the last two & Col. Saul Tigh's one were FRAKKING AWESOME. too bad until No.6's it really did feel like a bad writing job from the Letterman's team.

Rembar, thanks for the document. It's quite substantive. Some things I wanted to restate, because I don't seem to be expressing myself clearly enough:

* I am not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be a scientist. But you don't have to be a designer to recognize good and bad design and you don't have to be a writer to recognize good and bad writing. I have no interest in being a scientist because I have a good idea of what that involves: mainly, keeping an open mind to seemingly crazy ideas. If we always listened to the naysayers, major scientific discoveries would never have happened. (For the record, I'm not a creationist.)
* I am NOT claiming that remote viewing *definitively* exists, just that there "may be" some scientific evidence to support it, as I said in the post's original description. I leave the final judgement to the scientists.
* I am only disputing the close-minded attitude that remote viewing is nonsense, bullshit, bunk, etc. Anyone can shout out an opinion, but to categorically state that remote viewing is nonsense would imply a complete knowledge of what's possible and what's not in the universe (for today, and for all time). I don't have that kind of sweeping insight, and does anyone?

While reading the document you provided, I would tend to agree with their conclusion that remote viewing, if it even exists, is too imprecise to be of value to the intelligence community. (Honestly, I've always wondered what methods they could use to separate the wheat from the chaff.)

However, and I really want to emphasize this point:

== They do NOT claim that remote viewing is total nonsense.==

On page 5-3, they even say, "This is not to say definitively that paranormal phenomena do not exist. At some point in time, adequate evidence might be provided for the existence of remote viewing."

This is the ONLY point I have been trying to make: remote viewing *MIGHT* exist. Is that so hard to envision? Perhaps because it sounds too much like hokey science? If so, I would agree—anything to do with psychic research sets me on edge, too. But this? I find it really hard to believe that so many people have been hoodwinked for so many years. It's possible, sure, but I'm unwilling to pass judgement so swiftly.

Now:

IF there's a chance some sort of psychic power does exist—no matter how small—then it's worth investigating further. A talent like that, augmented and refined, could have staggeringly useful applications.

But again, that's IF it exists.

most of the facts this doc brings up should be disturbing to every american, unfortunately this doc is hindered by a number of issues (bad writing and annoying voice over / interviewer, wild assertations and over reaching conclusions, way too much text onscreen and overall too long). On the good side it brings up a number of things most people have no clue about that need to be rectified in our country.