Remote Viewing

[daz smith]

Its an interesting start, but its also prediction and lab studies have already shown that predictive remote viewing is also very prone to inaccuracy - the military remote viewers over a period of months on a project called 'project P' doing exactly this - reading the lead article on newspapers - only archived an 18% accuracy.

I really do understand where you guys are coming form - you want proof of the claims of remote viewing. Im just a little concerned that I don't want to do research that's already been done and proved before in labs and is all documented.

See here for ALL of SRI's key documentation (released) in one file:Stargate - Remote viewing history - military
Plus much more material.

Plus I am already participating in a public study doing exactly this for others:
The Farsight Institute | Public Demonstration of Remote Viewing

You can download my rv amongst other remote viewers and keep and eye on protocol and accuracy during the life of the study - so this is already being done.

daz

 

[RedCairo]

Well, the viewers in question are the ones who as a final say should agree to the tasking protocol chosen, so their words mean more than mine here. I think a weekly NYT-Future project, totally separate from this thread/issues/people, might be a fun thing for a forum like this.

I like the idea. It does bring in the precognitive element; I have no issue with that. Me and some viewers I know do practice by viewing, THEN going out and using some target provider website to randomly generate a target. So the viewing is precog even to the existence of the task. But of course that's a tiny precog based on one person and about an hour.

That is how the lab viewing is done for some years; airtight protocol... no chance of fraud/error/info-transfer in those cases. (The accuracy% does not change, as trivia; in fact over the last 30 years as RV science has gotten ever-more tightly controlled, the results have if anything slightly improved.)

But a lot of viewers do mind precog, especially in situations where "probabilities" seem more numerous/chaotic than others. For example, viewing what some person would choose from google images in a week might have less inherent probability than viewing the NYT only because "the events of the world" it features may be something determined by the probabilities of billions of people on a larger scale than than the probabilities of one person.

Nobody knows what's real or worth considering in this regard, of course; nobody knows what really 'matters' to future viewing; only that in some instances the precog element seems to add a complication of some kind--this might be related to human belief system issues (in other words, a psychological artifact which restricts results but which might apply less to other viewers), or it could be some physics issue we know nothing of yet (which probably sums up most of "psi" -- a warehouse-word that merely describes 'info acquisition from a source/means we don't understand' - the moment we understand a new way of acquiring info, that gets its own name, and RV protocol updates to exclude that from the process. Eventually there might be nothing left to call 'psi' because science will have figured it out).

Since it looks like the viewer isn't so hot on precog (I have lost track of *who* is viewing here I admit, and am too rushed to reread three threads looking as I must get to the work here) maybe the NYT thing could be done as a separate thread/project. I think that would be a lot of fun. Put it up as psychic -- so the disinfo about RV doesn't dissuade a bunch of people who erroneously think they can't play if they didn't pay some government agents thousands for 'training' -- and make it for all, is my suggestion.

RC

 

[Gen]

But again, why so much emphasis on the tests and so little discussion of the scientific and other literature that demonstrates the reality of RV? That RV works has been demonstrated, over and over again.

That's where I'm at, too. There's as much evidence for the existence of RV/psychic abilities as there is for the UFO phenomenon.

To me, the interesting questions are more like what are the implications of these abilities? What are the possibilities? How could psychic phenomena be connected to the other stuff that comes up on the show -- UFOs, ghosts, et c?

 

[RedCairo]

I agree with the above. The only way to 'truly' test remote viewing is in a science lab under controlled conditions with multiple viewers and many other elements. That has been done, ad nauseum, for the last 30 years. Anybody genuinely interested in the legitimacy of remote viewing ought to start there. Everything else is "jes' people talkin'" as they say. 'Testing RV' with laymen speaks only to that individual person, for that individual target, on that individual session.

OK now I'm really running late lol

RC

 

[Ralph]

1 contains a number
1 contains a word

I suspect you have provided too much information about these (apart from
them being the hardest things to view), and he is no longer completely blind to the targets.

