Peterson, Priestcraft, Profits and the Paranormal

[Marcus]

...If there is a step you could take in your experiment which might reveal otherwise undetected errors, then you must take that step. If you don't, then you are not properly trying to find out the truth, but are instead deliberately turning a blind eye to problems, in an effort to protect a preferred conclusion.

It's interesting that you mention taking that step, because the closest I've seen Paul Smith come to providing actual results to consider actively avoids that step. Consider this recent post to DCP's blog:

Seeing as how I was a party to a number of RV projects that DID provide operational utility, I'd say the answer to the question is yes...but...there were also many that did not...

More often it was because the intel system was not able to resolve the question by any available means (for example, hostages in the Beqa' Valley in Lebanon; in most cases the locations were inaccessible to US forces and conventional intel collection means, so verification---or even use of our data---was impossible).

And there were numerous cases where, under blind conditions, viewers still produced valid data. But it was data already known to the intel community via other means, so was deemed "of no value." ...

I bolded his two main rationales for concluding success, first, that he considered nonverifiable results to be successes, and second, that he considered results that were already known using conventional methods to be successes.

In both cases, no apparent attempt is made by Rviewer to take that next step to consider alternative explanations.

Paul Smith promises
Posted on DCP's blog, 7.8.26:

...In this and other articles I will submit to Dan for him, at his discretion, to decide to publish or not, I will treat some of the hoary old objections that skeptics habitually bring to the subject matter that has been my focus for the past 40-plus years. A caveat: I will do this in occasional installments; if I were to try to do it all at once it would be far too long and indigestible. What you are now reading serves as the introduction to the “series.” I list here the skeptical objections I plan to cover subsequently...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 6921588414

And several days ago

...But as I said---I'll come to all these points in due time...

Another promise two days ago

The claim that RV has no double-blind repeatable results is a favored chestnut of the skeptical community. It is false. I'll get into that more later...

...Which is one of the points I said I was going to address...

...But I'll get there with chapter and verse---though unfortunately it will take some weeks or even months to fully get through everything I've promised...

An expansion on his promises:

...RV has a temporal capacity as well---both future ("precognitive") and past. There's a lot to say about this, which I'll let pass for now in the interest of time. Maybe a future guest column...?

The first substantive post is still just a non-answer, but seems to foreshadow his strategy. Given 2 days ago:

...Seeing as how I was a party to a number of RV projects that DID provide operational utility, I'd say the answer to the question is yes---as I document in my book "Reading the Enemy's Mind." ...

And finally, 4 hrs ago:

It's not hugely helpful, as it represents a massive unorganized trove of documents, but the CIA's Reading Room has all the Star Gate files that have been declassified thus far. A more coherent resource would be my dissertation, which is linked from this introductory page: https://rviewer.com/dissert... But it doesn't discuss the operational intel-related work, just the scientific research up to 2009.

Unfortunately, from a documentation standpoint, my book is the best treatment of the operational material.

Oh. "Buy my book."

Has this whole thing simply been an advertising scam? Was the Afore in on it? Or has he been scammed into using his blog as nothing more than a marketing vehicle?

Upcoming Controlled Remote Viewing and Applications Courses:*

17-22 August 2026 (Monday – Saturday AM), Basic Controlled Remote Viewing Course, Cedar City, UT. 4-6 2 spaces available.

TO REGISTER FOR A COURSE OR WORKSHOP, CLICK HERE

https://rviewer.com/controlled-remote-v ... -schedule/

What timing.

[drumdude]

Lmao who could have predicted that this would go nowhere.

I really thought this would be the one time DCP provided some concrete evidence for any of his weird conspiracy theories.

I’ve got a sprinkler system in my yard with Dan’s name on it. All he has to do is map out the pipes with his dousing rod and I’ll donate $100,000 to the Interpreter foundation.

[I Have Questions]

The first substantive post is still just a non-answer, but seems to foreshadow his strategy. Given 2 days ago:

...Seeing as how I was a party to a number of RV projects that DID provide operational utility, I'd say the answer to the question is yes---as I document in my book "Reading the Enemy's Mind." ...

He keeps making this claim. But...in 1995 The American Institutes for Research did a study into the military's remote viewing "operational utility'" and concluded...

