Nickell, Joe (March 2001). "Remotely viewed? The Charlie Jordan case". Skeptical Inquirer. 11 (1).
Waller, Douglas (11 December 1995). "The vision thing: Ten years and $20 million later, The Pentagon discovers that psychics are unreliable spies". Time.
UK's Ministry of Defence. June 2002, disclosed in 2007-02-23. p. 94 (page 50 in second pdf)
Marks, David; Kammann, Richard. (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic. Prometheus Books.
Again, maybe you are better off spending some time reading about something like the psychology of a psychic, it may be key in something like this to understand what might be going on. I recommend that anyone believing something try to reading up on some basics by the 'opposite side'. You can read 10 books confirming your beliefs, but considering it is always relatively easy to find some people who agree with you... you are likely to learn much more about the opposing ideas. If reading about that confirm your beliefs, now then that makes them very powerful indeed. (So this is not about me knowing much about parapsychology etc but if anything the workings of opposing ideas).
The 'sickness' in way too many of those very out there ideas is that instead of empirical proof which other people can check for themselves, there are things like circular reasoning much like a lot of conspiracy thinking. That tries to escape the point and pumps it up by gathering more momentum out of the 'what if' even more of the world was in on it. There are a number of movies which do a great job of capturing the shock of one's whole world being an illusion. Aside from the truly illusory facts about the limitations of our senses to know the world directly it is risky and unhealthy to keep 'invalidating' things like that and complicate your paradigm for entirely the wrong reasons.
It's a similar point as I tried to make earlier, yet I still haven't seen you address that in depth but instead escaping to the next topic to do it all over again with the weakness for 'amazing' claims. You can keep doing that or you can balance it fairly by looking at the other side of it.
Similar with with whole clinton vs trump thing I tried to dig up what trump proponents claimed made clinton so crooked. The point is not that there were questionable things to find, but that they were not in proportion to what trump does on his day off, as far as the [potential or actual] leader of a nation goes.
I do very much appreciate that you question things like in that update. Keep putting things in perspective.
Waller, Douglas (11 December 1995). "The vision thing: Ten years and $20 million later, The Pentagon discovers that psychics are unreliable spies". Time.
UK's Ministry of Defence. June 2002, disclosed in 2007-02-23. p. 94 (page 50 in second pdf)
Marks, David; Kammann, Richard. (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic. Prometheus Books.
Again, maybe you are better off spending some time reading about something like the psychology of a psychic, it may be key in something like this to understand what might be going on. I recommend that anyone believing something try to reading up on some basics by the 'opposite side'. You can read 10 books confirming your beliefs, but considering it is always relatively easy to find some people who agree with you... you are likely to learn much more about the opposing ideas. If reading about that confirm your beliefs, now then that makes them very powerful indeed. (So this is not about me knowing much about parapsychology etc but if anything the workings of opposing ideas).
The 'sickness' in way too many of those very out there ideas is that instead of empirical proof which other people can check for themselves, there are things like circular reasoning much like a lot of conspiracy thinking. That tries to escape the point and pumps it up by gathering more momentum out of the 'what if' even more of the world was in on it. There are a number of movies which do a great job of capturing the shock of one's whole world being an illusion. Aside from the truly illusory facts about the limitations of our senses to know the world directly it is risky and unhealthy to keep 'invalidating' things like that and complicate your paradigm for entirely the wrong reasons.
It's a similar point as I tried to make earlier, yet I still haven't seen you address that in depth but instead escaping to the next topic to do it all over again with the weakness for 'amazing' claims. You can keep doing that or you can balance it fairly by looking at the other side of it.
Similar with with whole clinton vs trump thing I tried to dig up what trump proponents claimed made clinton so crooked. The point is not that there were questionable things to find, but that they were not in proportion to what trump does on his day off, as far as the [potential or actual] leader of a nation goes.
I do very much appreciate that you question things like in that update. Keep putting things in perspective.
Last edited: