• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Bridge to End 911[W:49]

But , of course, you don't explain why it is garbage,, Just saying it is garbage is a bit idiotic of course.

So, please explain the why. Otherwie it is soo cheap so cheap so cheap.
Oh you mean like the explanations and evidence you've given out? Can you point those posts out for me please. Thanks.

:lamo

Look in the mirror my friend!

;)
 
But , of course, you don't explain why it is garbage,, Just saying it is garbage is a bit idiotic of course.

So, please explain the why. Otherwie it is soo cheap so cheap so cheap.

You mean like you "explained" how the official story is fill of holes in the post below? Who are you kidding Pin? Just saying it's full of holes is a bit idiotic of course... Sound familiar?

;)

Well, the official story is full of holes, whether you see it or not.
 
You mean like you "explained" how the official story is fill of holes in the post below? Who are you kidding Pin? Just saying it's full of holes is a bit idiotic of course... Sound familiar?

;)

Still dont know what he considers the "official story"
Pretty hard for anyone to debunk these holes if the guy who wont tell you what they are doesn't even know what he means.
 
But , of course, you don't explain why it is garbage,, Just saying it is garbage is a bit idiotic of course.

So, please explain the why. Otherwie it is soo cheap so cheap so cheap.

Maybe this will help. Check out Prudence Calabrese's open letter from 1998 located at the link below regarding Farsight, Courtney Brown, and "science" involved. She worked for/with them.
Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast - Shownotes Episode 128

Excerpts:
It does not matter that I was a student of remote viewing, involved in a learning process. It does not even matter that I, in as vocal a way as possible within the confines of my employment, spoke openly about the problems inherent in targeting the unverifiable, and drawing conclusions from the data obtained.

I failed in my moral responsibility to let the public know exactly what was occurring with the data on esoteric targets publicly presented by The Farsight Institute (under the direction of Dr. Courtney Brown).

The data are both flawed and incomplete.

Several months ago, I restructured the Farsight web site [at the time, Calabrese was the Farsight webmaster], and placed a prominent disclaimer at the top of each of the session pages, stating that the sessions were not done under proper controls, and that the data therein was suspect. The viewers may have had significant target contact, but we simply did not know how to characterize the data. The disclaimer also mentioned that telepathic overlay could have contributed to the data. I was told by Dr. Brown to replace that disclaimer with one that merely stated that we were retargeting things using more refined methods, but that we had not viewed anything contradictory to what we had presented. I felt, from a scientific standpoint, given the types of controls and checks that are standard procedure in both experimental and observational sciences, that this was misleading the public. I stated so, but as an employee, I had to follow the order.

All of those esoteric 'special projects' done at Farsight, and still linked to in the 'Sessions' section of The Farsight Institute Web Site were done under one or more of the following less-than-optimal conditions:

“1. Semi-blind sessions, where the monitor knows the target and the viewer does not. All sessions where the monitor knew what the target was are flawed, due to the potential (and likelihood) for telepathic overlay, subtle leading by the monitor, and leading by cuing from the monitor.

“2. Selective presentation (in ALL projects), where only the sessions that the analyst feels are "on target" are presented. Others that have opposing viewpoints, or data not consistent with the analyst's interpretation of the data are discarded. In some cases, the analyst was also a viewer!

“3. Leading Cuing, where the tasker makes an assumption and names the unverifiable thing in the target cue. Example: "Martians under Santa Fe Baldy (current time)" or "Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp comet." How can such sessions provide objective data? If the cue says Martians, then Martians the student viewers will find.

“4. Deep analytical overlay, due to strong ideas on the part of the analyst about what should or should not be in the data.

“5. Methods and procedures that changed on a sometimes daily basis, without the benefit of looking at the comparative results from a selection of controlled sessions, before something was implemented Institute-wide.”

Those are just a few of the quotes from her confession letter. Farsight sure sounds like a scam to me...
 
Pin

Has remote viewing been scientifically proven? Yes/ No

Do you believe the vid you posted regarding remote viewing and 9/11/2001? Yes or No
 
Pin

Has remote viewing been scientifically proven? Yes/ No

Do you believe the vid you posted regarding remote viewing and 9/11/2001? Yes or No

yes and yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom