Remote viewing -- challenge
Martin Cannon
Hi. My name is Martin Cannon. About five years ago I annoyed researchers in
various fields with a monograph called "The Controllers.’ The book-length
update of this paper will include a few words about "Remote Viewing," which
seems to be THE hot topic among both political and paranormal investigators
right now. Ever since a CIA officer discussed the Agency's interest on
Nightline, a sort of RV mania has swept over many people.
This mania has been exacerbated by the recent book "Cosmic Voyage," by
Courtney Brown ("PHD.," as he like to remind us) which has proven extremely
popular -- some people revere it as a Third Testament. In the book, Brown uses
RV to obtain interviews with Martians, Jesus, and Buddha. Now, if I were
having a dialogue with a discarnate entity calling itself Jesus, I'd ask him
to say a few words in Aramaic. And Buddha might want to predict the winner of
next year's World Series in Sanskrit. But the RV advocates with whom I've
spoken say that this response indicates a decidedly negative, un-groovy
attitude, the sort of attitude that inhibits proper RV functioning.
Now, let me quickly make one point quite clear: I am not completely skeptical
of remote viewing claims. A few years ago, I got a call out of the blue from a
lady named Shelly Thompson, who described herself as a remote viewer trained
by the Psi-Tech organization. I tested her. Specifically, I asked her if she
could describe the painting then hanging over my couch. As it happened, this
was a particularly unusual painting (Jupiter as viewed from one of its moons –
I had done this airbrush work in my other life as a commercial illustrator).
Shelly had a go at it –AND SHE WAS SPOT ON! Very accurate. I made sure not to
say ONE WORD – I did not even breathe an audible breath – while she delivered
her description. The whole experience was genuinely uncanny.
So I cannot dismiss all such claims. It’s possible, of course, that she had
spoken to someone who visited my home. This seems unlikely, since no-one I
know appears to have met or spoken with Shelly.
Despite this experience, I am becoming somewhat skeptical of the many remote
viewing claims that I am now hearing. The whole thing has become rather too
faddish for my taste. Moreover, I am finding it quite difficult to have a
normal conversation with certain people -- they refuse to differentiate
between information received via the normal five senses and information
obtained psychically. It is annoying to have to constantly ask: "Wait – just
HOW do you know this?"
Sorry folks, but data obtained through RV is NOT "just as valid" as data
obtained via the eye and the ear. For example: I’ve met two people who "RV-ed"
what happened in 1947 at Roswell, New Mexico, and neither story even
"remotely" matches the other.
Anyone out there want to prove me wrong? Okay, let’s do it. I am quite sincere
here. I’d like to offer a challenge – in the TRUE spirit of inquiry, and not
in the spirit of CSICOPian smarminess. I’ll publish the results in my book.
Instead of remote viewing things which cannot be validated, such as Jesus,
Martians, Roswell, etc., let’s have a go at things which CAN be validated.
Specifically: The NEW paintings above my couch.
I have two new paintings on the wall above my couch. I moved into this place
only quite recently, and have had very few visitors. Thus, it is not likely
that any hoaxer can determine the nature of those paintings using conventional
means.
Now, let’s not have any rationalizations about why this is not a fair test.
I’ve heard plenty of such rationalizations, and to be frank, they always sound
to me like special pleading , or – forgive my bluntness -- like whining. The
point is this: Shelly Thompson did not rationalize. She faced the test fairly
and squarely, and came through with flying colors. Maybe some of you folks can
do the same?
If co-ordinates pinpointing my home are necessary – well, all I can tell you
is that I live quite near the corner of Lankersheim and Laurel Canyon in North
Hollywood, California. (A truly CRUMMY neighborhood.) Sorry, I don’t have
longitude or latitude for that location, but you can look it up on a map if
you need to.
I’d be very grateful to anyone who participates in this experiment. Any
successful RV-ers who want to be mentioned in my book, or in my radio
appearances, will be named. I promise to keep private all other names. And I
promise NOT to make fun of, or to criticize in any way, anyone who honestly
attempts this test and fails.
