Stargate RV/Psi Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/
Filetype: Archive. Block # 1. Topic: Remote Viewing.
First Message Number: 1. Last Message Number: 100
First Message Date: April 21, 1998. Last Message Date: June 30, 1998
Block Filename: remote-viewing_stargate_000001-000100.shtml
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/stargate/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/stargate/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.)



BEGIN ARCHIVE BLOCK #1.

stargate : Message: [stargate]
Testing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/1)
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
This list is an updates notification/discussion list for users of the Star Gate Declassified Documents Website at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Testing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/2) 21:03:46
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi All, This is just a quick e-mail to (a) test the software is working properly and (b) to let everyone know the list is here. I'm sorry there has been no activity on this list so far, but it is because I am waiting for more members to subscribe before I make any announcements, or allowing/making discussion take place. (There's no point making statements to a few people, and have to repeat it a week or so later when everyone else who is going to join, joins :) I will publically announce this new mailing list this Saturday (on my website), by which time we should have enough subscribers to "do something" with this list Again, this mailing list is only supposed to be a news/updates list, so you should not expect more than a few messages per week. However, chat about FOIA/RV docs is welcome, so feel free to post or say hi! Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Upcoming New FOIA Request
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/3) 21:04:05
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
NEW FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST PLANNED 25th April, 1998: Star Gate Declassified Records Archive Dear List: I will soon be sending yet another FOIA request to the CIA. I will be enquiring on various tidbits, mostly questions that have arisen as the result of previous requests. Among these, I will be addressing the controversial summary of the "American Institute for Research" report on remote viewing, which will as you remember, concluded that "continued use of remote-viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted" (*) Naturally, this report has generated a great deal of criticism and skepticism from the remote viewing community. It has it's doubters as well as defenders, as is the case in virtually any subject. The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website makes no effort to interpret these documents, and this is intentional. We advise the reader to exercise caution when reading or studying any subject, and to exercise all due care before forming any conclusions. This is just common sense. But other than that, we leave it up to the reader to draw any conclusions from the material up on our website. We would encourage you to seek a wide variety of views before making up your mind. We will not force our own opinion upon you. Our job here is to act in the public's interest, and to obtain documents of interest to remote-viewing researchers (and the public at large.) As a result, we'd welcome any comments or recommendations you may have for our next Freedom of Information Request. If, for example, you have a question you would like posed to the CIA's Freedom of Information staff, please feel free to e-mail me at steve@..., or post it publically by simply replying to this message. All (non-provocative) questions received will be catalogued, and it is very possible I will attach all of these questions on a separate piece of A4, and ask the CIA for a reply to these questions. Whether you trust the CIA or not is up to you, but it cannot hurt to hear what they have to say, and it can only contribute to our knowledgebase to have them reply. Comments or questions are welcome. Feedback is encouraged. Feel free to reply to this message on this list, or send a private mail. I will keep everyone on this list informed of any progress. Best wishes to you all! Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
New FOIA Request / UFO Documents Effort
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/4) 21:04:25
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello all, The Star Gate Declassified Docs website will not be receiving as much attention as usual for the coming weeks. There is are two main reasons for this: - I am focusing on the preparation of a new FOIA request to the CIA for additional RV material (comments/suggestions/feedback is encouraged!) - I am focusing on a UFO documents effort to obtain/release many new UFO documents - much of which has NEVER BEFORE BEEN SEEN by the general public. The second item is what will be taking most of my time, but the first is taking the rest (and is what I am working on ATM). Once the request is written/sent, and the new UFO documents available, I will go into more detail. In the meantime, I am having to be deliberate vague. Sorry! All questions sent re: the CIA FOIA request, I intend to INCLUDE as part of the FOIA request on a separate piece of A4. So, if you'd like to pitch a question to the CIA (remember: make it a request for information, such as an answer to a specific question), then post the question here (post/send e-mail to stargate@...!), or e-mail me privately at steve@.... It's free, and there's no need for you to worry about sending your own FOIA request to get the answer - I'll do all the work necessary! I will post here once the request has been written or the new UFO documents are available. Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
LAST CHANCE to field the CIA a question of your own!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/5) 21:04:42
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi All, In 3-4 days time, I will be posting a brand new FOIA request to the CIA. Already in the letter: - A request for very specific information on "Project Phoenix" and "Stunt Pilot" - A request to declassify the "CRV Training Manual". (Archivist's note: this was posted on July 4, 1998 by me at firedocs.com. It was never classified. - PJ Gaenir 6/2006) - A request to declassify the full "AIR Report" (only the 6-page "summary and conclusions" appears to be circulating) (Archivist's note: This was html'd by me in 1998 and posted on Dr. Jessica Utts's website. It was never classified. - PJ Gaenir 6/2006) Any questions you'd like to ask? Be SPECIFIC .. if possible, name a document, or some specific event you'd like more information on. I will keep a catalogue of any questions asked, and will either include them in my current request, or future ones. But hurry! I am sending this request off in 3-4 days.. I don't like to hang around.. If you'd like to be informed of any FOIA progress, visit the Star Gate Declassified Docs Website (at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/) or send a blank e-mail (no subject or message necessary) to stargate-subscribe@.... Thanks! Regards, Steve. P.S. Yes, I *will* pay any costs that come of this.. and you don't need to write a letter of your own.. I will happily do all the work necessary.. stargate : Message: [stargate]
New FOIA Request Filed
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/6) 21:04:53
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear All, A new Freedom of Information Request has been filed with the CIA. I took a last-minute decision to remove the request for the "AIR Report", so that focus will be put more on the search for the CRV Training Manual and for some kind of description of Phoenix and Stunt Pilot's purposes. I will file a request for the AIR Report perhaps at a later date, depending on the CIA's response to this request. I intend to file an appeal with the CIA should this current request be rejected in any way. After receiving the information I've requested, I may ask for the AIR Report. However, I think I'll have my hands full with the CRV Manual if the request is successful, anyway :) Suggestions for future FOIA requests are still welcome, so please e-mail this list at stargate@... or me personally at steve@... if you have any ideas! The text of my latest FOIA request can be browsed by visiting the Star Gate Declassified Documents Website at the following URL: http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/ Enjoy! Regards, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Minor updates
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/7) 21:05:06
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
There have also been some minor updates to the website. The most notable of these is the addition of FOIA Request #2, which was missing up until now. I found the original Word file and re-printed/re-scanned it. The CIA's refusal to send information on Phoenix and Stunt Pilot originally may have to do with the fact I requested "any and all" documents relating to these projects in my second request. I have narrowed my search criteria this time to "the first document of Phoenix and Stunt Pilot". This document should contain all we need, should the CIA decide to declassify/send it. The text of FOIA requests #2 and #4 are now available at the Star Gate Declassified Documents Website at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/. Your comments, as always, are welcome and appreciated. Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Agency FOIA Addresses Needed
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/8) 21:05:41
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear List: A few people have written to me recently, mostly about the plans to release the CRV Training Manual in the near future. Others have written with suggestions for future FOIA requests. However, mostly it has been from people who aren't so much interested in specific information from the CIA (as my original request for new questions was about), but rather to point me in the direction of other agencies which they believe contain remote-viewing material. I need the addresses for the agencies below. If anyone has the address of the Freedom of Information Office for the agencies listed, please e-mail me with the details at steve@.... Thank you! Agency FOIA Addresses Needed for: * Defense Intelligence Agency (*I have now found this address*) * US Army / US Army INSCOM * US Navy * US Air Force Any other FOIA addresses, while not needed, would be greatfully welcomed and appreciated. Multi-agency FOIA requests may be made in the future, and every agency address we receive helps us in those efforts. Thanks again! Big thanks must go to all those who have written me with suggestions and comments for future FOIA requests. Rest assured, all your comments are listened to and I will be sure to bear them in mind in future FOIA work. Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Declaration of Independence
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/9) 21:06:05
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear List: In an attempt to distance the Star Gate Documents website from the ongoing political mayhem that exists within the remote-viewing community, the Star Gate Declassified Docs Website has published a "Declaration of Independence." Our Declaration of Independence expresses our dismay at the political nature of remote-viewing discussions and debates, and attempts to separate us completely from this process, by focusing us solely on requesting, obtaining and publishing remote-viewing documents. No amount of political pressure from any remote-viewing group or faction will be able to influence the direction of the Star Gate Documents website, and any implied threats or "statements of dissatisfaction" made by any of these groups will not deter us in any way, shape or form from our efforts. However, we will work with anyone who wishes to co-operate with us in a productive way, to obtain new documents. Requests of all kinds from all members of the public for new information are welcome. Below is our formal Declaration of Independence for the Star Gate Declassified Documents Website. STAR GATE DOCUMENTS WEBSITE: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website is an independent, not-for-profit website created by Steve Crietzman. Unlike many other sites on the Internet, we do not "take sides" in any of the political debates that have sprung up around this subject. We do not try to dictate what uses people put remote-viewing to, what they choose to believe about the subject, what they do with it, who learns it, or why. And we do not side with, or against, any group or individual whose name is well-known within the RV community. This site sides with the Freedom of Information Act - only. We file Freedom of Information requests to various agencies and we place the results of those requests online. What you see online are public documents that you have a legal and constitutional *right to see*. You may download them, copy them, do as you wish with them. No one owns the copyright to them - they are public documents. Whatever you decide to read into these documents is up to you. I may occassionally (rarely) make commentaries on these documents, if I feel there is a need for me to comment on them, but for the most part, I leave it up to each individual to choose for themselves; to choose what they read, how they read, what they read into it, and what they do with it after they read it. I see my role as a liaison between the CIA's Freedom of Information Staff, and the public. I will make requests depending on what I feel the public are interested in knowing. I will occassionally write requests on behalf of people who e-mail me and wish to remain anonymous and/or not file it themselves. In short, I am here to make the Freedom of Information Act just a little bit more accessible to people on the web. And I feel the best way I can remain neutral and objective, is if I stay out of the making of any analysis, and not pay any attention to political backlash that may result from my work. All I'm doing is publishing public documents, and if anyone has a problem with that, you should ask them what is wrong in publishing uncopyrighted, unclassified public documents. I welcome feedback from anyone and everyone, and hope that everyone finds some use for this website, whatever their political affiliation or personal beliefs. We will work with anyone who wishes to work productively with us, to obtain new documents and further the knowledge and understanding of the science of remote-viewing. However, we will not be influenced by those who wish to restrict, hinder, or defame our website in any way. The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website is an independent, not-for-profit, non-partisan website dedicated to furthering the knowledge and understanding of remote-viewing and the US government's involvement in the same. ends. Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
List Archive Now Public
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/10) 21:06:22
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear List: The Star Gate List archive can now be viewed by going to the following Web URL: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/stargate/ Before today, you would need to enter your e-mail address and be required to sign up as a member of this website (nothing to do with me BTW), and then it would check if you were subscribed to this list before it would let you access it. I've now made the archive public, so you can flow on in, and browse through past posts. If you've not already done so, I'd check out the Star Gate website today - there have been several changes lately. The URL again is: http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/. Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Notice for our UK Subscribers!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/11) 21:06:32
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear UK Subscribers, If you have not yet seen "The Real X-Files: Remote Viewers", you have an opportunity tonight! The time and place: Saturday 30th May, Channel 4, 9pm. It's a one-hour documentary reportedly by Jim Schnabel that discusses the US intelligence community's recruitment and training of remote-viewers, and you'll have the chance to see the faces behind those names you've probably heard referred to in the newsgroups, BBSs and discussion lists! WEBSITE NEWS: No, I've not forgotten the website. A radical redesign has been made of the website, and these changes will be uploaded either today or sometime later this week, along with a move to a completely new address (don't worry, the old address will continue to function properly!) UK SCENE NEWS: It looks like the remote-viewers are finally looking to Britain! Joe McMoneagle will be introducing and describing (but not training, it should be noted) remote-viewing to a UK audience this November, 1997 in a venue with Paul McKenna and Michael Breen. More information will be added to the website about this soon. The event is expected to cost a little over ?1,000, but I should stress that Joe McMoneagle will be there in the capacity of explaining, perhaps demonstrating (unconfirmed) remote-viewing, but certainly training does not appear to be on the agenda. He will be sharing the stage with Michael Breen and Seka Nikolic, who is described as being a bio-energy healer. There is also rumour of training in the UK, but since there has not yet been an official confirmation or guarentee (the event is still in the planning stages), I would rather not give names. But it certainly seems like the UK might be getting some professional remote-viewers' attention this year! Best Regards, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Notice for our UK Subscribers!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/12) 21:06:47
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Notice for our UK Subscribers! Hi All, Just a few corrections to the last post - >UK SCENE NEWS: >It looks like the remote-viewers are finally looking to Britain! Joe >McMoneagle will be introducing and describing (but not training, it should >be noted) remote-viewing to a UK audience this November, 1997 in a venue This of course should read "November, 1998". Although I guess those versed in remote-viewing could have visited the event even if it was last year ;-) >website about this soon. The event is expected to cost a little over >?1,000, This should have read "a little over 1,000 UK pounds." Best regards, Steve. P.S. I will be announcing the new address of the Star Gate Website on this list (as well as on the old address).. both addresses will continue to function (the old one won't be "closed" as both will point to the same site.) Also, I'll have probably a few surprises for folks this coming Saturday.. until then, you'll just have to wait :) stargate : Message: [stargate]
Website Updated
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/13) 21:06:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi All, The topic line pretty much says it all, doesn't it? :) The address to the new website is: http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/. Please bookmark this new URL and be sure to check back often! What's new: * Complete new look (redesigned from the roots.) * New 'Policy' section (to be uploaded soon.) * Text versions of all documents to be uploaded soon (Progress Report No. 3 already available this way.) * Discussion BBS is back again! * More to come.. Your comments, criticisms etc. are welcome on the new BBS, too! Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
No Data Error
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/14) 21:07:07
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear All: You might have got a "No Data Error" when trying to access the new new-look Star Gate website. I've had this error, and have heard from another that she'd also got this error when attempting to access the site. This is not a problem that can be fixed easily on the server end, but from your end it is simple. Just click "Reload". Quite why it will send you nothing the first time you try, and send you the page the second time, is a bit of a mystery, but I believe the server is stopping half-way from sending you the page. We should have this problem fixed soon. In the meantime, be "Reload" trigger-happy :) I hope this problem hasn't caused too much trouble for you all. Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
CIA Ask $450 to Perform Star Gate FOIA Search
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/15) 21:07:25
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear All: This is outrageous. The CIA want $450 to be able to perform a search for the documents I asked for, but say it is better to wait because it might soon be available anyway. Here is their reply. 09 JUN 1998 Mr. Steve Crietzman 49 St. Gilberts Road Bourne Lincolnshire PE10 9XD UNITED KINGDOM Reference: (deleted) Dear Mr. Crietzman: This is in my response to your 11 May 1998 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to remote viewing, as follows: 1. "The document which officially established 'Project Phoenix.'" 2. "The document which officially established 'Project Stunt Pilot.'" 3. The entire 'CRV Training Manual'..." [4. [Other documents as described in your letter relating to Phoenix and Stunt Pilot.] This request has been assigned the reference number above for identification purposes. ... In accordance with Section (a) of the schedule, search fees are accessable even if no records are found or, if found, we determine that they are not releasable. This means you will be charged even if our search results are negative or if it is determiend that no information is releasable under the FOIA. The search fees for a requester in the "all other" fee category for each item in a request are usually about $150. Your three-item request could cost about US$450. ... Pursuant to 32 CFR $1900.13(f), we must request your good-faith deposit in the amount of $200. One reason we are requesting this deposit in this particular instance is because we believe it highly likely that, if we have copies of the documents you have requested, they will be released as part of the Star Gate Collection sooner than we could locate, review and or coordinate them under the FOIA. ... We will hold your request in abeyance for 45 days until we receive your commitment to pay all fees incurred and under the conditions above along with your good-faith deposit of $200. Yours sincerely, [signed] Lee S. Strickland Information and Privacy Coordinator Enclosure ... The full letter, plus the fees list, will be added online within a few days. The URL, again, is http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/. Please read the last mail to the list about the No Data Error if you have problems connecting. Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
The CIA's FOIA Response
