Comments on: Twitter Remote Viewing Test Results — Fail 2.0

By: Me

Me — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:09:52 +0000

A lot of obvious flaws in this study.… In fact the study basically is a flaw. I’m not sure I even believe it occurred, because the results clearly couldn’t have any meaning. Then again what is expected of study conducted on twitter…

It makes me mad when people like professors have the appearance of intelligence and then do something so stupid, likely just to “prove” their own opinion.

By: Ida Wallace

Ida Wallace — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:24:48 +0000

This twitter experiment was not a complete failure. It seems to show how little faith people have in their own imagination. Perhaps we need some courses in expanding personal awareness on a high school level to get people ready for the future of life on a higher level.

By: stephanie

stephanie — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:32:20 +0000

the only thing this “experiment” proves is that the majority of twitterers cannot remote view. Which leaves us to question whether the people who selected the right answer actually could remotely view him or if it were just luck.

A good follow-up might be to study the people who guessed right.

By: Bambie

Bambie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:15:37 +0000

When one is ready for what is real they will create the experiment which will test actual remote viewing, otherwise this one should be called a social, web exercise. It’s not even worthy of being called an experiment.

The power of the web, the power of remote viewing, the power of the collective consciousness all deserve and demand more then this to allow their potential to unfold effectively.

When the collective is practiced, trained and clear in remote viewing, then this could be interesting. Research must come from a serious place to be taken seriously.

By: Naomi

Naomi — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:52:50 +0000

I totally agree. I don’t know why the University of Hertfordshire and New Scientist chose to spend money on research that doesn’t have any real scientific basis. The money could have been better used on *real* research instead of some “scientific study” that has flaws in its research methods.