This challenge seems perfectly fair to me. C’mon, all you self-proclaimed
RV-ers: Give it a go. Fame and glory to those who succeed, and no hard
feelings toward those who fall short. If I can prove that Shelly’s hit was NOT
just a fluke, if I can prove that this stuff really DOES exist, I would love
to state so in my book.
I look forward to any replies…
-- Martin Cannon
David Herron
[Cross posted to sci.skeptic ... I'm throwing this one back. The
bait smells rancid ... you skeptic guys gotta try harder to
be more sincere next time ...]
This is an interesting challenge. However I want to disect some
of your posting just for the heck of it.
BTW, what does this have to do with Channeling? The only newsgroup
this is in is alt.paranormal.channeling... alt.paranormal might
be more appropriate..?
Martin Cannon (mca...@instanet.com) wrote:
: Hi. My name is Martin Cannon. About five years ago I annoyed researchers in
: various fields with a monograph called "The Controllers.’ The book-length
: update of this paper will include a few words about "Remote Viewing," which
: seems to be THE hot topic among both political and paranormal investigators
: right now. Ever since a CIA officer discussed the Agency's interest on
: Nightline, a sort of RV mania has swept over many people.
It's amazing how certain things can be 'laughable' with one name
(i.e. "clairvoyance") but add a scientific sounding name and
suddenly people say "Oh yeah! This sorta makes sense, I'd like
to hear more...". I don't see how there's any difference between RV
and clairvoyance, so why should they have different names?
: This mania has been exacerbated by the recent book "Cosmic Voyage," by
: Courtney Brown ("PHD.," as he like to remind us) which has proven extremely
: popular -- some people revere it as a Third Testament.
Okay.. "as he like to remind us", showing your slant here. This doesn't
bode well for your objectivity.
"some people revere it as a Third Testament" -- Who? And if they do
then so what? What importance is it that some (most) people place their
faith in things outside themselves?
: In the book, Brown uses
: RV to obtain interviews with Martians, Jesus, and Buddha. Now, if I were
: having a dialogue with a discarnate entity calling itself Jesus, I'd ask him
: to say a few words in Aramaic. And Buddha might want to predict the winner of
: next year's World Series in Sanskrit.
You're building a strawman here ..
: But the RV advocates with whom I've
: spoken say that this response indicates a decidedly negative, un-groovy
: attitude, the sort of attitude that inhibits proper RV functioning.
... just so you can knock it down. Silly boy ;-).
Let's say he was talking with these people. Why would it be on their
agenda to give him information about the stock market or whatever?
If you're going to posit that there are entities such as Martians,
Jesus or Buddha that one can talk to, then you have to posit that
they have their own interests and goals. The interests of Jesus or
Buddha would certainly be counter to promoting personal gain such
as predicting the world series. Of what use would it be for them
to tell us ahead of time the outcome of such a silly waste of time
as the world series?
In the Course in Miracles it says in Chapter 1:
The use of miracles as spectacles to induce
belief is a misunderstanding of their purpose.
Other systems of working in the non-physical-world have similar
statements or 'rules'. The purpose of Jesus or some similar entity
coming and assisting us is to aid us in reaching the goal of self
understanding 'more quickly', not (as it says) to perform 'spectacles'
to 'induce belief'.
If you wanted to live at a time when there were spectacles you should
have chosen to live in the late 1800's and been a frequenter of table
tapping and other seance things. Those lower entities love to play
around and show off ...
: Now, let me quickly make one point quite clear: I am not completely skeptical
: of remote viewing claims. A few years ago, I got a call out of the blue from a
: lady named Shelly Thompson, who described herself as a remote viewer trained
: by the Psi-Tech organization. I tested her. Specifically, I asked her if she
: could describe the painting then hanging over my couch. As it happened, this
: was a particularly unusual painting (Jupiter as viewed from one of its moons –
: I had done this airbrush work in my other life as a commercial illustrator).
: Shelly had a go at it –AND SHE WAS SPOT ON! Very accurate. I made sure not to
: say ONE WORD – I did not even breathe an audible breath – while she delivered
: her description. The whole experience was genuinely uncanny.
