User talk:Phsmith

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Dreadstar †  23:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

CIA Archives
Hello Phsmith, I am very interested in collecting data on remote viewing and Ingo Swann. "After searching through the 12,000+ documents in the CIA's declassified archives". I would like to see these archives and documents for myself. They may give me the information (in detail) that I am seeking. Can you help me? Kazuba 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

RV
No problem (-; You know about this, right?  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Selection
Paul, perhaps you can answer these questions for me. How were potential remote viewers selected? Was there some kind of test for psychic skills or just the MMPI? An interview with a psychiatrist? Who selected the final individuals? Were there periodic psychiatric check ups for remote viewers and a monitoring of personal medications? Exploring altered states of mind, especially here in a new territory (RV), can be quite unpredictible. Did others react similar to Joseph McMoneagle (See: Inside Joseph McMoneagle). How can a remote viewer tell the difference of basically true information from misinformation? Isn't misinformation misleading and sometimes dangerous? A discernment of reality and fantasy? It is a fact that hallucinations and delusions exist. Are remote viewers so naive they believe they are immune to such mind tricks? What makes them so special? Please reply soon Kazuba (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stargate only received a mission after all other intelligence attempts, methods, or approaches had already been exhausted.[2] The Stargate Project was to provide any intelligence information when there was nothing. In despair, it was believed something was better than nothing.[3] At its peak Stargate had about 22 remote viewers. When the project closed in 1995 this number had dwindled down to 3. One was using tarot cards. People leaving the project were not replaced. [4] According to Joseph McMoneagle, "The [US] Army never had a truly open attitude toward psychic functioning".[5] When gathering intelligence believed misinformation can be very more dangerous than none. See: CIA informant Rafid Ahmed Alwan Kazuba (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your reply, Paul Kazuba (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So far
So far I have found what you have to say about McMoneagle in your own book more interesting than McMoneagle's book review. Was the Legion of Merit awarded to Joe for Vietnam? See: Joseph McMoneagle In your book you show one sketch that is supposed to be connected to the USS Stark and write there are more. How many more? What do they look like? Why aren't they all in your book? Don't give me the excuse there was no space... I've heard that one before. I am having some trouble discovering what exactly was the target information given to McMoneagle for the Typhoon prediction. So far I have not found it SPELLED OUT. Do you know what was the EXACT content and what wasn't? and HOW? memory? How come there are no transcripts or records of various written impressions as the viewing is going on? Didn't anyone make a personal copy? No one kept notes, or a personal journal? Have you personally ever tested Ingo Swann with objects in untouched closed boxes? And if not why? What's with all this Ingo Swann E.T and UFO stuff? Are former viewers loosing there minds? Or just trying to make a credulous buck? Please reply Kazuba (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the rest of the story?
Thanks very much for the new info, Paul. You told me the "Stark" RV session was around 30 pages long, including writing and sketching of ships, parts of ships, map-like diagrams, etc. Was this complete information (as here in your simple words) omitted by the editor? The caption reads "One of several sketches from author's reviewing session." Was this information you just gave me thought to be unimportant?

During his "viewing" period Joe McMoneagle writes "I would be surprised if my percentage of "direct hits" were better than 20-25 percent. Also, if I reviewed those projects which I know fell within the percentage of "hits" (20 percentile), they would probably range from 5 to 95 percent correct information." Is this about the average for everyone else? Can you be specific about yourself and Ingo Swann? Please reply. Kazuba (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. This is just about what I expected. It's a mess! Kazuba (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul for the session material. It is very interesting and puzzling. Were these sessions done completely double blind? Neither the viewer or the monitor had any idea of the identity of the target? They neither spoke to each during the session about the target? How would the viewer know when to stop? Would the viewer say that is my final answer? Or would the monitor, still not knowing the target, say time's up? Let's see what you got? I'll open the envelope for the first and only time. Now we will compare. Please reply. Kazuba (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Paul. That somewhat clears up the processes usedKazuba (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Remote viewing
This is to inform you that I have filed a request for informal mediation on the article Remote viewing, and named you as a party. Best, —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quit the wiki and run

 * Symptom: Failure to laugh
 * Diagnosis: No sense of humor
 * Treatment: Read it again. Continue treatment until symptom abates. Repeat as necessary.
 * Prognosis: Unknown.  Some of these cases are terminal.

Rracecarr (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just nixed that section. This leaves you commenting on nothing, but I decided to notify you instead of erasing comments from a user in (I assume) good standing. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)