The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the
program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important methodological issue of inter-judge reliability.
Further, even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations. For example, the nature of the remote viewing targets are vastly dissimilar, as are the specific tasks required of the remote viewers. Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy of information for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted.

Paul Smith is trying to con a living out of selling remote viewing books and courses to the gullible, and Peterson is helping him. I strongly doubt Peterson has handed any of his own money over to Smith, but his readership to whom he is promoting Smith deserves to know.

[Physics Guy]

I looked a bit at Smith's dissertation, and discovered that Smith's PhD is not only conventionally a Doctor of Philosophy degree, but is in fact a degree in philosophy. It is not an exercise even in parapsychology, but in arguing against "physicalism". It reviews a certain amount of literature in parapsychology, but not in the nearly the kind of detail that would be required to evaluate the reported results properly.

Really solid evidence for remote viewing would be a revolution in physics. A dissertation in philosophy is not the place to look for reliable conclusions about remote viewing, any more than a dissertation in physics is a good source for a critique of Kantian ethics. Presenting a philosophy dissertation as evidence for remote viewing is like claiming that your revisionist views about the causes of World War I are authoritative history because they were approved by a Department of English Literature. If your new understanding of the origins of World War I is so good, why didn't you run it by an actual History department? If Smith's evidence of presentiment and remote viewing is so solid, why didn't he get his degree in psychology?

[Marcus]

...Seeing as how I was a party to a number of RV projects that DID provide operational utility, I'd say the answer to the question is yes---as I document in my book "Reading the Enemy's Mind." ...

Document? I took a look at the reviews and they tell a very different story about the topic being documented. This extremely thorough comment, particularly about the book's role as a historical record, was quite informative:

Ken Korczak
5 out of 5 stars
Verified Purchase
A terrific read: Gives invaluable context and insight into RV
Reviewed in the United States on August 1, 2014

I've read only about a half-dozen book about Remote Viewing, but I'm willing to bet that this one, Reading the Enemy's Mind by Paul H. Smith, is the definitive book on the topic.

Clocking in at more than 600 pages, Smith slogs through just about every aspect of remote viewing -- from the mind boggling to the mundane -- from the first days of it's development through its eventual demise as a sanctioned government project.

Smith was a U.S. Army Intelligence Officer and among the original remote viewers. Here he doggedly documents the endless and banal bureaucratic twists and turns of managing a super secretive, highly classified intelligence operation -- but, wow! -- it was a spy game unlike any other in the already dark and spooky underworld of international espionage.

Most readers eager for sensational stories of extraordinary paranormal happenings will find themselves enduring some eye-glazing moments as Smith plods through all the crushingly boring -- the red tape, the funding methods, the inter-governmental squabbling. However, those who wade through it will be rewarded with a greater perspective about what really happened inside our government's unlikely foray into "psychic spying."

But there is much to amaze as well. There's lots of juicy paranormal stuff -- psychic powers, UFO tangents, channeling strange entities, spoon bending -- that will satisfy the inquiring mind.

It would take pages to provide a truly comprehensive review of everything Smith covers in this book, so let me focus on one area where I think the author provides invaluable insight into a deeply controversial topic.

The insight I am talking about is the window inside Smith gives us on certain people who emerged as high profile public remote viewers after the official program ended -- especially Ed Dames and David Morehouse.

Smith tells that Dames and Morehouse are two guys who more or less went off the deep end and were ensnared by the most unscientific and fringy possibilities associated with remote viewing.

Smith levels his biggest criticism at David Morehouse, whom he describes as a barely involved, minimally trained slacker who was, if not actually AWOL, absent for much of the time when he was supposed to be on duty working RV sessions. Morehouse also had periods of mental instability, a disastrous illicit affair, was once suicidal -- none of which was precipitated by the strangeness of remote viewing -- although Morehouse sought to us RV as an excuse for his behavior when he was facing court marshal.

Yet Morehouse is active today as a "celebrity" remote viewer, promoting himself as one of the original "Psychic Warriors" (That's the title of his book). He also peddles a RV study course, he leads remote viewing seminars and is popular on the lecture tour. But Smith paints Morehouse as little more than a failure at remote viewing, a fraud and a blatant, self-serving opportunist.

