Jump to content

Talk:Ingo Swann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Serious Issues

[edit]

This article seems to have been the subject of an edit war, and needs to be edited for proper encyclopedic tone, including objectivity of statements. Per the paranormal arbitration decision, parapsychological topics do not merit distinction from other paranormal topics, and as such this article should limit itself to objective presentation of biographical information, not advocacy for or against a particular scientific conclusion. Reformatting headings would improve the article significantly. A more appropriate format would be a heading, "Remote Viewing Experiments," under which all experiments are concisely describe, and a heading "Criticism," in which criticism of Swann's methods or results is described.

A number of sources are self-published or from website archives, when more reputable sources, including from the CIA's Reading Room are available. I will make these edits when I have time to review sources, but assistance in this work would be welcome. Enterprising editors could reformat this article to be more objective, and similar in layout to other biographical entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChunder (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Unfair

[edit]

I have serious doubts about all of the psi readings discussed here, but that doesn't mean I think wiki should become so unbalanced in view point. This article is obviously one-sided and done in ill-taste. [[User:furbuggy[furbuggy]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.87.241 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very one-sided. It fails to bring any sort of critical information on this person, only praising his supposed skills. --RoyalFool 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this article is biased garbage. Since when does rhetorical speculation, "he made no mention of Jupiters 63 moons" qualify as encyclopedic content? Again, completely lowers my opinion of Wikipedia and dishonors the people who write the truth even if it's not as damming as they'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:557F:1700:CC3E:BB76:D819:467F (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Article

[edit]

I believe this is a well balanced article. I don't believe you have to include skepticism to have a harmonious balance in the paranormal world. Afterall, there are dozens of public figures both politicans and celebrities alike that solely "promote themselves and their good work" that do not present the opposing view. Vweston3554 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the article is not just unbalanced, there are no links to scientific documents detailing the experiments done, or any other citations for that matter. As such, the article is one big piece of anecdotal evidence, which is certainly not encyclopaedic in nature. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about this subject and only got directed here in a discussion about paranormal activities, but I certainly support the comments made by RoyalFool and recommend that further work is done on the article.Triune 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Looks as though some of the possible explanations other than psychic powers are starting to appear in the article, along with some references. This can only be for the best.Triune 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This process will be helped by active removal of detail unsupported by exact references. The people working here should know what to do, but if they don't, I'll come by and help. DGG (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Category change

[edit]

Categories were changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration decision on the paranormal, specifically Adequate framing and Cultural artifacts, though other sections may apply. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Since when do subjective (not to mention rhetorical) questions qualify as "encyclopaedic"?

[edit]

I don't know what is the "bottom-line" (if there is one) of RV, but I do know a double standard when I see it...

How come this article's neutrality is not "disputed"?

Not to mention the basic rule of critical reporting (as opposed to personal commentary), which is: do not propose rhetorical questions, especially when there is nobody to answer them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.96.169 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Remote Viewing Demo

[edit]

Check out the More Information: Video: Live Demonstration, See if you can spot the flaws, the con. They are most definitely there. If you can't recognize these juicy tidbits maybe you should keep away from this PSI stuff. You are just too easy. "Welcome to my web," said the spider to the fly. [1] Kazuba 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA involvement in remote viewing program

[edit]

(this discussion was moved from User talk:kotra) -kotra (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingo Swann is an artist and author, best known for his work as a founder of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s remote viewing program. Where is your citation for this? This is not true as far as I know. It is a bit of an exaggeration. Where is your documented source? To me it looks like when the CIA entered the picture Swann skated out. In fact he retired.Kazuba (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know that this is disputed. I thought it was commonly held that the remote viewing program was funded by the CIA from the beginning, but perhaps it isn't commonly held. I originally learned of this subject from [2], which admittedly makes wild claims, but seems reliable nonetheless. Also note Remote_viewing#Early_SRI_experiments, which makes the same claims about the CIA's sponsorship, and appears to be well-sourced. But regardless, I'll trim the "United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s" part from it, since that can be found out by going to Remote viewing or Stargate (or not, depending on whatever is the current state of those articles), which I will add into the sentence. To be clear though, it isn't disputed that Swann is best known for his work in remote viewing, correct?
Also, if you don't mind, I would like to copy this discussion to Talk:Ingo Swann, so that others may contribute to the discussion if they wish. -kotra (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ingo is best known as the Father of remote viewing. Sure. Go a head.Kazuba (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the first sentence to "Ingo Swann is an artist and author, best known for his work as a co-creator of the discipline of remote viewing, specifically the Stargate Project." Feel free to change it if it's still disputed. -kotra (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio text

[edit]

I removed the following text as a copyright violation because it's exactly the same as the text here (seventh paragraph):

In Penetration Swann describes his encounter with a live alien in a Los Angeles supermarket and confirms that ET civilization has been infiltrating the Earth in humanoid bodies. Swann's friends warn him: "There are alot of THEM, you know, and many of them are bio-androids...they realize that Earth psychics are their only enemies."

