Dr. Edgar Mitchell has talked about Roswell and UFOs numerous times, and I would suggest viewers pay much more attention to what he says regarding the subject and ignore Mr. McMoneagle's disinformation amd self-promotion
I love the subject of remote viewing, and I love Alejandro Rojas. But Joseph McMoneagle put me to sleep. I felt he could have elaborated more on the subject of remote viewing and made it more interesting.
So couldn't say anything about what he saw inside the UFO, that's BS . And then he really didn't want to say much about he's upcoming lecture. The guy was a bore. No fault to Alejandro though
Well, since you never accept friend invites then I guess this 'discussion' is over. I sent a number of other responses here that now seem to be missing...oh well...one legged arguments have a way of only going in circles.
Actually, I was never really questioning the veracity of remote-viewing, just his statement. The very first time I tried remote viewing my 'hit' was almost 100% on spot...and I kid you not! I've studied the paranormal for many years so am quite open to all manner of possibilities as regards the complexities of this world we live in.
McMoneagle states at one point that at least 50% of the time very valuable info was relayed by the remote viewers. Question: Isn't 50% to be expected according to the laws of chance?
If you're going to correct me then at least show me the courtesy of explaining yourself/position/viewpoint. Also, NO ONE said anything about "flipping a quarter". Of course it's not the same. The dynamics are obviously different. Yet, McMoneagle DOES say "50% of the time..."...he said it, NOT me!
@zenmeister451 Hi. My comment was not meant to be rude but your comment suggests either you have little understanding of what technical remote viewing is or you have a poor grasp of statistics. If he said they produced valuable info 30% of the time that would still be mightily impressive and would be significantly above chance. He has no knowledge of the target beforehand. Perhaps you should watch some videos of McMoneagle in action to see what remote viewing entails. 50% is well above chance.
@zenmeister451 "Isn't 50% to be expected according to the laws of chance?"
This is what led me to believe you felt it was analogous to flipping a coin. It's not. Let's say you give me a sealed envelope that has nothing but some coordinates in it. You don't know what the coordinates relate to and I have no idea what the coordinates are. If I can produce info relevant to those coordinates 50% of the time that is wildly above chance. Check out this article I will provide a link to.
@zenmeister451 "If chance alone were the explanation for these results, it would be truly remarkable to achieve a 27% success rate over thousands of trials, and it would be even more remarkable to see identical results in the government work." Google this: "Remote Viewing the Hard Evidence"
It provides a link to an article that Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson co-wrote. Not hating, just sharing my understanding of the subject.
greer doesnt seem that bad to me, i havent met him but from what ive seen of him he seems fairly intelligent and gives the ufo subject more credability than alot of others. However as far as him saying that all aliens are friendly im not so sure about, we should always remain sceptical about the unknown.
Greer has been using park land for commercial purposes. That is illegal. Greer has done far more harm than good. He is essentially a cult leader at this point.
Dr. Edgar Mitchell has talked about Roswell and UFOs numerous times, and I would suggest viewers pay much more attention to what he says regarding the subject and ignore Mr. McMoneagle's disinformation amd self-promotion
SweetPeachesnCream 5 days ago
Comment removed
SweetPeachesnCream 1 week ago
I love the subject of remote viewing, and I love Alejandro Rojas. But Joseph McMoneagle put me to sleep. I felt he could have elaborated more on the subject of remote viewing and made it more interesting.
PleidesGirl 1 month ago
FIVE star Post!!
Greenhornet270 7 months ago
So couldn't say anything about what he saw inside the UFO, that's BS . And then he really didn't want to say much about he's upcoming lecture. The guy was a bore. No fault to Alejandro though
Dracon18 8 months ago
ar4216,
Well, since you never accept friend invites then I guess this 'discussion' is over. I sent a number of other responses here that now seem to be missing...oh well...one legged arguments have a way of only going in circles.
zenmeister451 8 months ago
ar4216,
Actually, I was never really questioning the veracity of remote-viewing, just his statement. The very first time I tried remote viewing my 'hit' was almost 100% on spot...and I kid you not! I've studied the paranormal for many years so am quite open to all manner of possibilities as regards the complexities of this world we live in.
zenmeister451 8 months ago
McMoneagle states at one point that at least 50% of the time very valuable info was relayed by the remote viewers. Question: Isn't 50% to be expected according to the laws of chance?
zenmeister451 8 months ago
@zenmeister451 No. It's not analogous to flipping a quarter.
ar4216 8 months ago
@ar4216
?
If you're going to correct me then at least show me the courtesy of explaining yourself/position/viewpoint. Also, NO ONE said anything about "flipping a quarter". Of course it's not the same. The dynamics are obviously different. Yet, McMoneagle DOES say "50% of the time..."...he said it, NOT me!
zenmeister451 8 months ago
@zenmeister451 Hi. My comment was not meant to be rude but your comment suggests either you have little understanding of what technical remote viewing is or you have a poor grasp of statistics. If he said they produced valuable info 30% of the time that would still be mightily impressive and would be significantly above chance. He has no knowledge of the target beforehand. Perhaps you should watch some videos of McMoneagle in action to see what remote viewing entails. 50% is well above chance.
ar4216 8 months ago
@zenmeister451 "Isn't 50% to be expected according to the laws of chance?"
This is what led me to believe you felt it was analogous to flipping a coin. It's not. Let's say you give me a sealed envelope that has nothing but some coordinates in it. You don't know what the coordinates relate to and I have no idea what the coordinates are. If I can produce info relevant to those coordinates 50% of the time that is wildly above chance. Check out this article I will provide a link to.
ar4216 8 months ago
@ar4216
You need to allow me as a friend before I can send my personal message to you.
zenmeister451 8 months ago
@zenmeister451 "If chance alone were the explanation for these results, it would be truly remarkable to achieve a 27% success rate over thousands of trials, and it would be even more remarkable to see identical results in the government work." Google this: "Remote Viewing the Hard Evidence"
It provides a link to an article that Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson co-wrote. Not hating, just sharing my understanding of the subject.
ar4216 8 months ago
greer doesnt seem that bad to me, i havent met him but from what ive seen of him he seems fairly intelligent and gives the ufo subject more credability than alot of others. However as far as him saying that all aliens are friendly im not so sure about, we should always remain sceptical about the unknown.
pelletey 9 months ago 2
And a cult leader?! Are you guys sure you know who your commenting about?
blueleaftbc 9 months ago
How is Greer a disinformation agent?I've listened to alot of his stuff and it's all truthful and all positive so I don't see how he's such a bad guy?
blueleaftbc 9 months ago
Greer has been using park land for commercial purposes. That is illegal. Greer has done far more harm than good. He is essentially a cult leader at this point.
EartherZero 9 months ago
@EartherZero and he is also a disinfo agent and liar
misterbig290 9 months ago