View Full Version : Missing boy: psychics get it spectacularly wrong

2007-Jan-18 Thu, 08:37
It makes you wonder if the problem the psychics had was "front loading"? You sometimes hear of remote viewers saying how difficult it is to work a target when it's front loaded, but you never hear of psychics being "off" because of it.

Here's the story:



Glenn B. Wheaton
2007-Jan-18 Thu, 23:38
Aloha JP,

It is interesting when a high profile case is finally resolved where a psychic or remote viewer was involved. In this case with Sylvia Browne and James Van Praagh it is unfortunate in several ways. While I don't know much about Van Praagh, I have long suspected that Browne was far less psychic than she claims to be. I have just seen her too many times proven wrong. Despite the fact they were both wrong and it affects the credibility of the public sense of the psychic, the real damage is far more personal. When you get on National television and tell a parent that their child is dead to aggrandize yourself it is just a rotten thing to do whether you are right or wrong.

It brings up an interesting dilemma of sorts. Let's take Remote Viewing. We know it does have the capacity to provide some information and often the data can be very good. But when it is the only data you have it may not be prudent to weigh it as truth. We all like to work the mysteries and the projects to solve this or that and while I support publication of the findings I do not feel they should be proffered as the final truth of the matter. This is especially important when it is dealing with issues of life and death. If Remote Viewing data is the only data available then for it to be known is not improper. How would you explain to someone the process, the mechanism, and the reliability of the data? In the logic of the prudent mind sole source data should always be suspect.


2007-Jan-19 Fri, 20:24
Hey Glenn,
Thanks for the great reply. You do bring out very valid points, everyone can learn from.

I would imagine any "grandstanding" in a case like this and announcing on stage if the child is dead or alive, should be a big no-no with everyone. Dealing with the police in a very descrete manner and not involving the family while the investigation is still ongoing is always best (which you mentioned I think in another post long ago).


2007-Jan-20 Sat, 05:50
Hello Glenn:

I have NO kind words to say about Browne or any of the TV psychics. I won't even give them the benifit of the doubt by saying as so many do, "Oh, they mean well." The whole thing is really disgusting! Not really fond of Edwards either. I am reminded of the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I would like to see these people sit down as we do in remote viewingblind to the target, and see what they can really do.

A few years back when Amy Bradly went missing from a cruise ship, her mother, desperate for help, encounted Brown in an airport. I was told by the mother ( Mrs. Bradley and I were in contact briefly ) that Browne just brushed her aside. Couldn't be bothered! Not even a sympathetic gesture! Browne must have been preoccupied...thinking about all the money she's made. The Amy Bradley case has NEVER been resolved.

How can so many psychic perceptions be wrong?

But just look at our daily lives in general. Our perceptions, remote viewing or not, gets filtered though our belief systems, our ideas about how we think the world is. I would call that "noise." Just as we try to reduce the "noise" in remote viewing imagine if we could reduce the noise in our everyday life. We might have more clarity in our lives. We might zero in on the worlds signal line
and precieve things differently, if the signal line doesn't have to get filtered through so much junk?noise.

Perhaps Mrs.Bradley was so over come with her own desperation and grief,that she misread Browne?

Maybe a good question to ask is "How much noise to we carry around?" Maybe our perceptions about each other might also come out with greater clarity?

Perhaps if I got rid of MY OWN noise I might have a clear/more accurate perception about TV psychics?

Just a thought.

Dick Allgire
2007-Jan-20 Sat, 21:00
Working frontloaded and having no method of analysis can make anyone look bad. It has been proven more than once, unfortunately.

Dare we bring up the biggest debacle in the remote viewing world? We do have all those files that disappeared from that website literally minutes after Elizabeth Smart was found alive and well.



2007-Jan-21 Sun, 00:34
Could not agree more...

... The community has got to get their act together. If you are going to tell a parent their child is dead you'd better be damn sure you are right. There is no room for error in this situation.

The problem is I don't see how you can completely remove the error in RV. We are humans, not machines. We can create systems that reduce the error as much as possible. But I don' t think it is possible to remove error all together. At least not for a good long-time.

Funny thing about my RV when taking into account single sessions at a time... the targets I'm most certain about are always the ones I'm most wrong about.

2007-Jan-21 Sun, 01:49
elizabeth smart - missing documents - did i miss something?
can i get a quick overview of this please!


2007-Jan-21 Sun, 08:24

>Funny thing about my RV when taking into account single sessions at a time... the targets I'm most certain about are always the ones I'm most wrong about.<

Myself included....too many times I'm afraid.(:-)

Another funny thing is that even when I am NOT remote viewing, the things I am most certain about are usually wrong as well. Seems we all see what we want to see, whether we're RVing or just navagating through everyday life.
It may well be that when we discuss RV and everyday experience we are talking about apples and oranges, but the same principle applys(IMO) There seems to be as much NOISE in everyday life as there is in RV. We miss so much because we're not "focused" and "listening" to something else, ( of which I am probably the worst offender) (:-)