Off Topic: “Moon-walker claims alien contact cover-up”

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]Hi SD,

Read this link for fun. See what you think.
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/cia_remote_viewing_sri.htm

John
[/quote]

Considering Puthoff was also convinced that Uri Geller was the real thing, I’m not convinced that any research which he directed would have been rigourous or devoid of observational or experimental bias. I especially thought that the fact that the purported psychic with the “remote viewing” ability got to suggest many of the more advanced tests is a bit like allowing Uri Geller his own spoons to bend (oddly, Uri has never been able to bend a skeptics spoon). His initial “hit” that landed the contract sounded quite a lot like he was “cold reading” the people holding the boxes as well.

James Randi (of CSICOP) currently has a $1 million dollar prize available for anyone who can demonstrate remote viewing under controlled scientific circumstances. Nobody has collected yet.

[gandalf]

I read about this on Wikipedia, and now I think I will be able to determine the future value of houses in San Diego using Remote Viewing!

BTW, whenever I hear about this, reminds me of that scene in “Ghostbusters” with Bill Murray… LOL!

Which is not to suggest that it might not be real. Just that Ghostbusters was pretty funny.

[gandalf]

I read about this on Wikipedia, and now I think I will be able to determine the future value of houses in San Diego using Remote Viewing!

BTW, whenever I hear about this, reminds me of that scene in “Ghostbusters” with Bill Murray… LOL!

Which is not to suggest that it might not be real. Just that Ghostbusters was pretty funny.

[gandalf]

I read about this on Wikipedia, and now I think I will be able to determine the future value of houses in San Diego using Remote Viewing!

BTW, whenever I hear about this, reminds me of that scene in “Ghostbusters” with Bill Murray… LOL!

Which is not to suggest that it might not be real. Just that Ghostbusters was pretty funny.

[gandalf]

I read about this on Wikipedia, and now I think I will be able to determine the future value of houses in San Diego using Remote Viewing!

BTW, whenever I hear about this, reminds me of that scene in “Ghostbusters” with Bill Murray… LOL!

Which is not to suggest that it might not be real. Just that Ghostbusters was pretty funny.

[gandalf]

I read about this on Wikipedia, and now I think I will be able to determine the future value of houses in San Diego using Remote Viewing!

BTW, whenever I hear about this, reminds me of that scene in “Ghostbusters” with Bill Murray… LOL!

Which is not to suggest that it might not be real. Just that Ghostbusters was pretty funny.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[afx114]

I’m not saying that aliens will think/act like us because of some humanistic egotism. It’s because the Universe is made up of all the same stuff. It all follows all of the same laws. These laws guide things in the universe to be similar: There are galaxies like ours. There are solar systems like ours. There are planets like ours. There are environments like the environments on earth. Take the same elements, governed by the same laws, in the same environments, and you can reasonably assume that there will be similar results. If I pour some vinnegar in some baking soda, I can reasonably assume that it will always fizz. Because it always does.

No, I don’t think aliens will look like us. They won’t have skinny bodies with big heads and big eyes. But I do believe that evolution will find the path of least resistance, and “curiosity” and “exploration” are part of our brains for a reason. Perhaps they are a requirement for life itself… you know, to ensure your existence. Wouldn’t any intelligent being consider expansion and exploration part of its duty to preserve its existence?

THAT is why I think aliens are out there looking. Not because I want to feel special – but because the universe itself demands it of them. They aren’t out there looking for us specifically.. they’re just looking.

Or maybe I’m just batshit insane. 🙂

[afx114]

I’m not saying that aliens will think/act like us because of some humanistic egotism. It’s because the Universe is made up of all the same stuff. It all follows all of the same laws. These laws guide things in the universe to be similar: There are galaxies like ours. There are solar systems like ours. There are planets like ours. There are environments like the environments on earth. Take the same elements, governed by the same laws, in the same environments, and you can reasonably assume that there will be similar results. If I pour some vinnegar in some baking soda, I can reasonably assume that it will always fizz. Because it always does.

No, I don’t think aliens will look like us. They won’t have skinny bodies with big heads and big eyes. But I do believe that evolution will find the path of least resistance, and “curiosity” and “exploration” are part of our brains for a reason. Perhaps they are a requirement for life itself… you know, to ensure your existence. Wouldn’t any intelligent being consider expansion and exploration part of its duty to preserve its existence?

THAT is why I think aliens are out there looking. Not because I want to feel special – but because the universe itself demands it of them. They aren’t out there looking for us specifically.. they’re just looking.

Or maybe I’m just batshit insane. 🙂

[afx114]

I’m not saying that aliens will think/act like us because of some humanistic egotism. It’s because the Universe is made up of all the same stuff. It all follows all of the same laws. These laws guide things in the universe to be similar: There are galaxies like ours. There are solar systems like ours. There are planets like ours. There are environments like the environments on earth. Take the same elements, governed by the same laws, in the same environments, and you can reasonably assume that there will be similar results. If I pour some vinnegar in some baking soda, I can reasonably assume that it will always fizz. Because it always does.

No, I don’t think aliens will look like us. They won’t have skinny bodies with big heads and big eyes. But I do believe that evolution will find the path of least resistance, and “curiosity” and “exploration” are part of our brains for a reason. Perhaps they are a requirement for life itself… you know, to ensure your existence. Wouldn’t any intelligent being consider expansion and exploration part of its duty to preserve its existence?

THAT is why I think aliens are out there looking. Not because I want to feel special – but because the universe itself demands it of them. They aren’t out there looking for us specifically.. they’re just looking.

Or maybe I’m just batshit insane. 🙂

[afx114]

I’m not saying that aliens will think/act like us because of some humanistic egotism. It’s because the Universe is made up of all the same stuff. It all follows all of the same laws. These laws guide things in the universe to be similar: There are galaxies like ours. There are solar systems like ours. There are planets like ours. There are environments like the environments on earth. Take the same elements, governed by the same laws, in the same environments, and you can reasonably assume that there will be similar results. If I pour some vinnegar in some baking soda, I can reasonably assume that it will always fizz. Because it always does.

No, I don’t think aliens will look like us. They won’t have skinny bodies with big heads and big eyes. But I do believe that evolution will find the path of least resistance, and “curiosity” and “exploration” are part of our brains for a reason. Perhaps they are a requirement for life itself… you know, to ensure your existence. Wouldn’t any intelligent being consider expansion and exploration part of its duty to preserve its existence?

THAT is why I think aliens are out there looking. Not because I want to feel special – but because the universe itself demands it of them. They aren’t out there looking for us specifically.. they’re just looking.

Or maybe I’m just batshit insane. 🙂

[Author]

Posts