Remote Viewing

[Stillborn]

Yep, it could. I think the details in Daz's session are impressive (more so than the text summary). On P15 summary he states "The target feels important to life, pride, achievement, a sense of memorial. Its scale and size (downwards movement may help in this. Overall I just felt I was looking up at a large manmade structure of great size and shape. A downwards movement or aesthetic seems key."

Those remarks could apply to the twin towers falling, Hindenburg, Space shuttle disasters etc. Imo, too general to be convincing for me. I'm not trying to give Daz a hard time and appreciate his attempt. I'm just being honest.

Gull's drawing of a big ship with people in the water is pretty interesting though. I can't imagine getting a better hit than that really unless he spelled out the word Titanic maybe, which of course isn't required.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

For what little bit it's worth, a couple of days ago when I saw this thread and just took a quick impression to personally compare when the results came in, my mental picture was of a very long dinner table with lots of plates and places set, and was in an obviously very "wealthy" setting, but the room was completely devoid of people. The plates were all clean, no food had been there, it was obvious that it was prepared for an upcoming event. I had a feeling that the people in that would occupy the room were clueless about something.

I am not presenting this as "evidence", so much as wondering what kind of feedback the established remote viewers would have on having *that* kind of impression rather than bunches of descriptive words and shapes / lines (of which I got none).

I honestly have no idea if the images I saw were in any way related to the image, though they certainly *could* have been. I was very interested in the one random "scene" that Gulliver saw of the dancing.

Also, I am curious as to how all of these seemingly random descriptive words are turned into actual useful data when applied to cases... for instance, how would the military make use of all these words in defining a specific target?

Anyway, definitely seeing some interesting results here, no doubt... I am very much enjoying that people are taking the time / trouble to do these experiments and I hope it can turn into an ongoing thing, with many different approaches maybe, to see what can be done about perhaps even furthering / expanding the science beyond its present limits.

 

[Stillborn]

For future reference, I recommend showing all the RVer's sessions before showing and saying what the image is. This way people can see if their impressions of the RVers impressions lead them to the matching target without interference or bias of already knowing what would be the correct answer. Hope that made sense.

 

[dorkbot]

For future reference, I recommend showing all the RVer's sessions before showing and saying what the image is. This way people can see if their impressions of the RVers impressions lead them to the matching target without interference or bias of already knowing what would be the correct answer. Hope that made sense.

In lab experiments I believe one of the ways this is usually handled is by having neutral third parties with no knowledge of the targets, images, etc. come in and do the judging. They are asked to match the target to whichever result they feel best fits. ie. Here is a randomized stack of target images and here is a randomized stack of RV sessions...which belong together?

Obviously doing this all on a public forum means this can only ever be an informal demonstration but if there is another round of these sessions it might be interesting to post the session data and then post say, 5-10 random images along with the target image without revealing which is which for 24 hrs or so.

 

[Apocalypto]

Both Gulliver and Daz did very well. Congratulations to both of them on their great work.

Prior to looking at the picture, I quickly searched my mind for one word that described the target. The word "blue" came to my mind.

Remote viewing works. It's one of our senses, not yet in common use, but now gaining more attention.

Bravo.

 

[Gulliver]

Great! Now THAT's a remote viewing session lol. Pretty stoked. Great target too, perfectly tasked. Well done David.

Also, I am curious as to how all of these seemingly random descriptive words are turned into actual useful data when applied to cases... for instance, how would the military make use of all these words in defining a specific target?

Well, imagine that an unidentified blip had occurred on a radar scan or on satellite pictures. A team of remote viewers are tasked with describing what this blip actually is. They come back with largely corresponding data that suggests that the 'blip' is actually a sunken wreck. Better viewers than me would be able to tell you more...how it was sunk, who it belonged to etc.

Ditto with ANYTHING. The contents of an enemy warehouse. The condition of a missing hostage. The workings of a top secret design. That unidentified flying object photographed zipping above the houses.

Essentially remote viewers answer the tasker's question. Here David tasked me simply with the task of describing the ship(remember I received ONLY the numbers 4672); he could just as well have asked me to describe why and how it sunk, the mechanics behind its propulsion system etc. Any of these different focuses would have yielded more 'specific' information.

So with this in mind, can you now see the possibilities afforded by having a team of expert remote viewers working together? Yes the data can be patchy and slightly disparate in individual sessions, but when correlated with the sketches and data collected by 6 or 7 other viewers, it becomes possible to build up a much more detailed picture of the target.

Makes you wonder why governments around the world aren't using remote viewing to bolster their intelligence gathering agencies. Oh wait, they are:

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/12-13-04.asp

You can bet your bottom dollar that others are too. Funnily enough however our own (British) MOD recently commissioned a study that concluded that remote viewing a) didn't work and therefore b) was of no use.