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/16) 21:07:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear All: Below is the CIA's reply to my latest FOIA request. As noted in this letter, I urged the CIA, in writing and on the telephone, to break with their standard "we're reviewing them now, please wait" policy, and to perform a search under the FOIA as laid down and required by law, for the unclassified CRV Training Manual, and for the documents which establish Projects Phoenix and Stunt Pilot. This is their response. They want me to pay $450 to cover various costs. Needless to say, I still have a few legal tricks up my sleeve, and might be able to circumvent this rather hefty charge, by appealing for a fee waiver, citing public interest and my intention to distribute and publish the results, and also by quoting a few FOIA regulations. I can play at the regulations game too, CIA. However, in light of the fact that PJ Gaenir is already busily processing the CRV Manual, and that the additional time spent on the CRV Manual might slow my own efforts in other areas, I am hereby dropping the request to the CIA for the CRV Manual, to focus on the Phoenix and Stunt Pilot materials, among some other things which I am reluctant to discuss at present. There is no point in my attempting to obtain the CRV Manual, since by the time I get anywhere with the manual, PJ will probably have her version online. I want to reiterate that when I filed the original request for the CRV Training Manual (something I had been considering for about six months on-and-off), I was not aware that PJ Gaenir was intending to put this document online, available for all. Around the same time I posted my own intentions to obtain and publish this manual, PJ Gaenir announced to her list that the CRV manual would be available online in about two months (paraphrased.) I was not sure at the time if this was in reference to my own efforts (since the CIA's replies can take six weeks, and it would take a week or two to scan the pages in), or something I did not know about, but by then I had already made preparations for a FOIA request for the CRV Manual, and I'd sent it on it's way. What mattered to me, is that this manual was available online, so that the science of remote-viewing could be better understood, and the technology put in a position where it can more easily be held to scientific scrutiny. Scientific data means nothing if it cannot be questioned, scrutinised and the experiments repeated by others. At this present time, there is insufficient information in the public domain to allow the claimed SRI results to be duplicated in a public environment. I am deeply grateful for PJ's pledge to publish the manual, as not only would this be a tremendous service to the remote-viewing research community, it also frees me to focus on other documents in the CIA's possession, and opens up the possibility of moving on with some other planned FOIA requests. I will, of course, continue my FOIA efforts. When one line of investigation has dried up, I will go down another. My intention is to collect and publish as much information as is possible. The FOIA does work - just not, perhaps, as well as we'd like it to. Careful wording, and a good understanding of FOIA law, are helpful bonuses however, as has been demonstrated by the CIA budging from it's no-reply policy, which I pointed out was flatly illegal, to a "we'll do it if you pay" policy, which isn't much better from a practical point of view, but at least it's a more liberal response. Hopefully, this can be budged further, onto a "we'll do it for free" policy, by pointing out a few more legal regulations, and using "fee waivers" and the FOIA Appeals procedure. Best regards, Steve. ========== 09 JUN 1998 Mr. Steve Crietzman 49 St. Gilberts Road Bourne Lincolnshire PE10 9XD UNITED KINGDOM Reference: (deleted) Dear Mr. Crietzman: This is in response to your 11 May 1998 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to remote viewing, as follows: 1. "The document which officially established 'Project Phoenix.' 2. The document which officially established 'Project Stunt Pilot.' 3. The entire 'CRV Training Manual'..." [4. [Other documents as described in your letter relating to Phoenix and Stunt Pilot.] This request has been assigned the reference number above for identification purposes. As you know from the various communications between you and this agency, we have considered all remote viewing docuiments in our possession as inaccessible until the Star Gate Collection release. During your two recent phone calls to this office you urged our staff to break with our recent precedent of not searching against the collected Star Gate records during its declassification process. As we have explained to you, the Star Gate records declassification project that is being conducted at CIA was undertaken as the result of a special Congressional mandate. This effort is dramatically different from the processing of FOIA requests. One principal difference is that CIA has been given permission to release other agencies' records; another is that CIA is using more liberal guidelines that may result in more releasable documents that may be less heavily redacted than they would have been under FOIA guidelines. What this means to you in this particular instance is that if we were to conduct a FOIA search against the Star Gate Collection and if the documents you want were located as the result of this FOIA search, we would have to review them pursuant to normal FOIA procedures. This means that our reviewing officers would make any necessary deletions on the basis of standard FOIA exemptions. After our review, we would then have to send the documents to their originating agency for its formal FOIA review. The originating agency would make the decision as to whether it is able to release the documents. The CIA is not allowed to release another agency's documents under the FOIA. As you know, the FOIA authorizes federal agencies to collect fees for records services. You will note on the enclosed fee schedule that we charge search fees, including computer time where indices are computerized, and copying costs for releasable documents. In accordance with Section (a) of the schedule, search fees are assessable even if no records are found or, if found, we determine that they are not releasable. This means you will be charged even if our search results are negative or if it is determined that no information is releasable under the FOIA. The search fees for a requester in the "all other" fee category for each item in a request are usually about $150. Your three-item request could cost about US$450. Pursuant to 32 CFR ?1900.13(f), we must request your good-faith deposit in the amount of US$200. One reason we are requesting this deposit in this particular instance is because we believe it highly likely that, if we have copies of the documents you have requested, they will be released as part of the Star Gate Collection sooner than we could locate, review, and refer and or coordinate them under the FOIA. In conclusion, we have determined that we can search for the records you requested - specifically, for (1) the CRV Training Manual, (2) records relating to Project Phoenix, and (3) records relating to Project Stunt Pilot. Such a search would be conducted specifically under FOIA ground rules, some of which have been highlighted in the paragraphs above. We will hold your request in abeyance for 45 days until we receive your commitment to pay all fees incurred and under the conditions stated above along with your good-faith deposit of $200. Sincerely, [signed] for Lee S. Strickland Information and Privacy Coordinator Enclosure stargate : Message: [stargate]
Documents Added to Website
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/17) 21:07:54
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear List: I have just made some major updates to the website. I now have available the CIA's official reply to my latest FOIA request, plus the CIA FOIA fees and regulations list which came enclosed with their letter. But probably the most significant change is the addition of the American Institute for Research's controversial report on remote-viewing. I now have online a copy of the 183-page version of this report, as well as the 6-page summary that was included in response to my first FOIA request of last year. My thanks must go to Paul Smith, who made me aware of the existence of the full AIR report as a PDF file, which I have now added to the Star Gate Documents Website. The URL to the website, as always, is: http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/. The old address of http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/ is also still working; you can choose which address you prefer :) If/when I decide to appeal against the CIA's decision, or to file a fee waiver, I'll announce it here to this list, and add the letter to my website. Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
The Closure of the Viewer List
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/18) 21:08:24
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello All, PJ Gaenir will soon be leaving the remote-viewing community, and her 250-strong Viewer List will be closing for good. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that we wish her well for the future. However, this does mean that the Star Gate List is in no longer in danger of "duplicating" the Viewer List (since it will not be around much longer), and so I'm lifting the rules a little on this list. (The rules designed to protect Star Gate List from becoming like the Viewer List no longer seem necessary.) Starting today, posts from anyone will be automatically accepted onto this list, and discussion can be about anything, so long as it relates in some way to what the Star Gate Website is about - remote-viewing and science (and the science of remote-viewing.) I am putting my trust in those who are subscribed to be reasonably sensible about how they use this list (if they decide to!) I won't place any ground rules down now, I'll just open the ground to almost anything (friendly, non-RV chatter included for now!), and see how things go. I'll only introduce rules if I feel they're necessary. For now, "be good to each other" is the only common-sense rule that's being laid down. This BBS encourages critical thinking, and those who have difficult questions to ask about RV are encouraged to speak their mind. My intention is that these people can raise their questions without feeling uncomfortable or guilty about their views (there is nothing wrong in asking difficult questions!) But views of all types are welcome here. If anything is banned or unappropriate on other mailing lists or BBSs, you should consider the Star Gate List a safe place to discuss those topics. I would like this list to be a list "for the other people." Anyway, I declare this BBS open to the public! Anyone want to start off..? Anything goes!! :) Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
The Closure of the Viewer List
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/19) 21:08:42
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List Steve: FAIR ENOUGH!!!! ...but get that CGI thingamajig fixed :-). electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
The Closure of the Viewer List
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/20) 21:08:58
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List Hiya, >Steve: > >FAIR ENOUGH!!!! > >...but get that CGI thingamajig fixed :-). Okay, I get the message.. ;-) If anyone reading hasn't seen the Star Gate BBS, goto: http://www.progressiveweb.net/local-cgi-bin/config.pl Oh, and the Star Gate website is now also at http://www.progressiveweb.net/stargate/ but the two older addresses still work too ;-) (I promote this will be the *last* change in the address :) Say Electrix, want to post your essay to the list? Might get some chatter going.. Best, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Posts welcome!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/21) 21:09:09
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello everyone, This is just to remind you that this mailing list is OPEN FOR CHAT now.. There's only 17 people here.. but if just half of you made the effort to make a few posts, we could have an active mailing list in no time! This is a request for people to consider making one or two posts each, and to try to make an effort to reply to any posts that are made to the list. I'm interested to see where we can take this list f we all try! Any takers..? Come on, just make a reply to this message! At the moment, let's just see who's here, we'll worry about the topic later! Let's just all say "hi" for now.. I realise I could just post a list of names of everyone who's here, and some of you probably would like me to do that but I can't. Subscriptions are private - you name will only become public if you decide to post.. So please, consider making a post! (YES, YOU! :) Cheers, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Posts welcome!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/22) 21:09:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Posts welcome! Hi Steve... I just read for the first time some of the material sent to you from the CIA, dated 1972. I was so interested to read this stuff! Can't thank you enough for guiding me to this site... truly so wonderful. You have done an outstanding job getting all of this information released... knowing all the steps to take, etc. I'm very impressed. It seems to me that remove viewing is just what I thought it was all along... those who are proficient in ESP are the best viewers. That's not to say we can't all learn to use it to a certain extent... but there will always be those who are just plain better at it. IMO Love, Paula stargate : Message: [stargate]
dream
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/23) 21:09:29
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi everybody! I have very active dreams, lucid dreams, and pretty good dream recall. I consider it a blessing. Anyway, something unusual occured the other day and I would appreciate feedback. My friend Terri and I were discussing our nightly dreams. I told her that I dreamed of round headed whales (beluah?) or dolphins, 4 or 5 together in line, swimming up to the shore. The water was dark, it was at night. She told me that the night before she had dreamed the exact same thing! Very unusual stuff. Did anyone else have a similiar dream? Is this a thought dimension out there that we picked up on? And Steve, good idea to have a list. Good luck. Regards, Jane stargate : Message: [stargate]
Thoughts on RV
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/24) 21:09:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi Paula, First, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us on this list! I for one really appreciate it :) I have always had a problem with the idea that we can all be trained to become experts at remote-viewing, given enough time and practice. When we look at our other five known senses, it's worth remembering that with sight, for example - some people are born with excellent vision, others are short-sighted, others are long-sighted, and some - in the rare cases - are born blind. Some people are born deaf, others are born with bad hearing, most of us have good hearing - but some of us have better hearing than others. Some of us are colour-blind to certain colours and can "see" certain things better than others. Some of us are sensitive to certain frequencies of sounds that others of us aren't. Some of us cannot see *or* hear. Some of us might have bad sight and bad hearing, or bad hearing and good sight.. or any combination of the above.. So I think if we're going to call ESP a "sixth sense" and take that literally, I think it's fair that we'd have the "psychic duds" - who are psychically blind/deaf - those who are about average - and those with excellent, fine-tuned senses, so called "natural psychics" and "world-class remote-viewers" for example. I do not believe that training will allow us to continue to improve, any more than by doing "reading exercises" and reading books and watching TV day after day, will give us better eyesight. We may become more accustomed to them, but I don't think we'll get to improve our natural ability beyond it's natural levels. All this said, I'm not sure how I feel about remote-viewing anyway. As the kind of person who demands a high level of scientific evidence, I'm the type of person who wants to see everything the labs have. We've got very little to go on, really. But until we know more about ESP - and the sad truth is, I believe anyway - that we can't make any conclusions about remote-viewing at all - then we're not in a very good position to say much. We can speculate, based on our own experiences in life, and our own feelings based on what we know about remote-viewing and what others have said, but apart from that - we really do not know the *cause* of the higher-than-chance results, even if we off-the-bat say that there's more than just unknown mistakes in the experiments happening, and that "something" else is happening - something, forlack of a better word, "paranormal". Saying the cause is something paranormal still doesn't tell us the cause, and more than saying that hearing is a "physical sense." We know that ears receive the sound and our brains process that. Where is ESP signals (assuming they're there) being received, how are they being processed, and what could interfere between the source of the transmission (and - how is it transmitted BTW?), and the receiver. Until we find the cause, we don't know why we're getting higher-than-chance "scores". Once we do find the cause, and let's say it's paranormal for a moment (my 'gut feeling' is this is the answer), then we'll be able to find ways to "increase" the signal-to-noise ratio, improve the signal, and get much better results. (Perhaps the "sidereal time" is a step in that direction.) I don't think we have answers yet, but I hope - that the answers are just around the corner. Once we start to get those answers, we'll know a great deal more about what's causing these higher-than-chance scores, and we'll finally be able to say "mundane" (bad experiments, subliminal messages or whatever) or "paranormal" (ESP, remote-viewing, distant signals being sent to our mind, etc.) I guess in this sense, it's not "paranormal" at all.. only in that we don't have the answers now, and it can *seem* to be beyond our understanding of the world and universe. Anyway, that's my tuppence worth :) Thanks for contributing, Paula. I think I agree with you - if ESP is "real" (which I think it is), then there will be pros, those with "average" psi abilities, and a couple out there with no real ability, just their imaginations to work with (thus, bad results/chance results.) Studying 'psychic duds' might even tell us a little about what thoughts/impressions we should be ignoring, and help us detect what experts have that the duds don't.. (was a passing thought, was going to ignore this but figured I'd post it anyway to get some people thinking :) That's some of my thoughts on the subject, anyway. Paula, want to respond? Anyone else want to chip in..? Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
dreams
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/25) 21:09:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi Jane! Welcome to the list, and thanks for posting.. :-) I find dreams fascinating. Perhaps it has something to do with me being a "psychic dud" ;) I really don't think I've got any RV talent to use, but I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong. (And I'm not saying I don't think others have RV talent.. there's a good chance they do.. I'd just like to see a little more light shed on all this.. because I don't think there's quite enough info and evidence out there to prove it yet..) I have a lot of lucid dreams and vivid dreams, but none lately. In my life I have had only two dreams that *might* come under the "predictive" category.. both about the same person/people, separated by a couple of months. I never had any other dreams about these people (that I remember), and I've never had any other "predictive" dreams about anyone else. Two dreams aren't really enough for me to go on though.. so I hope more come along some time.. :) I noticed they seem to have certain "characteristics" that other dreams did not.. Anyway, I guess I'm straying here. I don't really have anything to say about your dreams - I'm not really that good at dream interpreting (except my own dreams :), and lucid dreams are about the only thing I am good at talking about. I thought I'd chip in these comments as I thought you might find them interesting, or others might.. If anyone can help Jane, *please* post a reply here! I'm not sure I can be of much help on this one.. Take care, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Answer To Steve's answer to Paula
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/26) 21:10:08
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
These messages are going to get extremely long and cumbersome if we just keep hitting the Reply button, thus the above subject... Steve... IMO, ESP or psi cannot be tested in the laboratory... it is something that can never be harnessed and explained away in a scientific manner. Now, having made this statement, I can just hear the flames starting. But, and remember this is my opinion only, until we can prove that God exists in the laboratory, we cannot prove that extrasensory perception exists either... I don't care how many protocols, this thing just isn't going to behave the way scientists want it to. How can one prove something that belongs in another dimension??? And isn't that where psi comes from? Put this down to my na´vetÚ... I am, after all, much older than the rest of you (probably) and just have that good old "gut" feeling about all this... ESP has to be experienced; psi has to be experienced... this is a subject one has got to "know", not "believe". And that comes from experiencing these things. Anybody have an opinion? Or am I all wet??? Love, Paula stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Posts welcome!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/27) 21:10:19
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello, We are a small group located in Orange city Florida.We have been working with RV for the last 6 or so months now and have had a few good hits but not as consistant (spelling)? as we would like it to be.We have no guide lines to follow by except what is posted on the web.If anyone feels like they have had possitive and concise hits from this ,please e-mail me and let me know how you have done it. thank you Paul Roggio E-mail me at Neshamah1@... stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Posts welcome!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/28) 21:10:28
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello Paul! Are we neighbors? I live in Lakeland, Florida. Are you near Orlando? Anyway, I'd like to hear more about your experiments. How many viewers do you have? How are targets set up? Just general questions about how you are running your test. Good luck with the project! Regards, Jane stargate : Message: [stargate]
To Paula
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/29) 21:10:38
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi Paula! Yes, I agree with you that there is not sufficient technology to prove the existence of PSI. It just is. Like God just is. I believe that it is real and can be demonstrated, but not taken apart and disected. Warmly, Jane stargate : Message: [stargate]
dream
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/30) 21:10:47
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
[stargate] dream Thanks Steve for your comments about dreams. I am particularly interested in hearing about your "predictive dream"! You wrote:I have a lot of lucid dreams and vivid dreams, but none lately. In my life I have had only two dreams that *might* come under the "predictive" category.. both about the same person/people, separated by a couple of months. I never had any other dreams about these people (that I remember), and I've never had any other "predictive" dreams about anyone else. Two dreams aren't really enough for me to go on though.. so I hope more come along some time.. :) I noticed they seem to have certain "characteristics" that other dreams did not.. Please share with us some of your predictive dreams or lucid dreams. I love dreamwork. Regards, Jane stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
The Closure of the Viewer List
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/31) 21:10:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List I hope I am on the list. I am assuming I am since I am getting a list of people just raining into Hard Drive. Hi everyone... simply...I am electrix the shocking one... :-) About that Essay...I am not sure it is the appropriate place to put it, being so long and all...and I do believe there is already a chatter going.... Feel free to post it Steve. I will dropping notes interminently since I have to focus on other matters. electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Posts welcome!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/32) 21:11:09
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Paula Hulslander wrote: > It seems to me that remove viewing is just what I thought it was all > along... those who are proficient in ESP are the best viewers. That's not > to say we can't all learn to use it to a certain extent... but there will > always be those who are just plain better at it. IMO There is a possibility that the above stated belief may hinder ones own ability to surpass those proficient in RV/ESP, no? Perhaps, Paula, what you may be good at (or undiscovered skills) they can't even fathom. No? electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Answer To Steve's answer to Paula
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/33) 21:11:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula You are not alone on that thought Paula. I recently posted an Essay and a Rebuttal on the same idea of Proof. The use of Science to investigate the paranormal is lopsided. We can scientifically analyze its results, but sooner or later we are left to infer othe presence of the Paranormal which is a confounded and alternate reality. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Posts welcome!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/34) 21:11:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Glad to see that I wasnt't the only one that made an makeshift experiment before taking an RV workshop. My advice is that one of you take an RV workshop and share the info with the others if all of you can't afford it. The protocols are not written in all the books I have read on RV. It is something that must be pass to you by an instructor. The closest you are going to get to protocol is buying the Ed Dames video Tapes. Of course, absorb the information given with critical and open mind since the man IS part of Intel and who knows what's his agenda. IMO. Before my RV workshop, I tried out the experiments by gleaning information from several books and the Net and tried it on two people. The results were very interesting. The target "hit" were very close. electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
dream
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/35) 21:11:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] dream What I am interesting in finding out is your opinion of what makes the mind "light up" these images in the head called dreams. What do you think dreams are? How can there be no light entering your eyes but yet you can visualize images in your mind. Doesn't it defy physics. For something to be visual light must be shed on it. Can someone (pun intended) enlighten me on this? electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Answer to Steve's answer to Paula
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/36) 21:11:53
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi All, I woke up this morning to a flood of messages and 3 new requests to join the list. Looks like things are really starting to pick up here.. :-) Thanks to everyone who's posted! Keep it up! :-) stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Answer To Steve's answer to Paula
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/37) 21:12:02
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula Electrix: I just finished reading your essay on the BBS and, needless to say, agree wholeheartedly with everything you contend there. Thank you for your thoughtful and quite brilliant insights, Electrix... have always enjoyed your posts on Farsight. Love, Paula stargate : Message: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/38) 21:12:14
