# Remote viewing is real--and the truth is being seen by the media... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2004, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916 "2004-01-17T11:04:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/41 "2004-01-19T15:35:18Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Nice insult. So much for not getting personal in GD, eh? I think you misread DDG, as that wasn’t an insult and was obviously a set of relevant questions. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/42 "2004-01-19T17:20:44Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Nice insult. So much for not getting personal in GD, eh? [The Artful Dodger](http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame60.html) rides again. That was not an insult. > [@](#): > > OF COURSE the show could have faked every damn thing it presented, and I wouldn’t know otherwise. I also know that Japanese TV often gussies up stories with “yarase,” or telling people what to say and do for the camera. (…) > > The POINT, however, is that they are _saying_ that the research is for real, and they are putting their credibility on the line. Their attitude is not, “Hey isn’t that neato? Whether it’s true or not, your guess is as good as ours.” Rather, they’re saying, “This is what happened, the footage you just saw was of a real person doing what he or she really does, and the results show genuine psychic ability at work.” > > In other words, the media is taking the phenomena seriously, and they are sponsoring research or actual use thereof. Nice backpedaling. You said “remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects”. The point of the thread was obviously not that media accepts remote viewing but to claim that it works and exists. You got slapped and changed your position to the point that media is taking remote viewing seriously, which is a nonpoint, a nondebate, and utterly uninteresting. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/43 "2004-01-20T02:15:31Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Nice backpedaling. You said “remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects”. Yeah, that’s my claim. Some of those effects were shown on the TV show. The calculus is simple: either they’re lying, or remote viewing is real. The skeptos assume “fraud!” I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it. There’s no backpedaling, because I claim, unambiguously, that remote viewing has been proved adequately. But am I trying to prove this claim here to you, the hard-core, close-minded skepto? Mais non. My claim in this thread is that your worldview no longer has the media support it once had, and the tide is turning. The truth will out, and it is. Make fun of the show as much as you choose (without seeing it, of course), but if this show is a fraud, it’s an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit. Skeptos seem to find it easy to believe that such frauds can smoothly and thus largely be perpetrated without any complications or repercussions, but I cannot. > [@](#): > > The point of the thread was obviously not that media accepts remote viewing but to claim that it works and exists. You got slapped and changed your position to the point that media is taking remote viewing seriously, which is a nonpoint, a nondebate, and utterly uninteresting. Was that a slap? Sure didn’t feel it. Rather, it seems I’ve pulled the cord of doll Chucky the Skeptic and gotten the same thought-free responses that one always does: Lies! Fraud! Deception! No evidence! To another poster: “Super Special '04” is a variety show because they do a totally different topic each time. What’s this “Artful Doger” crap, anyway? I’m a Kung-Fu Master, people. At least, I can beat most of you’s with one ass-cheek tied behind my back… ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/44 "2004-01-20T02:28:55Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’m a Kung-Fu Master, people. At least, I can beat most of you’s with one ass-cheek tied behind my back… And you’re trying to impress us _how_? Why not tell us where you got your Master of Science degree? I got both my Bachelor of Arts and my Medical Doctor degree from Johns Hopkins. As has been said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Thus far, nothing in the way of even ordinary proof has been offered. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/45 "2004-01-20T02:34:06Z")
Why is it all the “true believers” here equate skepticism with closed mindedness? If I say “I need proof and what you’re giving me may be proof, but I need to see it for myself and see how good the controls were before I accept it, but if the controls were proper and the evidence can’t be explained any other way I’ll be willing to accept it,” that doesn’t mean I’m closed minded. It means I won’t just believe something extraordinary without real proof. Closed mindedness is “I don’t care what you say, what I believe is true and if you can’t see that you never will.” ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/46 "2004-01-20T02:37:59Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it. Ah, so you have further evidence of your claim aside from a television show. Please share this evidence with the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/47 "2004-01-20T03:01:44Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yeah, that’s my claim. Some of those effects were shown on the TV show. The calculus is simple: either they’re lying, or remote viewing is real. I can easily accept the possibility that people lie, especially to make money by selling advertising on TV shows. I have a much harder time accepting the overturning of 500 years of science, the same science that makes it possible for you to read this on your computer, half a world away. > [@](#): > > I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it. And you have yet to supply a cite; a single good reference. What government? What agency? Have pity on us, **A.,** and show us some data. Just the tiniest peek, M’kay? So far all we have is your outlandish claims and the hint of black helicopters. Can you back your claims up as rigorously as you pursue your kung-fu? > [@](#): > > …if this show is a fraud, it’s an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit… Yep, that’s about the size of it. It’s been done before, it’ll be done again, and although I won’t mention names, gullible people will be taken in by it. P.T. was right, by gum. > [@](#): > > But is one to trust Japanese TV blindly? Heck no. I believe you just answered your own OP. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/48 "2004-01-20T03:39:06Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it. Having a masters degree in some unnamed science you’ve undoubtedly looked at the peer reviews of this government research BEFORE you made up your mind, right? Let me provide you with a link to refresh your memory: [http://books.nap.edu/openbook/POD276/html/602.html](http://books.nap.edu/openbook/POD276/html/602.html) Remote viewing section starts here [http://books.nap.edu/books/POD276/html/647.html#pagetop](http://books.nap.edu/books/POD276/html/647.html#pagetop) Read these, and if you’d like to discuss them I’m sure we’ can To summarize the content of what you’re about to (re)read- poor study design and poor controls. Not necessarily fraud or lying, (though possible), but at least mistaken. If the search function was working well, I’d link to where I already discussed this topic, (Stargate etc), at length. Instead, I’ll just link to Cecil’s pithy summary: [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html) > [@](#): > > Over a period of more than 20 years, the CIA and Pentagon spent approximately $20 million to study and employ numerous “psychics.” They were supposed to help track down terrorists, find hostages, help anti-drug activities, etc. Experiments were conducted on precognition, clairvoyance, and remote viewing. > > So where does this leave us? Let’s look more closely at the studies. Utts said the “psychics” were accurate about 15% of the time when they were helping the CIA. Fifteeen percent? Is this supposed to convince us to pay them to help the United States government? Utts says she thinks “they would be effective if used in conjunction with other intelligence.” My intelligence tells me that 15% accuracy isn’t much help no matter what it’s used in conjunction with–that’s an 85% failure rate! So 85% of the time, spies would be wasting their time and resources on incorrect information. We’re supposed to be happy with that? And that’s presuming she’s right about the 15%. > > An interesting note in this regard is that “psychics” interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those “who accepted the phenomenon.” Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn’t depend on who’s running a study! You should apply some of your rigorous scientific training toward the evidence you see. Currently, it appears that you’ve chucked all of that out the window, (or never had it in the first place). > [@Aeschines](#): > > What’s this “Artful Doger” crap, anyway? I’m a Kung-Fu Master, people. At least, I can beat most of you’s with one ass-cheek tied behind my back… Remeber, **"Many lesser Warriors delude themselves into thinking that they are masters of war, but few are the genuine article."** ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/49 "2004-01-20T03:56:51Z")
I just love the RV advocates. For several years they claimed the best in the business were the PSI-TECH clowns who were assorted “RV’ers” who the government used in its sad little RVing experiments. Well, when Elizabeth Smart disappeared they gleefully RV’ed that she was dead. They even waltzed around one location they claimed was where she was killed or buried. Then she turned up alive. They waffled out some excuses but never apologised for the trauma they caused the Smart family. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/50 "2004-01-20T04:10:37Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Make fun of the show as much as you choose (without seeing it, of course), but if this show is a fraud, it’s an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit. Skeptos seem to find it easy to believe that such frauds can smoothly and thus largely be perpetrated without any complications or repercussions, but I cannot. The record of entertainment shows as evidence is not good: being a spoilsport or only a presenter of facts, is not conductive to ratings. Otherwise, science, math, and history shows would be the kings in ratings. There is a force all right, and it is economical: they go for the most outrageous things, all for ratings. See for example the case of Uri Geller and the Tonight Show: when Geller appeared with Carson as host, Geller failed: because Carson knew how magic tricks were done and he knew what to look for. In an entertainment level, it was a dull show. More recently, Geller had a better showing with Jay Leno, needless to say: Jay did go for the show ratings and not for the truth. The complications or repercussions for the psychics **do** appear, but only when they comply to do controlled experiments. The real truth is that there is already a record of paranormal failures when confronted with hard science: > **["That's Incredible" telekinesis fraud guy.