I believe it is time to set some things strait.
(Yet again).

This was a demonstration/presentation.
In actual fact James Cook quite clearly stated some facts about this.
The Most important one being that this would be a one time deal for me online.

It would appear that some of you have had a very difficult time with this.
Please do make the effort to keep this in mind when posting to this thread.
Also when sending me PM's .

It was a demonstration/performance I understand that some of you did not like the way that I presented it.

But as I wrote in a PM to one of you. Everything that was done was intentional and was done for a reason.
If those on this thread do not grasp or understand those reasons perhaps you were not meant to.

With that explained and hopefully understood I would suggest it would not be placing ones best foot forward to be railing against what you do not understand on a public forum.
I had already made comment on this once before but the involved person did not take the hint.
It has been spelled out now so if you want to continue as you have been and wear your ignorance as a badge of honor it is up to you.
Not being edgy here just making note of how it looks to many here.

My intent was to give all sides involved a demonstration that would/could prove their position or ideas.

Allot has been made of how I ran the demonstration and how I worded things.
But it was all necessary for the experiment/demonstration to turn out as it did.

Don, offered a very good post.
But I would point out I used none of the outs he listed.

Brandon received his answer but I think he has not realized it.
(I will be contacting him off list to discuss it if he would like me to)

Jim and Danny made note of the application of cold reading skills and NLP being used.
Jim recommends Ian's book on cold reading. He evidently understands it for he recommends it.
I would like to see him do what I did if he really believes in such things can be done with cold reading.
(This is more for my own information about Jim's beliefs than adding to this thread).

Some have said it was luck.
Well that is a convenient answer and a bit of a stretch once you really consider it as an answer.

You see I decided to do the thing.(Demonstration) a choice of when and were by me.

Do not any of you find it Strange that luck should step in whenever I choose to do a demonstration.
I am sure everyone will agree that this alone is a very impressive talent to have.

Do some of you really think I make a living from being able to turn luck off and on as I so choose and use that talent to create entertainment for others?

I look forward to hearing from Badger and am very pleased with the level of discussion and creativity this demonstration has generated.
Not just on this thread but on all of the others.

It made people think in many and varied ways and will continue to do so.

That in my opinion is what these things should do.

My best wishes to you all during the holidays
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jack

Dannydoyle,

I'm not picking fights, I am only trying to state the facts correctly.

Yes, we all have our own opinions....but we haven't traded quotes yet.


James

“The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.”
~Eden Phillpots

If you can't see the truth, maybe it's becaues you don't know enough.


Posted: Dec 22, 2005 3:09pm
---------------------------------------------------
Taken from: http://www.irva.org/papers/WhatisRV.html

Jack's demonstration, as well as Stephen Longs, are unique because they are done via the internet....This is a new setting for the dicipline, and obviously some of the rules must change. We are not dealing with a typical RV experiment here and thus must grant a certain amount of leeway. I for one was impressed with Stephen's demonstration, and Jacks...Quite often when "RVers" have drawn sketches of what they "see", these sketches are rough and vague.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

Some really good information here....

James

Hmmmm, Jack's posts seem to conveniently appear only a short time after James Cook's posts, and vice-versa.

It's like batman. Can one truly exsist without the other??? Somebody RV that it is driving me crazy.

Hi everyone,

Wow, I surely didn't expect this thread that I started, to expand like this.
And also lead to other threads being started. I really haven't seen a lot about RV discussed here. And that was the original reason I started this thread.
I believe that RV is very fascinating, and should be able to inspire something new in mentalism. As a magician and mentalist, I am always fascinated and curious about how things work. I guess that's true to many of us here.

Reading back the thread, there are a lot of very interesting discussions that I normally don't see in the Café. I found some very interesting ideas and conflicts. The demostration itself is a really good one. In fact, I learned a lot from it and even got some new ideas from it to incorporate to my performance. While the result might not be what everyone expects. I think the process itself is well worth the read. I would have to say thanks Jack, for having the courage to try out something you believe in. Although the result might not be perfect, I am sure everyone here learned someething from it.

On the other hand, I feel sorry that I see a lot of 'not so pleasant' discussions here. It feel that some people are quite defensive. Personally, I think the demonstration is good enough. In fact, I am a skeptic myself. But I would always like to be open minded to everything. I ask questions, but I do not demand for answers. And I respect people's biases and differences in point of views. There are questions that cannot be answered. There are so many unknowns. But the sense of wonder that these things bring to me, is what brought me into magic and mentalism

I sincerely hope that everyone here has learned something from this thread. And I wish you all a Magical Christmas.

Phil

My favorite part of the whole thing is "prove it"

well prove the future

prove a negative

lots of things can't be proven so just because you can't prove it it must then be what I say it is!

how goofy is that.

