.:. gotblogua .:.

WOW:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/remote_perception.html

someone (the “agent”) sat physically IN this scene, and someone else (the “percipient”) who was physically ELSEWHERE, and mentally uninformed about where the agent was, spoke the words (written here atop the scene):

again WOW.
Also 650 trials over 25 years of research have a 3 parts in 10 billion chance to be generated by “chance”… as if any of us still believe that “chance” exists ;-)
the full white paper is here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/IU.pdf
this paper reveals that:

AlloftheparticipantsinthePEARexperimentshavebeenuncompensated
volunteers,noneofwhomhasclaimedexceptionalabilitiesinthisregard.No
explicittacticalinstructionsaregiven,althoughanattitudeofplayfulnessis
encouragedandemphasisisplacedonenjoymentoftheexperience,ratherthanon
achievement perse. Transcriptstylesofindividualpercipientsvarywidely,
rangingfromafewcrypticdetailsatoneextreme,tolengthyimpressionisticflows
ofimageryontheother.Nosystematicrecordshavebeenmaintainedonthe
relativeeffectivenessofthevariouspersonalstrategiesdeployedbythe
participants,oronanyoftheirpsychologicalorphysiologicalcharacteristics.

(sorry the spaces were lost for some reason in the cut and paste from FoxIT pdf reader)

So to answer the common questions, YES the agents are in almost all cases known to the perceipients, and NO neither are known to be psychic clairavoyant or otherwise especially skilled in these sort or ESP oriented endeavors.

What do you think?
Are you interested to experiment a little with these concepts?
I am beginning to brainstorm about how we will create a multimedia system to engage in remote viewing activities with people we know and don’t know!
Please feel free to use the contact form if you are interested…

.:.