 

[thegreenman]

What types of "subjects" are appropriate for remote viewing? Inanimate Objects? 3d or 2d? Places? People? Animals? Of what size? Is larger better?

If RV is as limited as was mentioned by DAZ and others, I'm not surprised the project was dropped by the government as it appears to be relatively useless for military applications. I was thinking it could be useful to corroborate information gained from spies or captives, but the field applications would be so limited it would not be cost effective or productive.

 

[daz smith]

There a case in which a remote viewer helped police?

i posted this earlier on another thread.
Its feedback for a Police chief as to our help with a missing person case.
I have excluded some contact details to stop him getting silly emails and stuff.

Daz

From: RXXXXX XXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:59 PM
To: XXXX
Subject:

XXXXX;

Thank you for all your help with our missing person in the City of XXXX, XXXXX. Our victim Mr. XXXX XXXX was found about an eight of a mile from his home. He was found floating in the XXXXX River within 100 feet of one of the GPS readings your team provided.
The river had been searched a couple of times by boat and scanner with no results the day prior to the body coming to the surface. Part of the information we concentrated on was the area around a submerged tree as predicted by one of your Team members. I have shared your Team efforts with Deputies, Firemen and Medical persons who assisted in the three month long search. Again THNK YOU ... THANKS TO THE TEAM !!!!
The Family now has closure!

Respectfully:

RXXXX X XXXXXXX
Police Chief
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXX, XXXXX

 

[daz smith]

If RV is as limited as was mentioned by DAZ and others, I'm not surprised the project was dropped by the government as it appears to be relatively useless for military applications. I was thinking it could be useful to corroborate information gained from spies or captives, but the field applications would be so limited it would not be cost effective or productive

Dude,
EVERY intel method has its problems. Its why intel i based on more than one source of information. This holds the same for remote viewing.

What's not cost effective?
in paying a person for 2 hrs work to sit down with a stack of white paper and a pen - against the other spying / intel methods.

The cost of running a remote viewer against a possible target would probably be $1-300, to do the same with say an unmanned arial probe over say Iran looking at a missile site would possibly cost thousands to tens of thousands.

We have never said remote viewing is the Bomb! Its the magic key to everything! It does have its weaknesses, primarily things that dont exist like words and numbers.

for example:
Lest say that you pick the number 1 as the target you want the remote viewer to describe. Bearing in mind the remote viewer when they report/write their data/impression, they report things like sensory data, then we have;

What would the number 1 smell like?
What is the dimensions of a number 1?
What does a number 1 feel like when you touch it?
What does it taste of?
What sounds do I hear coming form the number 1?
If I moved above the number 1 what would it look like?

I don't think any of these have an answer.
You see the problems - numbers and words don't have physical sensory data that a remote viewer can record - hence are hard to do.

Anything physical: people, locations, objects, structures, events are better targets if they have proper feedback to gauge accuracy.

daz

 

[Gen]

My other issue is this: There seems to be widespread interest in and acceptance of remote viewing here because it comes dressed in scientific clothing. But fundamentally -- it is clairvoyance. Old-fashioned psychics have had similar successes and limitations. We're talking about the same ability here.

And that ability has been around for thousands of years, used in traditional cultures and modern ones. The idea that with RV we have suddenly figured out how to do it "right" because RV better lends itself to scientific testing strikes me as an arrogant point of view.

John Keel and Jacques Vallee found it worthwhile to focus on traditional modalities. Why are they dismissed out of hand here?

 

[thegreenman]

Dude,
EVERY intel method has its problems. Its why intel i based on more than one source of information. This holds the same for remote viewing.

What's not cost effective?
in paying a person for 2 hrs work to sit down with a stack of white paper and a pen - against the other spying / intel methods.

The cost of running a remote viewer against a possible target would probably be $1-300, to do the same with say an unmanned arial probe over say Iran looking at a missile site would possibly cost thousands to tens of thousands.

