there's an immensely important point that's never quite said but rather implied: what's important is not how some things are done; it's why. There is also another issue; sarcasm can and at times does get to a point where it's hard to distinguish what a person really means vs. what they're only pretending to mean. Finally, there is the point, brought up in the movie, that at times, a lie (or a misleading statement) is better then telling the truth, if only because some being too obvious regarding some truths can in fact harm more than help. There is a very sad poignancy and a sword that cuts both ways in Jack Nicholson's performance in his role as a General in the movie A Few Good Men, who tells a prosecutor "You can't handle the truth!". No, it doesn't mean that we should stop looking, but there are times when people really can't handle it, atleast temporarily.

In a way, wikipedia functions a lot like a forum; most people are allowed to state their beliefs; they're simply a little more meticulous when it comes to providing evidence .

Or not...

Believe what you wish, but I happen to know that material without citations, or with citations that the wiki powers that be don't like, is frequently taken out in wikipedia. This can, at times, work to its disadvantage; not all information isn't reported in the mainstream media and wikipedia hesistates when a citation doesn't come from such a source.

I strongly disagree with that assertion, although I certainly agree that some of the articles in it need work; however, it's work that I believe can be done, if people believe it merits it.

Yeah okay, rather than say it's "hardly reliable" I should have added "as a primary source". It's an acceptable start to a topic, but the furore over its accuracy keeps on going.

I agree. I certainly don't rely on wikipedia alone when a subject truly interests me.