According to the website's disclaimer, "All materials contained in this Website are protected by copyright laws, and may not be reproduced, republished, distributed, transmitted, displayed, broadcast or otherwise exploited in any manner without the express prior written permission of Rense.com or the author, authors or sources of said materials." Therefore, I removed it in accordance with WP:COPYVIO. If this text is made into a quote from the website or paraphrased sufficiently, it should be ok to stay, but otherwise it must be removed. I'll remove it again now, but feel free to re-add it if it's been changed enough or I've overlooked something. -kotra (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After edits by User:Kazuba and me, the text now reads:

In his autobiography Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy, Swann describes his work with individuals in the U.S. government who study extraterrestrials, and his experience with an extraterrestrial in a Los Angeles supermarket, concluding that extraterrestrials are living on earth in humanoid bodies. In the book, a friend warns him that there are many extraterrestrials, that many are "bio-androids", and that they are aware their only foes are earth psychics.

I am still uncomfortable with its similarity to the text in [3], but apparently it is important to this article, and I would hesitate to change it any further without reading the book in question myself. So I'll leave it for now. -kotra (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swann's brain activitry

[edit]

User talk:Viniciusmauro Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you misread the Swann article. I edited it the way I understood it. Your call. Kazuba (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources for being a former Scientologist

[edit]

Any sources to justify that he is a former Scientologist? Has he actually stated this, and if so, please show the source, otherwise the category should be removed. There also needs to be a source for the idea that he and Puthoff (reliable and verifiable sources) were high-level OTs. I know these things to be true myself personally since I have first-hand knowledge, but we need reliable sources. Otherwise it doesn't belong here. Laval (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gardner has written of Puthoff being a Scientologist on multiple occasions, including on p. 61 of his book Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? (Google Books link: http://books.google.com/books?id=leIjcCSB_MoC&lpg=PA61&ots=F4hjH8z9CP&dq=Puthoff%20Scientologist%20Gardner&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q=&f=false ), which is a reprint from one of his "Notes of a Fringe-Watcher" column in the Skeptical Inquirer; as well as on p. 278 of Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus.

Gardner refers to Swann as a Scientologist on p. 303 of Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus. It's not in Google Books but you can find the page via Amazon.com's "Search Inside This Book" feature. Lippard (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ingo Swann was interviewed in "Advance!" magazine, published by the Church of Scientology, as Scientology "Clear #2331, Full OT VII and Class VI auditor", on at least three occasions between 1973 and 1978. In "Advance!" issue 21 (Oct/Nov 1973, UK edition), he was asked by the magazine: "How did these [psychic] abilities develop with relationship to your auditing on the [Scientology] OT Levels?" to which he answered "They are solely the result of auditing. Not particularly even the OT Levels. I had extremely good gains from the lower grades. And some had developed certainly by the time [Scientology] Power Processing took place. But steady good control over them, the control I have now -- which is not perfect by the way -- occurred after the completion of OT III Expanded, and is even better than ever now that I have finished OT VII. So they are solely the result of auditing." In the introduction to the interview, it states that Swann started in Scientology in 1966. In the magazine "Advance!" issue 44 (Jan/Feb 1977, US edition), Ingo Swann was a member of a five-person panel -- an "OT Symposium" -- discussing, among other things, the scientific testing of paranormal research at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Swann's biography in the magazine -- and the inset text in his photo -- again described him as "Ingo Swann, Clear #2331, Full OT VII". Finally, in "Advance!" issue #53 (Jul/Aug 1978, US edition), Ingo Swann was interviewed again by the magazine. Swann was asked again: "How did your psychic abilities develop in relationship to your auditing on the [Scientology] Advanced Courses?" Swann's response was: "They are totally the result of auditing. The point of going Clear and attaining the OT Sections is to rid oneself of reactivity and to enable one to confront life better, more completely, more productively. And I view psychic abilities as only a part of that." On Swann's website, he gives a bit of background about how he became involved in Scientology, and now calls himself a "former Scientologist". He states "What mattered to me, as in all things I've studied, was what I got from Hubbard's ideas, concepts and theories -- and which was considerable, and none of which I'm ashamed of or regret in anyway." (REMOTE VIEWING: THE REAL STORY, Ingo Swann, 1996) -- [1]. My suggestion would be that we update the article using at least the "Advance!" magazines as sources for Ingo Swann. With regard to Hal Puthoff being a Scientologist (or former Scientologist), I am still researching this individual. I saw a "success story" in a Scientology magazine by Puthoff some years ago, but am still working to track it down. Comments, suggestions? GreatGatzby 19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I just noticed that Puthoff's involvement in Scientology is already sourced in the Harold E. Puthoff entry. GreatGatzby 23:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/RealStoryCh24.html

Ingo Swann "The Father Of Remote Viewing"?

