CIA Document Confirms Reality Of Humans With

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, macqdor said:

Like I said ad hominems.   

thanks for proving my point.  Anyone else?   LOL

You've got no argument. You do not discuss, you constantly flame bait, most of all you got zero proof. It's pretty easy to read you. I'd be amazed if you actually created a counter argument for once. But that's not what you want is it.

[macqdor]

Quote

You've got no argument. You do not discuss, you constantly flame bait, most of all you got zero proof. It's pretty easy to read you. I'd be amazed if you actually created a counter argument for once. But that's not what you want is it.

You're my argument. You made my case for me.  CSkeptics like yourself are really scenic. You like to jab in innuendos with words like "cash grabs" etc.   That's where the discussion breaks down.     Throwing conjecture and innuendo into a discussion doesn't advance a discussion.   Its OK to disagree.  Its OK to agree to disagree.  Instead of keeping the topic about the OP and not the person who delivered it (as the rules here state) you go off rails about tangents.  You question motives and insert sly comments.

Proof is in the eye of the  beholder. I said you can ask any question you want. Doesn't mean you're going to get the answer you want.      When skeptics get the answer they don't want, they start attacking.    They insert innuendos. Like you just did.

If I'm a half as true as you think I am then you would ignore my posts entirely.     But you dont. Which means  two things. Either YOU dont believe the things your saying  and just like to mouth off and pretend. Or 2.) You're here to prevent others from having a rationale discussion. 

I think its both.   

 

Matter of fact I know its both.

 

@XenoFish

Edited August 22, 2019 by macqdor

[XenoFish]

No. You're not true at all in my eyes. Not even half true. 

The problem with having a rationale discussion, is that you don't want one or even wish to engage other with one. We either have to accept your view whole heartedly, if not you go on the attack. 

Then if we so dare to question the topic you've posted. Do any kind of research, background checking, etc and find flaws in the story, you attack. 

The problem isn't us, it's you.

[Saru]

Enough with the bickering please folks - don't make it personal.

[macqdor]

Agree to Disagree

its been observed by others. So we're spinning out wheels

Like I said, you always seem to find yourself into topics I create.  if I'm as half of what you thought. You'd stay free and clear.

I think you're here to disrupt and get threads locked and closed.

 

thats my argument and I stand by it.

 

Adults can talk about phenomena, the unexplained or events in general hypothetically with the agreed stipulation that none of its been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Skeptics dont even want to do that.  Its stiffle. Stiffle. Stiffle. Debunk, Debunk, Occam's Razor. Move along, ...."everyone, move alone -- nothing to see here."

Quote

'If you can't show me 200%"  this topic need not be discussed

.  Thats been the skeptics motto here for quite some time.

 

 

 

[XenoFish]

Saru. I'm out. There is no further point in participating in this thread. I know what I'll end up doing if I'm not careful. 

[ChrLzs]

It is dead set easy to prove beyond doubt that something is real .. when it IS.

From cats to brain aneurisms.  Deep sea creatures to the Moon.  Rocks to chemical reactions.  Air to rain.  Automobiles to software programs.  Clouds to geological features.  Me to you.  Fabrics to books about Shakespeare.  Illnesses to behavioral patterns.  Ice cream to comets.  Bacteria to elephants.  shall I go on?

 

All pretty easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

It's a bit of a shame that some folks can't tell the difference between things like those I just listed, and stuff that isn't real - like fairy stories, attempts to get 15 minutes of fame, men staring at goats, magic tricks.

 

As to the initial claim - that "CIA documents confirms {sic} Reality Of Humans With ‘Special Abilities’", the documents presented DO NOT DO ANY SUCH THING.  Isn't there a rule about this sort of misinformation being deliberately (and repetitively) posted here? 

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, macqdor said:

Adults can talk about phenomena, the unexplained or events in general hypothetically with the agreed stipulation that none of its been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, that certainly applies here.  Do you know what the word CONFIRM generally means?  Would you like to apologise for it's misuse here?

2 hours ago, macqdor said:

Skeptics dont even want to do that.  Its stiffle. Stiffle. Stiffle.

Stiffle?    Do you mean stifle?  Anyway, we are just asking for the best evidence in a particular case, or (the one which everyone who pushes this stuff seems to avoid like the plague), why not just nominate the best-evidenced case?

Naturally you don't want to do that, as you know that there are NO well-evidenced cases at all.  And if your nominated 'best' is shown as lacking (as in this case where NOTHING was confirmed despite your click bait title), then it sorta tells us about the worthiness of *all* these claims.

 

You can unstifle the conversation by posting a richly evidenced case.  I'll be happy to discuss in detail just how 'rich' it is...  and I'm sure there's plenty of skeptics ready to help debate, if only there was something posted that was worth their time.  Problem is, we've been bitten before by this sort of clickbait.  You didn't even research this, and made a rather blatant false claim.  If I was busted doing that, I'd apologise.

 

2 hours ago, macqdor said:

Debunk, Debunk, Occam's Razor. Move along, ...."everyone, move alone -- nothing to see here."  Thats been the skeptics motto here for quite some time.

