Remote Viewing

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I'm not at all impressed by the verbal descriptions, but Gulliver's drawing is remarkable.

Gulliver, when you remote view something, do you actually see images in your mind? How does that work?

 

[jbrazel]

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!

Gulliver

Well Gulliver, if that's even your real name...this could easily be used to match a political cartoon of the Hindenburg with the words Nasdaq on it or perhaps a card (not a playing card!), so I for one, am not convinced.



Sorry, the edit button is in the same place as the reply. Not used to my moderating account. I altered nothing in this post. Um, at least I don't think I did.

No worries.--JB

 

[daz smith]

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

Derek,
please read my rv session.
Take each piece of data and mark it accordingly as I said with a 'Y' 'N' or a '?' if unsure - how many pieces of data are not correct about 2-3 - funnily how these are the only ones you want to focus upon.

Never mind the descriptions of a man made, constructed structure, moving downwards - maybe like a sinking ship?

Also the data of;

a memorial
engine block
pride, accomplishment shown
downwards movement (mentioned over and over)
The form of the structure and the downwards movement of it are combined in some way.
(The sketches from 150ft above that resemble the photos of the wreck site)
Page 10a (middle sketch) indicating a downwards movement into the land.

Are you seriously saying these are Vague?
Virtually ALL the data is both sessions match the target. You cant focus on what we didn't say as rvers are NOT meant to identify the target - that's the analysts job - we are reporters.

You guys have to remember that for us - this is just one of hundreds if not thousands of remote viewing targets. with a great match of data with the actual target on most - you asked for a yet another test and we did one

I'msorry but I feel you are beyond persuasion - nothing, however good will ever persuade you - your mind is already made up and not open.

all the best...

Daz

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Well Gulliver, if that's even your real name...this could easily be used to match a political cartoon of the Hindenburg with the words Nasdaq on it or perhaps a card (not a playing card!), so I for one, am not convinced.

Ok, this time I hit the right button

Nah, don't think it's his real name.

I didn't even know what Nasfart or whatever, meant when I selected the image. David got the joke, he was my third party I sent the image to. If he comes back, ask him. I even had to ask him what it meant lol. So anyway, the nasdaq stuff in the image I picked, was not to throw off anyone. I have had success with people "seeing" words, and I used it as a control. I thought if Gul was legit, he'd have a good chance of picking up on it. And he did state that a word was listed on a building. He picked up on a word, even though we discussed not to use them. One of the reasons I used it. Follow?. Hope that makes sense. So, yeah, I cheated. As a control. You can't just give in and do everything like the test subject says, or then it becomes suspect of trickery. However, that was just a trial test. I would indeed stick to what ever protocols etc. with anyone who jumps that first hurdle. And I swear that.

For newer people, this is "stillborn" btw.

 

[daz smith]

So, yeah, I cheated. As a control. You can't just give in and do everything like the test subject says, or then it becomes suspect of trickery.

LOL
Look its not cheating - we expressed the FACT - yes it is FACT, years of scientific research (you can actually read the science papers) shows that rving of numbers and words is hard, very hard - some think not possible at all.

Its not impossible or cheating to tell everyone upfront these type of things dont really work Rv wise. Some of you really need to read some of the published and readily available material if you want to participate in tests of these skills otherwise as you have clearly show with some of these comments your ignorance of the science and common sense just clouds your closed minds.

Its one of the reasons why I insisted form the start that the playing field be level for both sides- yet you clearly state you don't want it level you want to trick us.

Why - why is it so bad or wrong to be honest and play fair or does the truth really scare you that much?

daz

 

[Aaron LeClair]

LOL
Look its not cheating - we expressed the FACT - yes it is FACT, years of scientific research (you can actually read the science papers) shows that rving of numbers and words is hard, very hard - some think not possible at all.

Its not impossible or cheating to tell everyone upfront these type of things dont really work Rv wise. Some of you really need to read some of the published and readily available material if you want to participate in tests of these skills otherwise as you have clearly show with some of these comments your ignorance of the science and common sense just clouds your closed minds.

Its one of the reasons why I insisted form the start that the playing field be level for both sides- yet you clearly state you don't want it level you want to trick us.

Why - why is it so bad or wrong to be honest and play fair or does the truth really scare you that much?

daz

Daz, either I mis read the above, or you misread me. I was referring to myself cheating.... Not you. Please re-read my post you replied to again. Funny, only a few months of tests showed remote viewing what you say is hard isn't.