But the guy who really sucks up all the oxygen in the world of remote viewing today is former U.S. Army Major Ed Dames.

Smith is somewhat kinder to Dames in terms of his work ethic and commitment to military intelligence. Smith even gives him high marks for his professionalism as a soldier. However, when it came to performing the actual remote viewing sessions, Dames was rarely the one sitting in the psychic spying seat. Rather, Dames served more often as a monitor and facilitator for other remote viewers. His own ability to remote view were unremarkable, and he barely worked more than a hlf dozen official RV sessions himself.

Smith writes that Dames also frequently thwarted protocol by improperly "front loading" remote viewing sessions -- that is, Dames frequently attempted to "lead" or bias remote viewers with his own unstoppable obsession with UFOs and his own pet theories about extraterrestrials.

When Dames could not goad disciplined remote viewers into coughing up questionable information about ETs, he would go ahead and conduct his own sessions with sloppy protocols, which would, not surprisingly, confirm his own belief system about aliens from other worlds.

Even worse, Dames displayed an extreme proclivity for apocalyptic scenarios. Again and again, Dames came up with end-of-the-world predictions both during his time with military intelligence, and for years after as a public figure -- and he continues to do today. Dames has appeared dozens of times on the hugely popular Coast to Coast radio program hosted by Art Bell, and over the years had made one disaster-scenario prediction after another, none of which have ever come true.

Smith also sharply criticizes Ed Dames for the claims he has made about his involvement with the development of the remote viewing program -- in short, Smith says that many of Dames' claims about what he did and to help develop the military remote viewer program are flat out false. Dames was a far more marginal player than he has long advertised himself to be, according to Smith.

So this is an outstanding book which is an invaluable historical document that both dispels the many myths that still linger about remote viewing, and which provides incredible insight -- a clarifying window into one of the strangest times in the history of U.S. espionage and intelligence operations.

https://www.amazon.com/portal/customer- ... 64YHF0S0H1

[Bolding added by me]

Eta: It looks like the same reviewer published a version of his review on Medium under the title:

Remote Viewing Legend Tells All
Ken Korczak
Sep 9, 2022

[Philo Sofee]

Lmao who could have predicted that this would go nowhere.

I really thought this would be the one time DCP provided some concrete evidence for any of his weird conspiracy theories.

I’ve got a sprinkler system in my yard with Dan’s name on it. All he has to do is map out the pipes with his dousing rod and I’ll donate $100,000 to the Interpreter foundation.

Easy there. We saw what happened with the last $10,000 donation to the Gadianton Robbers of Zion.

[drumdude]

Not long ago, I opened this blog up to Dr. Paul Smith to write several posts here, as he finds the time to do so, about his experience with, and his thinking about, what is commonly called “remote viewing.” I’m quite interested in the subject, though not deeply committed to the truth of such psi capability. If remote viewing proves to be illusory, nothing in my worldview is threatened. On the other hand, if there is something real in it, that would seem to suggest that strict naturalistic materialism is unlikely to be true.

Paul’s first installment here called forth a few reasonable challenges, questions, and expressions of skepticism but, over at the Peterson Obsession Board (POB) anyway, these were pretty much drowned out by a loud and incurious chorus of derision, insinuations of moral corruption (on Paul’s part but also, of course, on mine), and emphatic assertions of the commenters’ dogmatic preexisting views. Then when, just a few days ago, Paul replied to several comments here that had followed his guest entry, the cacophony of personal attacks and mockery over at the POB came to a roar yet again.

It’s scarcely surprising. Still, with that as a background, the great James Clerk Maxwell’s insistence on freely examining everything stood out to me.

Even after all these years it is still somewhat shocking to see a retired BYU professor so grossly misrepresent the comments here.

[I Have Questions]

I note that Peterson in his blog post parallels Smith’s remote viewing nonsense with Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and even, Sir Isaac Newton. However, he still refuses to declare to his audience, upon whom he is sustaining a barrage of marketing on behalf of Smith’s remote viewing con job, if he has put his own money where his mouth is. Has Peterson paid a few thousand dollars of his own money for one or more of Smith’s courses? Yes or no?