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=235636)** > > A long time ago (1980ish maybe), on the grandaddy of reality shows, “That’s Incredible” I remember there was a guy who claimed he had telekinetic abilities. He would demonstrate his powers by making telephone book pages mysteriously turn, balanced... I have seen you before dismissing Randi, but his record on spotting frauds is better than the efforts of claiming his price. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/51 "2004-01-20T04:17:13Z")
I rather wish remote viewing was real, so that someone could RV Spalding Gray. ☹ I gave remote viewers the benefit of the doubt, for a while. There was some guy a few years ago who would regularly call in to Art Bell, or who was a frequent guest; I forget. Anyway, he claimed to have RV’d some meteor or something, and found that it contained “spores”, which would eventually land on earth, and kill off all green plants, leading to a worldwide famine. He named a specific time frame for this, too. And that time came and went, and no “spores” appeared. I did appreciate the fact that he never did any backpedaling on this. He didn’t extend the deadline after nothing happened. Rather, he claimed that he had seen **something** ; it just hadn’t been spores. But since then, I’ve been disinclined to believe that there is such a thing as remote viewing. Though I did enjoy the Omaha steaks that Mr. Rilch insisted on ordering “while we still could”. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/52 "2004-01-20T06:17:04Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The skeptos assume “fraud!” I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it. You believe it. Good for you. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want. Baselessly attacking skeptics, that’s another matter. You began your _ad hominem_ attack before the evidence was even completely out of your mouth. Let’s compare your assumption of what skeptics think with what was actually said. **TonyJ** said: I’m not saying remote viewing isn’t possible, but what you’re presenting is not evidence of its existence. **Rashak Mani** said, mockingly: I also saw the Starship Enterprise on TV… it must be real then. **Priceguy** said: A TV show isn’t evidence. Media acceptance isn’t evidence. Controlled studies are. Can you provide one? If not, you’re wasting time. **’possum stalker** said: I think you meant to post this in Baseless Assertions, not Great Debates. **brutus** said: Do not believe everything you see on TV. **manhattan** said: Japanese TV is well known for putting on BS paranormal shows. … In fact, don’t believe anything without additional evidence from other sources. **Cuckoorex** asked: What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results for the remote viewers? **Duck Duck Goose** asked: How do you know “Super Special '04” wasn’t a scripted, fictional show…? **John Zahn** said: Your evidence is not scientific. **scotandrsn** said: If you can provide uncontrovertible evidence, I will acknowledge that remote viewing does indeed exist. To save you the trouble of re-reading the thread, let me sum up. **Not a single person said he assumed it was fraud, as you claim “the skeptos” do.** Not one. The arguments are all along the lines that a for-profit television show does not equate to an airtight-controlled scientific study. I don’t know why you keep hurling out this tired claim in all of your threads, the claims that “skeptics always ignore the evidence,” “skeptics have closed minds,” “skeptics never even bother to look at the evidence if it conflicts with their worldview,” or words to that effect. None of the people here appear to be making the assumption you claim. So set that asinine argument aside and start providing some facts, please. Stop trotting out the “skeptics never listen” argument because we can all see it’s completely false. You have provided what you consider to be evidence; we want to know more about how rigorously the show used scientific controls and how diligently it pursued _truth_ versus mere _ratings._ Somehow, this appears to offend you so much that you feel it is unnecessary to give us more information or answer any questions. Very convenient for your argument, I must say. I realize from past debates with you that you have a blind side when it comes to linking actual controlled scientific studies. In fact, you have a problem providing facts of any kind because “skeptics always ignore them so it’d be a waste of time.” Nobody’s ignoring your evidence here, buddy. We are giving it the weight that it is due. You have no problem claiming that these studies _exist_, of course, but I don’t expect you to cough up. In the thread about ghosts, you said that (pardon my paraphrase, the boards are being flaky) you assumed everyone here was knowledgeable about the subject and had all the information they needed about the topic without needing you to provide any. This board don’t work that way, bub. It’s not a Bring-Your-Own. