Who the hell believes this is a legit study I ask?

[Mystical]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jou...uthoff.pdf

I looked up Puthoff but all I could find was a wikipedia on the guy

[Sejanus]

parapsychological or psi phenomena

Sounds like a bunch of BS.

[Jackalope]

The CIA has allegedly done quite a few studies into paranormal phenomenon, if that's what you're asking. Didn't read the study personally. As far as I am aware none of them amounted to anything (big surprise there).

[Minimalist]

Gee I found it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff

Puthoff took an interest in the Church of Scientology in the late 1960s and reached what was then the top OT VII level by 1971

Tells me all I need to know. He's a crackpot.

[Mystical]

I mentioned the Scientology Club association to him, yes. But he says Puthoff's a government hired scientist, so he's a valid witness.
He's a family member so I care just enough to tell him why he is not right in any way whatsoever

May I please have an Atheist point of view on remote viewing. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; Genesis 1:27. If we are created in the image and likeness of God. Then remote viewing would be a trait like Gods. Omnipresent defined as present everywhere at the same time. The study above discusses this trait in great detail from the CIA. So this intelligence would separate us from animals. The study below states how we share this trait as one that has been expressed in the Bible centuries ago. What are your thoughts on this? Just asking for educational purposes.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jou...uthoff.pdf



Why would the information be classified and declassified?

In the study performed by the CIA they discovered the ability to see without being there is very real. Cold hard facts Also another fact intentions have the ability effect the molecular structure of water. As animals. We should have no ability to do such things. However, we are able to do this. So I am asking why? And to be simple. To ask how and what your thoughts are? Anyway. Not trying to convince. Trying to see what an Atheist would say to these impossibilities.

Darling. Who conducted the study from the CIA? You are discrediting a scientist who was studied directly under our central intelligence office. Of which the information was declassified. So in this declassified study. The CIA couldn't disprove their findings. So I am asking about the study. Not the subject. And the facts they produced. Can you address that at all?

No worries. So far in your refinement of the study it hasn't yet disproven the findings. Wikipedia is very much controlled my love. The saying goes "Those who controls the present now controls the future. Who controls the present now controls the past." I mean if you are to look up 9/11 terrorist attacks it basically credits fire for building 7 to fall. However in the history of all steel structures only 3 fell due to fire. 123. And they all fell on the same day. I wouldn't trust the source of wikipedia.

Now, i love this person dearly. But almost every single (98%) of the 'evidence' he's brought to me for his Chreation theory has been very thoroughly refuted many times over! Has anyone else run into this and if so, where do you think they are on the scale of reasonableness?

This is the reference response I gave him in return but he feels it doesn't discredit the original studies findings.

http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/SAICcrit.pdf

[Minimalist]

May I please have an Atheist point of view on remote viewing. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; Genesis 1:27.

Response: "Kindly provide actual evidence - not in the form of bible fables - that your god or any other god actually exists.

Once you accomplish that, we can move on to the rest of your claim."

[Justtristo]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jou...uthoff.pdf

I looked up Puthoff but all I could find was a wikipedia on the guy

The "peer review" process of filtering the cranks out only works, when the "peers" in question are not cranks. To give an example the Journal of Creation is a "peer reviewed" journal, therefore the this Journal of Scientific Exploration like the Journal of Creation could be filled with cranks. In my view publications like that cannot be considered "Peer Review" journals and have the effrontery and cheek to call themselves as such.

http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-archive-index