Your truth scares me, because you often see fault where there is none. This assumes, I'm not the idiot, which I may be.

No, I didn't want to trick you, you weren't even involved in my test. remember?. Gul made statements that I thought were potentially narrow. I have done experiments in which prove him wrong. Instead of typing spew, I thought I'd prove it to him. He picked up on a word, even though he thought he wouldn't. Mind you, you weren't involved in our conversation. Perhaps remote view it, and maybe it will make more sense. Instead of preaching to Gul, I wanted to demonstrate it through the test. I threw in a word. He picked up on it. If he didn't pick up on it, I wasn't going to hold it against him. I even told David this on the phone, and mentioned how there might be gripes about the image I selected.

I played fair. I did so by not being bias toward my experience, or the person I tested, but included them both with respect. I never tested you. If Gulliver has any gripes about me, he can say so. I won't even comment and let him have the last say.

I've read published papers before btw. Some of them end up false. Daz, you sound like Horn. He always refers to the past, and "scientific" papers. Just because you consider them scientific papers, don't mean they are accurate.

I'm more inclined to ask Gulliver for references than you btw. He's done better, been more intelligent, and hasn't misinterpreted things the way you have. there is a possibility that I am off base, and stupid. However, if I am not, I think the best thing for RV is for you to maybe not be it's spokesperson. If I am in the wrong, and you went over my head, and I'm just not getting it, I do apologize sincerely.

 

[daz smith]

Daz, either I mis read the above, or you misread me. I was referring to myself cheating.... Not you. Please re-read my post you replied to again. Funny, only a few months of tests showed remote viewing what you say is hard isn't.

Your truth scares me, because you often see fault where there is none. This assumes, I'm not the idiot, which I may be.

No, I didn't want to trick you, you weren't even involved dolt. Gul made statements that I thought were narrow. I have done experiments in which prove him wrong. Instead of typing spew, I thought I'd prove it to him. He picked up on a word, even though he thought he wouldn't. Mind you, you weren't involved in our conversation. Perhaps remote view it, and maybe it will make more sense. Instead of preaching to Gul, I wanted to demonstrate it through the test. I threw in a word. He picked up on it. If he didn't pick up on it, I wasn't going to hold it against him. I even told David this on the phone, and mentioned how there might be gripes about the image I selected.

I played fair. I did so by not being bias toward my experience, or the person I tested, but included them both with respect. I never tested you. If Gulliver has any gripes about me, he can say so. I won't even comment and let him have the last say.

I've read published papers before btw. Some of them end up false. Daz, you sound like Horn. He always refers to the past, and "scientific" papers. Just because you consider them scientific papers, don't mean they are accurate.

I'm more inclined to ask Gulliver for references than you btw. He's done better, been more intelligent, and hasn't misinterpreted things the way you have. there is a possibility that I am off base, and stupid. However, if I am not, I think the best thing for RV is for you to maybe not be it's spokesperson. If I am in the wrong, and you went over my head, and I'm just not getting it, I do apologize sincerely.

Dude,
lol...is the grown up response from you meant to start me off on a tirade just as childish?

Firstly in remote viewing the tasker and their thoughts and intent - are THE driving force for the remote viewing. (we call it tasker intent).
Which is why we had the tasker ot the Titanic target write his intent down - it matters. ANY funny/monkey business on your behalf as a tasker does influence the rv - its like quantum physics shows we are not observers but participants.

All I'm saying is - If you want Us/people to participate in tests and for us to respect your needs as much as we expect to be respected then behave, keep things level and fair otherwise its just rubbish and not good tests.

I never once claimed to be THE spokesperson for RV - and yes Gul may have done a little better on me on this target I have no problems with this, it means nothing.

As to science being wrong - yes you are right it happens - but in this case not yet - nearly everyone in the field of Rv has their problems with words and numbers and trust me ive spent more than enough time trying as have most.

daz

 

[kipspritely]

The image I chose for this test is at the bottom of this post.
The target description was:

Describe the ship in the picture, and any details surrounding it.

dB

David, just to clarify, the target description was NOT given to the RV people was it? Just the target number correct?

If the description was given then I see nothing remarkable here. If not... I am amazed.

Rudy

 

[David Biedny]

The only thing supplied was the number.

 

[kipspritely]

I am both stunned and amazed! Wow. Great Job everyone.

 

[dorkbot]

So, yeah, I cheated. As a control.

I wonder how good a control mechanism that would be considering that the Hindenburg also had rather large "Sign writing / words on front".