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Rather, it seems I’ve pulled the cord of doll Chucky the Skeptic and gotten the same thought-free responses that one always does: Lies! Fraud! Deception! No evidence! Again the refrain of how skeptics never listen. They questioned the veracity of the television show you cited and cautioned you not to believe everything you see on TV. You even appear to realize that the evidence is not rock-solid: > [@Aeschines](#): > > OF COURSE the show could have faked every damn thing it presented, and I wouldn’t know otherwise. So tell us, Aeschines? Are you expecting us to respect evidence that you admit may or may not be true? This is what you call proof? This is what you call _incontrovertible evidence?_ Look up the word “incontrovertible” in the dictionary and you will find that it means “impossible to dispute, unquestionable.” And you yourself admit that there are holes in the evidence big enough to walk Elizabeth Smart through. When you will you provide the rock-solid evidence we are asking for? Or do you just believe because this particular show > [@Aeschines](#): > > supports [your] worldview, good. If not, it’s just TV–haw haw haw! I realize your quote above was to mock skeptics who (you claim) automatically suspect anything they believe cannot be true; but it applies equally to you who (it seems to me) automatically reveres every half-baked piece of evidence that supports that which _you_ believe must be true. If this is merely about the power of your beliefs, then I wonder what you’re doing by pretending you’re in a debate. If you have evidence that is _incontrovertible_ then by all means let’s discuss it. I don’t think we’ll see your evidence, because you say the point of this thread isn’t even to debate the facts: it is to announce self-importantly that there’s a sea change, and when all the major media start putting on television shows about psychics and aliens and UFOs and ghosts and OBEs and invisible pink unicorns, _then_ we skeptics will all be sorry, eh? I ought to make you aware of a wonderful aphorism that we see often on the Straight Dope: “the plural of ‘anecdote’ isn’t ‘evidence.’” > [@Aeschines](#): > > What’s this “Artful Doger” crap, anyway? Here is a partial list of questions that, in lieu of answering, you dodged: 1. Was the show broadcast in Japanese? Yes or no. 2. Do you speak Japanese? Yes or no. 3. Can you provide a link to a controlled study of Remote Viewing? Yes or no. 4. What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results? Your answer: You have no evidence the show was not rigged. You said the show could have been completely faked and you wouldn’t have any idea. 5. How do you know that the television program wasn’t a scripted, fictional show? So stop dodging and answer the questions. It all boils down to this: > [@Aeschines](#): > > The POINT, however, is that they are saying that the research is for real, and they are putting their credibility on the line. They _say_ it’s real and that’s good enough for you. You evidently trust someone when they tell you something is real and true. It’s not good enough for me. I want to confirm what I’m told, either through independent reason or additional sources of evidence. So we’re back to question #3. Do you have any cites of additional evidence you wish to produce? And one final word of caution about how you support your arguments by authority: just because the government _does_ a [study on something](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0WDQ/1999_Oct_4/56195165/p1/article.jhtml) doesn’t mean the study was favorable. That’s it for me. Until I see some links to some controlled studies in here, I’m just going to assume that you’re asserting your belief muscles, Aeschines. Good luck with the whole science thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/53 "2004-01-20T06:43:34Z")
Awww… not again, my head hurts already, is this going to drag for what?, 7, 8 pages like that infamous ghost thread? On one side Aeschines bashin “skeptics” for not seen the self evident and obvious truth of his wild assertions. On the other side… well, pretty much the entire Doper community pulling their hairs off asking for cites and evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/54 "2004-01-20T06:47:36Z")
Oh dear, posting at 3:49 AM does a great disservice to my spelling, doesn´t it? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/55 "2004-01-20T07:27:15Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yeah, that’s my claim. Some of those effects were shown on the TV show. The calculus is simple: either they’re lying, or remote viewing is real. The skeptos assume “fraud!” I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it. [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html) > [@](#): > > There’s no backpedaling, because I claim, unambiguously, that remote viewing has been proved adequately. But am I trying to prove this claim here to you, the hard-core, close-minded skepto? Mais non. My claim in this thread is that your worldview no longer has the media support it once had, and the tide is turning. The truth will out, and it is. [suppresses chuckle] Well, that’s a Great Debate, no doubt. “Media will write anything that sells!” Yeah, let’s all debate that one. > [@](#): > > Make fun of the show as much as you choose (without seeing it, of course), but if this show is a fraud, it’s an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit. Skeptos seem to find it easy to believe that such frauds can