That might be at least partially true. He tells some amazing, but as yet unproven, stories.
However the time he decided to remote view Satan was certainly a chilling experience for him. He described a being of pure hate. Extremely beautiful, yet full of hate. That sounds pretty accurate, imo.
The chilling part was that Ed claimed he could tell that Satan was also observing him at the time he was remote viewing Satan. When you play with fire there’s a very good chance you will get burned. I think Ed has been completely sucked into this occult practice he believes is “science”.
You propose, as one of your still unseen hundreds of solutions, that one solution could be for Ed to go over to Japan, he then commits a crime that the Japanese police cannot solve, next he returns to the US and waits for the Japanese police to call him in to solve a crime. By extremely good luck, out of all the possible crimes they could choose from, the Japanese want him to solve the very crime he committed. He makes a trip back to Japan and solves it how??? By arresting himself?! Pinning the crime on an innocent person?
I’m afraid your Occam’s Razor has gotten extremely dull. When, in the history of the world, has any crime** ever** been solved by the method you have just described?
I hate to imagine what a thrashing you guys would have given to poor Lekatt if he had proposed any such unbelievable scenario…
The connection to the occult seems obvious. “Remote viewing” by whatever name you give it has been practiced for thousands of years. This new blend of science and the occult, as we apparently see in Scientology is very dangerous. The Scientology connection might be the reason this whole topic is such a hot potato.
P.S. Interestingly enough, Tom Cruise reportedly has a movie on the way (for this summer I think) that will include remote viewing in a positive way. Since he is a Scientologist, I find this additional bit of public conditioning something to ponder.
Remote viewing may have been practiced for thousands of years, but that doesn’t mean it’s ever actually worked. It just means people have been credulous and willing to believe in spirtual communication for a long time.
As to the topic being a “hot potato,” to most of us it isn’t even tepid.
It sounds accurate if one believes in a certain description of “Satan.” I suggest Dames knows his audience and tells them what they expect to hear.
If the discussion here is shifting to “the Scientology connection” and hot potatoes, would someone start on topic on that, rather than continuing it here in the Great Beyond thread.
That could be. But then it’s also highly likely that most of you are not involved in the intelligence community either…
I heard a recent claim (I don’t know how this claim could be verified) that our intelligence community still uses the services of remote viewers, but instead of having their own employees do it the remote viewing is done on a contractor basis. It’s called Project Foresight. It supposedly was responsible for the recent capture of an important OBL ally.
What’s the “However” for? Why not “like” instead?
He tells some amazing, but as yet unproven, stories like the time he decided to remote view Satan…
You think it’s accurate because…?
(I dated someone just like that. Maybe he was seeing her instead.)
Maybe “chilling” should be replaced by “the most unverifiable” as in:
The most unverifiable part was that Ed claimed he could tell that Satan was also observing him…
Depending on who one is and how it’s meant it’s a more charitable interpretation than “Dames is a con-man.”
Although I have seen neither, I believe God and Satan are both obvious by the results they achieve. Gets me in trouble sometimes when I’m reading/posting both here and at the Pizza Parlor.
Actually, that’s incorrect. Ed tells what **he **believes to be the truth even though it goes against what his audience prefers to hear. Even though I disagree with him on remote viewing, you have to respect a person who will take a stand on something.
Ed’s audience on Coast To Coast is not primarily a Christian audience. Art mentioned several times that according to his phone calls and emails that Christians amounted to about 20% of his audience. So pretty close to 80% of Ed’s audience would probably not even accept the reality of Satan. Some don’t even seem to believe in evil of any type, although it’s hard to imagine how they can take a look at the world today and maintain that belief.
Hot potato meaning that the intelligence agencies want the information that remote viewing allegedly provides, but do not want any connection to Scientology. It’s apparently bad for a person’s career. This has been the claim of several people who were in the government remote viewing program. They claim that remote viewing worked about as well as other intelligence gathering techniques, but the program was cancelled due to political pressure. The program did get shuffled around, so their claims could be correct.
If you’re talking about sasquatch, and I think you are, I disagree. I happen to believe the people who have studied the evidence for years and years. It’s your right to ignore them if you choose to do so. There are many sasquatch eyewitnesses who know a bear when they see one and the animal they have seen is not a bear. There is the physical evidence of footprints, the analysis of the ridges from casts of those footprints, hair samples that does not match any known animal, plus a few recordings of the vocal range of these animals.
What I see so often is that skeptics seem to refuse ALL eyewitness testimony, unless it happens to agree with their world view of some particular topic. Then it’s fine with them.
Although I now have no doubt regarding the existence of the sasquatch, this was not always the case. However now that I am satisfied that the sasquatch is a real animal, subject to study and examination like any other large mammal, I am much more concerned with addressing ecological questions such as how it overwinters in the colder regions of North America, than with dwelling on the controversy of whether it does or does not exist. I remain aware, however, that many people are not aware of the large volume of information that exists about this species and I understand why others are less ready than I am to treat it as a real animal. For this reason I began writing a book on the sasquatch in 1996.
I also want to point out that TRV, a remove viewing “company” which stated that Elizabeth Smart was dead, and therefore was wrong, is now scrambling to make excuses for how wrong they were. [color=purple]Here[/jcolor] is their explanation. Note that there isn’t an apology here.