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Electrix wrote: >You are not alone on that thought Paula. I recently posted an Essay and a >Rebuttal on the same idea of Proof. The use of Science to investigate the >paranormal is lopsided. We can scientifically analyze its results, but >sooner or later we are left to infer othe presence of the Paranormal which >is a confounded and alternate reality. Hi, Well, all opinions are welcome on this list, but I have to disagree with you here Electrix (life would be boring if we all agreed all the time, wouldn't it? ;) It may well be that we'll continued to be dumb-founded by remote-viewing, but science has provided us with so many answers to so many questions, it's methods could very well provide us with answers on psi. Maybe not now, maybe not in a few decades, maybe not in 100 years.. but someday. It might happen slowly, or quickly. We have no surefire way of predicting the future (let's leave RV out of this for the moment ;) so it's hard to say where science will or will not take our understanding of subjects like RV. Science is an objective system. It provides us with "hard evidence" and solid answers (as much as that is possible.) It deals with data, experiments, results, etc. Things that can be examined, tested, and measured. Anything else I put under the catagory of religion, belief or faith. It is hard for me as the scientific type to comment on faith and belief, because it is difficult to scientificly test a faith. Does God exist? Provide me with a scientific way to test for God, and we could perform a test. But we cannot perform a test because we don't know what to test for, or even if we can test for it. So there is no way to prove it a positive. This, unfortunately, means we cannot prove a faith. Does that make it wrong? How do I know? I can't measure it! I prefer to stick with things we can scientifically measure, and leave belief/faith to those who use/need it. I'm not a person who has much faith in anything but the objective/scientific. Some may call this a failing, others a blessing, others something inbetween. But it is the system I've chosen. We all choose our systems to rely on. That's the one I've chosen. I prefer to put my trust in things I can test, measure, examine. IF it can be tested, measured or examined.. it can be subjected to a scientific experiment, and it can be scientifically analysed. Otherwises, it is not of much scientific value. If something cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be experienced or examined.. we can't be sure it exists objectively, ever. Which means it does not affect physical reality. Clearly, psi affects physical reality. So we can test that much of it. If it crosses over at some point into non-physical reality, perhaps then and there the scientific experiments will no longer be of use. But that still gives us a lot to examine. And it's still possible that RV is purely physical, with no paranormal explanation being necessary. (Note: That does not mean RV does "not exist"; it just means there may be a physical explanation rooted in our physical universe, for how we pick up these "signals".) That's my feeling. I respect your views Electrix and Paula, but I prefer not to comment on things beyond that which can be scientifically analysed. Psi CAN be scientifically analysed. How far and how much remains to be seen. Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/39) 21:12:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> We have no surefire way of > predicting the future (let's leave RV out of this for the moment ;) so it's > hard to say where science will or will not take our understanding of subjects > like RV. Science has actually made considerable inroads into explaining RV. Unlike many public forums for RV focusing on Psi as if it was another weird superstition, the foundation research is in electromagnetic wave resonance. The protocols in Rv are designed to focus the viewers intent and attention, until they resonate with the targets electromagnetic signature, The degree to which you match this resonance will be demonstrated in the level of clarity in your view. RV is a communication skill, which takes allot of discipline to master. Many EEG and bio-feed back experiments have been conducted to measure the state achieved when good RV data is collected, the wild card is that each individual, even well trained professionals have good and bad days and to top this off availability of data, is often compromised by the individuals ability to retrieve it, or the viewers disciplined ability to refrain from interpretation or contamination of the data items collected. The difference in good and bad days can be justified by everything from, stress and distractions, to over confidence and sloppy protocols. The human factor is yet to be totally quantified, except that when certain brain wave states are achieved very accurate data can be retrieved. > Science is an objective system. It provides us with "hard evidence" and solid > answers (as much as that is possible.) It deals with data, experiments, results, > etc. Things that can be examined, tested, and measured. Absolutly, even though biological functions can be measured human free will and complexity can vary results in a heart beat by shifting the focus of their attention. > I prefer to put my trust in things I can test, measure, examine. IF it can be > tested, measured or examined.. it can be subjected to a scientific experiment, > and it can be scientifically analysed. Otherwises, it is not of much scientific > value. If something cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be > experienced or examined.. we can't be sure it exists objectively, ever. Which > means it does not affect physical reality. One of the most humbeling experiences I know is to sit at a desk with only a pen, stack of fanfold paper, and randomly generated Target ID that has been cued to.......any of billions of possible targets. At the end of an hours work, you lay out your session along side the target photo and you get to see.... what is congruant target data, want is contaminated (data with simular gestault but turned into something else) and what is pure imagination. When you see the target you find out what all those puzzle pieces you saw but did not yet understand really meant. I have been traing to RV for just under a year. Data I collected, that was way beyond odds of guessing, a year ago is nolonger acceptable to me, as far as clarity or quality, the more you do, the more you know is possible, the more you push yourself to improve, until nothing less than full clarity and accuracy is acceptable. Not everyone thinks that this way of being is fun :) so not everyone puts in the work to get the results. > Clearly, psi affects physical reality. So we can test that much of it. If it crosses > over at some point into non-physical reality, perhaps then and there the scientific > experiments will no longer be of use. But that still gives us a lot to examine. > > And it's still possible that RV is purely physical, with no paranormal explanation > being necessary. (Note: That does not mean RV does "not exist"; it just means > there may be a physical explanation rooted in our physical universe, for how > we pick up these "signals" .) > The trick and discipline in RV is to keep the primary consciousness occupied and out of the way so that the subconscious can communicate clearly. The sub communicates in visuals, sounds, feelings and perceptions. Our Ego finds this furtile ground for showing how smart it is, and will usually contaminate the data, until it is trained and disciplined to its part in the process. This becomes a life changing experience because our egos are busy doing this every waking moment, not just in RV. Aloha Yaana Tue Jun 23, 1998 4:23 pm Hide Message Option View Source Use Fixed Width Font Unwrap Lines Yaana Allen yaana@... Send Email Send Email stargate : Message: [stargate]
Posts welcome!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/40) 21:12:39
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear Steve and List, Hope this makes it..my first attempt. I was wondering, perhaps for a start, if anyone here has worked with any Remote Viewing techniques in experiments..'blind', etc. I am completely untrained by any teacher but have enjoyed testing myself... with some moderate success..and some plain failures as well. I am hoping to practice more and learn. At any rate, this is my first hello to all, Best wishes, Laura stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/41) 21:12:48
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Aloha Miss Yaana, Your technical writting is very good. Great post. Aloha Glenn stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/42) 21:13:00
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] RV Science I wouldn't have it any other way Steve! My words are no written on concrete to be followed as Ten Commandments, although sometimes I write in such a manner :-) I welcome dissidence. It is a healthy to analyze and acknowledge different views. Insults, of course, are another matter. I don't engage in such. I am not offended by your response since I don't feel you are being disrespectful. I do want to clarify a few things which I interpreted from your comment. I don't mean to imply that science is NOT instrumental in researching the Psi phenomenon. Instead, I am attempting to communicate that we must keep the distinction of CATEGORIES to avoid falling along the same mistake scientist have made in the past and some who continue to do so. It is not unusual for scientist to cling to pet theories at the neglect of more promising hypothesis or theories. The other concern I have is to blindly or dogmatically accept scientific resolves. It is easy to accept evidence in a tunnel vision manner, and when confronted with new, other alternatives and possibilities, be ignored. If you can envision the analogy of an hypnotist providing you with "stable data" for your mind to operate with, this is what I am getting across. It is nice that we can prove most every physical phenomenon, but with can also be "hypnotize" into thinking in a certain way. But more aberrated is taking something that works in one medium, such as scientific method, and applying it to an evading subject that does not fall in the area of the PHYSICAL (i.e liquid, solid, et al). With all respect to Yaana's effort to scientifically explain electromagnetic wave "state", let's take something like biofeedback. It is easy to make a judgement leap for Brain activity to Mind activity before defining the difference of both. Especially defining the nature of the mind. The nature of the brain, though, is progressively being understood since that is PHYSICAL. Biofeedback is a complex weave of frequency overlapping each other. Dissecting the frequency into classification serves good for examination purposes. But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. And although biofeedback can extract brainwave level and can entrain brain activity, it doesn't say much about the Mind. So, it is no wonder that each individual react differently to brainwave stimulation as I have noticed in my test on others and myself. Physical functionality may or may not compliment Mental behavior. Expected results of certain wave frequency react differently in some other individual. However, I can't disagree that the data discovered so far is helpful. I think it is. But the proper perspective must be applied to the nature of the paranormal. The findings and results of this science shouldn't necessarily dictate and define Psychic or Paranormal Laws in as much as it might need define or dictate religious theory of creation and so forth; but instead ONLY survey, observe the results, and perhaps explain these sporadic results and idea in a "wordly" way. It is also of no surprise that Eastern philosophy on spiritual and cognitive behavior is finally being mirrored in science. The hard facts and scientific doctrine has kept it from examining Eastern philosophy sooner. It is this blind commitment to the physical that keeps us from improving the spiritual progress of Humankind. Sometimes it is necessary to step outside of the CATEGORIES to obtain a new angle on things, and accept the condition (subject) for what it IS, in its PROPER COMPARTMENT until such time that there is a Unified Theory. So yes, Psi RESULTS can be scientifically analyzed and quantified, but Psi nature cannot not be defined within that CATEGORY. It is diametrically opposed that PHYSICAL cannot be treated in the same way as the META-PHYSICAL, just as the rule of CLASSICAL SCIENCE cannot be treated in the same way in the field of QUANTUM THEORY. electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Answer To Steve's answer to Paula
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/43) 21:13:11
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula Ha,ha,ha....thanks again Paula...we are ALL in this together! Love also... electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/44) 21:13:25
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. ...snip Yes first we must define what we are dealing with: The BRAIN: is a objective, physical mechanism which can be studied and monitored The MIND: is a subjective, psychological mechanism where we store our stimulus response reactions to physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual stimulus, this is individual to each person based on events, choices and beliefs. The CONSCIOUSNESS: is an infinite, spiritual mechanism which must be present for life to exist within form, this has even been scientifically demonstrated in plants, so the consciousness principle exists separate from both Brain or Mind. Consciousness is the medium of the unified field, our most untapped resource and the area represented by the more than 90% of unused space in our brain. . The Skill which is Remote Viewing is two fold, to sync these three on a single focus, and to direct that focus with the intent to acquire and experience the target and retrieve data. This takes discipline and practice much like a Japanese Tea Ceremony, which when understood every tiny movement has a deep significance. Ultimately those who have not experienced a thing, can not conceive of any proof which would satisfy them, and those who have need no further proof. A brief review of ancient spiritual practices will show in almost every culture, simple disciplined, repetitive activities or ceremonies, accompanied with chanting or drumming which are actually theta tones, these practices put the participants into trances for "vision quests" a place they go to answer questions and have deeply moving mystical experiences. Recently we met with a doctor who specializes in using bio-feed back equipment to facilitate treatment of addictive and anti-social behaviors. Our intent was to have our advanced students experience a monitored theta state, so it would be easier for them to duplicate. The doctor was hesitant to take patients to theta without a counseling session because, as she said "when people approach theta, what ever they have suppressed or repressed tends to bubble up". As a minister who has done spiritual counseling for 20 years Ihave seen this occur. The wild card and weak link in this equation is not the brain, nor consciousness, but the psychology, the individual development of each mind. The significance we add to and then invested in over time to give meaning or justification to events and our behaviors is what we use to define our selves, develop our identities, anything which threatens to show us we may have erred in our assessment, no matter how ultimately true or effective becomes the enemy of the mind. Remote Viewing is a practical application of many ancient principals packaged in modern science, regardless of the proofs given mysteries will always remain mysteries to those who look from the outside. Aloha Yaana stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/45) 21:13:49
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] RV Science Hi Electrix, >I wouldn't have it any other way Steve! My words are no written on concrete to be >followed as Ten Commandments, although sometimes I write in such a manner :-) > >I welcome dissidence. It is a healthy to analyze and acknowledge different views. Insults, >of course, are another matter. I don't engage in such. I am not offended by your response >since I don't feel you are being disrespectful. I'd like to think we're having a good-spirited debate here.. I haven't felt that you were being disrespectful either, and I've actually really enjoyed reading your posts and your essay. I hope you feel the same way. While I might have a different perspective on things, that's what makes us strong as a race. It would be pretty dull if we always agreed, wouldn't it? :) >I do want to clarify a few things which I interpreted from your comment. I don't mean to >imply that science is NOT instrumental in researching the Psi phenomenon. Instead, I am >attempting to communicate that we must keep the distinction of CATEGORIES to avoid falling >along the same mistake scientist have made in the past and some who continue to do so. It >is not unusual for scientist to cling to pet theories at the neglect of more promising >hypothesis or theories. Here, I agree with you completely. I've always had a problem when people clinging to theories, and refusing to consider the alternatives. My definition of science would be an open system - where everything is published openly, and the scientists themselves have open (but still critical-thinking) minds. My idea of a good scientist would be one who is open to everyone and closed to nothing, is prepared to stand up for what he believes is correct (i.e. not being discouraged by the current scientific paradigm, etc.) My approach is to be open to everything, and to just "go with the data." I don't like to wander past that point, unless it's absolutely necessary. I'd prefer to see more experiments organised, or see more data put on the table, before I'd wonder into speculation to obtain answers. (Even "common sense" speculation can lead us down false paths, just as the "common sense" scientists of times gone by believed the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.) (I realise we're probably not in disagreement here, but I just felt I ought to elaborate on my own feelings on the subject here.) >The other concern I have is to blindly or dogmatically accept scientific resolves. It is >easy to accept evidence in a tunnel vision manner, and when confronted with new, other >alternatives and possibilities, be ignored. I think this is an example of scientists going by assumptions - they "know" their current theories are correct, so they reject new data because it would tumble their house of cards. I think the true scientific approach would be to examine the subject thoroughly, and to see if the exception to the rule is actually capable of tumbling the house of cards, and thus.. the rule itself. Then the exception (anomaly) helds to build up a new rule. I've never felt ignoring a subject is scientific. That's why I have such a problem with groups like CSICOP, who claim to be scientific, but then proceed to condemn and all attempts to scientifically examine "the paranormal." (Which reminds me, have you seen CSICOP's latest gripe? With the new X-Files movie, of all things.. :) >If you can envision the analogy of an hypnotist providing you with "stable data" for your >mind to operate with, this is what I am getting across. It is nice that we can prove most >every physical phenomenon, but with can also be "hypnotize" into thinking in a certain >way. Scientism, as I understand it, is a belief in scientist's answers to all questions, is a religion in itself. It believes that scientific theories and explanations are the foundation of reality, and anything that goes against their paradigm must be false, because their theories/laws/ rules are unbreakable. It is the belief that what science does not know about will eventually be fitted in with existing laws, and old laws and theories will not be shaken, except in very minor ways. Scientism.. is (IMO) unscientific. It's assumptions based on facts. I happen to feel that science will experience a few minor and major paradigm shifts while us humans survive on this planet. If a rule cannot explain anomalies, and the anomalies definately exist, then the rule is wrong or incomplete. Scientism would probably dictate that the anomalies must be non-existant and not worth studying because they cannot exist. True science dictates we perform experiments to see if those anomalies really do exist, and go into those experiments unconvinced either way (that it anomalies do, or do not, exist.) >With all respect to Yaana's effort to scientifically explain electromagnetic wave "state", >let's take something like biofeedback. It is easy to make a judgement leap for Brain >activity to Mind activity before defining the difference of both. Especially defining the >nature of the mind. The nature of the brain, though, is progressively being understood >since that is PHYSICAL. I don't think scientists have yet been able to say with any certainiy where or what "mind" is - there's debate as to whether consciousness itself is real or only an illussion. Scientists who are worth their weight cannot afford to make assumptions either way. However, this does not prevent us from comparing brainwave patterns to performance in psi experiments. If a pattern IS found, we can tell there is some kind of relationship between the two. If none is found, we know there isn't a relationship. We can perform these experiments without commenting on the nature of mind or spirit. Science has many methods of testing and experimentating, and the answers science provides us with allow us to better understand what we're studying. There's no telling if science will ever be able to provide us with answers to everything. Some things will always remain subjective. >But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. And although biofeedback can >extract brainwave level and can entrain brain activity, it doesn't say much about the >Mind. I agree; see above. In studying brainwave patterns and psi performance, scientists are examining the possible relationship between them in order to learn more. Experiments can only test for one thing at a time. In this case, for a relationship between brainwave patterns and psi performance. The results we obtain may only give us half the answers we're looking for, but that it better than nothing. Scientists can eventually make experiments to analyse the things they want to test. But there's an infinite number of possible questions we can ask about an infinite number of subjects. Each experiment is designed to give us just one answer to one question (or, a few answers to a few questions), but there will always be unanswered questions out there. >It is also of no surprise that Eastern philosophy on spiritual and cognitive behavior is >finally being mirrored in science. The hard facts and scientific doctrine I'd like to think that science (hard facts) and scientism (dogma and doctrine) are two separate thngs. Scientists should not believe in anything until they've been able to perform experments for themselves, and got the answers for themselves. Scientism asks us to accept the prevailing scientific views and ignore alternatives. True science would never, I hope, be so blind. >from examining Eastern philosophy sooner. It is this blind commitment to the physical that >keeps us from improving the spiritual progress of Humankind. Sometimes it is necessary to >step outside of the CATEGORIES to obtain a new angle on things, and accept the condition If there is something outside of the physical, is it possible to test for it? If the answer is yes, science can provide answers - so long as we have the technology and knowledge necessary to create an experiment to perform the tests and get the answers. If the answer is no, then there is no way of proving that xyz exists. No test or experiment can be created to test for it. Which seems to suggest it cannot be experienced. If something can be experienced, it can in theory be tested. >So yes, Psi RESULTS can be scientifically analyzed and quantified, but Psi nature cannot >not be defined within that CATEGORY. It is diametrically opposed that PHYSICAL cannot be >treated in the same way as the META-PHYSICAL, just as the rule of CLASSICAL SCIENCE cannot >be treated in the same way in the field of QUANTUM THEORY. But it is important to realise that both classical scienec and quantum theory use experiments to perform tests and gain answers. But it does seem many things in quantum theory will be hard, if not impossible, to prove. This does not prevent us from testing what we can. What we cannot test, we can never be sure about. That doesn't mean I feel people do not have the right to believe in what cannot be tested, it just means we can never be *certain*. We have no clear answers, there are no tests or experiments we can perform. In which case.. these questions cannot can answered, because it is impossible to devise a scientific experiment for them. I'm pretty sure that's what you're trying to say. The problem is, we cannot prove these types of claims (although I guess you could counter that they cannot be disproven as well.) In these cases, I feel we can only rely on what we *can* test for. Anything else is speculation. Although I remain open to the possibility that some things cannot be tested for, with no solid answers, such as seems to exist in the field of quantum theory. However, in these cases no solid answers would be possible. Therefore we have a choice: to either speculate and reach an answer which may be in error, or to not take that step. However.. referring to what I said earlier - re: clinging to theories, and going with the data - scientists are taught not to speculate, and to keep with what the hard facts show us. The data should carry us, not our own feelings, speculations, or assumptions. So my choice is to avoid speculating, and to just go where the data takes me. You are welcome to choose another route. We simply must choose the system that we feel is the most helpful to us, and the most useful. In my opinion, I feel that speculating too much - and that includes clinging to old scientific paradigms as much as accepting new ones - is a route we must be careful about taking. I'd rather not speculate, period - apart from what is absolutely necessary in order to be able to analyse data. Without a minimal amount of speculation and imagination, humans would probably not possess the vast intelligence that we have today. When we look at a car, we'd be incapable of knowing it was a car unless it was identical in every way, shape and form. Imagination - i.e. speculation - is necessary in our species cognitive functions. But I feel that in science, we have to keep this to the lowest possible level. I welcome people who choose to disagree, but my choice is to take the route that requires the most reliable on hard data, and the least reliance on speculation as possible. People must decide for themselves how they want to interpret the world around them. Thanks for this fascinating debate, Electrix.. :-) Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Other RV techniques