They spelled H I N D E N B U R G.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I wonder how good a control mechanism that would be considering that the Hindenburg also had rather large "Sign writing / words on front".

They spelled H I N D E N B U R G.

Yeah, that's one reason why I thought it would be forgivable. Trust me, any image with a person in it as an example, has writing on it. Or at least within it. Underwear tags etc The control was just to add a new dimension to a parameter that was set. Actually the control was the discussion we had, the word was a test for me to see if he'd pick up on it. Or at least that is why I left it in after it occurred to me that it might be problematic. The initial question I ask was if we could use words, meaning JUST a word. Sorry, about any confusion. I considered scrapping the image, and using another one, but I had already sent off my e-mail to Gulliver. I thought there might be some interference with doing another image, so I just kinda held my breath and hoped for the best. I shouldn't have used the word "cheated" earlier. That was a poor choice of words on my part.

Have had a bad headache today and tonight and been real tired. Sorry bout any possible confusion or brain farts today on my part.

 

[dorkbot]

I'm glad this thread is no longer locked as I thought there was some promise in this discussion but I was hoping we could kind of skip past the invalid skeptical criticisms of the 19th century and look at where the debate is actually at today.

While I'm generally loathe to refer to wikipedia as a reference on something like parapsychology it was an easy source for a couple of relevant quotes:

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28-29 [emphasis mine]

"Psychologist Ray Hyman says that, even if the results were reproduced under specified conditions, they would still not be a conclusive demonstration of the existence of psychic functioning. He blames this on the reliance on a negative outcome -- the claims on ESP are based on the results of experiments not being explained by normal means. He says that the experiments lack a positive theory that guides as to what to control on them and what to ignore, and that "Parapsychologists have not come close to (having a positive theory) as yet". [emphasis mine]

First we have a CSI fellow agreeing that remote viewing is proven by the standards of any other area of science but that because the implications are so vast we need a higher standard of evidence than that of normal science.

Next we have a person who close observers of the RV saga would likely agree is one of the best informed and most actively involved in the debate (especially so considering he was directly involved in the CIA's review of the Stargate program) stating that even if the results are produced on-demand under specified conditions that this would still not prove psi. Please correct me if I'm wrong but Hyman is CSI's heavy hitter when it comes to RV.

My reading of a good deal of the literature strongly suggests that Hyman's, as well as many other detractor's sweeping generalizations of psi research as being low in both quantity and quality are largely unfounded although one can certainly find excellent examples of such as in any other branch of science.

What may surprise you is that I actually agree somewhat with a couple of the arguments raised here by Wiseman and Hyman.

RV experiments seem to show violation of cause and effect and don't seem to respect time. They directly challenge a whole hell of a lot of what we already believe about how things work as demonstrated by centuries of reproducible on-demand scientific experimentation. I think it is entirely appropriate to demand extra levels of care and precision when we are contemplating reworking our knowledge of the universe. What is not appropriate in my view is to deny the results of the experiments, claim, suggest, imply, but not demonstrate fraud and generally bury one's head in the sand as to the growing body of evidence that shows the effects are there and are reproducible. A truly skeptical view in my opinion would acknowledge that there are indeed effects observed and reproduced that are not yet explained by normal means but that this in and of itself does not demonstrate psi as the term is popularly defined.

I also take the point that there is no proven, accepted theory that explains what is going on, how it works and can precisely predict outcomes. Such a theory would be necessary for a Nobel Prize if I'm not mistaken. I believe the claim that psi research lacks positive theories to be a false one although it is true that there is no single accepted and proven positive theory. Applicants for Apprentice RV Skeptic should familiarize themselves with the following:

1. Evan Harris Walker's Quantum Mechanical Theory (Quantum Observer)
2. Rex Stanford's Conformance Behavior Model
3. William G. Braud's Lability and Inertia

What I object to here is that the repeatedly proffered skeptical viewpoint seems to present us with a false dichotomy of either the psi research data is all fraud and garbage OR we have to discard everything we've learned through science up until now. This, on the face of it, strikes me as ridiculous. The psi data seem to be solid in general. Our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. At some point we are going to have to figure out how all of this paradoxical psi data can coexist with what we've already learned through science. There is no requirement to toss one or the other away immediately.

 

[Gareth]

lol This is quite the controversial thread.

Something new every day

So is there going to be another target? I hope Daz/Gulliver havent had enough.

 

[Ralph]

...
RV experiments seem to show violation of cause and effect and don't seem to respect time. They directly challenge a whole hell of a lot of what we already believe about how things work as demonstrated by centuries of reproducible on-demand scientific experimentation.