I can't prove that an elephant in a pink tu tu didn't kill OJ Simpsons wife, does that mean it did happen that way? Of course not

the other convienent thing is all J ack has to do is to simply say NOPE no cold reading and we are supposed to fall for it? How idiotic is that? Then "well prove it then" and we are right back to the elephant in a pink tutu theory.

It is the backbone of mentalism and fun to watch.

James you on the other hand are nowhere near as fun to watch. your exhaustive. so please give it a rest. it has been 11 pages and you offer little new.

so please at least stop starting your posts and addressing them to me.

Mike they are "convienent" but prove it!!

Like I said the backbone of much mentalism, and conspiracy theories for that matter.

As I said earlier this is something that Art Bell regularly features on his show, how much proof is there anyhow?


Posted: Dec 23, 2005 6:02pm
------------------------------------------
Hey I have a great idea.

Prove you did remote view.

Prove you didn't know anyone.

Prove it wasn't the things put forth.

That vein on the side of your head is going to burst. Give it a rest. Heed your own advice.

You make the opposing point when you mention OJs tutu-ed assasin. If you can not rule that out as a solution (which actually you can, Danny has just lost it) then you can not say absolutely that it wasn't. SO, if it was trickery, go ahead and prove it. Otherwise, if you can not definitively rule out through proof that it was actual remote viewing, then all you have is a hunch, educated or otherwise.

If you are going to play Mr. Scientist, commit to the role and accept its conventions. Definitive statements require definitive proof. Since you have none that you are sharing, try to keep your statements as clear hunches.

Danny,
Curious thing is, virtually nothing can be proved.

When we start to look at everything, and anything, where quantum physics is concerned, we currently understand that we only can know what the possibilities of things are. We can not prove anything.

As Heisenberg noted “Atoms are not things. They are only tendencies.”

Even in mathematics the equation : X = X can never be proven. I’m sure you understand it is an axiom.

This is where my argument about the belief systems come in. All information can, and will, be interpreted based on peoples personal values and beliefs.

It is what you want it to be. Your faith is an integral part of shaping the information before you.

You effect reality just as much as I do; Or even Jack for that matter.

Speak of the devil, Jack I would be very interested in talking with you more extensively about all this as you have mentioned in your last post. I’ll be PMing you my cell phone number. Look forward to the chat.

-Brandon

Actually Tom it is a lot easier to prove that RV does not exsist than it is to prove that it does exsist. I don't see it as a "hunch" at all.

The answer is really simple. Have at least one RV'er step up to a 100% legit challenge. Actually make it like 10 challenges so you know the true percent of how many hits they make. You put ten random objects in ten boxes. You see how many they get right. The problem is this. No RV'er seems to be willing to step and try something like that. It is one or nothing and if they miss everything is so vague that it is spinned into something positive. To me all RV is nothing more than spinning your misses to make even a miss seem like a great achievment. And for the time that you GUESS right you make it seem like an absolute miracle. The bigger you can play that up the more people will think it is real.

It is really much easier to prove that RV does not exsist.

OK then, be my guest. Prove it doesn't exist. The absence of a media frenzie around an RVer is not proof. Keep it scientific. I have a research scientist who is ready to laugh at you if your analysis and data does not fit your own imposed scientific criteria. Have at it. I want to believe you can prove RV doesn't exist.

I'll up the ante. If you can prove RV does not exist, I'll give you $1000 but if you fail, as my scientific judges see it, to scientifically prove RV does not exist, then you must publicly state that you now know that RV does indeed exist and PSI powers are real.

More details to follow should you accept this challenge.

Cheers,

Tom

I am more than willing to participate in this. There are a few problems.

1) In my previous statement I did not say I could prove it "scientifically".
2) We need somebody that can RV to step up to the challenge. They need to be willing to have ME put out ten boxes with objects in them. They remote view each one individually. I am sure that the success rate will not be above 80%.

If an RVer steps up to this challenge and hits at 80% and above I will shout from the roof tops that I believe in RV. As I have said many times. I want to believe that RV is real. I just need one RVer to prove it to me!

Well, you know those skeptics; if it ain't skientific, it ain't really proof.

How did you arbitrarily arrive at 80%?

One experiment which does not live up to your expectations does not prove the absence of anything. What you want is your own private demonstration. I think that is going to cost you, but where do you live. Maybe we can work something out.

I arrived at 80% because in other posts other RVers have said that they are about 80% accurate.

That is why we will make it 10 smaller test it takes out some guessing on both ends. If we had 10 small test all lined up and somebody got 8 out of 10 right. I don't think anybody could question there abilities.

That was me who posted that (80%) in refernece to my challenge to Randi.

In fact it is about 5% higher now.

You fellas have a good holiday.

Jack

Ho Ho H.o.a-x

Ok wait..

