Ingo Swann is known for a remote viewing session where he was asked to describe the contents of a sealed envelope placed inside a safe. This experiment took place at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) during the early stages of the remote viewing program.
Swann accurately described the contents of the envelope within the safe, reporting drawings of mountains, a horse, and an individual riding the horse. To the surprise of the researchers, the actual contents matched Swann's descriptions, which he could not physically access or see through conventional means.
This demonstration was part of the initial efforts to test and explore the potential capabilities of remote viewing. It's often cited as a compelling instance showcasing Swann's purported abilities, but like other remote viewing cases, it remains a subject of debate within scientific circles regarding its reliability and reproducibility under controlled conditions.
I guess the fact there isn't a US Army nor Navy nor CIA nor FBI "clairvoyant" corp, or that the US struggled to find Ben Laden for a decade, is proof enough that either this is all bullsh*t, or that it was propaganda to lead the Russians on a wild goose chase (like they seem to do today with reactionless engines - and the Chinese seem to have bitten, hook and sinker).
Definitely a valid point. Like anything on our planet everything has a counter.
Were these kinds of experiments double blinded, or were the people who interviewed Swann already aware of the contents? Don’t mentalists do this kind of stuff on the regular?
This is not what happened. See comments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/181s71r/the_...
You are suggesting I read more subjective comments to disprove my own subjective comment?
Which comment specifically should I read to have a better informed view of the particular study I recalled here?
I closed the book on remote viewing decades ago as it’s not something I can personally replicate but will still entertain the conversation and argue for either side until it is conclusive.
Swann also viewed rings around Jupiter as well as a thin atmosphere on Mercury. Both findings were later confirmed by NASA.
"Bull indeed. He described them like this: "Maybe the stripes are like bands of crystals, maybe like rings of Saturn, though not far out like that. Very close within the atmosphere."
As it happens, the rings of Jupiter are very far out from the planet.
His description was nothing but rank generalities and bet hedging. Ice crystals in Jupiter's atmosphere were already predicted to be there, and him describing them as "bands of crystals, maybe like rings of Saturn" is bet-hedging at its worst. He made an educated guess that ice crystals appear in bands, and gave a carefully crafted sentence that could be interpreted as "right" regardless of whether actual rings were found. Rings found? Then pay attention to the "...like rings of Saturn..." part. No rings found? Then pay attention to the "...Very close within the atmosphere..." part. Regardless of which way it goes, try to convince people your meaningless declaration means something after the fact.
Ingo Swann is the worst sort of fraud."
https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/hvryx/need_help_de...
I am willing to entertain your pov he is no better than a good mentalist. What supporting facts can you provide for this POV?