|
From: "Peter P." <ptp@primenet.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:23:30 -0800 |
29 April, 1998
THE CONTRADICTORY VIEWS OF MAJOR ED DAMES
by Peter P. (ptp@primenet.com)
In the early 1980s, there was a breakthrough discovery that was soon
utilized by the U.S. military. That discovery was a technique coined
"remote viewing" (or "coordinate remote viewing") - the ability to use
the unconscious mind to accurately gather data and transmit it to the
conscious mind. Only later did the public learn of a top-secret unit that
employed this technique to gather intelligence and pinpoint unknown
targets.
One person inextricably linked to that "remote viewing" unit, in the minds
of many present day late-night radio listeners, is Major Ed Dames.
Maj. Dames now works in the private sector, as president of "technical
remote viewing" company PSI TECH. It was he who, in the last 15+ years, in
his words, "Took the <remote viewing training> protocols down from a 6
month training regime to about 3 weeks, and at PSI TECH we taught this to
scientists and engineers in a 10 day very intense project. I cut all the
fat off the training program... and modified and finessed it." [1] It is
Dames who has made a number of radio appearances, on which he touted
PSI TECH's remote viewed predictions.
So how accurate was information collected by early "remote viewing"?
According to Joe McMoneagle, another member of the government unit and
author of 'Mind Trek', it varied from 35% to 85% depending on the person
and other non-specific variables. [2]
That was then, this is now.
According to Maj. Dames, after almost two decades of modification, "The
most that we, including myself, the best that we as individuals can do,
even the experts, is about 90%... However, when a team of remote viewers,
in a team of 5 or 6 people - when they work alone, independently - the
mutually corroborating data is 100% correct." [3]
Such a team, involving about ten remote viewers over a nine-month period
[4], viewed a cylindric object - released by an alien intelligence -
headed towards Earth; it carried a "plant pathogen" that would kill green
plants on Earth. This prediction was made before the Hale-Bopp comet
passed, in fact the cylinder was "remote viewed" being released from the
comet. Last November, Dames said, "I'm saying, as you know, this plant
pathogen that WE'RE predicting actually impacts in Africa sometime
between December and February." [5]
Remember, to be 100% accurate, a team - such as the one at PSI TECH - must
work the target. (Hence my capitalizations of WE.) And the team, after
nine months of sessions, predicted an actual impact in Africa.
During a February 9 radio appearance, Dames noted, "WE ran more remote
viewing sessions, did more work, and that particular cylinder is still en
route to Earth intercept. WE do have it's expected Earth entry point and
that is over Northwest Continental Africa, Mauritania, and it will begin
to disintegrate there, moving to the southeast. The impact, from the
studies that WE have done, the impact is expected along an imaginary line
from Eritrea in the north to Swaziland in the south, but the center of
mass in the Burundi, Lake Victoria region, where there will actually be a
remnant of the cylinder that WE expect to impact and crater." [6]
Still on-target, the team "remote viewed" - accent on VIEW - a remnant of
the cylinder that was expected to impact and crater.
Here is our first contradiction, albeit a minor one. Did they view it
impacting or not? The first set of team sessions, as discussed by Dames in
November, revealed an "actual impact". Now, with additional sessions, an
impact is ''expected''. To expect something to happen is one step up from
guessing it will. Or perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on that one
word - "expect". After all, it could've been a slip of the tongue on Dames'
part.
Cut to late April, at least two months after the predicted arrival date of
the 'plant pathogen' cylinder - and no actual impact. At that time, Dames
amended the original view with, "The cylinder is no longer detectable (by
remote viewing). The cylinder, in essence, evaporated in the skies over Africa
and the spores are over Africa right now." He added, "We nailed down the
nature of this plant pathogen... It is a fungus. It is a super blight."[7]
He went on to say it would soon spread, via the Trade Winds, over Latin
America and the Caribbean. How quickly? "The Trade Winds will quickly
carry this, in a matter of weeks, to the Caribbean & Latin America.", Dames
said. [8]
But if the team was wrong about the impact, could it be mistaken about
the spores? That is not the only contradiction. But another example should
be used to exemplify the other contradiction, the matter of time-frames.
In November ('97), Dames offered, "WE used the search cue of 'next nuclear
attack' and WE qualified that with 'intent to kill' and 'massive
casualties', and what WE got was a very clear picture at the end of a week
<of sessions>, of the North Koreans using a nuclear weapon against the
South Koreans. Now analytically we think... analytically, now... that this
event may occur before the end of the winter."