I think that a test is a test. RV should be at 100% if they are seeing remotley right? so I think it can be proven 100% that SPACIFIC people can or can not RV right?

pretty simple actually Tom. Act as high and mighty as you want and throw insults but the BOTTOM line here is put up or shut up.

if you can actually remote view and NOT just go for a series of HITS as mentalist jargin goes then do it.

if NOT then YOU can not remote view......pretty simple to me

so no science, no mentalist claptrap, just do it or don't do it or shut up about scientific method and all which you are woefully illequipt to tell us about.

As I have stated I want to see remote viewing, so step out of the shadows and show me something that is NOT a mentalist bit.

I'll agree to that, you can either remote view or not (according to the article in the attatched link though, some people claim that RV can be taught)...but, I do not think that it is 100%. Quite often what remote viewers claim to see is either blury or sketchy at best, and it is a skill that is supposedly honed and sharpened with time and practice. Only facts are 100% (and sometimes not even then) and since we can not prove RV as a fact, then it can never be 100%.

(some good information)
http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/rvcp.html

RVers tend to get strong impressions...this, to a skeptic, can easily be seen as a cold reading technique because it seems that the RVer is beating around the bush and then claims a hit when it is close.

~James

"A test is a test...should be 100%."

You obviously know nothing about scientific testing if you really believe that, well, to use your own word, "claptrap". Then again, you threw out the need for scientific while you were ranting. It's "the holidays", chill out, as you are so fond of telling others.

Relax, I am quite prepared to discuss scientific criteria...should I see it. Sadly, what I mostly see here right now ranting against the entertainers on this board are wannabe science minded, badge wearing skeptics who throw about grossly unscientific claims and critertia in the hope of coming off as some sort of authority. While I have had, and am having, some wonderful conversations with some wonderful people about this topic I have also found some people who have a real problem when the tables are turned on them; for even though they claim to be open minded all they really want is to cling to their dogma. Something they will do with blind faith, even dismissing evidence presented to them because they can't believe anything they didn't see with their own eyes.

And all this for what? To try and demonstrate that someone whose desire is to entertain is actually just entertaining and doesn't have powers? Or are you really concerned that this is somehow a threat to you or your beliefs? If you want to stop people who charge money to teach something you do not believe exists, then go after them. I have not seen one person here offer to teach RV for money. Furthermore if you want to save the world by exposing something you believe is not true, please turn your attention toward the governments who might well be doing far more harm to the world and its people through their lies.

If you want to talk about adjusting the facts to fit the need, we can talk about impresssive results which are dismissed as lucky guesses, and or anolomlies. He might have been doing this, or he could have that.

Aside from that, we (chichi and I) have already decided he desires a less than scientific demonstration. We have just to haggle out the details, should they fit our capacity to agree upon, meet, and perform such a demonstration.

As to your claim of the need for 100% it is clear you have not even put much research into the field. It is exceptionally difficult to accurately test for that which one does not comprehend. Not impossible mind you, but exceptionally difficult.

Chichi, you can PM me the local of your residence so we can further investigate the chance at a demostration. Or maybe I am Chichi.

Cheers,

Tom!

I would still be willing to keep it at 80% assuming that other RVers are not as good as Jack.


Posted: Dec 25, 2005 12:08pm
----------------------------------------------
Danny and to those who say it should be 100%. I can see your point and in a lot of ways I agree. But do you know how impressive it would be if I put 10 objects in 10 boxes and somebody told me what was in 8 out of 10 boxes. I for one would be beyond impressed with that!

Does a home run champ have to hit a home run on every at bat?

Does a basketball superstar have to make every shot he takes?

Does the best ever quarterback have to lead his team to score on every drive?

Unrealistic expectations. Are you telling me that if you put ten blind objects in ten boxes and someone got exact hits on obscure objects for four of those ten boxes, that would not indicate the existence of something?

It would indicate the existance of random fluxuation of chance....or luck

a monkey will get a 40%

Tom lets stop being unfriendly shall we?

I should say I WANT to see remote viewing, I want to live in a world where it is possible, heck common to see.

For example you like science, remember the finding of the Mountian Gorilla in Africa>?

For years and years it was a legend simply because nobody had seen it. Now he exists simply because we say he does? Heck no our minds were simply developed enough to discover him for ourselvs! I view bigfoot the same way to tell the truth

the problem Tom is that when the only people who seem to want to believe in the possibility are those who wish to fake the results! This is frustrating and to me denegrates the possibility even more. THIS is why I have a problem with the guys who want to say "I have powers!" .

Tell your audiences what you will, just don't insult my intelligence with tricks and tell me it is real. the audience should NEVER know real or fake fine great, I know better so stop cold reading and telling me it is remote viewing!

So lets stop the nonsensical name calling ok?