That is exactly how I saw it when I first came across this topic. However, as I have read more about the history of science, there has always been fringe areas of experience - phenomena that science has not yet invested in understanding - whether it be alchemy, astrology, herbology, mesmerism or so on. Generally it is the easily reproducible phenomena that are investigated first. It is the phenomena that are not easily reproducable (eg ball lightening and cold fusion, which now seems to be gaining some solid evidence ) that science struggles with. The social sciences, and in particular, parapsychology are such areas, where the inconsistency in reproducibility are part of the nature of the phenomena meaning statistics are a key tool in understanding such events.

I think it is entirely appropriate to demand extra levels of care and precision when we are contemplating reworking our knowledge of the universe.

I struggle with this statement. I understand your intention and it sounds fine, but does that mean it is ok to be a bit sloppy with our ordinary science?
Science works by refuting or confirming existing ideas and paradigms. Seems to be that one piece of science requires as much care as any other piece of science. I think there is only one gold standard for any science - can it be reproduced or not - this dictates whether we regard it to be true or not. In many ways, science provides the extra scrutiny through multiple reproductions of very important findings. The best theory to explain Remote Viewing will be one that does not require the re-writing of our knowledge of the universe, but extends it, and explains it in new ways (like Einsteinian General Relativity re-interpreted and expanded the still very functional Newtonian Gravity).

What is not appropriate in my view is to deny the results of the experiments, claim, suggest, imply, but not demonstrate fraud and generally bury one's head in the sand as to the growing body of evidence that shows the effects are there and are reproducible. A truly skeptical view in my opinion would acknowledge that there are indeed effects observed and reproduced that are not yet explained by normal means but that this in and of itself does not demonstrate psi as the term is popularly defined.

Absolutely. Totally agree. I intensely dislike it when people refer to Remote Viewing as psychic. It just pollutes the whole situation - like referring to Astronomy as Astrology - astronomers to do not take to that kindly. Remote Viewing refers to a specific protocol, with particular expected results. There is no woo-woo (magic spells, spirit guides, angels, etc.) , anyone can do it if you follow the protocol, and the results need to be analyzed statistically.

I also take the point that there is no proven, accepted theory that explains what is going on, how it works and can precisely predict outcomes. Such a theory would be necessary for a Nobel Prize if I'm not mistaken. I believe the claim that psi research lacks positive theories to be a false one although it is true that there is no single accepted and proven positive theory.
Applicants for Apprentice RV Skeptic should familiarize themselves with the following:

1. Evan Harris Walker's Quantum Mechanical Theory (Quantum Observer)
2. Rex Stanford's Conformance Behavior Model
3. William G. Braud's Lability and Inertia

Once again, this follows a common historical science pattern. Once the phenomena can be reproduced and measured, the theories start. It is informative to read the history of theories of magnetism and electricity. We probably haven't thought of the theory that explains the "mystical" behavior of RV. However, I do like Dean Radin's proposal in "Entangled Minds" (sounds like Evan Rex Walker's theory you quote). It is through the scientific investigation of things that don't fit that major scientific paradigm shifts occur. I think this area probably has a Nobel Prize in it.

 

[Teresa]

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.

Hello Everyone,

Daz' interview on Paracast was posted on the International Remote Viewer's Association (IRVA) egroup and several of us were able to catch it. I'm impressed by it and this thread too; intelligent dialogue and good Q & A going on.

I joined here because E.T. asked for feedback and I think he / she deserves to know he remote viewed this target and had great site contact. E.T nailed something Joe McMoneagle taught us at the Rhine Research Center last summer. As a student of Lyn Buchanan and CRV, or controlled remote viewing, we don't try to get impressions of targets before we start our session. We get coordinates and follow a set structure. However, that day at the Rhine Joe asked us to close our eyes and see if we could get a mental impression(s) of the target and write them down before he pulled the feedback picture out of a manila envelope.

That is exactly what E.T. did. He / she "landed" in a dining room on the Titanic and began to get impressions about the target. If he were "in session" he would be describing what he saw: sketches and words describing the objects and the feelings of the people present. He could then cue himself with move commands and begin to describe any part of the target of his choosing.

The sessions logged in for the Multiple Universe Project at The Farsight Institute are examples of exactly what E.T. did. This project is ongoing and will last several months. March results are in and you can see several different viewer sessions from Lyn Buchanan's CRV group (Controlled Remote Viewers) and Glenn Wheaton's HRVG group (Hawaii Remote Viewers).