Art Bell, the radio host interviewing Dames, asked, "Before the end of
this winter?"
Dames replied, "Before the end of this winter." [9]
How is a time-frame established? In a later broadcast, Dames explained,
"When we search out a specific target, if we do not constrain the search
to time - to the present, the future or the past - then we don't know
where we are in time... You want to constrain the search to a certain era,
a certain point in time." [10] In other words, not by analyzing the data
but by constraining the search.
Which is another contradiction.
So how did Dames explain the non-occurrence of such an event, come late
April; over a full month into Spring?
In Dames' words, "What we can't do accurately is look at the time windows
We're very loose in time - 3 to 6 months minimally. It's very difficult to
establish precise times in the future. We can describe events very
accurately. For instance, we're stating that a nuclear weapon will be used
on the Korean Peninsula. The next use will be there but we can only look
at the scenario that we describe that says it will occur at a time when
meetings break down between the North and South, and the North is
starving." [11]
Meetings between the two sides have broken down at least three times in the
last six months and the North Koreans have been starving even longer. Those
are not unique occurrences, so how accurate can they be as event markers?
Such markers may occur, over and over, for months... or years.
Almost in the same breath, on Korea, he added, "I think we're hours or
days from something horrible. We know that the scenario will start as a
ground war. How fast it will escalate to the use of a nuclear weapon, I don't
know, but that will be next and that is what we stand by." [12]
We don't know when it will happen, but we're days away from it. Huh?
When both the plant pathogen and nuclear attack events were predicted, it
was in the context of a team-viewed event and predicated on 100% accuracy.
To claim otherwise now, for whatever reason, looks at the very least like
contradictory claims -- and at the most, like furious backpedaling.
Contradictions aside, the bottom line is this -- If you can't accurately
pinpoint the time-frame, but still say when to expect an event, you'll
never be 100% accurate. To claim otherwise is foolhardy - or worse.
============================================================================
Bibliography:
[1] TRANSCRIPTS, at: http://www.artbell.com
Ed Dames on April 24, 1998; part 1, pp. 9 of 18
[2] "Major Ed Dames and his Remote Viewed Prophecies - Addendum"
by Greg Wright, MUFON - RIVERSIDE, CA CHAPTER
http://www.blackhole.net/mufon/text/dames2.htm
[3] TRANSCRIPTS, at: http://www.artbell.com
Ed Dames on Nov 25, 1997; part 1 (of 8), pp. 9 & 10 of 15
[4] "Major Ed Dames and his Remote Viewed Prophecies"
by Greg Wright, MUFON - RIVERSIDE, CA CHAPTER
http://www.blackhole.net/mufon/text/dames.htm
[5] TRANSCRIPTS, at: http://www.artbell.com
Ed Dames on Nov. 25, 1997; part 5 (of 8), pp. 5 of 17
[6] TRANSCRIPTS, at: Ibid.
Ed Dames on Feb. 9, 1998; part 3 (of 8), pp. 4 & 5 of 18
[7] TRANSCRIPTS, at: Ibid.
Ed Dames on April 24, 1998; part 1, pp. 15 & 16 of 18
[8] TRANSCRIPTS, at: Ibid.
Ed Dames on April 24, 1998; part 2, page 4 of 19
[9] TRANSCRIPTS, at: Ibid.
Ed Dames on Nov 25, 1997; part 2 (of 8), pp. 16 & 17 of 20
[10]TRANSCRIPTS, at: Ibid.
Ed Dames on April 24, 1998; part 1, pp. 12 of 18
[11]TRANSCRIPTS, at: Ibid.
Ed Dames on April 24, 1998; part 2, pp. 9 of 19
[12]TRANSCRIPTS, at: Ibid.
Ed Dames on April 24, 1998; part 2, pp. 11 of 19
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| UFOMIND MAILING LIST |
| Supporting the World's Largest Paranormal Website |
| www.ufomind.com Moderator: Glenn Campbell |
| |
| Archived at: http://www.ufomind.com/misc/ |
| Submissions to: ufomind@lists.best.com |
| "unsubscribe"/"subsingle" to: ufomind-request@lists.best.com |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
RELEVANCE OF THIS MESSAGE: psi personalities
Index: Ed Dames (#8)
|
Created: Apr 30, 1998