[edit]

It is written and recorded by some that Pioneer Remote Viewer, Ingo Swann, was The Father Of Remote Viewing. According to gathered information, this is dis-informational. According to fellow Pioneer Remote Viewer, A. Edward Moch, "To say that "Ingo" was the Father of Remote Viewing, is like saying Al Gore is the father of The Internet". What seems far more accurate, is that Swann was the creator of a remote viewing protocol named "Coordinated Remote Viewing" or "CRV", under the supervision of Dr. Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at The Stanford Research Institute (SRI). ````Aedwardmoch````

I have to agree. The idea of remote viewing is a concept common among many cultures far before Ingo Swann. - David A. Carlson DavidA.Carlson@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.144.203 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is dead

[edit]

Ingo Swann recently died. Now his flesh will rot and his personality and psyche will disappear. Common sense has caught up with him. At last. Dickie birdie (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait till he's buried before you dance on his grave. I hope your bias won't affect your editing. 24.98.1.233 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These people that believe in the "paranormal" are just mystics who happen to be educated, that's all. Life after death, is Ingo Swann really going to communicate with us from beyond the grave? How many times has that happened, people believing in rubbish promising to communicate after death "proving" there is an afterlife. Dickie birdie (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Every single Wikipedia article is biased. Wikipedia is not free from bias, that's for sure. Dickie birdie (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

References

  1. '^ '''''

Date of death

[edit]

How do you know that Ingo Swann died 31 January? I saw 1 link in which date of death is 31 January ([4]). In others it's 1 February, for example: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Which date of death is correct and why? Mariusz Swornóg (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he passed away in the evening of 2013/01/31 at age 79 from the effects of a stroke
a 2013/02/01 18:33 wikipedia edit said RIP & then the talk page did as well
but
2013/01/31 the Spring 2013 Journal of Parapsychology Durham, Vol. 77,
Issue 1, on page 131-132, Edwin C.May, said he was dead the next day
so
all of this indicates a medical examiner estimated
"time" of death & he died over night in his sleep
findagrave.com/memorial/105635382/ingo-douglas-swann
web.archive.org/web/2013*/https://rviewer.com/IngoSwann_encyclopedia.html
dailygrail.com/2013/02/vale-ingo-swann-remote-viewing-pioneer/
web.archive.org/web/2021*/https://www.irva.org/speaker/swann-ingo-obituary
wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingo_Swann&direction=next&oldid=534116918
wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ingo_Swann
wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingo_Swann&action=history&dir=prev&limit=500 Waptek (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source numbers 53 and 54

[edit]

References 53 and 54 are unreliable. One is a blog and the other is the notoriously loony "godlikeproductions.com" [1] [2] 65.129.165.104 (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann#cite_note-53
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann#cite_note-autogenerated4-54

Some dubious sources

[edit]

WP:SOURCE states that WP:THIRDPARTY are required, but some of the sources in the article do not stand up to this:

The first of these sources is cited often, using different pages. Given the subject of the article, it seems editors should be careful of WP:REDFLAGSs.Autarch (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

garbage article

[edit]

The entire article is garbage. Nearly all the sources are invalid. This is just another instance of people using Wikipedia for the advertising and the selling of conspiracy theories. 75.106.146.89 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ingo Swann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pic

[edit]

Should some1 wish to give the article a photo; I offer the following as a candidate (I've 0 dezire to learn how to do it myself @ this time): https://cdn.onlinepsychicchat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/04184000/swann-1.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slarty1 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Slarty1 (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death?

[edit]

What was the cause of death, please?Foofbun (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

he passed away in the evening of 2013/01/31 at age 79 from the effects of a stroke
a 2013/02/01 18:33 wikipedia edit said RIP & then the talk page did as well
but
2013/01/31 the Spring 2013 Journal of Parapsychology Durham, Vol. 77,
Issue 1, on page 131-132, Edwin C.May, said he was dead the next day
so
all of this indicates a medical examiner estimated
"time" of death & he died over night in his sleep
findagrave.com/memorial/105635382/ingo-douglas-swann
web.archive.org/web/2013*/https://rviewer.com/IngoSwann_encyclopedia.html
dailygrail.com/2013/02/vale-ingo-swann-remote-viewing-pioneer/
web.archive.org/web/2021*/https://www.irva.org/speaker/swann-ingo-obituary
wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingo_Swann&direction=next&oldid=534116918
wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ingo_Swann
wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingo_Swann&action=history&dir=prev&limit=500 Waptek (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biomindsuperpowers.com

[edit]

There is a substantial amount of content stated in Wikipedia's voice that's cited to "Biomindsuperpowers.com", which is apparently the subject's own website. Not a good thing, per WP:FRIND - - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Swann demonstrated his exteriorization skills"? Nonsense.

[edit]

Under the heading "Remote viewing", the third sentence begins "During this time, Swann demonstrated his exteriorization skills at the Stanford Research Institute..."
Well, no. No, he didn't. He purported to do this, and/or perhaps people believed that he did this. But stating that he "demonstrated" it is an assertion which trespasses upon objective reality. There is no evidence whatsoever that he actually "exteriorized". So I am going to change this sentence to reflect the difference between objective reality and Swann having perhaps impressed some viewers as having "exteriorized". I will welcome any specific wording suggestions, but I will be changing this, in accordance with too many WP policies to need to be cited here. Bricology (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ingo_Swann&oldid=1250390298"