Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Mysteries Project in the news

  1. #1

    Default Mysteries Project in the news

    Click here to go to article.

  2. #2
    Dick Allgire Guest

    Default Comment

    While this is a debunking "hit" piece, there is a valid criticism, in my opinion.

    It is why we have to be careful.

    In Courtney's video presentation he states (at 7:10 into the video):

    “The basic verifiable information for target one A is that a spray of what appears to be a liquid is being ejected from something like a nozzle.”

    That is not verifiable. It is his theory. It is his interpretation of the image. The image may not indicate that at all. Image analysts may have a completely different explanation. It could be an optical illusion involving light and shadow, darker and lighter colored sand and gravel, or erosion.

    Under HRVG protocol the analyst must be blind to the target. Certainly someone conducting remote viewing analysis could not be told about or exposed to the assumption that the image showed liquid spray from a nozzle. That was violated in this project.

    Courtney did not conduct analysis. He interpreted the data and picked parts of the data that supported his assumption.

    It opens us up to criticism like this.

    While I am not trying to distance myself from Courtney’s work, we have had reservations about his bias and his protocol. It is one of the reasons HRVG suspended participation in the Mysteries Project, and why the project has been cancelled for now.

    We hope to do more good work with Courtney in the future. But some of these issues need to be resolved.

    Dick

  3. #3

    Default

    You raise some really good points, Dick.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •