Top sceptic agrees remote viewing scientifically proven

[Storyteller]

All good here bro

It could well have been chance, and I cant prove it wasnt.
We have never been able to replicate it but neither can either of us explain it.

Personally, I think, one day, it will be scientifically backed up.

[JButler]

Some years ago there was a program that reported on the CIA program. IIRC almost all the info came from one guy who was a "remote viewer" in the unit. He claimed it worked but it took some effort and lots of practice. Goal being to "enter" top secret Soviet facilities. He didn't say if or what secrets they gleaned from the Soviets by this practice.

He claimed the CIA cancelled the program because the upper brass thought it was too weird. Also he lost his wife or girlfriend as she thought it was too weird also.

Makes for intriguing story but I won't be trying it.

[hughfarey]

Audi when someone described he's something with an 80% accuracy and if it really is 80% then it's more then subjective. For Hugh to say its subjective isn't really intellectually honest

Is it not? Would you like to clarify that, perhaps after reading my comments more carefully? "If it really is...." Well, quite. My point is that deciding the accuracy of a description is wholly subjective. There is no subjective way of saying whether a description is 80%, or 50% or whatever, accurate - and then to claim that of that accuracy, it is 70% reliable, is piling subjectivity onto subjectivity.

It is, in fact, possible to construct an objective scale of recognition - but this is never done by 'remote viewing' adherents, because it invariably results in a complete failure.

We would need to see description . Maybe there was a criteria that all parties agreed upon , but to all it totally subjective would mean that everyone would look at their description and get a different opinion as how close it was to the actual thing song described. .

Let's say for instance that a person was asked to give a description of a device that was planted deep with N the earth and he got extremely close to the actual description and everyone in the study agreed that he got close to it . Some would say he was 70% , others 75% etc .

This part might be partially objective Hugh, but the objective ve part is that he got pretty close to describing it . This is something that can't be ignored and I believe that this is probably why Richard wiseman made the statement in that article .

You could indeed do all that, and it might make the arbitrary decisions of the judges a little more independent of any particular one. However that is not, in fact, what happened. An account of the various experiments discussed can be found at thttp://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf. Basically, individual scientists, already convinced that ESP existed, made wholly subjective assessments of the description given by subjects of assorted photographs. Naturally there was a distinct bias in favour of accuracy.

To nitpick and call it totally subjective is to miss the forest while seeing only the tree.

No.

And to claim that the US government scraped the program because it was useless shows an incredible naivety of how most super power governments work.

Your inside knowledge of "how most super power governments work is impressive. If it's reliable.

Do you think if it was a total success that they would announce to the world that they are going to invest even more money into it and expand the study?

It wasn't a total success. It was a total failure.

Hugh we both know that you don't believe it for one second

I don't entertain conspiracy theories, especially ones whose veracity is claimed to be demonstrated by lack of evidence.

One thing is obvious about you Hugh , your a deep thinker but your scepticism seems get suspended at times .

Never.

Whatever you do Hugh please don't study the jfk assassination or you might have some of us believing that Oswald actually did it

Fortunately, I have no intention of studying the JFK assassination.