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/46) 21:14:00
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello, this is my very first post to this list, so I'll keep it short. After having read the complete site of Ingo Swann, most part of PJ's site, ... and all the books I could get about RV, I still don't know which research has been done in countries outside the U.S. I think it would be nice to compare this research with CRV. Methodologies are good to enable things, but at the same time they also limit some possibilities. Different viewpoints on the subject could give us more insight into the mechanisms of RV. So does anyone know of the research that has been done in countries like Russia, China, Israel, Great Brittain, ...? (may also be PK related) Second question I have is, has anyone experience with the RV course of Paraliminal Management Systems (Tim Rifat). It could be interesting because it seems totaly different from the military RV methods. Well that's all for now, and Steve I hope your list will become as important or even more so than PJ's. All the best Frank V stargate : Message: [stargate]
Hi Laura
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/47) 21:14:09
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi Laura! Welcome to the list. It is always good to hear from people who are actually trying the remote viewing. Please post some of your sessions. Jane stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Other RV techniques
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/48) 21:14:26
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Other RV techniques >this is my very first post to this list, so I'll keep it short. After having >read the complete site of Ingo Swann, most part of PJ's site, ... and all >the books I could get about RV, I still don't know which research has been >done in countries outside the U.S. I think it would be nice to compare >this research with CRV. Methodologies are good to enable things, >but at the same time they also limit some possibilities. Different >viewpoints on the subject could give us more insight into the mechanisms of >RV. So does anyone know of the research that has been done in countries >like Russia, China, Israel, Great Brittain, ...? (may also be PK related) Hi Frank, First, hello and and welcome to this list! I hope you enjoy yourself here, and hopefully learn a little in the process. On RV labs outside America - I expect experiments in other Western countries are geared in much the same way as experiments in the US: performing double-blind trials, gathering statistics, and analysing the results, and attempting to replicate what the US labs have found. There is a psi lab here in Britain, in Edinburgh. I've been meaning to contact them and obtain more information on their research, but I became so occupied with other topics, and in studying US research, that I'd completely forgotten about the Edinburgh (Koestler?) laboratory researchers. Since you've brought foreign research, it gives me a nice timely reminder to get in touch with them. I *really* ought to know what psi research is being done in my own country.. :-) I'll post more information once I have it (I'll start by making a phonecall tommorrow - this is something I've been meaning to do for some time, and now seems as good a time as any.) (According to the documents up on my website, Russian parapsychology in the 70s was geared towards understanding and utilising psi abilities, rather than proving the phenomenon, which was assumed as being a reality.) You want to view the Electronic Reading Room up on my website and examine the report called "Final Report (NBIT)". It is a summary of Western research into 1970s Eastern (Russian) research into psi, and highlights the differences of approach between our 70s labs and their Eastern counterparts. It's quite an interesting read. My website is up at: http://www.progressiveweb.net/stargate/ >Second question I have is, has anyone experience with the RV course of >Paraliminal Management Systems (Tim Rifat). It could be interesting because >it seems totaly different from the military RV methods. The stories I have heard about Paranormal Management Systems are not exactly supportive. Beyond that I really can't comment. I wouldn't buy any of their courses until I'd done some checking, though. >Well that's all for now, and Steve I hope your list will become as important >or even more so than PJ's. I hope this list is successful too, but it really depends on it's members. If people want this list to succeed, then it will. It is a great shame that PJ has decided to close her lists, but it remains her decision and her right to close them if she wants to. She'll be missed. I just hope I'm able to build a list that's half as busy and half as popular as PJ's. That depends as much as anything else on the support of people like you - the posters. If you want this list to succeed, then it will! Thanks for your post, and I hope you find this list useful! I'll post more about UK psi research once I've contacted the Koestler lab in Edinburgh. If you like, you can visit the Koestler Parapsychology Unit, part of the University of Edinburgh, at the address below: http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/ Enjoy! Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Getting the Balance Right
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/49) 21:14:38
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello Everyone, I'm glad to see that everyone is finding this list useful, and I hope that everyone is enjoying themselves and learning a little in the process! :) The reason I am making this post is because I would like everyone's opinions on what they'd like to see this list become. PJ's Viewer List was designed so that the general public could ask questions relating to military CRV, and those questions would be answered by the professional viewers and RV pros who frequented the list. This list was moderated in order to keep posts on-topic. PJ's Psi List allowed discussion of related subjects, such as psychic phenomena in general, ghosts, out-of-body-experiences, astral projection, etc. This list wasn't moderated. I am wondering what people want of THIS list. It can be a "serious" list, with emphasis on CRV. Or it could be about "similar" subjects. It could be a general chat list. Or a mixture of all of these. I would like to see this list be 50% light discussion and light research (recounting experiences, sharing ideas, etc.) and 50% serious research, CRV-based. I worry that if the list is too serious, it will put off the more casual readers from contributing, and only a small percentage of people will be interested in contributing. But I also worry that if this chat is too "chatty", it will put off the more serious debators who might decide to leave the list. Because of this, it is important the balance is got right. I'd like people's comments on what kind of list they'd like. Please send your comments by private e-mail to me at steve@... - please do NOT post it to this list! Thank you. I hope you all enjoy this list and will find it useful. Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
jane in lakeland Florida
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/50) 21:14:48
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
There are 5 of us who have been working very heavily on this program. We stem from all different backgrounds but have one major thing in common, We all beleive in areselves .I teach small classes in my back yard twice a month on everything involving metaphysics such as astral projection,alternate states of consciousness,deep meditation.and hemispheric syncronization.When we came across remore veiwing we embrased it as a welcoming challenge. Thank you for responding Paul stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/51)
09:23:29
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> The CONSCIOUSNESS: is an infinite, spiritual mechanism which must be present for life to exist > within form, this has even been scientifically demonstrated in plants, so the consciousness > principle exists separate from both Brain or Mind. Consciousness is the medium of the unified > field, our most untapped resource and the area represented by the more than 90% of unused > space in our brain. . Interesting view Yaana. I am not sure if I agree with all aspects of your definitions. I personally, find it to be a challenge just to decide if consciousness IS the Mind as it is. Take for example, Unconsciousness plays a key role in the living. In fact, Unconsciousnes sometimes SERVES the Consciousness with cognitive or/and subliminal data. Thus, Consciousness AND Unconsciousness form a pair, if not the same in regards to state dominance at a particular time. I could delve deeper into this, but I am afraid I could write a volumes on my findings of Consciousness and quoting MIT lab studies. And as far as "separate," consciousness, I visualize it otherwise. I "see" a synergy of independent faculties. Theta brain level, by the way, appeals to the unconscious more so than the conscious, all things being equal. A study on major "legitimate" psychics (Jane Roberts, Edgar Cayce) will find a common denominator that they would retreat into Deep Theta or/and Delta. I have trouble accepting many books written on biofeedback since they don't acknowledge essential facts such as: 1. Human biofeedback goes through a cycle in 90 minutes. It goes through Beta, Alpha, Theta, and Delta and a combination thereof. It is like onion skin. One predominates over the other accordingly. At any one point of that cycle we are dipping into Delta quickly or hovering longer (in the case of sleep). So, the state are contiguous and overlapping, not discrete. So, many readers of this technology are ill informed. 2. Entraining oneself into a particular state takes as much effort as practicing RV. I have lied down with the Monroe Hemy-Sync tapes having to RECALL the states induced by his binaural audio, it takes some doing and repetition before being able to "lock-in" to that state. I have used the aid of "brain machine" only to realize that it is more "artificially" induced than practicing the real thing. Now don't get me wrong, each method serves its purpose and I have gotten some interesting results from both. But there is something missing from this technology, it is not reproduced across the board in the same way to all individuals. Thus, again the illusive Mind at play. > The Skill which is Remote Viewing is two fold, to sync these three on a single focus, and to > direct that focus with the intent to acquire and experience the target and retrieve data. This > takes discipline and practice much like a Japanese Tea Ceremony, which when understood every > tiny movement has a deep significance. Yes. At first it requires practice. But that's the way of Mother Nature, isn't it. Humanity is so entrenched in the fast-food, quick-fix, 2 hour Hollywood scenario, we expect everything to come at once. An observation on Mother Nature could tell us a lot about the operational laws of the physical self. I am of the impression that there are receptive microcellular organisms that need to be awaken to "perceive" psychic-ness. In the same way that we have cells that specialize in being receptive to light and only light, is the same way I visualize psi-cellular activity. By the way, there is the thought that the Mind is not merely a synergistic Brain activity but is also within cellular level. Discoveries have been made of amputated people who generate this "mental" energy even though there is no arms or legs. "Fields" have been scientifically detected through instrumentation. Perhaps the future of RV is not having to sit behind a table and generate tons of paperwork.! Mechanism doe not surpass Intention in my books. Once the psi-cellular levels are once more receptive, we would have evolved one step further. > Ultimately those who have not experienced a thing, can not conceive of any proof which would > satisfy them, and those who have need no further proof. A brief review of ancient spiritual > practices will show in almost every culture, simple disciplined, repetitive activities or > ceremonies, accompanied with chanting or drumming which are actually theta tones, these > practices put the participants into trances for "vision quests" a place they go to answer > questions and have deeply moving mystical experiences. Certainly...the way through is DOING IT!. > Recently we met with a doctor who specializes in using bio-feed back equipment to facilitate > treatment of addictive and anti-social behaviors. Our intent was to have our advanced > students experience a monitored theta state, so it would be easier for them to duplicate. The > doctor was hesitant to take patients to theta without a counseling session because, as she > said "when people approach theta, what ever they have suppressed or repressed tends to bubble > up". Well, yes. That is true to certain extent. Since it is difficult to identify that specific area of Theta, I can see why she was hesitant. Doctors freak when they are not IN CONTROL of the pathogens. Scientologist delve heavily in this area through the use of Dianetics. They call it engrams (not the scientifically defined engrams). What many of even well informed Scientologist don't know is that each time they delve into this area they re-inforce the power of that "engram." The antidote to this pathogen must be treated as quickly as possible to diffuse them. They lie sporadically all across our mental lifetime past-life tracks. > As a minister who has done spiritual counseling for 20 years Ihave seen this occur. The wild > card and weak link in this equation is not the brain, nor consciousness, but the psychology, > the individual development of each mind. The significance we add to and then invested in over > time to give meaning or justification to events and our behaviors is what we use to define > our selves, develop our identities, anything which threatens to show us we may have erred in > our assessment, no matter how ultimately true or effective becomes the enemy of the mind. Let's not forget that the unconscious element sometimes DIRECT the conscious behavior without consciousness volition. That is why subliminal messages are so effective if not detrimental. So, personality can be a mush of conscious and unconscious elements establishing prominence. How far can the unconscious take over? Go to the nearest mental asylum. > Remote Viewing is a practical application of many ancient principals packaged in modern > science, regardless of the proofs given mysteries will always remain mysteries to those who > look from the outside. Mysteries are only mysteries because of ignorance. The marketing of mysteries is what keeps the Powers that May Be fill with dough in their pockets and laughing their ass off. However, I get where you are coming from. The "outside" is such a lonely place. :-) Respectfully submitted.... Aloha electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/52)
09:23:55
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> Interesting view Yaana. I am not sure if I agree with all aspects of your definitions. I > personally, find it to be a challenge just to decide if consciousness IS the Mind as it is. Take > for example, Unconsciousness plays a key role in the living. In fact, Unconsciousnes sometimes > SERVES the Consciousness with cognitive or/and subliminal data. Thus, Consciousness AND > Unconsciousness form a pair, if not the same in regards to state dominance at a particular time. I > could delve deeper into this, but I am afraid I could write a volumes on my findings of > Consciousness and quoting MIT lab studies. And as far as "separate," consciousness, I visualize > it otherwise. I "see" a synergy of independent faculties. Scientific and spiritual communities have developed arbitrary assignments such as conscious, unconscious and super conscious, or body, mind and spirit, to describe seemingly separate functions of a functional whole. In the esoteric teachings we have 3 vehicles, which go from dense matter to subtle energies; physical, emotional and mental, all of which are animated by the living breath of spirit (life) and come under the leadership of the soul (individualized consciousness) . Each of these aspects of our being have differing functions; physical (third dimensional vehicle of expression and experience) emotional (vehicle of communication... not intended for constant drama) and mental (like the software program which takes the available data and stores/ presents it in a usable fashion) and the soul the keeper of the purpose. The more society evolves, the more our minds develop, the further we get away from our natural selves, and project arbitrary judgments of superstitious nonsense on natural experiences until we learn not to trust or recognize them. That does not mean that our souls stop communicating, but it does mean that the impressions, perceptions, and sensations sent into our daily mix will be interpreted by the mind, and either validated or invalidated. There is an old programmers saying "garbage in, garbage out". man has evolved into amazing problem solvers, we demonstrate everyday things tantamount to miracles. Yet some problems allude us. I suggest that in society as with individuals problems that will not solve, or get bigger no matter what you do are false problems. False not in that they are not genuine problems, but false in that we have incomplete or inaccurate perception of what the real issue is. Trust of our innate selves has been trained out of most of us, the modern resurgence of spirituality is an attempt to reclaim our birth right. > Theta brain level, by the way, appeals to the unconscious more so than the conscious, all things > being equal....snip High Theta is the threshold to sleep. There is a handshake between low Alpha and high theta where there is an exchange of control between the conscious mind and the sub-conscious, or autonomic system. In altered state RV we train to maintain the ability to communicate in that slim window, where the primary consciousness has fallen asleep, because it is in that window that target can be experienced and congruent data retrieved with out the filter of the minds interpretation. If the viewer falls asleep the session is over and the data is useless. Psychologist study man as a stimulus response animal, in so doing they have created many false problems. Stimulus response is the medium of the mind, but not the totality of the being or the limit of it's potential. Ironic because the direct translation of the word Psychology means, study of the soul. Our science and many religions train us to discredit our essential selves and replace it with memorized facts figures and dogmas, but as you can see from the world we have created it is time to go back inside and trust both who we are and what we know as essential beings and question or leave behind many of the social facades which cripple us. It delights me to know end the the military has developed a structured system that, if followed , will lead you exactly there, into a direct experience of your full potential, but no one ever said it was going to be easy, not because the system does not work, but precisely because it does. In using it you will be faced with dismantling false beliefs or discrediting the system which put your nose in it, so far we have a more than 50% drop out rate. Humans are such creatures of comfort, most would rather keep the illusions they are comfortable with, than face a truth that would change their lives. Aloha Yaana stargate : Message: [stargate]
Differences Between UK and US Research
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/53)
09:24:17
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi All, I've just been browsing the website of the Koestler Parapsychology Unit, which is part of the University of Edinburgh. In reviewing the information up on their website, it seems that UK researchers are taking a difference approach to psi than their US counterparts. There are two working hypothesises in UK labs - the pseudopsi hypothesis, and the psi hypothesis. It appears that the UK is working about equally on the theory of pseudopsi as it is to pro-psi theories, and so is pursueing both possibilities. The below text is taken from Koestler's Mission Statement. Someone asked about UK research, so I hope this answers his question. It's worth noting that the UK is home to some of the biggest skeptics of remote-viewing - Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore, for example. Susan Blackmore had an out-of-body experience when she was younger, which shook her beliefs somewhat and made her feel we could OBE, but when she later took an aerial look of the area she supposedly was OBEing over, found that it was completely different. For her, this sowed the first seeds of doubt, and she now feels that our brains are incredibly complex devices that are capable of mimicking real-life imagery in incredible detail, but she's not convinced that psi exists (yet.) Nonetheless, "pro"-psi and "anti"-psi theories seem to have both been tested in UK labs. Below is the Koestler Lab's Mission Statement. PARAPSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH Introduction The noted writer and critic Arthur Koestler and his wife Cynthia provided in their wills for the establishment of an endowed Chair of Parapsychology at a British university. The declared intention was to further objective scientific research into "the capacity attributed to some individuals to interact with their environment by means other than the recognised sensory and motor channels". Following the Koestlers' deaths in 1982, their trustees advertised the post and in 1984 awarded the Chair to the University of Edinburgh. In 1985 I was fortunate enough to be invited to serve as the first occupant of the Chair, taking up the post in December of the same year. My remit was to develop a systematic and responsible research programme that would integrate this controversial area into the ongoing research and teaching activities of the university community. As our tenth anniversary approaches, I have been invited to describe how we have gone about our task during these years. We have fairly limited resources. Our basic funding, from the Koestler Endowment earnings and from the Literary Estate, provides for a full-time secretary ( Mrs Helen Sims ) and two postdoctoral fellows, one fulltime ( Dr. Deborah Delanoy) and one part-time (Dr. Caroline Watt). We are located within the Department of Psychology, where I do some teaching and supervise research students at both Honours and postgraduate levels. Six students have now completed Ph.D's under my supervision, on theses related to parapsychology. We receive some additional research funding from outside institutions, for student support and for necessary equipment. Integrative Parapsychology In setting up a research plan, one of our main problems was to clarify just what serious parapsychology involves. Anyone can call themselves a parapsychologist, and media representations tend to put entertainment first with accuracy at best an afterthought. Thus we have developed what we call an Integrative Parapsychology, with six features: 1. We regard parapsychology as the study of apparent new means of communication, or interaction, between organisms and their environment (commonly referred to as psi, or psychic ability), beyond those presently understood by the scientific community. 2. Parapsychology is an interdisciplinary problem area, not a separate discipline and not just a subset of psychology. 3. Parapsychology questions rather than presumes; our remit is to investigate a capacity attributed to some individuals and we are under no obligation to presume that capacity's existence. 4. Parapsychology incorporates the investigation of two sets of working hypotheses: the 'pseudopsi hypothesis', which states that most if not all of the evidence for psi is spurious, the result of our being misled or misinterpreting observations; and the 'psi hypothesis', which states that we do appear under certain conditions to have access to some genuinely new means of communication. 5. Parapsychology involves the study of observers drawing inferences, and can profit from the use of models of how we make observations about ostensibly psychic events, including how we can be misled by ourselves and others. 6. Parapsychology uses the tools of science, including detailed descriptions of natural occurrences, surveys, hypothesis formulation and testing, correlational studies, controlled experimental studies with systematic variation of condition, and construction of theoretical models. What's not psychic but looks like it... Our research has largely proceeded along two main lines. One involves the study of "what's not psychic but looks like it". Psychology has long been involved in the study of self-deception and error in human perception, memory, thinking and decision making. Within our group, Carl Williams is looking at some of the factors that lead us to attribute meaning to ambiguous information, with an eye toward eventual clinical application. Tony Lawrence is developing and testing a model of the factors involved in the formation of beliefs about psychic phenomena, as we are growing up and as adults as well. Additionally we have become quite involved in the psychology of conjuring and deliberate deception, drawing both on an integration of the relatively obscure writings of professional magicians and fraudsters and on experimental studies. This research involves surveys of the techniques for both physical and mental effects, as well as strategies for presenting information to observers. Richard Wiseman has studied the effects of observers' attitudes toward psi upon their ability to reconstruct the details of fraudulent psychic demonstrations shown to them on videotape, finding that those with positive attitudes were less likely to notice details related to how the trick was done. It's important as well to understand the psychological strategies of the confidence artist and the techniques by which psychic claimants attempt to negotiate the rules by which their claims will be accepted or rejected. Our work in these areas is currently best represented in a little book recently co-authored by Dr Wiseman and myself, Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants. It includes a description of the strategies pseudopsychics can use to produce even complex patterns of results in their data fraudulently. Of additional interest are the strategies by which fake psychic researchers persuade clients that they know all about the clients through psychic means. Chris Roe has specialised in this area, particularly in the verbal strategies often used. Together we are gradually working toward the development of a general model of deception, including the social context of such deceptive acts. We hope this line of research will be beneficial directly to parapsychological research as well as cognitive and clinical psychology and other disciplines where deception may be involved. Assessing new means of communication Our second main line of research involves assessment of the evidence for genuine new means of communication, including the development of better descriptive tools for exploring daily life experiences as well as experimental tools for producing psychic effects with sufficient strength and consistency that they can contribute to systematic research programmes to develop and test models of how psychic functioning, if it exists, actually works. Some of this work involves a mix of questionnaire and interviews. Shari Cohn has used both to explore 'second sight' experiences within family units, analysing the material both quantitatively and qualitatively to look for patterns in the nature of the experiences themselves, family relationships and other salient factors. Carlos Alvarado is also using both techniques to look for patterns in a specific kind of transpersonal experience known as an out-of-body experience, closely related to near-death experiences. Such research has been an under-represented component of formal parapsychology and can contribute a great deal to understanding the richness of the experiences involved, as well as in the development and testing of models about their nature. Naturalistic settings Other research may involve bringing systematic investigation tools into naturalistic settings, to overcome the problems of ecological validity frequently associated with controlled, laboratory-based research with living organisms. We have done very little in this area, other than to explore ways of sealing off target materials that can then be turned over to individuals for exploratory work in non-laboratory settings. One study by Dr. Wiseman and Dr. John Beloff with an individual claimant produced chance results; another by Drs. Delanoy, Watt, Wiseman and myself with several individuals previously successful in the lab produced positive results. We will be pursuing this area, always in consultation with magicians, as part of our effort to conduct at least some of our research in more natural settings. Laboratory studies - extrasensory perception Most of our effort in this area has gone towards experimental studies of deliberate attempts to produce psychic effects in our own research facilities within the Psychology Department, emphasising procedures that have had a good track record with several other researchers. One line of research follows a noise reduction model for ESP studies and uses amild sensory reduction technique known as the ganzfeld procedure, plus progressive relaxation, asking relaxed participants in a shielded room to produce mental impressions about the content of short film clips being displayed several rooms away. The procedure is automated and includes security features to guard against fraud by researchers as well as participants. Our results with this procedure are very encouraging, with effect sizes similar to those obtained elsewhere by researchers with less well safeguarded facilities, and our research with this technique continues. Several researchers have been involved with this work, including Kathy Dalton, Deborah Delanoy, Caroline Watt and final year undergraduate students in addition to myself. Another line of research by Caroline Watt involves looking at individual differences in perceptual defensiveness and vigilance, following up on research done in several other countries indicating that people who score as defensive on a defense mechanism test do more poorly on controlled ESP tests. She has found similar results using a more objective procedure to assess perceptual defensiveness and vigilance, with vigilant people scoring better. This is consistent with the notion that for some people the information may be more distorted in the course of processing, although the finding may have other interpretations as well. A third line of research has explored techniques purported to train or enhance psychic ability. This line of research, largely conducted by Dr. Delanoy, Dr. Watt, Dr. Loftur Gissurarson and myself has presently produced only mixed results at best, and has in part contributed to the falsification of certain claims for psychic development techniques. Psychokinesis A fourth line of research involves attempts to influence through mental activity, e.g. intentions, the behaviour of electronic equipment such as random number generators based on a source of noise. Such research may seem inherently extremely implausible, as surely we would know it by now if we had any such ability. Nevertheless, low level but consistent effects have been produced in a variety of other laboratories. Our own results have produced at best extremely weak results, although there has been a tendency for the results to be stronger with those having more positive attitudes toward the possibility and those who feel they have had spontaneous experiences suggesting such effects. This research has been conducted largely by Dr Konrad Morgan, Dr Gissurarson and Paul Stevens, in addition to final year undergraduate students. We regard the work as contributing to the falsification of some hypotheses regarding the linkage between operator attitude and equipment failure. Interaction with living systems A fifth line of research involves attempts by an active agent to influence the body physiology of a receiver several rooms away. One version of this involves exploring the idea of remote staring effects, through the use of closed circuit video. Although we are encouraged by some exploratory studies, this line of research is still in its preliminary stages. It is being conducted largely by Dr. Delanoy and Zachary McDermott. History of parapsychology A final area of research involves the history and social context of criticism in parapsychology, conducted by Nancy Zingrone, and a set of surveys of methodological problems and issues by Dr. Julie Milton. Concluding remarks In short, our research programme is still in early stages, with more progress in some areas than others. We are clearly contributing to a better understanding of how we can be misled, both by ourselves and others, and we appear as well to be identifying certain areas where genuine psychic effects may be more readily manifest under conditions that will allow us to explore them more systematically. We are attempting to apply the tools of science to an extremely complex set of human experiences and their interpretation and we are acutely aware that we must avoid both the false positive error of claiming something is there when in fact it is not, as well as the false negative error of declaring something is not there when in fact it is. Both errors are bad science. Author: Robert L. Morris Koestler Chair of Parapsychology, March 1995. Last modified: 24th. January 1996 Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Differences Between UK and US Research
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/54)
09:24:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> PARAPSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF > EDINBURGH EXCELLENT post Steve, thank you !!!! Aloha Yaana stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Differences Between UK and US Research
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/55)
09:24:46
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Steve-- Thanks for the post. I've been up on the Koestler webpage a number of times, but never actually read their introductory material--spent all my time reading posted papers and such. They've been up to more than the rest of their webpage necessarily shows! Enjoy! Paul stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/56)
09:25:08
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> Scientific and spiritual communities have developed arbitrary assignments such as conscious, > unconscious and super conscious, or body, mind and spirit, to describe seemingly separate functions > of a functional whole. In the esoteric teachings we have 3 vehicles, which go from dense matter to > subtle energies; physical, emotional and mental, all of which are animated by the living breath of > spirit (life) and come under the leadership of the soul (individualized consciousness) . Each of > these aspects of our being have differing functions; physical (third dimensional vehicle of expression > and experience) emotional (vehicle of communication... not intended for constant drama) and mental > (like the software program which takes the available data and stores/ presents it in a usable fashion) > and the soul the keeper of the purpose. This is indeed from the human perception and perspective of itself. > The more society evolves, the more our minds develop, the further we get away from our natural selves, > and project arbitrary judgments of superstitious nonsense on natural experiences until we learn not to > trust or recognize them. That does not mean that our souls stop communicating, but it does mean that > the impressions, perceptions, and sensations sent into our daily mix will be interpreted by the mind, > and either validated or invalidated. There is an old programmers saying "garbage in, garbage out". > man has evolved into amazing problem solvers, we demonstrate everyday things tantamount to miracles. > Yet some problems allude us. I suggest that in society as with individuals problems that will not > solve, or get bigger no matter what you do are false problems. False not in that they are not genuine > problems, but false in that we have incomplete or inaccurate perception of what the real issue is. > Trust of our innate selves has been trained out of most of us, the modern resurgence of spirituality > is an attempt to reclaim our birth right. Can't argue there. But just to be meticulous, I would like to point out a few things. I believe it should be that society (people's mental conglomeration and agreed upon rules of behavior) dictates our mores and the more we acknowledge societies' principles without question the more we reduced our perceptions [philosophical introspection]. Science, by default, is reductionism followed blindly. It is expansionism applied rationally with no prejudice [scientific introspection]. Also, "problems that will not solve" may be due to improperly applied solutions, like the right CONTENT in the WRONG CATEGORY. Like constantly using statistical data to prove an esoteric point. Somehow, the agenda switches to using science to validate one's conviction to others, which up to now has been futile to the progress of the nature of Psi. Statistician can't even agree on their figure, muchless the dumbfounded, unschooled bystanders that are struck with a tower of formulas to INTERPRET. That's reductionism at its worst. As far as false problems and solutions the answer is using False Data Stripping (a borrowed concept and terminology not of my own). > In altered state RV we train to maintain the ability to communicate in that slim window, > where the primary consciousness has fallen asleep, because it is in that window that target can be > experienced and congruent data retrieved with out the filter of the minds interpretation. If the > viewer falls asleep the session is over and the data is useless. Sounds like my period in time when I was learning to meditate. :-) > Psychologist study man as a stimulus response animal, in so doing they have created many false > problems. Now, come on...let's cut some of them some slack. Things have gotten a little more sophisticated these days. Some are Cognitive Scientist in disguise. :-) Actually, many good questions AND answers have been possed by the best.. i.e.Carl Jung and Abraham Maslow. > Stimulus response is the medium of the mind, but not the totality of the being or the limit > of it's potential. Ironic because the direct translation of the word Psychology means, study of the > soul. Our science and many religions train us to discredit our essential selves and replace it with > memorized facts figures and dogmas, but as you can see from the world we have created it is time to go > back inside and trust both who we are and what we know as essential beings and question or leave > behind many of the social facades which cripple us. Yeah... I call it Reductionism --- infinite ability to zero ability. > It delights me to know end the the military has developed a structured system that, if followed , will > lead you exactly there, into a direct experience of your full potential, but no one ever said it was > going to be easy, not because the system does not work, but precisely because it does. In using it > you will be faced with dismantling false beliefs or discrediting the system which put your nose in it, > so far we have a more than 50% drop out rate. Humans are such creatures of comfort, most would rather > keep the illusions they are comfortable with, than face a truth that would change their lives. I don't know if I should take offense to that having been in the Army. But I am sure you mean well. :-). Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute that Remote Viewing is not the cure all. At the rate of RV marketing, it is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak otherwise, or face being chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. Let's remember, that the Way of Knowing is hardly relegated solely to RV. Aloha electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Differences Between UK and US Research
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/57)
09:31:08
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi Paul, >Thanks for the post. Thank you for joining the list, and for posting! I've been up on the Koestler webpage a number of >times, but never actually read their introductory material--spent all my >time reading posted papers and such. They've been up to more than the rest >of their webpage necessarily shows! I expect that's true, but nonetheless there's a lot of fascinating information and studies up on their website, and it's certainly intriguing. As an Internet techie, I found the Psi-Ping experiment -particularly- interesting. For the non-technies, an Internet ping is a test signal sent to a computer, which then returns the signal. The purpose is to measure 'lag time', since ping tests will tell you if a signal was sent and received, and if so, what the lag time on it was. (The lag-time varies depending on a variety of semi-random factors of the way the Internet operates.) They are asking people to attempt to influence the ping time, both speeding it up and slowing it down. The results from the first experiment are interesting. The results seem to suggest we have the ability to increase Internet lag time, but not decrease it. (The results show a significant effect for slowing down Internet pings, but not speeding it up.) (Anyone interesting in the Psi-Ping experiment can get more information by visiting the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/ and following the links to the experiments/psi-ping page.) Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/58)
09:31:27
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi Electrix, You've not replied to any of my posts recently. I hope I've not said anything to offend you? If there's anything you need me to explain further, don't hesitate to ask me. >Can't argue there. But just to be meticulous, I would like to point out a few >things. I believe it should be that society (people's mental conglomeration and >agreed upon rules of behavior) dictates our mores and the more we >acknowledge societies' principles without question the more we reduced our >perceptions [philosophical introspection]. I certainly agree that the more we blend in with society or a group, and if we're not careful, the individual can lose their unique identity within it. As someone who grew up the victim of prejudice, I can tell you that people who are different are viewed by some cultures and societies as being a threat, and try to force a certain degree of conformity on those who are different or who hold different views. Luckily, this is not true of everyone. I would say that only half of society acts this way. The other half is thankfully more liberal, and not so threatening to "different" people like you or I. I believe that a wide range of views and opinions are healthy and should be encouraged. Otherwise, we risk losing their unique input and insights. Afterall, is it not the differences that make us strong? >Science, by default, is reductionism followed blindly. I believe it is important to define the difference between a few things here. First, there is science. In it's purest form, science is based on hypothesises and theories, which are then tested through a variety of experiments. The results of those experiments, if validated after peer-review, then guide the direction of future research. Second, there are scientists. These are people who are supposed to follow the rules of science. However, as with any individuals or groups, there are consensus views, majority views. Some people in society, and this includes some scientists (they're human afterall!), are highly influenced by the majority view, and might be more shier, prefering to emphasise results that tow the consensus view, and being a lot more skeptical and suspicious of results that go agaisnt the mould. The towing of a consensus view without critical thinking, I call "scientism", and I am not sure if it is the same scientism most people are referring to, but I believe it is. Scientism does not base it's conclusions on results of independent scientific experiments, but on the prevailing point of view within the mainstream scientific community. Taking scientism to it's extremes, we get groups like CSICOP. CSICOP are an extremely unscientific and religious organisation, which seems to be based on their own unique blend of scientism and reductionism. It is important to notice, that scientism is NOT science. This is a common misconception, and one I had made for many years. Scientism is a religion. The *only* thing that separates scientism from most religions, is that the Gods of Scientism are the leading, most influential scientists and the prevailing scientific viewpoint of the time. While scientism may be a reductionist philosophy, based upon years of research and scientific opinion, it is still a religion. Religions are rigid, closed-minded, and accepted on faith. Scientists who accept the word of their prominent peers on 'faith in facts' (facts being what their peers tell them it is), could be said to be following scientism. Scientists who, on the other hand, question and critique the word of their peers, and attempt to replicate their findings, to see if their theory is correct, are the true scientists. Science works through open-minded investigation and experimentation, rather than reliance on what leading scientists have to say (which is scientism). This is why I am supportive and sympathetic to remote-viewing skeptics. Skeptics are often called many nasty names, but there are honest skeptics out there too, who are following the tenets of science: question the results, and perform experiments of their own. I feel these kinds of efforts should be -encouraged-. >Like constantly using statistical data to prove an esoteric point. Science has to rely on whatever data is available. Statistical and mathematical-based experiments are useful for testing for the existance of psi (figure out the "chance" level, perform tightly- controlled experiments, collect the results). In the case of psi, in what other way can we objectively test for the existence of the phenomenon, if we do not rely on statistical methods? I'm welcome to hear alternative testing methods, methods which can be independently and objectivity verified. >Somehow, the agenda switches to using science to validate >one's conviction to others, which up to now has been futile >to the progress of the nature of Psi. Whenever the agenda becomes to proving the existence of something, or disproving it, objectivity is lost. Science demands that no assumptions are made - and that if any are made, such as in making theories - that the purpose is to allow an experiment to proced, and that an objective test is created to determine if the theory is correct or false, BEFORE it becomes generally accepted. The test should be performed by objective and impartial individuals. If not such people exist, then it should be performed by a mixture of supporters and skeptics who can try and hash out a middle-ground they can both work within. >Statistician can't even agree on their figure, muchless the >dumbfounded, unschooled bystanders that are struck with a >tower of formulas to INTERPRET. That's reductionism at >its worst. I would call it scientific debate. Formulas and statistics can be used correctly or incorrectly. Those who argue about the accuracy of a statistical formula, may feel that the statistical method is misleading or deceptive, or insufficient in some way. We need to hear their views, so we can analyse their criticisms and see if they have merit. Debate and peer-review are an essential part of the scientific process. This is a fact that followers of scientism often seem to forget. Scientists are not infalliable. Scientists disagree all the time. It's because we all view things differently. Even if we are using the same processes, we may have different experiences and expertise which causes us to analyse and view the results in different ways. As wide a range of opinions as possible should be saught, IMO. The process of peer-review is designed to create an atmosphere in which both supporters and skeptics of a subject can come to a prior agreement on how a test will be performed and measured, so that both groups can call the experiment objective - even if they choose to view the results in a different way (see above on differences of opinion). Once that is agreed, the test can proceed. No changes should be made to the agreed parameters of the experiment by either the supporters or the skeptics, once the parameters have been agreed to. Then both groups must agree to accept the results, if they were unable to find fault beforehand in the methods they chose to use. Of course, this will not be sufficient for scientists or researchers who are *outside* of the experiment and unable to monitor it and be an integral part of it. That's why there are several psi labs, not just one. And that's also why certain members of the public want to be able to reproduce the psi labs results, outside of the laboratory. >>soul. Our science and many religions train us to discredit our essential selves >>and replace it with memorized facts figures and dogmas, but as you can see >>from the world we have created it is time to go back inside and trust both who >>we are and what we know as essential beings and question or leave >>behind many of the social facades which cripple us. >Yeah... I call it Reductionism --- infinite ability to zero ability. I would argue that we should not by default accept what someone tells us, be they part ofa religion or scientific institution, if we feel it is an important enough topic to gain correct answers to. In these cases, we should aim to form our own experiments, set up parameters which are fair and objective, and do the tests yourself. >I don't know if I should take offense to that having been in the Army. But I >am sure you mean well. :-). Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute >that Remote Viewing is not the cure all. At the rate of RV marketing, it >is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak otherwise, >or face being chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. >Let's remember, that the Way of Knowing is hardly relegated solely to RV. I think it is important that we all remember that it is *not* a crime to ask the difficult questions, and expect answers. True science does not ask us to accept anything on faith. It asks us to perform experiments and find our for ourselves, always being on the look-out for possible mistakes or errors that might contaminate the results and thus the accuracy of the conclusions. Unfortunately, it seems that many people training for science degrees are instead being taught to memorize and regurgitate information, and assured that the experiments and the results are sound. I do not feel this is healthy. I believe that true science is a system where no assumptions can be made, and our belief is guided by the data. Where we have no answers, we shouldn't resort to speculating or assumptions. Or if we do, because it is part of a personal belief system for example, then it should be kept separate from the science that we do, and we should not let it intefere in the scientific process. I hope you appreciate my comments are not meant in any way to criticise you for holding your views. I just feel that scientism and science are being confused. Many of the comments you may are true of scientism, but not of science itself. Science does not take anything on faith; rather, scientific objectivity and experimentation dictates that we are guided by the data, always on the look-out for possible flaws or errors that may mean our data is incorrect. Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/59)