Whereas it has taken us 2 attempts on a public web forum to prove that it does. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? (Unless the MOD are simply applying disinformation tactics, which is possible.)

Anyway, I'm ranting. I am glad that this trial worked so well and am happy to do some more in the future, provided they are tasked as well as this one. Congrats to Daz as well who in my view hit the target pretty well.

I am grateful to those here at Paracast who have maintained patience and an open mind throughout this trial. Thanks guys.

Gulliver

 

[Gareth]

Gulliver thanks for taking the time to do this. And also the patience. It cant have been easy with so many different voices and points of view, and there was sure to be some pressure associated with it (although Im sure you successfully blocked that out).

Which brings me to a couple of questions...

Better viewers than me would be able to tell you more...how it was sunk, who it belonged to etc.

1) based on what you know about the best RVers in the world, how accurate have they been known to be, assuming they were viewing the target you just did (Titanic)? I.E. what sort of results could you realistically expect?

2) when you sit down to attempt to RV the target do you hold the random number in your hand? Your head? keep repeating it?

3) do you ever get feelings of emotion at a target? Like at the Titanic, maybe there was a feeling of great sadness?

 

[Gulliver]

Hi Gareth.

1) based on what you know about the best RVers in the world, how accurate have they been known to be, assuming they were viewing the target you just did (Titanic)? I.E. what sort of results could you realistically expect?

The best remote viewer in the world (IMO) is Joe McMoneagle. Given a set of target numbers that are associated with the instruction to locate a missing person (their photograph being the target image in the envelope etc) he can produce real, usable maps and sketches of that person's city, street, house, right up to their front door.

He's been doing this live and on camera for Japanese TV shows for years now. Go Google him. The guy is a legend, not just for his missing people work, but for his RVing in general. He is TOP DOG.

After him...well...it's tricky. My real bugbear with some of the self-proclaimed 'world-class' viewers out there is that they rarely if ever put themselves forwards for public demonstrations of RV. Hence we can only go on what they 'claim' to be able to do or what they've done in the past. Daz has collated a whole load of the ex-military viewers' sessions at: http://www.remoteviewed.com/remote_viewing_history_military.htm. Go check it out.

Incidentally it ain't just the ex-mil guys and their students that are out there remote viewing. Go check out the public galleries at http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/ where 100s of sessions are produced each week by all manner of viewers. (They have automated viewing software set up that anyone can use; a random target is selected from a pool of 1000s, numbers are assigned, the viewer enters and records their data and finally feedback is given.) You'll have to register but it's free and friendly. Some of the sessions produced daily over there are mind-blowing. Have a go at viewing yourself while you're there...it's the only real way to understand the possibilities afforded.

2) when you sit down to attempt to RV the target do you hold the random number in your hand? Your head? keep repeating it?

The co-ordinate number serves as a link or 'prompt'. Scrawling it on a piece of paper and then allowing your hand to produce a quick ideogram is like pushing a button that 'connects' you to the target. From there you probe various columns to produce more specific data (colours, smells etc). Yes, sometimes I will repeat the number to myself in an effort to stay on target and not mentally 'stray.'

Understand that the data I presented to David was a summary of my session. I use a method very similar to Daz and thus my actual session comprised 9 pages of a practised, structured approach (CRV: see below).

3) do you ever get feelings of emotion at a target? Like at the Titanic, maybe there was a feeling of great sadness?

Yup, you get emotions. I didn't really get that with this target as I was too caught up in probing the feel, shape and structure of what I now realise was the ship to concentrate on probing for emotions.

The beauty of Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV - read the manual here: www.crvmanual.com ) is that it puts you the viewer in control. If you want to probe for emotions, go for it. In this instance I didn't feel that it was necessary or particularly important, so I didn't make it a focus.

Other targets however, can expose you to deep emotion, yes. Different viewers deal with this in different ways. I am lucky (I think) in that when I sense an emotion at a target site it comes through more of a 'concept' of that emotion than a full-on blast of the emotion itself.

Gulliver

 

[daz smith]

Those remarks could apply to the twin towers falling, Hindenburg, Space shuttle disasters etc. Imo, too general to be convincing for me. I'm not trying to give Daz a hard time and appreciate his attempt. I'm just being honest.

LOL id think you are unforgiving - but I expected this.

for example a key piece of my data was 'memorial' the Titanic its is a memorial site. Out of ALL the targets in the universe this could have been what's the chance of hitting with something like the word memorial.

I also think you are skipping data like on this page:

where I move 150ft above the target and sketch its shape.
The handwritten words say:
'feels more unorganised in shape' and 'more organised structure'
and base this with imagery form above the wreck site showing a big similarity - you might not get this from the hindeburg crash or 911. It also shows that a remoet viewer cna go anywhere at a target to get the information.

