free remote viewing magazine - issue 3

[Nostradamus]

The trick here is in the meaning of random. There is a famous math problem in which 3 different definitions for random provide 3 different answers: 1/4, 1/3, and 1/2. No definition of random has been given here but my assumption is that the number is independent of the target properties and is chosen uniformly random from a subset of the integers.

[Nostradamus]

[dazsmith]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

Why don't you comment on the reason why Wiseman stated rv to be a hoax.

Here we have an experiment which uses a protocol I suggested, i.e. the viewer identifies the target from a list. You even agreed that made rv easier to test and demonstrate. Any comments on what happened in that experiment?

[dazsmith]

[Nostradamus]

[dazsmith]

Nostradamus.
I tell you what - when you have read even a portion of the available and public material in relation to remote viewing experimentation - even in the lab, then I will be happy to debate the subject with you further. Until then its akin to trying to converse with a caged monkey, ignorant of the accumulated historical data available. You can find a small spattering of some documents on my website, or you can readily purchase the 89,000 CIA/DIA, and military research papers from the 1970's - to 1995. There are also a range of good books detailing the thirty plus years history and experimentation.

Until then its a conversation that is going nowhere.

Daz

[Nostradamus]

I agree Daz. The conversation is going nowhere. Instead of providing information you have purposely not answered question. You claim to be an expert in the field and yet you seem completely unable to make any clear points other than claiming success without providing evidence. In all of the rv threads here you have only done things like claim that straight lines are spirals, and tornadoes are described by "Relaxing movement - like music - flow". With this sort of evidence who is going to believe you?

[Nostradamus]

[dazsmith]

I have repeatedly stated - you tell me what you want and I'Il supply it - im even happy to if you like to supply the 89,000 pages of CIA documentation to you free of charge on DVD for you to peruse at your leisure.

As to proof of rv well there are well over 200 remoet viewing examples on my remoet viewing website, I have also supplied filmed demos, and can supply lab test projects of remoet viewing using thousands of blind remoet viewing trials, per reviewed.

what more proof do you want?

As to your insanely stupid comments that I didnt hit the target of tornado - are just plain reaching - I accurately described a tornado and even part way thru the session named one.

Still I see you totally ignore the other rv session I posted the sydney harbour one - would that be because this is an example you cant say is a miss?
http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/11.4. ... sydney.pdf

or what about this one: http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/ferri ... ession.pdf

or this: http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/daz_wayland.pdf

or this: http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/daz_9234_jjkk.pdf

or this: http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/brso2_full.pdf

or how about all these 140+ rv examples form the CIA/DIA /Military: http://www.remoteviewed.com/remote_view ... litary.htm

do you mean this ' evidence' that i haven't supplied?

daz

[Nostradamus]

[dazsmith]

[ciscop]

you got caught lying daz
you did said MUSIC

you are done
you arent a remote viewer

YOU ARE A CHERRY PICKER AT MOST