09:31:39
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> In altered state RV we train to maintain the ability to communicate in that slim window, > where the primary consciousness has fallen asleep, because it is in that window that target can be > experienced and congruent data retrieved with out the filter of the minds interpretation. If the > viewer falls asleep the session is over and the data is useless. >> About half true.....In fact when a viewer is performing Coordinate Remote Viewing they are wide awake, vibrant and alert sitting at a table (not lying in a bed) in well lit room with only a monitor offering guidance and they progress through the several phases of activities which "lock" them on to the target signal and begin delivering data which they write down or even sketch as the session progresses....In remote viewing in which a state of semi- conscious response is used...we have learn to call this Extended Remote Viewing...the viewer does lie in a bed, in a darkened room, silenced to a the greates extent possible with a monitor to guide them through the session...it is the monitor's responsibility to "move" them at the target, to note the data being spoken my the viewer and to insure the viewer maintains a proper level of altered state...(he keeps them on the edge of wakefulness and sleep).... There you have it...my first input to the Stargate net...see how nasty I can be... Gene Kincaid..... stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/60)
09:31:53
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
electrix wrote: > snip......Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute that Remote Viewing is not the cure all. At the > rate of RV > marketing, it is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak otherwise, or face being > chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. Let's remember, that the Way of Knowing is > hardly relegated solely to RV. > > Aloha > electrix I do not mean to imply that RV is a cure all, because it is not, but it has validity for those who wish to pursue it. I have meditated and investigated many "consciousness raising techniques" for 20 years I find RV to be a refreshingly disciplined and logical technique which when diligently applied produces amazingly consistent and verifiable results, not just in data collection but in the potential for personal growth. As far as religions go, marketing of RV which focuses the attention on personalities rather than product produces just the effects you describe. Any technique with the promise and impact of RV would generate a firestorm on it's own but when you combine volatile personalities making failed predictions who refuse to submit their work for peer review, this gives people who are threatened by RV an easy target to discredit the whole body of work, and for many that is all they hear. I want to thank Steve for this forum to discuss topics like these. We do not always have to agree but in the process of presenting points of view we will educate each other. When people speak from internalized experience they are the most compelling. Many times these experiences have been so complete they did not feel the need to find scientific justifications for what they KNOW, indeed until the past few decades with the advent of quantum theory and the like none was available. In order to resist the mindless acceptance of reductionism we have to learn to verify, trust and develop our internal experience. RV is a very powerful tool in this quest, and therefor is seen as a threat to those who hold their secrets most dear because it was born as an intelligence gathering tool. In the private sector most students seem more interested in personal development than in busting conspiracies, but when enough people become conscious and aware it may have the same effect. Aloha Yaana stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/61)
09:32:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
<< I don't know if I should take offense to that having been in the Army. But I am sure you mean well. :-). Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute that Remote Viewing is not the cure all. At the rate of RV marketing, it is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak otherwise, or face being chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. Let's remember, that the Way of Knowing is hardly relegated solely to RV. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/62)
09:32:52
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
I am sure you mean well. :-). Just one thing, I don't believe for one minute that Remote Viewing is not the cure all. At the rate of RV marketing, it is quickly becoming like a religion. None dare step and speak otherwise, or face being chopped to pieces. There are a lot of "flavors" out there. Let's remember, that the Way of Knowing is hardly relegated solely to RV. >> As a retired member of the Army and former member of the Defense Department's attempts at professional Remote Viewing...I take special umbrage at the inference that to be a professional soldier you must become a mindless automaton....The military is a dynamic and exciting profession offering many opportunities for freedom of thought and ideas to make the system better...As to RV be the end all...Crap...it is only a method of accessing data available to everyone...Marketing of RV has indeed made it a cottage industry for many..I am, of course, amazed at the RV "miricle of the fishes" that took less than a total ot three dozen people who were ever involved in the military program (all of whom I know by their first name) and mysteriously increased that number to virtually hundreds of people who claim to have been in the unit....I would caution anyone seeking instruction to discount out of hand, any offers to teach RV based upon previous membership in the old organization since there are only five people who were members who actually teach RV...to of whom do it for free...refusing any monies for personal reasons...So seek out instruction but be very careful.... Regards...Gene... stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/63)
09:33:02
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Aloha Gene, I agree with your comments on the role of the monitor. The viewer's approach to functioning at low states of awareness is complimented by a monitor who can keep the viewer pretty balanced and responsive. I think the viewer skill lies in being able to function in a sort of inclined orbit at or near theta. A lazy 8 pattern above theta for monitor recognition/dialog followed by a drop in active awareness for insight. No so much a Yo-Yo effect, but more of a wave cycle or surging of consciousness. Aloha ... Glenn stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/64)
09:33:14
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Steve-- How'd you get so smart, anyway? I agree very much with most of what you have said in this post, with the following minor exception (and I hope I understood correctly, otherwise I may be objecting to something I might otherwise agree with!). At 01:20 PM 6/26/98 +-100, you wrote: >I believe that true science is a system where no assumptions can be made, >and our belief is guided by the data. Where we have no answers, we >shouldn't resort to speculating or assumptions. Or if we do, because it is >part of a personal belief system for example, then it should be kept separate >from the science that we do, and we should not let it intefere in the scientific >process. First, we couldn't HAVE science without assumptions. Math and logic are based on certain elementary, fundamental assumptions that cannot be further proved, and on those the rest of the structure is built. Speculations and (other) assumptions are important, because it is upon those that hypothesis are built which, when tested successfully, produce theories. The progress that has been made in psi research owes as much to that premise as does mainstream science. Of course, sometimes hypothesis and theories are wrong, because the speculations and assumptions were wrong. But that's the breaks of having only this trial and error system on which to rely for discovering the basis of truths about the universe. And in fact we could never progress if students were not taught to assume the knowledge base they were building on was correct. Human progress rests on the idea that succeeding generations build on the foundation that was laid before. The alternative would be every generation having to prove the same things over again, which means they'd never get around to any new discoveries. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't go back and replace rotten planks we discover in the platform of knowledge upon which we stand. The key is not that we reject speculation and assumption, but rather that science should insist more strongly on the questioning of assumptions and "received truth" whenever there seems to be a credible conflict between observed fact and established notions. (I use "credible" here because there are claims made every day that are prima facie ridiculous, and if scientists went chasing willynilly after every crazy claim, they'd never get around to curing cancer or finding magic bullets with which to clean up the environment and such ;-). So anyway, there's my minuscule contribution to the debate! Enjoy, Paul stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/65)
09:33:26
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Well, Gene! I was about to e-mail you. Glad you found your way to Steve's e-mail group. Don't know how a red-blooded Irish lad like yourself can manage to participate in a group hosted out of the homeland of the English oppressor, but I know Steve to be a tolerant sort, so I'm sure he'll manage to put up with the likes o' ya' . Enjoy! Paul stargate : Message: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/66)
09:33:39
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hi everybody. I was reading another board and found an interesting post. I want to share it with this group and get some feedback. It is a good topic: remote influencing. The author of the following is "Jeffery". I hope I am not violating nettiquete by reposting his post. I mean well. "Remote Influencing: Some have asked about the ramifications of remote influencing within remote viewing. It is a human ability that we manipulate each other with in different ways in our every day lives. The Remote Viewing application is much more focused and specific, remote healing is in-fact remote influencing in a positive light. At the Farsight Institute remote influencing was taught to those in advanced training, it was not encouraged, but taught as just one of the many tools available to us all as remote viewers. I have not used these skills and have not really seen a need where I could justify using it yet, but I have felt and experienced the effects of remote influencing during specific Remote Viewing sessions. On one occasion the viewer was not getting any data at all when placed at the objective, the normal flow of data just stopped. The viewer felt the change and reported seeing fog or a gray wall when asked to describe the objective. On this occasion we used some movements and penetrated the gray wall, now the viewer was willing to do this. The viewer suffered a bloody nose and an extreme headache, as soon as the wall was penetrated. The objective was then very clear and the visual cleaned up accordingly, after we had obtained our goals set forth within that session, I did some recon of the source of the Remote influencing and we surprised the" you know what" out of this other team of viewers. We made our presence known to them and they were not pleased with their failure at all. So yes this is happening in the now, being a good viewer enables you to sense when and where remote influencing is going on to a higher degree than normal. This other group was well organized and well financed who knows what their full time mission goals might be. Hope this information helps a little, if you want to be remote influenced right now just go turn on the "Boob tube" and sit down and mellow into a nice alpha state for a few hours and get your daily programming folks. Im sure you will be off for some fast food before you know it. Dont forget your Crest toothpaste and that favorite beverage uummmm baby . LOL " stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/67)
09:33:54
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Curran2106@... wrote: > I take special umbrage at the > inference that to be a professional soldier you must become a mindless > automaton.... Anyone who has listened to these guys go back and forth on PJs list know these arehighly individualistic persons each with a mind of his own. And as someone who is in training with Paul, and who debates issues with him freely, I can tell you not only do they think for themselves, but they also expect it from those they work with in training. Steve your list is off to a good start! Your comments re: science vs. scientism were particularly appropo. It's easy to get tangled in the throes of identification with a particular stance, as we all are prone to do. Clarifying the differences is important. For instance in any generalized statement which groups people in order to make some point about what you don't like, we end up making false connections. As in, we have to be clear that the scientists are not all fatally flawed with the disease of scientism; the psychologists are not all fatally flawed with the disease of behaviorism; and army or military does not equal automaton. Learning to RV does not negate my prior interests and utilization of meditation and dreamwork. Paul and Joe are artists as well as RVers. Gene as we know is a familiar with the wee people, and that's quite an accomplishment which requires vigilance and humor. Above all, we should endeavor to experiment for ourselves with any discipline or system to determine whether it will have value within our personal lives. If it doesn't that still does not negate the value of it for another individual. In dealing with RV I haven't laid aside all of my personal experience in other disciplines; to the contrary I'm now very clear about how they all compliment one another and enhance one another. Shelia stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/68)
09:34:13
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> You've not replied to any of my posts recently. Actually, I thought you were taking a break from discussions. I didn't see anything posted by you lately to comment on. > I hope I've not said anything to offend you? Ha,ha,ha...no my friend. It is not often that I find a most engaging formadable and friendly nemesis (oxymoron, but you'll get the meaning). I had promise myself to minimize my presence on the web and focus on my work, but alas, a few engaging exchange of thought between Yaana and yourself has dissuade me of my objective. I am sure to reach a climax once I am satisfied and exhausted in examining our thoughts and arriving at a synthesis (Thesis vs. Anti-Thesis results in Synthesis) :-). > I believe that a wide range of views and opinions are healthy and should be > encouraged. Otherwise, we risk losing their unique input and insights. Afterall, > is it not the differences that make us strong? Yes...I thought of this same subject last night. Yaana's view and your view shows quite a sharp distinction in how we conceive concepts and view of the world. No doubt, that there is an implication of truism in what we say. But I think we are lost in words that probably arrive at the same destination if we curbed our verbage. :-) > >Science, by default, is reductionism followed blindly. > > I believe it is important to define the difference between a few things here. > > First, there is science. In it's purest form, science is based on hypothesises > and theories, which are then tested through a variety of experiments. The > results of those experiments, if validated after peer-review, then guide the > direction of future research. Excellent. Invariably, determining the difference in things is a prerequisite to higher conscious awareness and assimilation. But I will use my example of "reductionism" to what you have suggested. By reductionism I ment the dissection of the subject in question and its adherence to that conviction without examining the whole aspect of the subject again. When you propose to establish the "difference" you initiated the process of dissection. Science takes the general and dissects it to the smallest understandable package. Followed down, it is induction. Sometimes we remain there without looking back at the forest, so to speak. Others use those principles, wittingly or unwittingly, to deny the existence of "natural" psi-ability, a poit Yaana made regarding psychologist approach to examining human nature as animal base. In essence, I understand that she is stating that the study of animal nature, doesn't easily transfer to human. Taking animal studies and applying it to humans is what I call reductionism. Blind belief in their animal theory, influences human into animalistic behavior. Granted, there are occasionally some "animal" similarities, but they ought not to be dictated as human principles. Science in of itself, is not the cause. In that, you are absolutely right. But it is, as you once stated, the "spin" that we put on it. > The towing of a consensus view without critical thinking, I call "scientism", > and I am not sure if it is the same scientism most people are referring to, > but I believe it is. Scientism does not base it's conclusions on results of > independent scientific experiments, but on the prevailing point of view > within the mainstream scientific community. > > Taking scientism to it's extremes, we get groups like CSICOP. CSICOP > are an extremely unscientific and religious organisation, which seems to > be based on their own unique blend of scientism and reductionism. Okay. I have not read on this organization. But if it is religious in its manifestation, then we have strayed from the categorization of science and are into the arena of religion and philosophy. We must argue on their scientific foundation OR on their religious and philosophical underpining in order not to blur the issue. I suppose this exactly why you consider it to be un-scientific, those categories are not easily and convincingly mixed. > This is why I am supportive and sympathetic to remote-viewing > skeptics. Skeptics are often called many nasty names, but there > are honest skeptics out there too, who are following the tenets of > science: question the results, and perform experiments of their > own. I feel these kinds of efforts should be -encouraged-. Here is where we fall into subjectivist view Steve. "but there are honest skeptics ..." Honesty is not the issue. It is whether they have a CONVINCING argument. Moreover, their label in itself is a direct contradiction. Being a "skeptics," lacks doesn't the assumption of NEUTRAL view by which to examine psi. Most start off with the condition that Psi is bogus. Of course the opposite could be said of a supporter of Psi. Belief in excess makes for unrealistic POSITIVE results (refer to the Jessica Utts and Ray Hillman AIR report). One of the laws of psi is negative and positive influence on the subject. Not necessarily quoting the many studies and observations made in the past and present (I will leave it to your examination), performance of a psi experiment suffers in the presence of a skeptical mind. It is here whereby I draw the analogy of Quantum Theory behavior and Psi. Since I subscribe to the belief (philosophy) that psi and quantum mechanics have similar correspondence, I suggest the process is prominent ---. the examiner INFLUENCES the outcome of the experiment. This law is unequivocal. It is one of the first laws that should be identified and declared in the Psi thesis. > >Like constantly using statistical data to prove an esoteric point. > > Science has to rely on whatever data is available. Statistical and > mathematical-based experiments are useful for testing for the > existance of psi (figure out the "chance" level, perform tightly- > controlled experiments, collect the results). > > In the case of psi, in what other way can we objectively test for > the existence of the phenomenon, if we do not rely on statistical > methods? I'm welcome to hear alternative testing methods, > methods which can be independently and objectivity verified. Doing so Steve, reduces Psi from its ellusive subjective level to hard science objective. We are asking to resolve an UN-REALISTIC phenomena. It is the same argument I have been repeating in most of the posting I have made. Science is ment to test REALITY. What is reality made of? Gases, liquid, solids and plasma. Anything beyond that is an inference that must be tested by empirical observation or relegated to philosophy, i.e. belief system. I once stated that when a psychic individual exceeds the credibility threshold of an observing or skeptical person, these individuals will either not SEE what is in front of their face or flatly deny or distort it. It is like an Indian Shaman performing the lifting of a mountain ... just watch how many enginneers or scientist take out their measuring tools to find out how the Indian is doing it, when in fact he is just DOING IT! They don't SEE the psi, they investigate why it is contrary to all physical laws. So, another law that should be included in any Psi thesis is that exemplification of a power beyond the "reality" of a contemporary mentality should remain in the secrecy of the of the psi-individual until its timely and proper introduction into social milieu. Jesus was about the only divine person that got away with it, since he realized he was immortal and would live in the hearts of man no matter how much he was persecuted or crucified. ;-) > >Somehow, the agenda switches to using science to validate > >one's conviction to others, which up to now has been futile > >to the progress of the nature of Psi. > > Whenever the agenda becomes to proving the existence of > something, or disproving it, objectivity is lost. Science demands > that no assumptions are made - and that if any are made, > such as in making theories - that the purpose is to allow an > experiment to proced, and that an objective test is created > to determine if the theory is correct or false, BEFORE it > becomes generally accepted. The test should be performed > by objective and impartial individuals. If not such people > exist, then it should be performed by a mixture of > supporters and skeptics who can try and hash out a > middle-ground they can both work within. You missed my point here Steve. If scientific investigation in to Psi phenomenon has proven insignificant, or conflicting, we have the wrong method of stating. It was Yaana suggestion that where a false problem exist and continue multiplying itself, it means that we are mis-identifying the problem. I added that it could also be the right CONTENT in the WRONG CATEGORY. An "objective" and mathematical science should have, by now, identified the Un-reality, ergo, reality of Psi and its nature, not withstanding Time. > >Statistician can't even agree on their figure, muchless the > >dumbfounded, unschooled bystanders that are struck with a > >tower of formulas to INTERPRET. That's reductionism at > >its worst. > > I would call it scientific debate. Formulas and statistics can > be used correctly or incorrectly. Those who argue about > the accuracy of a statistical formula, may feel that the > statistical method is misleading or deceptive, or insufficient > in some way. We need to hear their views, so we can analyse > their criticisms and see if they have merit. Statistics does not and should not inject "feel" into the equation. Again, refer to the AIR report. Agenda? most likely. > Debate and peer-review are an essential part of the scientific > process. This is a fact that followers of scientism often seem > to forget. Scientists are not infalliable. Scientists disagree > all the time. It's because we all view things differently. Even > if we are using the same processes, we may have different > experiences and expertise which causes us to analyse and > view the results in different ways. As wide a range of > opinions as possible should be saught, IMO. Idealistic and agreeable statement. > Many of the comments you may are true of scientism, but not of science > itself. Science does not take anything on faith; rather, scientific > objectivity and experimentation dictates that we are guided by the data, > always on the look-out for possible flaws or errors that may mean our > data is incorrect. I couldn't have implied otherwise. I agree. electrix :-) stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/69)
09:34:24
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Paul H. Smith wrote: > Steve-- > > How'd you get so smart, anyway? That's the same question I asked myself....I guess Mother Nature don't make teenagers like it used to! I AM waiting for an answer.... :-) electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/70)
09:34:39
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] RV Science I must concur with Gene K's statement on CRV. In the form of remote viewing I learned from USSR training techniques in early 60's there was no aspect of initiating other than light alpha brainwave levels. In our own work in the Psi Squad,(est. 1971 for those of you who are not familiar with us) almost 100% of the work is done in the wide awake, alert, state as well. The level of detachment from immediate surroundings (noises, other people, etc) is more a level of concentration, than a deliberate brainwave level or altered state reflex. We have only trained one police officer in all that time who preferred the 'lie down and go into a deep level - work with a monitor' methodology. It is apparent that there are more than one or two ways to skin a cat, and remote viewing methods do not conform to any one standard. The most useful standard is: 'does the method work?' 'are consistent results gained?' 'what is the accuracy level?' Bevy PS: Have you seen a copy of Patrick Marsolek's Article in the recent issue Atlantis Rising? Goes along with the discussion which was taking place on our old VWR and PSI Lists with PJ. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/71)
