• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Remote Viewing

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Fahrusha,
There were Navy projects going on at the same time unbeknownst to Atwater, the members of which started the Hawaii Remote Viewing Assn.? School?
Click to expand...

Hawaii Remote Viewers' Guild. I am not aware there is any documentation of the existence of these claimed Navy projects, e.g. in the "Stargate" archives; are you?

I have excellent reasons to believe RVing projects still exist in this and other gov'ts black ops.
Click to expand...

What excellent reasons? 8)

Missing from the program I believe (I still have 15 minutes to listen to) were references to binaural beats (trademark "Hemisync") that I used in my programs. It is a big help in training the brain to get to the place you want it to be.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some people prefer binaural programs that focus on enhancing theta waves, others high alpha and some delta (sleep). I use Neuro-Programmer 2 Pro (about $60) which offers a wide variety of sound routines including a gamma one; they can be scripted, etc. Either something like that or meditation is a good way to quiet the conscious mind and prepare for a session.

For those who'd like to explore the field more and/or see more RV sessions, here is a link to a list (mine) of over 120 RV sites. The ones that have some sessions online are starred. Generally speaking, not a whole lot of current RV sessions are online - exception: TKR (TenThousandRoads).
RV links for blog

KRG
 
Thanks for the info. I'll bookmark your site.
Skip told us about the disbanded Navy project. Ask the guys at HRVG. Maybe they'll 'fess up!
As an avid TMIer I use their HemiSync. Last night I used SuperSleep along with my own "protocol" to have a strange OBE. :shy:
I also have Morehouse's CD.

KRG said:
Hawaii Remote Viewers' Guild. I am not aware there is any documentation of the existence of these claimed Navy projects, e.g. in the "Stargate" archives; are you?

I agree. Some people prefer binaural programs that focus on enhancing theta waves, others high alpha and some delta (sleep). I use Neuro-Programmer 2 Pro (about $60) which offers a wide variety of sound routines including a gamma one; they can be scripted, etc. Either something like that or meditation is a good way to quiet the conscious mind and prepare for a session.

For those who'd like to explore the field more and/or see more RV sessions, here is a link to a list (mine) of over 120 RV sites. The ones that have some sessions online are starred. Generally speaking, not a whole lot of current RV sessions are online - exception: TKR (TenThousandRoads).
RV links for blog

KRG
Click to expand...
 
Gulliver said:
4) Success is measured by comparing the data to the feedback. For each bit of data provided by the viewer ascribe a YES / NO / IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL to the question 'is this found at the target site?'. You should then be able to tally a percentage of the data that accurately fits the target. (It is based on this method that I ascribe a 30/40% accuracy rate to my Hindenburg session, which, I admit, is fairly lacklustre.)
Gulliver
Click to expand...

Then it is absolutely clear to me that, as a part of the test, someone other than Gulliver should measure his accuracy rate. Why? Because there's absolutely no way that you scored 30-40% accuracy on that "viewing" session. I stand by everything that I said. I am not swayed by the empty words of the want-to-believers.
 
fahrusha said:
:exclamation:18 pages of comments! Sorry I just can't read it all.
My biggest point of contention is the confusion between the CIA and the DIA. All the gov't. projects spoken about on the show to the best of my knowledge were DIA projects authorized by General Stubblebine and headed by Skip Atwater.
Fahrusha
Click to expand...

Fahrusha, I agree though Daz does have a list of the chronology/project names on his website which can help sort some of it out.

Gondola Wish - ARMY INSCOM - 1977-79

Grill Flame - ARMY INSCOM & AMSAA - 1979-1983

Center Lane - ARMY INSCOM - 1983-85

Dragoon Absorb - ARMY INSCOM & DIA - 1985-86

Sun Streak - DIA - 1986-1990

Star Gate - DIA - 1990-95
 
Chuckleberryfinn said:
Then it is absolutely clear to me that, as a part of the test, someone other than Gulliver should measure his accuracy rate. Why? Because there's absolutely no way that you scored 30-40% accuracy on that "viewing" session. I stand by everything that I said. I am not swayed by the empty words of the want-to-believers.
Click to expand...