So now you're trying to get on 'our side', kinda like a wolf putting on
sheeps clothing. Yet you've already proved your stance above. That
you're trying to induce us into creating a spectacle, and ultimately
you hope to prove the ability to be wrong.
: So I cannot dismiss all such claims. It’s possible, of course, that she had
: spoken to someone who visited my home. This seems unlikely, since no-one I
: know appears to have met or spoken with Shelly.
: Despite this experience, I am becoming somewhat skeptical of the many remote
: viewing claims that I am now hearing. The whole thing has become rather too
: faddish for my taste. Moreover, I am finding it quite difficult to have a
: normal conversation with certain people -- they refuse to differentiate
: between information received via the normal five senses and information
: obtained psychically. It is annoying to have to constantly ask: "Wait – just
: HOW do you know this?"
What's wrong with this picture?
You've received some interesting demonstration of ability. Now you
want to go out and prove it wrong?
If you're having difficulty with 'certain people' why not take
that upp with them? Why try and drag the rest of Usenet into
the 'difficulty' you're having with those people?
Have you even tried to use this kind of ability yourself? Rather
the word 'try' is out of place there, because (seemingly paradoxically)
the more you 'try' at this the less likely it is to work ... Think
of Luke Skywalker and his guru ("Try not! DO!").
: Sorry folks, but data obtained through RV is NOT "just as valid" as data
: obtained via the eye and the ear. For example: I’ve met two people who "RV-ed"
: what happened in 1947 at Roswell, New Mexico, and neither story even
: "remotely" matches the other.
: Anyone out there want to prove me wrong? Okay, let’s do it. I am quite sincere
: here. I’d like to offer a challenge – in the TRUE spirit of inquiry, and not
: in the spirit of CSICOPian smarminess. I’ll publish the results in my book.
: Instead of remote viewing things which cannot be validated, such as Jesus,
: Martians, Roswell, etc., let’s have a go at things which CAN be validated.
: Specifically: The NEW paintings above my couch.
: I have two new paintings on the wall above my couch. I moved into this place
: only quite recently, and have had very few visitors. Thus, it is not likely
: that any hoaxer can determine the nature of those paintings using conventional
: means.
Straw man time again ....
: Now, let’s not have any rationalizations about why this is not a fair test.
: I’ve heard plenty of such rationalizations, and to be frank, they always sound
: to me like special pleading , or – forgive my bluntness -- like whining. The
: point is this: Shelly Thompson did not rationalize. She faced the test fairly
: and squarely, and came through with flying colors. Maybe some of you folks can
: do the same?
Is this a pattern you learned in childhood? ;-)
: If co-ordinates pinpointing my home are necessary – well, all I can tell you
: is that I live quite near the corner of Lankersheim and Laurel Canyon in North
: Hollywood, California. (A truly CRUMMY neighborhood.) Sorry, I don’t have
: longitude or latitude for that location, but you can look it up on a map if
: you need to.
: I’d be very grateful to anyone who participates in this experiment. Any
: successful RV-ers who want to be mentioned in my book, or in my radio
: appearances, will be named. I promise to keep private all other names. And I
: promise NOT to make fun of, or to criticize in any way, anyone who honestly
: attempts this test and fails.
: This challenge seems perfectly fair to me. C’mon, all you self-proclaimed
: RV-ers: Give it a go. Fame and glory to those who succeed, and no hard
: feelings toward those who fall short. If I can prove that Shelly’s hit was NOT
: just a fluke, if I can prove that this stuff really DOES exist, I would love
: to state so in my book.
: I look forward to any replies…
: -- Martin Cannon
Martin,
You make this sound like such a useful and interesting challenge
to undertake. I sure want to take part. Where do I sign up???
I really really really want to prove to you that I can see
the dark side of the moon with my eyes closed! Honest! Even
with one hand tied behind my back! Will you let me!?!? Huh???
David
--
"The really valuable thing is the Intuition. The intellect has little
to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness,
call it Intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and
you don't know how or why." - Albert Einstein