09:34:49
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> It is apparent that there are more than one or two ways to skin a cat, and > remote viewing methods do not conform to any one standard. The most useful > standard is: 'does the method work?' 'are consistent results gained?' 'what > is the accuracy level?' > Yes...I concur. In an isolated personal experiment I did with individuals before my exposure to "proper" RV method and protocol, I got some very impressive results. When I read Joe McMoneagle "Mind Trek," I realized I was using the same method that Robert Monroe was using on Joe to Remote View some targets. In essence, there are ?th way to skin the cat! electrix P.S. the Psi Squad....hmmmm...why does this remind me of the Mod Squad. Psi Squad... :-) Now, *there* is a prime time T.V. screenplay! stargate : Message: [stargate]
Two Lists in One
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/72)
09:35:08
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear All, I just wanted to point one thing one now, in order to avoid confusion later. I'm pretty sure most of you have either been told this already or have probably guess this, but I figured this should be said anyway. This list is a hybrid of the Psi List and the Viewer List that are/used to be run by PJ. Until this list has a bigger subscriber base behind it, I feel it is important to have a joint list like this. Both lists and the topics that are part of them deserve a chance at life, as I'm sure we'd all agree. A lot of people were upset when they heard their favourite lists were closing, so I immediately decided to open up this Star Gate list and try to plug a gap before PJ pulled the plug and the conversation was all sucked into a black hole.. There was only two choices. We either have two lists, in which case there is the danger of dividing subscribers over the two lists, and since the subscriber level is only mediumish anyway, that might lead to a problem of not enough members in each list, and so not enough posts. Merge the two, or rather keep them as one (as they are here), and we don't have that problem. Of course, I'm not intending to keep things this way forever. Once this list has reached a large enough memberbase, I am intending to create a second list, which we'll call the New Viewer List for now :) It will be moderated, and topics/discussion will be kept along similar lines as PJ's list, as I know her list format was very popular. Once the New Viewer List is created, this Star Gate list can become the equivalent of the old rv/psi list. Since the CRV topics will most likely migrate to the new Viewer List, that leaves the other psi topics to be discussed in this list, which will remain unmoderated. In the meantime, both Psi List and Viewer List topics are "on topic" for this list. This includes serious discussion of psi as well as more relaxed and casual discussion about psi, which can include less structured methods. I hope people see the logic behind the way I'm trying to organise this. (You can only start to think about splitting something up when it starts to get big..) So in the meantime, we'll carry on as we have been up until now. In perhaps a week, we'll have two lists, and hopefully it will minimise the effect of PJ's lists closing when that eventually happens. People are welcome to cross-post or cross-reply messages (i.e. make replies to Viewer List posts on -this- list, or make a post to -both- the Viewer/Psi List and this this list, in the meantime.) I hope no one minds this "hybrid" list in the meantime, and can understand my reasons for deciding to transfer things over this way. As the saying goes, "in unity, there is strength." I figured that one list was better than two for now. Best always, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/73)
09:35:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Electrix-- At 06:03 PM 6/26/98 -0700, you wrote: >Here is where we fall into subjectivist view Steve. "but there are honest skeptics >..." Honesty is not the issue. It is whether they have a CONVINCING argument. >Moreover, their label in itself is a direct contradiction. Being a "skeptics," lacks >doesn't the assumption of NEUTRAL view by which to examine psi. Actually, people often misunderstand what the word "skeptic" really implies--the fault, as I've said in other venues ;-) of rabidly extremist skeptics as typified by CSICOP. A true "skeptic" is a person who holds judgement of some reported phenomenon or truth-claim in abeyance until what has been claimed has been fairly and reasonably demonstrated. A true skeptic is always prepared to change his/her belief if evidence justifies such a change. I hope ALL of us maintain a certain healthy skepticism in our lives, since one thing we should all know by now is that things are often not as they appear. This especially holds true in the realm of the paranormal. It can often be very difficult to separate legitimate events or effects from the fraudulent or just simply misinterpreted. Most start off with >the condition that Psi is bogus. Of course the opposite could be said of a supporter >of Psi. Belief in excess makes for unrealistic POSITIVE results (refer to the Jessica >Utts and Ray Hillman AIR report). I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here--was it that Utt's evaluation was too optimistic? If so, I would certainly argue with you, since her assessment was very rigorously done. Or did you mean that Hyman's response was egregiously and unsupportably negative? In that case, I would agree with you quite strongly. >One of the laws of psi is negative and positive influence on the subject. Ummm, I'm not sure this is actually a LAW of psi. It has been suggested by some researchers to account for why in some settings results fall off when the experimenters or observers are skeptics. But this effect doesn't always necessarily occur. Many times in the SRI RV experiments they had impressive successes even with quite virulent skeptics present, and in fact even with virulent skeptics participating. I myself have been party to demonstration sessions that were notably successful even though the persons for whom they were done were heavily into doubt and denial. Over the years not a few of them were converted. The most recent successes have occurred on the UT skeptics RV site that I've been touting. Even though skeptics are running the site, we have a had a number of quite good sessions contributed (amongst an admittedly high number of failures), and with y'all's support I expect even more. >process is prominent ---. the examiner INFLUENCES the outcome of the experiment. This >law is unequivocal. It is one of the first laws that should be identified and declared >in the Psi thesis. I would acknowledge that the experimenter (monitor, tasker) can indeed in many cases intentionally or inadvertently influence the outcome. But I would argue that this is not unequivocal. Again appealing to my own personal experience, I have been involved in a number of sessions where monitor intention, whether conscious or unconscious, did NOT effect the outcome of the session. Sometime the viewer just does what he/she needs to do, and leaves all the interference behind. >Doing so Steve, reduces Psi from its ellusive subjective level to hard science >objective. We are asking to resolve an UN-REALISTIC phenomena. Actually, not so. The CAUSE may be "un-realistic" (whatever that really means), but the phenomenon itself is a real manifestation here in the real world. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything for us to notice, nor to even consider testing. The EFFECTS of psi are immenently testable. But I have my doubts that we'll ever establish a cause-and-effect linkage using any sort of physical measuring device or testing methodology. Okay, hope I haven't overstayed my welcome... Enjoy! Paul stargate : Message: [stargate]
Getting the Balance Right
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/74)
09:35:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear Steve and List : Here is a bit of feedback from the USA re : "balance".... Since I am isolated from RV teachers, I would like to be able to conduct experiments with those who are open to working with me. I am reluctant, of course, due to possible failures (and ego thereof ?!) but....it is time to test my own "skeptic hat" (and I wear a good one some days) and I would be willing to post the messes as well as the successes. I appreciate the feedback if I fail, and I appreciate the feedback if it works. I am looking for practice... even with those who have the "skeptic hat". I have no credentials of any kind, so those looking for military experience or scholastic degrees must pass me by. I am completely untrained by anyone and have been 'on my own' for a few years. The only medium I have worked in is via computer. I know, this sounds odd!!!! Is there a way we all could agree to set such a thing up? Or are there 'rules' we must follow? I hope this is not creating a new problem for our list to think about .... I realize this is bold, but there are times in life when one must make such leaps.... My best to all, Laura stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/75)
09:35:45
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Paul H. Smith wrote: > not a few of them were converted. The most recent successes have occurred > on the UT skeptics RV site that I've been touting. Even though skeptics > are running the site, we have a had a number of quite good sessions > contributed (amongst an admittedly high number of failures), and with > y'all's support I expect even more. Hi Paul & all, This is precisely what I like about the UT site. I think that the failures make the hits stand out even more. RV sorely needs some "down to earth" publicity/demonstrations. Sensationalism has put things in a bad light and there seems to be no one wanting/willing/able to fix it. To add to the confusion are the various flavors of RV and the "revelations" that there were/are apparently more than one people/military groups/projects who were not aware of each other going back many years. In the long run, I think that "RV" will become more and more known as a version of psi and not stand out so much. Its too much of a buzz word right now. But then that brings up other questions for me. Why have not the other types of psi ever caught on with the general public? Been around a lot longer.....astral projection .....OBE....psychometry.....channeling....etc. One reason may be that none of the others provide any consistency or high level of success. The same may be true of RV once the wild claims of 100% accuracy are disproved. And again I would like to see here or anywhere, samples from those new or old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high data resolution claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut their stuff. Oh yeah....dont forget your t-shirts.... :) http://www.remoteviewers.com/clothes.htm Rich stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/77)
09:36:13
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> About half true.....In fact when a viewer is performing Coordinate Remote > Viewing they are wide awake, vibrant and alert sitting at a table (not lying > in a bed) in well lit room with only a monitor offering guidance and they > progress through the several phases of activities which "lock" them on to the > target signal ...snip Hi Gene, Good to see you join the discussion. I have been a student for just under a year, not near the experience you have. I did not mean to imply that RV was just altered state work. All of the work we have produced (HRVG) to this point has been with awake state protocols. Our advanced class is just beginning to learn altered state protocols which come more than an hour into the session doing awake state data collection, if good target contact as been demonstrated. In the last year our goal has been to improve target contact, consistency and clarity of data. It is just now we have begun to train in more advanced techniques. It appears that the work horse data collection comes with the waking state data collection, but the experiential "carrot" for the viewer comes in the altered state. The discipline is still to bring back congruent data and not get caught up in the experience and that is where a monitor is very important. We are just now beginning training for monitored sessions to this point we have worked independently mastering the protocols we have learned to date. The few monitored sessions we have done have brought impressive results and we are really looking forward to this stage of our training. It is great to see experienced viewers join the discussion group, now we students can really learn :) Aloha Yaana stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/78)
09:36:29
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Rich Krankoski wrote: > RV sorely needs some "down to earth" > publicity/demonstrations. Sensationalism has put things in a bad light and > there seems to be no one wanting/willing/able to fix it. This is more a matter of the public paying closer attention. Who can "fix it" except you? This is a 'victim' attitude; I don't mean to be abrasive but I think it's a cop out for folks to continue saying "oh I just can't figure it out" (especially in todays world of a thousand sensations a minute). Anyone who is giving you a sensational results prognosis is giving you .... well I'll be polite and say the guys who are being honest give you a lower percentage of success (and that's only if you're really good). > To add to the confusion are the ..... "revelations" that there were/are apparently more than one people/military > groups/projects who were not aware of each other going back many years. What? Tell me more....I haven't heard anything about this. > In the long run, I think that "RV" will become more and more known as a > version of psi and not stand out so much. I think that RV WILL continue to stand out because it is presented as not requiring an altered trance type of psi connection... in that respect it seems more rational and on the surface more "respectable" to those with a "I don't want to venture tooooo far out there" mindset. This of course is only an illusion; as anyone who has listened to the stories told by the RVers from the Ft.Mead group or read any of the books that surround the development of RV within the army know.... you could travel anywhere at a moments notice: on target or not; most often on target, but one has to be flexible and expect the unexpected. It does require consistent practice just as so many other disciplines do. And to tell the truth this is what I think will be the cutting point -- there will be those who will persist...and those who don't. And of course, as so many of the scientists and psychologists have pointed out, those who consciously are willing to go there but whose subconscious fears block the way. > Its too much of a buzz word right now. But then that brings up > other questions for me. Why have not the other types of psi ever caught > on with the general public? Been around a lot longer.....astral projection > .....OBE....psychometry.....channeling....etc. Well,,,,,,where have you been hiding? I'm 52 years old and to my knowledge these things have been around and are accepted within their acknowledged limits....although, i've known only one really good psychometrist... don't care for the hype surrounding channeling now, of course that's because I learned about the phenomena through Jane Roberts and Seth in the '70s and compared to the work that was done there(in conjunction I might add with physicists who explored the work with Jane and Rob) most of what comes out now seems really superficial. OBE? Lots of folks are still exploring this one...from my limited perspective there is something to this, but it's not so clear cut as folks would like it to be. We'd like to think we take a little trip across town and look at what our friend or competitor is doing and come back with clear cut valid down to earth information.... But wait a minute ... i ended up talking to aunt Sally who's been dead for fifteen years...or, it wasn't EXACTLY as I saw it... some of the data was correct ... some wasn't... hmmmmmmm sound a little like RV? > One reason may be that none of the others provide any consistency or > high level of success. The same may be true of RV once the wild claims of 100% > accuracy are disproved. And again I would like to see here or anywhere, > samples from those new or old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high > data resolution > claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut > their stuff. Who EVER made this claim???????? This is the attitude that baffles me the most. If we are waiting for someone to prove high hit rates, and not willing to take say even a 30% rate of success, which is an improvement over our normal state of consciousness, what is this game about? I've spent a lifetime joyfully developing one inch at a time and it is a real disappointment to see this attitude appear on the scene. I truly don't understand why anyone would take the path of least resistance when it applies to their own psychic development. In all due respect, all of the folks from the Ft.Mead group on PJ's list (which are all I've heard from) and Hal Puthoff (whom I met briefly) are all humble fellows with their heads on their shoulders and a sense of one step at a time. There is no other way to deal with one's interior landscape which is what it's all about. Whether it's RV, OBE, meditation, psychometry, scrying, etc. it's all about knowing yourself enough to trust that you can move outside of the normal boundaries of self and make it home again. Shelia stargate : Message: [stargate]
Congratulations Steve
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/79)
09:36:40
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Congratulations Steve, On your growing discussion list ; ) What was that about only a couple of posts a week...LOL Great to see so many quality discussions, keep up the good work. Aloha Yaana stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/80)
09:36:51
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Science vs. Scientism At 12:52 AM 6/27/98 -0400, you wrote: >This is precisely what I like about the UT site. Gosh, Rich--where were you when I was getting hammered on PJ's list for cozying up to the nasty ol' skeptics?!? ;-) >"revelations" that there were/are apparently more than one people/military >groups/projects who were not aware of each other going back many years. I'm not sure I've been convinced of this yet, but I'm willing to keep an open mind! >again I would like to see here or anywhere, samples from those new or >old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high data resolution >claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut >their stuff. Rich, you're my hero! I've been hoping for the same thing--though I'm proud of some of the "amateurs" that have been posting already. >Oh yeah....dont forget your t-shirts.... :) Neat idea! Wish I'd thought of it first. Then I could open a haberdashery and forget about teaching this stuff. Save a lot of headaches... ;-) Enjoy! Paul stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/81)
09:37:07
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Science vs. Scientism Hi Paul, Rich, List :) >>This is precisely what I like about the UT site. >Gosh, Rich--where were you when I was getting hammered on PJ's list for >cozying up to the nasty ol' skeptics?!? ;-) I think me and Rich were being the "nasty, vicious mean-spirited skeptics" that we secretly are, and that manifested itself by us leaving you to fight the skeptic's corner all on your own.. ;-) Seriously, I just didn't feel comfortable with the idea of coming across as a skeptic on PJ's list. Period. I kept playing with the idea, though.. At least you guys can relax easy now knowing that the List Owner here is sympathetic to skeptics. I'm not going to rip anyone to shreds for thinking critically or asking difficult questions here :) >>again I would like to see here or anywhere, samples from those new or >>old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high data resolution >>claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut >>their stuff. >Rich, you're my hero! I've been hoping for the same thing--though I'm >proud of some of the "amateurs" that have been posting already. I've been crying out for sites like the UT skeptic site for ages. Okay, so perhaps they're not doing a -perfect- job handling the experiments, (if all the criticisms are valid, which I wouldn't know, because I haven't been trained in remote-viewing.. hint ;), but could -anyone- do a perfect job of running a public experiment like that? I don't think they're doing that badly. >>Oh yeah....dont forget your t-shirts.... :) >Neat idea! Wish I'd thought of it first. Then I could open a haberdashery >and forget about teaching this stuff. Save a lot of headaches... ;-) Hey, there's a lot more opportunities to make money out there, Paul! For example, asking a $20 subscription fee to subscribe to a remote- viewing e-mail list.. ;-) (Relax guys, I'm joking!! :) Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/82)
09:37:27
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Rich Krankoski wrote: >This is precisely what I like about the UT site. I think that the >failures make the hits stand out even more. RV sorely needs >some "down to earth" publicity/demonstrations. > >Sensationalism has put things in a bad light and there seems to >be no one wanting/willing/able to fix it. Here, here! Rich, I agree completely. If psi is for real, as I believe it likely is, there is nothing to lose through public demonstrations, and so much to gain. By laying down some guidelines on how psi will be tested for, and then performing these experiments, the public can participate in experiments to test for psi. Assuming that those without any psi ability will score chance results, and those with psi abilities (which many feel, is everyone), will perform above chance. Statistically, you'd expect the overall result to be "above chance" if psi exists, even if we've got a lot of 'bad psychics' doing the experiments who score at chance level. (I'm not saying what I'm meaning to say in the way I'm meaning to say it, but I hope what I'm trying to say is clear :) It is all nice and well for scientists to perform lab experiments to test for psi and gauge it's accuracy, but there is a very good reason why experiments are not performed at one lab only, and is repeated at other labs. It's because the other labs won't take the first lab's conclusions on faith. They want to see replication - being able to repeat the experiment and come out with the same results. Since 95% of the lab's data isn't for the public's eyes, we're not in a good situation to be able to judge if their conclusions are accurate, or if the experiments were performed properly. Many people are crying out to see everything the lab has, or a public demonstration that repeats the experiments in a public setting such as a website. The only way we can do that, is either for the labs to release their full data, for us to join that lab (unlikely) and see it for ourselves, or.. to repeat their experiments in a public setting. That's why I like sites such as the UT skeptics site - they are attempting to test for psi, and publishing everything openly. I wish labs could do that, but I realise it's probably not practical for them to do so. So the UT site and things like it are the next best thing IMO. Best regards, Steve. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/83)
09:38:26
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Well, Gene! I was about to e-mail you. Glad you found your way to Steve's e-mail group. Don't know how a red-blooded Irish lad like yourself can manage to participate in a group hosted out of the homeland of the English oppressor, but I know Steve to be a tolerant sort, so I'm sure he'll manage to put up with the likes o' ya' . Enjoy! Paul stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/84)
09:38:52
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
In a message dated 98-06-26 21:39:15 EDT, you write: << So yes this is happening in the now, being a good viewer enables you to sense when and where remote influencing is going on to a higher degree than normal. This other group was well organized and well financed who knows what their full time mission goals might be. >> PUHHLLLEEEEZZZ!...I almost left PJ Gaenir's site because of this same sort of drivel. I find it really amazing that the military remote viewing team was organized specifically to test whether remote influencing were possible. With a staff of sometimes as many as a dozen viewers, millions of dollars worth of the taxpayers dollars and literally thousands of sessions, we were never REPEAT NEVER NIE, NADA..NICHTS etc...ever able to replicate any incident of remote influencing and we even brought in some of the most famous folks in the psychic business to see if they could do...same results....so with millions of dollars, the best facilities, thousands or hours of practice all of which was carefully monitored and recorded...not won bloodyu nose, not one headache...not one pencil raised and stuck into the wall and not won desk ever got levatated...As to other "groups" being out there (where??????) who were using RV for some deep dark dastardly plot...well my friends...they never bothered us as we were as about as deep, dark and dastardly as you can get...we never "saw them" - "ran into them".."challenged them" or in anyway encountered them...We wanted very much to use RV for influencing...the idea being that we could influence political thought in an adversary or reset guidance systems in missles...SORRY...none of that ever occurred nor could be ever EVER EVER even "influence" ourselves, lotteries (I say that now before someone comes on line and says they are winning the lottery with RV...another load of manure...) or anything else of importance...hell we could not even keep flowers growing....so before anyone buys into this fecal matter without an opposing (and knowledgeable point of view)...let me say that this line of topics will only enrage me further and make more more irritable in the future...I am not called Ghengis Gene by my students for nothing... Slainte...(thats Irish for Cheers...and yes being born in Ireland...a bit o heavan on Earth is probably why I have this type of temper...sorry....) Gene... stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/85)