The nice thing about remote viewing is that anyone, with a bit of basic guidance can try it, and anyone, with a bit guidance can evaluate whether something is a hit.

Gulliver has provided the general procedure in his last post.
4) Success is measured by comparing the data to the feedback. For each bit of data provided by the viewer ascribe a YES / NO / IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL to the question 'is this found at the target site?'. You should then be able to tally a percentage of the data that accurately fits the target. (It is based on this method that I ascribe a 30/40% accuracy rate to my Hindenburg session, which, I admit, is fairly lacklustre.)
Click to expand...

This is the same procedure I learnt in my basic training, and I think it is widely used in the RV field. To make this more explicit, here are the procedure steps:

1. Identify each separate piece of feedback provided.
(generally SINGLE worlds or SINGLE CONCEPTS in short phrases.

2. Discard anything labeled as AOL. These play no more part in the calculations.
(These are written down by the viewer simply to try and get them out of his mind, as the RVer has identified them as his GUESSER and NAMER mental circuits trying to name (apply nouns) to parts of the target. The goal is to DESCRIBE, not NAME.

3. Classify each feedback item as a YES (definitely would be perceived at the target site), NO (would not be perceived at the target site), IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL (don't know if it would be perceived at the target site).

4. Ignore the IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL items. These are your limitations as a profiler - if you knew more about the target site, did more research/Travel/reading/watching TV you could maybe change these into YES or NOs.

5. Work out the percentage of YES's of the total of YES's and NO's.
Session Score % = COUNT(YES's) / ((COUNT(YES's) + COUNT(NO's)) * 100

I'm sure that there are other variations used, but this is what I was taught. In practice, RVers also classify the data into around 25 categories of perceptions (eg taste, movement, size, emotions), and that gives them feedback into what they are good at and what they don't perceive well.

Now, you can debate how to improve the scoring procedure if you want, but, this provides a score that generally reflects how much the session results described the target or not.

Try it on Gulliver's session, and, for comparison, perhaps you could try it on the shark cage, sphinx and race car target photo examples in Gulliver's last post. See if it effectively describes how much of the session described the target and how much did not.
 
Gulliver said:
2) The viewer should be totally blind to the target. ANY information given prior to the viewing is likely to make an accurate description harder to achieve for the viewer (imagination kicks in, the mind starts guessing). It also makes judging the data harder as the viewer could simply have guessed based on the info available.

3) Boring targets are hard to view.
Click to expand...

I understand the need to be totally blind in a test setting, but how would that work in a real world, intelligence gathering session? Targets can still technically be "blind" but would actually be chosen from a finite list of areas of interest to any intelligence agency. The viewer would already have some expectations at least.
And most certainly there would be possible targets that could be considered "boring". For example, I would find an airstrip in Iran quite dull, though the CIA might have reason to think it's very interesting.

Anyway, I'm happy to see the particulars of the test have been worked out and really look forward to seeing how this goes. I am one of those who want this to succeed admittedly.
 
fahrusha said:
:exclamation:18 pages of comments! Sorry I just can't read it all.

Missing from the program I believe (I still have 15 minutes to listen to) were references to binaural beats (trademark "Hemisync") that I used in my programs. It is a big help in training the brain to get to the place you want it to be.
Click to expand...

Of course the mention of the binaural beats was in the last 15-20 minutes that I just listened to.:redface:
I would give that more emphasis as I find that very helpful along with a sleep mask/eye cover but you can't wear an eye cover if you are writing while viewing.
 
My god, that Red Cairo character's posts are way to long for a forum post. Use links man!

All of this talk of remote viewing needing so many parameters and being difficult in a negative environment sounds like preparation for failure to me.

All seems very Uri Geller. Thus far, no conclusive evidence has been shown here. Any of you can argue that remote viewing does not offer the conclusive evidence I am after. If conclusive evidence is not achievable, then remote viewing has no reasonable uses.

BTW do not give me anecdotal evidence. "The police were so happy I could help." Really? Which police, when, what exactly was achieved?