The only data of mine that couldnt fit the target is the one or two pieces about the land data being dry etc. Read the session mark the impressions a 'Y' for correct an 'N' for incorrect and a '?' for don't know - ill bet each of the RV sessions is in the 80-90+% accuracy in this case.

Do they outright say 'titanic or ship' No but the rules of remote viewing as a method is that the remote viewer in NOT allowed to add form or name what they are seeing - this generates more errors in the proceess - its all about decribing the target in ow level words and images. Although Gulliverd did some very good sketches on this one showing clear ship detail.

Its easy in hindsight to then take data and match it to millions of possible examples and then say - 'oh yes but you could also be describing this..' For example Gulliver could have been describing the QE2 or the Exxon Valdez oil event... you can match in hindsight to possible targets to your hearts content but it means nothing.

You have to look at it this way: the target could have been anything, from the suicide of marliyn monroe to the big bang itself, yet we accurately described the target with minimal % of bad data.

If this were a real project for a client - you would have more viewers, more detailed target cueing to get the answers you wanted, and you would also re task the viewers to look or describe parts of their data in more detail. Like making me redo anothet session on my use of memorial or downwards movement. This all builds a picture that you then use with you other information, Remembering Remote viewing is not the magic key, its not 100% accurate - its just another useful tool.

But this was only a trial to show its possible and anyone can do it.

daz

 

[Gareth]

Thanks again for taking so much of your personal time guys. Its been truly fascinating, and I hope Gene and Dave will do a follow up episode with Daz and Gulliver (If you both want to) and discuss the sessions.

I also hope youll stick around for one more session. (I hope you stick around for good, but I appreciate that this stuff takes time, compared to just hanging out and posting).

 

[derekcbart]

Hello.

Forgive me for what may seem like a wet blanket response, but I do not see the level of success that others do.

Neither said that it was a ship, let alone a very large ship. Neither said that it was underwater. Gulliver said that it had "Reflection as if off water" but that description is more appropriate for something on land near a body of water rather than something underwater. Daz said that it was on "Direct, hard, solid rough and dry" land. Twice Gulliver said that it was a cylinder and I would take that as a miss. There may be cylinders within the structure of the Titanic, but the ship itself would not be considered a cylinder.

The majority of the readings I would classify as descriptively vague. This is the sort of language that horoscopes and tarot card readings use. Because the language is descriptively vague it can be retrofitted to appear to describe nearly any target.

On a future test I would suggest trying the following: Post the viewer's results online without posting the target image. Allow the members of the forum to determine what the reading is describing for a couple of days and then post an image that is NOT the target image (for example: posting the Hindenburg instead of the Titanic) and see if people think that the reading is describing that image. If people do, and especially if the viewers do, then it means that they were not describing the correct image and that people are retrofitting the description to match the image.

-Derek

 

[Stillborn]

Hello.

Forgive me for what may seem like a wet blanket response, but I do not see the level of success that others do.

Neither said that it was a ship, let alone a very large ship. Neither said that it was underwater. Gulliver said that it had "Reflection as if off water" but that description is more appropriate for something on land near a body of water rather than something underwater. Daz said that it was on "Direct, hard, solid rough and dry" land. Twice Gulliver said that it was a cylinder and I would take that as a miss. There may be cylinders within the structure of the Titanic, but the ship itself would not be considered a cylinder.

The majority of the readings I would classify as descriptively vague. This is the sort of language that horoscopes and tarot card readings use. Because the language is descriptively vague it can be retrofitted to appear to describe nearly any target.

On a future test I would suggest trying the following: Post the viewer's results online without posting the target image. Allow the members of the forum to determine what the reading is describing for a couple of days and then post an image that is NOT the target image (for example: posting the Hindenburg instead of the Titanic) and see if people think that the reading is describing that image. If people do, and especially if the viewers do, then it means that they were not describing the correct image and that people are retrofitting the description to match the image.

-Derek

I agree with much of what you stated, however Gul's picture of a large ship and people in the water I would have no problem if people considered that a hit. They were to describe the Titanic event more so than the image if I understand correctly.

In both Gulliver's readings I was more impressed with his drawing than verbal impressions.

 

[Ralph]

Hello.

Forgive me for what may seem like a wet blanket response, but I do not see the level of success that others do.

Neither said that it was a ship, let alone a very large ship. Neither said that it was underwater. Gulliver said that it had "Reflection as if off water" but that description is more appropriate for something on land near a body of water rather than something underwater. Daz said that it was on "Direct, hard, solid rough and dry" land. Twice Gulliver said that it was a cylinder and I would take that as a miss. There may be cylinders within the structure of the Titanic, but the ship itself would not be considered a cylinder.

The majority of the readings I would classify as descriptively vague. This is the sort of language that horoscopes and tarot card readings use. Because the language is descriptively vague it can be retrofitted to appear to describe nearly any target.
...
-Derek

There are certainly descriptions within each of Gulliver and Daz's sessions that do not match the target. RVing is not an exact process. Great RVing may be only 80%-90% correct - average remote viewers often get 60% correct. Anyone claiming to be 100% accurate in RV is lying.