So what exactly was worthy of seeing here?  The simple fact the documents don't match your title claim?

 

[Habitat]

Oh dear, the usual suspects on the "team" are out in force, on a "woo" hunt. It is seemingly damned hard to kill off, for something that is supposedly already "dead in the water". That's the interesting part, for me, the spectacle of people who insist something cannot be, something that seemingly isn't a big ticket issue for the vast majority of people, whether it is real or not, but it is vitally important to the "team" to be knocking it on the head. It's a kind of fanaticism that keeps them coming back to argue against, what they say, is...….nothing. Doesn't make sense to take their bleatings at face value, when you think about it. It is apparently important to the integrity of their world view, that anything that might contradict it, be quashed. A better idea is to adjust the world view, by evidence, and I include evidence only available by experience, and not fret about whether what is mysterious, can be accommodated within the preconceptions held.

[ChrLzs]

Just as an aside here, and to refute this claim that it is the skeptics that are the problem, on pages 1 and 2 of this thread, NUMEROUS issues and links were posted about how the CIA document did NOT 'confirm' anything, that Zhang has been long exposed as a fraud, and even on Dean Radin's rather silly 'quantum' claim.  (Radin has been rightly rejected by mainstream science due to his utter disdain for the principles of the Scientific Method, so he set up his own pseudoscience organisation..)

So, how did macqdor address all of that?

With this:

18 hours ago, macqdor said:

I stand by claims of skeptics cherry picking certain truths.  

they see what they want to see and ignore what they want to ignore and gate keep, preventing others from discussing and learning.

Meanwhile @GLCsector3295

If controlled and enhanced Remote Viewing could be a game changer in the spy and espionage business.

All we need to do is pick up our most recent newspaper and see the constant chess maneuvering between countries e.g. US and China Trade (WAR) Relations.   Russia vs NATO

Japan vs. S. Korea.  S. Korea vs. N. Korea. Who ever figures 'remote viewing out' would have a huge disadvantage and probably would be deemed dangerous.  Where could you keep a secret?   What would be safe?

What would be off limits?  The CIA, KGB, MOSSAD, etc would be chomping at the bit for the person remote.  Its a scary scenario if you think about it.

It will happen one day.

????????????????  What?  That was a 'reply'?

1. He refuses to acknowledge the false claim in his OP.

2. He completely IGNORES the fact that Zhang was exposed as a fraud

3. He seems to verify that there is absolutely no proof, no indicative evidence in existence.

4. He lamely ends "It will happen one day."  Why hasn't it happened yet?  There's a pretty obvious reason...

 

And he has the temerity to accuse others of not addressing the topic?  

[ChrLzs]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

A better idea is to adjust the world view, by evidence, and I include evidence only available by experience, and not fret about whether what is mysterious, can be accommodated within the preconceptions held.

????  And yet you have already told us you WILL NOT nominate that evidence.  Handwaving at it's ultimate worst.

Just post the best evidence and then let's talk.  Do you still not understand that someone's 'claims' are NOT evidence?

Go back a few posts and read my list of real things...  see if you can spot what makes them real - (Hint - there's proper evidence for them... and lots of it).

[Nnicolette]

On 8/20/2019 at 11:37 PM, Manwon Lender said:

Thanks for posting this, however, after reading the document I am hardly convinced. First of all the document was approved for release in 2001. Why is it just being brought farword now? We have a member here who worked for the CIA, I will wait until he adds his thoughts on the document.

What are you not convinced of? They don't exactly publicize when this kind of info is released, it happens a lot and nobody notices or hears about it. What would the year it was released have to do with the validity? Also how was it approved for release in 2001 if the expiriment was in 2010? I'm hardly convinced you read it.

Also, here is a link geniusus. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000400430021-4

And another:  https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/nsa-rdp96x00790r000100040012-1

I understand that many are so brainwashed and deep rooted in thier denial that they equate closing thier eyes to no evidence existing... But did it ever occur to you that the CIA wasnt quite so daft? If you don't believe thier statements thats your loss, but no need to constantly heckle the more astute observationists.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Nnicolette

[Habitat]

45 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Just post the best evidence and then let's talk.

More idiocy, you are told anecdotes and then describe them as useless, which is at bottom, a selfish attitude, you mean useless to you, and assigning a value of zero to personal experience, is more idiocy, you are effectively saying it can't be true, unless it happened to, or can be demonstrated to you. Don't expect that kind of dismissal to be well received, I have never said any individual anecdote ought be accepted as true, but neither should it be assumed untrue, whether by deliberate deception, or mistaken interpretation, and especially if there is a wide and persistent body of reportage. "Old mate" xenofish says there are two types of people in the world, those that question, and those that don't, but in the case of the "team" it is more a case of rushing to a negative judgement, where one ought, and need not, be made, rather than just questioning. Where the intent is clearly to discredit, from the get-go, it isn't scepticism, but judgementalism.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Habitat

[Piney]

34 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Oh dear, the usual suspects on the "team" are out in force, on a "woo" hunt.

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

the "team"

[rashore]

Thread closed for review.