09:39:06
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
<< It is great to see experienced viewers join the discussion group, now we students can really learn :) Aloha Yaana >> Aloha Yaana... You know, I was in Hawaii (Oahu) last month for three days on business and I should add that I come to Hawaii about three times a year...usually for a similarly short period of time...next time I plan a trip, and if you are on Oahu, I will make it a point to meet with you and any of you students or team for a little discussion session or even a remote viewing session where I will act a monitor..(being one of the best monitors in the business mind you...hahaha)....Yaana was not enough to find you in the phonebook (I did tryu)...but next time I will let you know in advance..I always stay at the Reef in Waikikki...so no matter what...if you get the word late .. just call the Reef and we can work up something from there... Slainte...(Irish version of Aloha...) stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/86)
09:39:27
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> > Its too much of a buzz word right now. But then that brings up > > other questions for me. Why have not the other types of psi ever caught > > on with the general public? Been around a lot longer.....astral projection > > .....OBE....psychometry.....channeling....etc. > > Well,,,,,,where have you been hiding? I'm 52 years old and to my > knowledge these > things have been around and are accepted within their acknowledged > limits....although, i've known only one really good psychometrist... > don't care for the hype surrounding channeling now, of course that's > because I learned about the phenomena through Jane Roberts and Seth in > the '70s and compared to the work that was done there(in conjunction I > might add with physicists who explored the work with Jane and Rob) most > of what comes out now seems really superficial. Ditto! Absence of knowledge does not reality make. Among all that New Age dribble, there are some "legitimate" stuff going on out there folks! > > One reason may be that none of the others provide any consistency or > > high level of success. The same may be true of RV once the wild claims of 100% > > accuracy are disproved. And again I would like to see here or anywhere, > > samples from those new or old to the ability...and who make the high hit, high > > data resolution > > claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere and strut > > their stuff. > I truly don't > understand why anyone would take the path of least resistance when it > applies to > their own psychic development. Boy, does this baffle me also! Why would anyone want to prove to themselves that their inherent psychic ability doesn't exist through observation of others. That boggles my mind. Funny thing is, psychic abilities are so strong that it can't help "popping out" once in awhile in our daily activities. Instead people prefer to deny it, ignore it, bash it or take it for granted. Really weird! > Hal Puthoff (whom I met briefly) are all humble fellows with their heads on > their shoulders and a sense of one step at a time. Surely a genius in our mist.... > There is no other way > to deal with one's interior landscape which is what it's all about. > Whether it's RV, OBE, meditation, psychometry, scrying, etc. it's all > about knowing yourself enough to trust that you can move outside of the > normal boundaries of self and make it home again. Wow...a most insightful post, Sheila...the spirit is with you! electrix stargate : Message: [stargate]
Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/87)
09:39:38
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello Gene! Thanks for clearing up the issue about remote influencing. I had never heard anything like Jeffrey was posting, that is why I posted it onto Steve's list for comments. AquaSerene and I have a friend, Bob, who "claims" he does remote viewing. But in our opinion Bob is a little "off in the head" --but generally a likeable guy. He claims that when he was remote viewing a nuclear reactor that his physical legs got burned (like a sunburn) and that he was sick for several days. He calls it light radiation sickness. We just stare at Bob when he talks like this. He claims he has witnesses although we have yet to meet one. I don't believe him. I don't think AquaSerene does either but I can't speak for her. He picks targets that we can't verify so we have no idea about the accuracy of his "remote viewing". I think he just imagines it all. Jane stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV Science
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/88)
09:39:58
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> You know, I was in Hawaii (Oahu) last month for three days on business and I > should add that I come to Hawaii about three times a year...usually for a > similarly short period of time...next time I plan a trip, and if you are on > Oahu, I will make it a point to meet with you and any of you students or team > for a little discussion session or even a remote viewing session where I will > act a monitor..(being one of the best monitors in the business mind > you...hahaha)....Yaana was not enough to find you in the phonebook (I did > tryu)...but next time I will let you know in advance..I always stay at the > Reef in Waikikki...so no matter what...if you get the word late .. just call > the Reef and we can work up something from there... > Slainte...(Irish version of Aloha...) Outragious, I am looking forward to it, Given how short your time is, I guess I will have to tell the group.... LOL rather than be selfish and have you monitor just me in a session, and knowing our students and instructor they would all love to discuss RV with you and I would never hear the end of it. I guess this is not our secret any more :) I will email you my phone number so you can let me know the dates of your next trip, I do live on Oahu, only about 10 minutes from Waikiki. Aloha Nui Loa (Aloha very much :) Yaana stargate : Message: [stargate]
RV may make you live longer
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/89)
09:40:11
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
[stargate] RV may make you live longer Taken in snips from the current issue of the Spectator:- Many doctors and psychologists believe that by playing...... mind stretching games such as bridge, crossword puzzles, draughts or scrabble, you maximise your chances of a long and healthy life, and, perhaps more importantly, one remains at a high, even increasing level of mental activity.... Professor Arnold Scheibel, former head of the Brain Research Institute at the University of California says" Anything that is intellectually challenging can probably serve as a kind of stimulus for dendritic growth, which means it adds to the computation reserves in your brain. Do puzzles, try a musical instrument, try the arts, tournament bridge or chess; and remember, researchers agree it is never too late. All of life should be a learning experience, because we are challenging our brain and therefore building brain circuitry. Literally, this is the way the brain operates." Quote ends. Well, RV is certainly challenging and a consistant learning experience. And now its even good for you Now, if I could only get my 50 year old body to feel like my 35 year young mind, sigh. Lovely to see so many of my friends here. In Friendship and Light. MaryD stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Two Lists in One
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/90)
09:40:25
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
hello steve if you ask me i think it would be better if this list wont split cuz i think rv people intrested in psi and psi people intrested in rv. and wich are both the same thing... Eyal stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/91)
09:40:38
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> He picks targets that we can't verify There's your answer: _HE_ picks his own targets? What's the point of the RV? My sister ran into a whole load of folks out in NM who had E.D. tapes months before they ever came out or better yet had been RVing with ED...one woman who claimed her son left the army because they had him RVing - after they did genetic testing on him cause his mama's a "psychic".... (i.e., she channels aliens)... oh the stories are everywhere and getting weirder every day... just listen to your gut: if it sounds too good to be true (i.e., 100% hit rate) it is. If it's too flakey for you, don't override your good judgment just because the words Remote Viewing are attached. Shelia stargate : Message: [stargate]
Hi Laura
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/92)
09:40:56
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hello Jane, Thanks for replying. I am hestitant, for concern we probably didn't follow 'protocol' correctly....but..here goes. I will try to summarize what a small group of totally untrained people did for a short period of time, about six months or so. Three people had read books and articles on Remote Viewing, and two others had no knowledge of it per se. A sixth person later joined us, having not read any literature beforehand, but later went on to read books and articles. All were very interested in the subject. Two of us had met in real life, the rest had never seen one another face to face. After we stopped, two more people met in real life. Three of the group continue to have contact with one another, with the rest of the group occassionally communicating through emails. The group used computer "chat" as a way to meet. All arrangements were at a specific time and day of the week, usually Friday nights worked the best. Since all were total amateurs, we attempted several different experiments. No one knew who would be accurate Viewers nor Monitors when we first began, so it was agreed that each person would attempt each. The people who had read literature suggested techniques from J. McMoneagle's book _Mind Trek_ to begin with. We later used other information from the literature. some of it helpful, some of it not. One person was selected as a person who had to be in charge of the target...thus they had to stand down or sit out as Viewer or Monitor. Five were left. Of the five, one was a sort of recorder of all events that happened, thus also not a Viewer or Monitor per se. We named these roles as we saw fit and agreed among the 6 of us. We had some problems with how to communicate with the person in charge of the target...someone had to be told what it was, so this recorder person was allowed to learn it to begin with. Primitive, but we had to start somewhere. Each of the four people left divided into two sets of pairs, a Viewer and Monitor, all who were blind and had no idea what the target was. Strict rule was no communications between the two pairs and we all created private chat rooms in order to stay away from one another. We 'recorded' the chats so that we could keep track of conversations...although sometimes it appeared as if the screen was blank with no talk at all. We allowed ourselves 15 minutes to work. The recorder person would keep track o fthe time and tell the person in charge of the target to be silent....sometimes those two people paired up, other times we separated them as well. When the time was up, the entire group would rejoin and report the results, whether successful or failures. We would attempt to conduct three or four targets in an entire night at first, but sometimes we were unable to do that. Some people reported in well as Viewers, others seemed to gravitate to Monitor equally well. We varied the difficulty of the targets. At first, to give each other practice we would begin with several objects. This became confusing immediately, so the we learned it had to be one target only. Most of these were simple however, such as favorite little objects or knick knacks in our homes. The best successes worked when we all knew that whatever the target was, was placed on top of a person's computer monitor or near the keyboard. We did it this way because we were working through the electronic medium. Had we continued, we were planning to have the person in charge of the target "hide" it away from their home or computer to make it more difficult. We did attempt one session with photographs from a magazine (tucked inside a white envelope) which was reported as a general failure all around. There were some solid failures (with a lot of laughs from all) and some very good successes. I can't break it down in exact percentages. Some nights were excellent, others were just a bust. For the short period of time that we ran this project, it certainly created good friendships if nothing else. One member insisted having no ability to RV at all. The same member had a couple accurate hits so this helped esteem. One member had no hits at all. One member came close to being able to describe the targets a number of times but could not name it exactly. At least three of the group felt more comfortable as Monitor than as Viewer. Each member that RVed reported a "wandering" problem...meaning that often he or she would see something that was not the target itself, yet it often turned out to be something near or at the target person's computer. One night, a Viewer ended up in in the back yard of a fellow member and although accurate in the description of the back yard, we had to call it a bust since it was NOT the back yard that was supposed to be targeted. Our locations by the way were from different states...we had midwesterners, easterners and southerners participating, with no one from the west or southwest of the country. (Didn't know anyone from those areas at the time...) We varied these experiments ...one week the target person would email the group and say simply "I am ready with the target and will meet you at our regular time". Target person was NOT allowed to contact even the recorder or reporter person beforehand and we were scrupulous about not emailing or phone calling or attempts at cheating before the meeting. I know this is primitive, but untrained as we are/were, we still learned a tremendous amount about RV at least for ourselves. I hope this helps....I know we made tons of mistakes but it was understood by all of us that this was to learn together. Thankfully, no one fell into judgments such as "So and So is the best Viewer of all of us" or this sort of thing. We proved to ourselves adequately, that through electronic medium, it can be done if carefully set up. The main reason why we ended up disbanding was unfortunate problems in scheduling....two or three people could not come at a time, or someone had a child to carpool, etc which required delays. Our personal lives got in the way frequently enough so that we eventually were forced to call an unofficial "time out" to the entire idea. Best wishes, Laura stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Hi Laura
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/93)
09:41:11
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
> ...snip We proved to ourselves adequately, > that through electronic medium, it can be done if carefully set > up....snip > Best wishes, Laura Hi Laura,You are to be commended for gleening data from books and putting in so much effort. In the past year I have had many interesting experiences assiciated with chat, and I have had several friends who do what I would call tagging, with amazing results. Chat seems to act as an attention focusing tool, which is the essence of protocols from what ever the methods. Keep up the good work :) We here in Hawaii have the benifit of working on a weekly basis with an experienced veiwer, this is quite rare. The students have talked many times about not being able to imagine how difficult it would be to learn RV from a book or tape. Your persistance is to be remarkable, keep up the good work:) Aloha Yaana stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism/Psychometry
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/94)
09:41:22
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Replying to recent Posts on the subject of Psychometry, it is hard to separate this skill out, as it involves remote viewing against a 'hard' target (and what else is a photograph? a person? a place?) beginning with the sense of touch (energy sensing) and then going much much further. It is part and parcel of what we are talking about; and although the designation may not be as old-fashioned and awkward as 'clairvoyant' it is in the same corral. The skill is merely one way of working a target, and can be a 'doorway' for beginners to learn to go further. One of our problems in this place in time is in replacing outdated terminology with more realistic words and definitions. My 1979 book on the subject of Psychometry was an attempt to outline and define just what the ..... 'psychometry' (mind measure) consists of and how it may be understood, learned and used. Florence Sternfels was the most well known of pure 'psychometrists' but she didn't understand how she did what she did. (and in her time was regarded as almost some type of 'freak' ) It has turned out to be a fairly popular book, although half the people who ordered it might not have known or understood just what the word meant. :) (and many still do not) I submit, however, that with these replacements and better definition/clarification of the mind skill/s we are discussing, it has become easier for scientists to grapple with the dimensions of what is involved in PSI. As well, it allows for the application of quantum physics and theory to provide some answers. Bevy J stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/95)
09:41:33
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Hey you'all Let's not get so aboggled down with the UT site that we forget Dr. Dean Radin's at www.psiresearch/org/ even if he does think it's precognition when a hit is scored! Bevy J stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Two Lists in One
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/96)
09:41:52
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
I would like to concur. I believe PJ's thought that the PSI List would 'open the floodgates' has proven to be untrue, at least so far; and that both Lists should be kept 'face to face' lol. Bevy J stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Two Lists in One
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/97)
09:42:05
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Two Lists in One That MAKES 3 concurrences, Steve. electrix USPsiSquad@... wrote: > I would like to concur. stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/98)
09:42:19
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Science vs. Scientism Yes...a great site...althought I haven't been there in a while since his new book was release. Will have to check it out! electrix USPsiSquad@... wrote: > Hey you'all Let's not get so aboggled down with the UT site that we forget > Dr. Dean Radin's at www.psiresearch/org/ even if he does think it's > precognition when a hit is scored! > Bevy J stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism/Psychometry
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/99)
09:42:30
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Re: [stargate] Science vs. Scientism/Psychometry NOW we are talking the SAME language.... An organize body of work to test the Psi nature instead of scientifically reducing it to JUST figures and "hit" results (i.e. from the ethereal to the concrete) would seem more expanding and progressive. Certainly, in this world we all want to be CERTAIN, but let's face it...not everything that exist comes neatly packaged. The right tool for the proper project... is my chant.... Will have to check into this Psychometry.... It is indeed a philosophical conundrum of what constitutes low level and high level concepts as it is. Low-level concept as expounded by James D. Weinland in "How To Think Straight" "Low-level concepts have obvious referents in the physical world." Thus we find it easy to perceive with our senses the material aspect of existence and represent them closely enough to the label we give it. A chair becomes an easy referent to visualize and take a solid account of. But what happens when the concept is far remove from the senses? "Many high-level concepts are drawn from other abstractions and consequently have no close physical referent." In this realm of thinking we are swiming in ethereal mist, not dissimilar from the PSI. So what is a human to do? Weinland further explores "Since the primary function of concepts is to relate experience, however, value is attributed to high-level concepts even when they have no direct objective referents. Thus the concept of morality leads to the examination of many activities with consequent integration of information and improvement of judgement." This is the stuff Plato spoke about when he spoke of the Forms. A prestine "element" that is the template to existence with no referent to the physical. It is here where mental manipulation can occur. It is here where cult and mystic leaders tend to dominate the mental beliefs of unwitting devotees. Nothing to "physically" prove... since it can't be, yet it can be believed and EXPERIENCED, and therefore, just accepted as IS. There is a strong correlation with high-level concept and aspects of the PSI. So we should be ever vigilant and avoid the distortion of the metaphysical and the pre-tense that is dominantly a scientific endeavor. Better definition/clarification and the scientific analogy and application to Quantum Physics and Theory sounds legitimate to me. electrix stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Quantum and Psi
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/100)
09:42:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------
Dear Stargate members, I posted this to the psi-list but it may have not been seen by most of you. It concerns and experiment conducted by Joe McMoneagle and Ed May at SRI in 1987 to actually test whether RV takes place at the quantum level and obeys quantum physics rules. The experiment ran out of money before reaching a firm conclusion, but I think it is on heck of a first try and would love to see it repeated. Dear George, To cut to the chase: What Joe McMoneagle and coworkers attempted was the classical double slit experiment that has been done for 60 years or so. Electrons are emitted towards two narrow slits one at a time. If unobserved (or whatever interpretation you apply to an observer) by the experimentalist the electrons will seem to pass through both slits at the same time and produce an interferrence pattern when they hit a second target. This occurs even when only one electron goes at a time. However, if an observer checks WHICH slit the electron goes through, then the electrons act like individual particles and NO interference is seen, rather a shotgun pattern is seen. The recent study in Nature demonstrates as never before that this observer induced change is not the result of any classical change induced by the observer { Nature , Vol. 391, pp. 871-874),. It is a typical quantum effect, non-local and very psi- like in terms that it is induced only by the seeming knowledge of which slit the elctron goes through. Joes group repeated this experiment and tried observing the electrons using RV and using instruments to determine if psychic knowledge of which slit the electron goes through was tantamount to a real knowledge of which slit the elctron goes through e.g. does Rving the electron cause the change tfrom interference pattern to shotgun pattern on the second target. AS mentioned above. Joe felt that determining by RV which slit the electron went through was not difficult, and that this observation did induce changes in the behaviour of the electron. However, no conclusive results were obtained before the budget ran out, mainly becasue of instrumental difficulties. Now I ( as best I can) have used the Bohr interpretation of the double slit experiment just to get this point accross. But I do not wish to get hung up on which quantum model is used here. The point is that it should be possible to determine definitely whether psychic observation equates to (or does not equate to) real obseration on the quantum level. I think that would be an enormous advance to the field. You are correct that it will still depend on measurements and statistics, but it implies a mechanism of psi ( and probably of mind) that at least interfaces with known physics and is testable. Now even if successful, one would have to be careful to see if the changes are similar to those induced by real observation. PK effects in this interpretation would presumably be do psychic observation of rare quantum events in the mind of the psychic, thus collapsing the quantum probablility towards the favored ( visualized) event. Thus precipitating the unlikely or miraculous from the mundane. Careful comparisons would have to be done to determine if the psi effects were justifiably interpreted as observer-like effects or were do to some other mechanism of PK. That is all that Joe could tell me at this time. I have not been able to contact other members of his team. Sincerely, Bill Pendergrass

// END ARCHIVE BLOCK #1.

Top of Page