Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
rashore

CIA explored use of psychic in Lockerbie bomb

105 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

aquatus1
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I think you are asking about what is called sadhana or spiritual practices?? Well, in a nutshell, there are four processes of Yoga; Bhakti (devotional), Karma (good works), Jnana (knowledge) and Raja (meditation). These are not really separate but more integrative to achieve the goal of Self-Realization. I am personally more inclined to Jnana Yoga living in the knowledge that I am Brahman living a finite experience learning to understand what I truly am (Brahman) which necessarily involves a mindset of detachment from the material ups and downs.

No, I was asking about how they helped you understand the phenomena of RV.

Quote

I don't see any conflict. Why can one not be BOTH involved in the practice of Self-Realization under Advaita philosophy AND ALSO be interested in learning about paranormal phenomena and the design of the universe above the physical as taught by occult traditions like Theosophy. These things may have differences in focus but they are not incompatible and one can have an interest in all of them as I do; Advaita, the paranormal and Theosophy.

They don't.  You do.

Everything you have stated to date shows that you view your beliefs to be in competition with science.  How many times have I had to remind you that we understand you think your beliefs are superior?  You are the one that is treating them as opposite camps.  The conflict is one of your own creation, because you are using them for things that they were not meant for.

Quote

I believe science and spirituality are compatible but study different things. Science is concerned with understanding the operation of the material world and spirituality involves things above the sensory world. They are different but not incompatible. Oh by the way, I will add I am also interested in learning about material science too.

And yet, you continue claiming that one is superior than the other, instead of understanding what the other has to say.  This is going to be one of the hardest things you will attempt, and to be honest, most people don't even notice it enough to be able to attempt it:

If you ever expect to understand any vedic system of spirituality, you have to achieve a separation of desires.  Right now, your desire to have your beliefs acknowledged is screaming out to all of us.  Making peace with that, understanding that desire, and removing it, should be your goal right now.

Quote

I am not seeing the error in being interested in multiple non-conflicting things. Though the path towards Self-Realization is my most important endeavor.

That is why you should talk with your spiritual counselor, after showing him this discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
papageorge1
1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

No, I was asking about how they helped you understand the phenomena of RV.

I have trouble following your train of thought. I don't claim to understand the phenomena of RV down to the nuts and bolts but I do believe there are theosophical masters that can point us in the right direction and earlier provided a link to 'intentional clairvoyance'. I don't think anyone can explain even regular cognition down to the nuts and bolts.

1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

 

Everything you have stated to date shows that you view your beliefs to be in competition with science.  How many times have I had to remind you that we understand you think your beliefs are superior?  You are the one that is treating them as opposite camps. 

How many times have I said that science studies the physical and theosophy/spirituality studies the above the physical. Now. explain how I am saying they are in competition when there is very little overlap? Now, I do believe spiritual studies are far more important to my life.

1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

 The conflict is one of your own creation, because you are using them for things that they were not meant for.

What things am I using where they are not meant? Theosophy I believe can help us towards an understanding of RV for example.

1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

 

And yet, you continue claiming that one is superior than the other, instead of understanding what the other has to say.  This is going to be one of the hardest things you will attempt, and to be honest, most people don't even notice it enough to be able to attempt it:

If you ever expect to understand any vedic system of spirituality, you have to achieve a separation of desires.  Right now, your desire to have your beliefs acknowledged is screaming out to all of us.  Making peace with that, understanding that desire, and removing it, should be your goal right now.

Well, on these forums, my purpose is not to achieve Self-Realization but is helping others by presenting them with things that I have learned. In this time of much materialist bullying of the spiritual, I need to raise the respectability of spirituality so people can see spirituality can stand with full confidence against and hold its own in the modern intellectual world. I think that is an important message to get out there. This is karma yoga. Plus it is interesting and challenging to match wits in debates and it keeps my thinking sharp.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/11/2017 at 3:52 AM, papageorge1 said:

For you, you may never leave stage 1.

Nobody has, otherwise it could be shared and everyone can move onto studying said aspect. 

On 2/11/2017 at 3:52 AM, papageorge1 said:

For me, and a whole host of people that have seriously studied the data stage 1 has been passed and we are onto more interesting questions about the phenomena.

But it has not, you have convinced yourself that you have an answer in mysticism. It is more than obvious from an external view that all you have done is self validate your belief with others who feel the same way. 

On 2/11/2017 at 3:52 AM, papageorge1 said:

The last paragraph from Dr. Utts' report:

I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. 

 

That means nothing has been achieved, a personal opinion has been formed nothing else. With all due respect to Dr Utt's, al I see here is a cop out. 

On 2/11/2017 at 3:52 AM, papageorge1 said:

No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. 

What ever increasing results? If we had that, we would be able to move past square one. 

On 2/11/2017 at 3:52 AM, papageorge1 said:

Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. 

Again, with respect to Dr. Utt's it does not work. 20 million dollars wasted on the subject illustrates this very well. 

On 2/11/2017 at 3:52 AM, papageorge1 said:

I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.