These viewers worked their targets blind during the month of March and sent them in for encryption before the end of the month. Then the entire month of April passed, and on May 1st the target was chosen at random and the viewers were given their feedback. The only criteria for the target selection was that it had to be an event that made it into the news. So of all the events that could have made it into the news during the month of April, check the target feedback and see how many viewers nailed aspects of a target they worked a month ahead of time (March) and more importantly, had not happened yet. The sessions for April have been downloaded and encrypted; on June 1st the target for those April sessions will be chosen from an news event that will occur in May.

February sessions done & encrypted > March passes > April 1st target for February chosen from news event in March

March sessions done & encrypted > April passes > May 1st target chosen for March from news event in April

April sessions done & encrypted > May passes > June 1st target chosen for April from news event in May


Tasking and analysis are tricky in remote viewing too. This is why the descriptions written down during a session are so important. The less information (pollution) during tasking given to the viewer the better.

Judging and analysis are not the same thing.

Example: the viewer describes a "cupboard" but the tasker / analyst wants to know about a "cabinet." If that person is unfamiliar and unqualified to analyze how information is communicated from the subconscious to the conscious mind during remote viewing and 1/ the viewer doesn't say "cabinet" or 2/ the tasker / analyst expects "cabinet" to be imbedded in the session somewhere and it doesn't happen, then in their opinion, that's grounds for throwing out the session.

An analyst of a remote viewing session will understand that the physical descriptions of the cupboard / cabinet are the same. That is the information they are looking for, not identifying words. The job of the viewer is to describe, not identify. Get a perception, write it down and repeat. Period.

That was pretty lengthy post, but E.T. nailed this target and he / she deserves to know. Nice work!

Hope this helps,
Teresa

 

[Gareth]

I think youll have a hard time convincing people of that.

But personally, I think its kind of interesting (E.T.s "remote view" of an empty dining room).

 

[Teresa]

I was looking to see if any description of the actual event of the sinking of the Titanic would surface, and remember, NO ONE saw this target description beforehand. Perhaps I'm still not totally clear on the parameters of how this all works, I was originally just going to have the target description be the name of the ship, but I didn't think that was enough. Remember, this image could be absolutely anything. The description supplied by Gulliver is pretty darned good, IMO.

dB

Hi David,

To clarify, perhaps only for me trying to read the entire thread, your tasking was with the feedback photo ("Describe the ship in the picture, and any details surrounding it"). The viewers were not given any extra information (pollution or frontloading), only coordinates so they worked their sessions blind.

Neutral crv wording for tasking would not include the word "ship." It would be "The target is an event. Describe the event."

See below, from Lyn Buchanan's Terminology definitions at www.crviewer.com:

Hope this helps,
Teresa


<TABLE width="100%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD class=style4 align=middle>Neutral Wording

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=style2 style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">

"The actual wording of the tasking may have emotional, political, or other overtones which would lead the Viewer to erroneous perceptions. The process of re-wording tasking correctly is a much harder job than was originally thought. The project personnel must work together to make certain that all wording used in the CRV session is "neutral" of such overtones and hidden burdens for the viewer. ​

Examples:

Loaded: "criminal" Neutral: "person"
Loaded: "stripper" Neutral: "person"
Loaded: "child" Neutral: "person"
Loaded: "car wreck" Neutral: "event"
Loaded: "search & rescue" Neutral: "activity" ​

​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​

 

[Teresa]

I think youll have a hard time convincing people of that.

But personally, I think its kind of interesting (E.T.s "remote view" of an empty dining room).

Hi Gareth,

I'm not sure what the "that" is that I'm going to have a hard time convincing people of, but no matter. We're all on the Montessori program and in charge of doing our own investigative homework; that is the reason I posted the explanations of terminology and the sessions for review at Farsight. Anybody who wants to take the time to look has plenty of intro information to peruse.

E.T.'s "remote view of the dining room" is more than interesting, for him it could be a lightbulb. My explaining it to him may give him a new frame of reference for a new experience, something he'd never done before (or knew what it was if it's something he does naturally).

He noticed, and that's the key thing. Now his subconscious mind will know that he noticed and is aware that the information it sent through to his conscious mind is valid and respected, so it will do it again. He "got it." Now he's building the language of communication between the two and that's the way it works. That, and practice, practice, practice.

Hope this helps,
Teresa

 

[Gareth]

I meant I think youll have a hard time convincing people that E.T. actually RVd a dining room in the Titanic.