If you want to score these sessions, I suggest you use the scoring procedure I posted earlier and see how they stack up. For reference, you could try scoring the sessions against the previous Hindenburg target image or the three example target photos Daz posted, and see which one the description best describes.

As a matter of interest, I also viewed the target and sensed a "tubular" and "cylindrical" aspect at the site. I had difficulty during the session in placing the the cylinder in relation to the main part of the site (a huge manmade object), and eventually placed the cylinder upright next to the huge object. I had intended to post the session, but missed on the early close out of the target. (just as well since my session was pretty poor compared to Gullivers and Daz's)!

 

[Gulliver]

The majority of the readings I would classify as descriptively vague. This is the sort of language that horoscopes and tarot card readings use. Because the language is descriptively vague it can be retrofitted to appear to describe nearly any target

Go on then.

Large slow moving metallic vehicle with a steering wheel, a cockpit and heavy welded plates, plus a profile drawing of a ship and a POV sketch from the captain's wheel itself looking down the length of a vessel.

Match away!

There is a fine line between rational skepticism and the total inability to look the obvious in the face. I find your inability to spot how my data and sketches match a large ship harder to believe than the fact that remote viewing is possible at all. Incredible.

As for that 'cylinder' impression. How else would you describe the dimensions of a large ship? Triangular? Cuboid? The essential geometric gestalt of a vehicle that shape and size is more cylindrical than anything else. Not that it really matters. Like Ralph says, there is ALWAYS noise in a remote viewing session. Can't be helped. You may as well claim that a chocolate cake isn't a chocolate cake because some raisins fell in the mixture.

Enough from me. I am under no illusions; some people out there will simply refuse to shift their existential paradigms no matter what evidence you throw at them. Fair enough...to each their own.

Ciao for now,

Gulliver

 

[David Biedny]

Derek,

I happen to really like you on a personal level, but let's be crystal clear about something: no matter WHAT Gulliver would have come up with, you would find a way to discredit the results. The organization you're associated with would never, ever validate a truly unusual phenomenon, it would shatter your world view and everything you believe in. While I agree that the next time, I will post the reading results before I post the actual target, it won't matter for you, there will be something that you'll grab onto to validate your own world view, which is that science is your religion, your belief system, and the paranormal is nothing more than mental masturbation for those looking to explore the mysteries of the universe. Please exercise some intellectual honesty here. Like I've said, there's lots of overlap in the way we consider these topics, the main difference is that I know that there's something strange going on, there are aspects of our minds and world that we have very little knowledge of, while you would likely claim that most of the great mysteries have been solved. The fact that you consider folks like Shostack and Randi to be credible and trustworthy is just laughable to me.

dB

 

[derekcbart]

For an example of what I mean by descriptively vague, please take a look at this YouTube video:

VIDEO OF FUNDAMENTALIST CHARLATAN REMOVED

Yes, it is from James Randi and I know that some people have some problems with his tactics, but there shouldn't be any of those types of concerns with this particular example.

-Derek

 

[David Biedny]

You're posting fucking Randi videos on here? Sorry, no go. It's gone.

dB

 

[derekcbart]

The organization you're associated with would never, ever validate a truly unusual phenomenon, it would shatter your world view and everything you believe in.

Absolutely not true.

I may have a higher threshold for evidence than others may have, but if there is sufficient evidence to prove a paranormal ability then I, and others, would have no choice but to accept it and then come up with new scientific protocols to figure out how the ability works.

Remember, if anyone were to scientifically prove some form of paranormal ability, such as remote viewing, it would potentially lead to a Nobel Prize and some measure of fame and fortune, and who wouldn't want that?

The scientific method is always looking for ways to improve, or reject, previously held theories. If someone is able to prove something it may take some time, even many years, for that theory to be accepted, but eventually it will be. There are numerous examples of this throughout history.

-Derek

P.S. I was in the middle of posting my previous YouTube response when you were writing your response to me.

 

[derekcbart]

You're posting fucking Randi videos on here? Sorry, no go. It's gone.

dB

David, did you even look at it? It was a simple example of how things, in that particular instance horoscopes, that are descriptively vague can be interpreted to have special meaning when they do not actually have special meaning.

May I be allowed to provide a written description of the video if I cannot post the video?

-Derek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Thread not locked any more eh? I saw the vid you're talking about Derek long ago. I liked it. I really liked the end of the documentary, Randi's closing comments about how there might be psychic abilities. He mentions a student coming up to him making a point etc. Recall what I'm talking about? I think I posted some of that vid before actually. Not sure why David took issue with it. He might be having a bad day. I've had many of them myself.