smoothly and thus largely be perpetrated without any complications or repercussions, but I cannot. Then you’re charmingly naive. > [@](#): > > Rather, it seems I’ve pulled the cord of doll Chucky the Skeptic and gotten the same thought-free responses that one always does: Lies! Fraud! Deception! No evidence! There is no evidence. Show us evidence and we’ll evaluate it. So far we haven’t. And until you do, stop claiming you have a Masters of Science, as it is an obvious lie, unless you got it via a UNIVERSITY DIPLOMAS!!! email. > [@](#): > > What’s this “Artful Doger” crap, anyway? I’m a Kung-Fu Master, people. At least, I can beat most of you’s with one ass-cheek tied behind my back… This is where I stop thinking you’re serious. You’ve never beaten anyone, not even come close to seriously threatening anyone. And you know it. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/56 "2004-01-20T07:43:48Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > And until you do, stop claiming you have a Masters of Science, as it is an obvious lie, unless you got it via a UNIVERSITY DIPLOMAS!!! email. Maybe he’s [Dr. Science.](http://www.ducksbreath.com/) Remember, he has a Masters Degree… in Science! ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/57 "2004-01-20T10:51:00Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Make fun of the show as much as you choose (without seeing it, of course), but if this show is a fraud, it’s an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit. I HAVE seen _Super Special_ before, and I have seen many other variety shows produced by this TV station. It’s obvious that it’s meant to be taken as entertainment, not scientific results. The produces don’t care if the “psychics” are real. If they can do a decent imitation that’s good enough material to put on TV. Talk to a dozen Japanese people. Tell them someone found out that a variety show was telling blatant lies. I guarantee you that every single one of them will say “yeah, so what?” It just isn’t the type of show to be taken seriously. I’m very surprised that you stayed in Japan long enough to be “fluent” in the language and not understand this. > [@](#): > > To another poster: “Super Special '04” is a variety show because they do a totally different topic each time. Right. In other words it consists of “TV talents” who talk about everything from fashion and gossip to “science”. Do you think they are qualified to critique scientific experiments? Do you think the producers are qualified in conducting such experiments? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/58 "2004-01-20T14:46:23Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > Then she turned up alive. They waffled out some excuses but never apologised for the trauma they caused the Smart family. I visited their site and chatroom the day that E. Smart showed up alive. A fellow forwarded this email to me for me to share: > [@](#): > > From: [deleted] Add to Address Book > To: [deleted] [simonwmoon523@yahoo.com](mailto:simonwmoon523@yahoo.com) > Subject: Fw: [TechnicalRemoteViewers] On Elizabeth Smart > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:15:14 -0600 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [deleted] > To: [TechnicalRemoteViewers@yahoogroups.com](mailto:TechnicalRemoteViewers@yahoogroups.com) > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:50 PM > Subject: [TechnicalRemoteViewers] On Elizabeth Smart > This is is the first time we have been wrong about “dead or alive”. > The mistake was made in the analysis of the data not the data itself. > This is still \*\*a young technology \*\* and the analysis of the data is even > younger. So, people can wait another twenty years until we prefect it > or they can be pioneer’s to help perfect it but be cautious because > pioneers need backbones. It doesn’t make this technology any less > valid - it only makes we, human beings fallible but we knew that > already. > > [deleted] It’s worth noting that this practice has been explored as a “technology” for more than one hundred years. So, it may be a young technology if you compare it to fire-making for instance. It’s also worth noting that PSI-TECH say that determining whether a target is alive or dead is the \*easiest \* part. :smack: I talked to a number of people who felt defrauded and upset. Their programs will run you into the thousands of dollars. I sent the guy who sent me this links to the SD and the SDMB GD. He may’ve joined for all I know. I posted this previously in the **Thread That Wouldn’t Die**. This was sent out that same day. I don’t know if the story was subsequently…um…“refined” or not. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/59 "2004-01-21T05:14:26Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > At least, I can beat most of you’s with one ass-cheek tied behind my back… I wonder if **Aeschines** will untie that butt cheek and come back. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/60 "2004-01-21T06:00:06Z")
Do any of these remote viewers have the remotest idea where Osama bin Laden is? Someone with a Masters in Science would be likely to value skepticism for its suspended judgment. As for me, I am not a scientist and I do believe that some things that are described as “paranormal” may be “normal” for some. But I’m not likely to be convinced of it by heresay about a television show. I’m open-minded – not vacant… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916.md?page=4)