Based on what direction? How are these answers to be garnered if we still have no starting point? All we have is insistence that a certain phenomena exists without proof. It would be wonderful to see Dr Utt's enter the forum and answer to that incredibly large holes in the claims made. 

This seems to be one step forward two steps back. I would agree the solutions are in science, it just seems Dr. Utt's refuses to acknowledge that which is staring one in the face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

I'd like to flesh this Jessica Utts aspect out, as she has been rather vigorous defending RV, if not very specific and apparently unable to cite the documentation of studeis which she found convincing and used in her 'metastudy'.  More about that later (and it gets much worse..).  But as a starting point, here are some quotes and the conclusions from the 1995 report ( the one where Utts and Hyman were on the panel.  My emphasis...
From - An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications (1995)
Michael D. Mumford, PhD
Andrew M. Rose, PhD
David A. Goslin, PhD
(Panel members included Dr Jessica Utts, Dr Raymond Hyman)

Quote

It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to characteristics of the judges
or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used. Use of the same remote viewers, the same judge, and the same target photographs makes it
impossible to identify their independent effects.

Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena; the laboratory experiments have not identified the origins or nature of the remote viewing phenomenon, if, indeed, it exists at all.

The end users indicat{ed} that, although some accuracy was observed with regard to broad background characteristics, the remote viewing reports failed to produce the concrete, specific information valued in intelligence gathering.  The information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate with regard to specifics, and required substantial subjective interpretation.  In no case had the information provided ever been used to guide intelligence operations. Thus, Remote viewing failed to produce actionable intelligence.

Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy of information for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted.

 

I'll be back later to discuss just how difficult it is to get at the actual studies to verify them, and to point at the rather obvious reason for that.  It's also worth noting that the CIA did do several followups to attempt to replicate the odd 'successes', but the whole thing was dropped as that replication was not forthcoming...

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Just a little (heheh!!) background before we get serious, and actually look in some detail at the nature of these daft experiments and the gullible/biased folks who ran/judged them.  I find it hard to comprehend how Jessica Utts (who really should and probably does know better) can have the impropriety to gather a group of such fatally flawed experiments together and say that they prove psychic powers.  They absolutely do NOT, and frankly, no unbiased scientist would say otherwise.  I'll be back later to show exactly why I say that.

But a little history first to put what will follow into context..

Way back in the early 70's, an arm of the CIA decided to fund a series of experiments/studies to investigate the possibility of psychic transference of information, including 'remote viewing'.  How the hell they convinced the government this was a good use of public monies, I'll never know... altho, to be fair, this was the 70's, spiritualism was all the rage, the gov't had plenty of money, and if there was even a slim chance of success, so why not?

Well, there is an obvious 'why not' (at least iit is very obvious now).. and it largely results from CIA and Gov gullibility on the topic. They didn't factor in that there were a lot of charlatans in the field, and as soon as they smelt money...  What's worse, at the time, educational qualifications were often not checked, plus it was quite easy to set up an 'Institute', pretend you do science, and attract money via books and 'publications', sometimes even gov't funding.  These pseudo-Institutes would set up 'peer review' panels populated by the charlatans and those feeding off them, and created an industry that still exists today.  It's the Fake Science community, if you like...

Anyway, these experiments started in the 70's and managed to keep going, with the help of lots of pushing by the like of Utts - who was and still is an active member of one of those 'Institutes' - until about 1994/5.  Then, finally, CIA management (under gov't pressure) pulled the plug as the results were non-existent.

To give an overview on the entire situation of the testing of psychic powers, remove viewing, telekinesis etc..
- yes there are lots of charlatans and very good tricksters out there.  And who said you have to be 'good' at it - Uri Geller fooled many high ranking people with party magic tricks a kid could do...
- some of those charlatans got into those faux Institutes and helped create the flawed studies that you will find.  Some of those studies suggest strong powers must exist... until you look closely at the methodologies used.  Some of those studies even got into reasonably credible journals, awaiting and inviting verification/replication by later studies..  But that verification has NEVER come.
- Jessica Utts is probably the most credible-looking proponent of these studies - after all she works for a University!  However, she has never set up and done her own studies of this type, she has only done meta-analyses of studies she cherry picked.  That's not science, and neither is her ridiculous assertion that these studies had no flaws.  Jessica, btw, is on the 'Executive Board' of the International Remote Viewing Association...   If you visit their page, it is not exactly filled with references to successful proofs of the 'phenomena'...  Laughably, the first research study they mention includes this:

Quote

On a first assessment, at least some of the data seems to show it worked.

If anyone thinks that sounds 'scientific' and convincing....., well, I'd suggest you pick a different hobby.  Me, I might wait until the second assessment, by real scientists who will point out the huge gaping holes in the methodology (and especially the image selection and judging methods)....  

 

Funnily enough, if you visit Jessica's University Bio page, she doesn't mention her role at the IRVA at all...........  Are you getting the 'picture' yet?  I am, so i guess I have RV skills...

Me, I would love to see Jessica Utts nominate her favorite, most well-documented study (are you out there Jessica???).  But in the absence of that I'll pick the one that seems to get the most interest..

I'll be back in a while.

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.