I remain highly skeptical.
 
fahrusha said:
Of course the mention of the binaural beats was in the last 15-20 minutes that I just listened to.:redface:
Click to expand...
The results of my own experiments with binaural beats were pretty lame. Listen to Music. Listen to virgin Nature.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
jbrazel said:
Your argument is in my opinon not valid. I get that you don't understand that the photograph is feedback and it is not the target that the subject is trying to remotely view which was the crash of the Hindenberg, but honestly "nothing else the viewer says even comes close" seems to be a bit of an overstatement when contrasted with dorkbots list of possible hits.

Also you may want to go back and listen to the other RV show in the archives with Paul Smith as the guest. He explains some of the terms like "analyst", "tasker", avoiding labeling with nouns or "analytical overlay breaks" and other terms frequently used in RV or as you describe "psuedo-scientific jargon".
Click to expand...

Wrong, the Hindenberg crash was not the target being viewed. What was being viewed was a political cartoon that may or may not reference the Hindenburg crash. Moreover, my quoted comment is not an overstatement at all. I showed why, in a previous post, all of the so-called hits were not hits at all. I've already responded to that assertion. If you want to engage me, challenge that response; don't just regurgitate the already refuted claims of another poster.

I also think that the distinction between "feedback" and "target" is completely asinine, as well as the terms you list, such as "analytical overlay breaks." These terms attempt to impose content where none exists by creating false distinctions and standards in order to explain away a viewer's inability precisly and accurately to view a target.

I am still blown away by the act of avoiding nouns, specific descriptive words. Accuracy and precision is impossible, so the viewer uses general and vague statements, calls it descriptive, and then feels offended when someone challenges him or her.

Moderators, please block me from responding to this thread any more.
 
Curious? What "brand" of binaural beats have you listened to and on what sort of machine? I recommend hemisync with headphones and sensory deprivation as you are able.
Fahrusha

skunkape said:
The results of my own experiments with binaural beats were pretty lame. Listen to Music. Listen to virgin Nature.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Click to expand...
 
Not that I recommend doing tests this way, but I get the impression some people think tests need to be done in only one way. I've seen a variety of rv related test done with reported success. One test gave the remote viewer longitude and latitude coordinates, then he proceeded to draw what he thought was at the location. No image was given that I can recall.

Another case was Joe Mcmoneagle and he actual read the persons mind it seems. They had Joe in a room, sent a person out to different locations and ask Joe to draw and/or describe what the person was looking at at that time. He did amazingly well btw. Or, the show hoaxed the whole thing, which is possible of course. Anyway just wanted to mention this. More than one way to skin a cat imo. Ew, hate that cliche btw.

Anyway, don't worry about working anything out with me RVers, looks like David is doing the tests now. I look forward to the results.
 
Stillborn said:
...Another case was Joe Mcmoneagle and he actual read the persons mind it seems. They had Joe in a room, sent a person out to different locations and ask Joe to draw and/or describe what the person was looking at at that time. He did amazingly well btw. Or, the show hoaxed the whole thing, which is possible of course. Anyway just wanted to mention this. More than one way to skin a cat imo. Ew, hate that cliche btw.
Click to expand...

This is a standard method, one of the more effective ones - is called using an "outbounder". This method was utilized repeatedly during the Stanford Research Institute remote viewing experiments and is well documented in their literature. If you doubt such a thing is possible, take a good look at that literature. Or try it yourself. You might be surprised. Doing so is how I first got really interested - when I saw there was a genuine effect.

KRG
 
How accessible is Hal Putoff?

I know Nick Cook had was able to speak to him for some of his work (book/docos). It would be great to have him on the show.

(Im not having a brain fart am I? Hal Putoff was involved in the CIA RV work?)
 
Gareth said:
How accessible is Hal Putoff?

I know Nick Cook had was able to speak to him for some of his work (book/docos). It would be great to have him on the show.

(Im not having a brain fart am I? Hal Putoff was involved in the CIA RV work?)
Click to expand...

You're right - Harold Puthoff, Ph.D. and Russell Targ, both laser physicists, were the prime movers in the initial and ground-breaking Stanford Research Institute experiments, with funding by government agencies including the CIA.

KRG
 
Back
Top