We have never said remote viewing is the Bomb! Its the magic key to everything! It does have its weaknesses, primarily things that dont exist like words and numbers.


daz

Daz, I think you misunderstand my point. In a Military application, the remote viewing operation would need a budget, oversight, staff, command structure, a base of operations, housing, food, etc... These people would need high level clearances. They would be military personnell. There would not be freelance operators who are called in for special assignments.

I did not mean to imply that RV, if it works, would be worthless in general, just IMO it would not be worthwhile in a military context.

 

[David Biedny]

My other issue is this: There seems to be widespread interest in and acceptance of remote viewing here because it comes dressed in scientific clothing. But fundamentally -- it is clairvoyance. Old-fashioned psychics have had similar successes and limitations. We're talking about the same ability here.

And that ability has been around for thousands of years, used in traditional cultures and modern ones. The idea that with RV we have suddenly figured out how to do it "right" because RV better lends itself to scientific testing strikes me as an arrogant point of view.

John Keel and Jacques Vallee found it worthwhile to focus on traditional modalities. Why are they dismissed out of hand here?

Really? I don't get the sense that there's "widespread acceptance" of remote viewing here, with the exception of those new users who seemed to have signed up to join this thread. Meanwhile, Gen, I certainly agree that RV, to my understanding, seems to primarily be a form of clairvoyance, as you've stated.

dB

 

[daz smith]

Really? I don't get the sense that there's "widespread acceptance" of remote viewing here, with the exception of those new users who seemed to have signed up to join this thread. Meanwhile, Gen, I certainly agree that RV, to my understanding, seems to primarily be a form of clairvoyance, as you've stated.

dB

I agree its not very accepted - although the mountains of scientific evidence does prove an affect.

But yes it is like clairvoyance on steroids and the remote viewer is in control, and has access to data and impressions from every sense - all done blind, hence the data can be analysed for accuracy, but it does have a base similarity to clairvoyance.

Remote viewing is different mainly in the protocols:

1. the experiment or task is planned not spontaneous

2. the task is done at least blind but preferably double blind
(It means the psychic cannot know the target, AND, nobody else who is present with the psychic during the session (even by remote means such as webcam or phone) can know the target either.)

3. the task has to have feedback to guage accuracy.

See here for a more indepth explaination.
Ten Thousand Roads Remote Viewing and Dowsing Project aka TKR tenthousandroads.com HOME PAGE for Remote Viewers, Psychics, and those who would like to be

daz

 

[KRG]

My other issue is this: There seems to be widespread interest in and acceptance of remote viewing here because it comes dressed in scientific clothing. But fundamentally -- it is clairvoyance. Old-fashioned psychics have had similar successes and limitations. We're talking about the same ability here.

And that ability has been around for thousands of years, used in traditional cultures and modern ones. The idea that with RV we have suddenly figured out how to do it "right" because RV better lends itself to scientific testing strikes me as an arrogant point of view.

John Keel and Jacques Vallee found it worthwhile to focus on traditional modalities. Why are they dismissed out of hand here?

I haven't read that anyone familiar with remote viewing is dismissing Jacques Vallee (or John Keel). Vallee after all was involved in remote viewing research.


http://www.mysterious-america.net/jacquesvalleeint.html

Agreed that RV is a part of the psi spectrum, and psi ability has been around a very long time. But unless one wants to put down scientific testing, isn't it better to have psi phenomena tested - scientifically? And see what can be learned about RV (and perhaps all psi phenomena) from such testing. I don't see what's arrogant about that. But science isn't the be-all and end-all. When you do practical applications with RV, you can't and don't do them as sci experiments. But that's the real potential of RV - to assist in finding out useful information you otherwise would have a great deal of difficulty finding out or might never find out - missing people (e.g. Joe McMoneagle's work with Japanese TV and the Find Me group already mentioned), archaeology (see Stephan Schwartz's work at several sites), in the military, various targets of interest (see the Stargate collection), and on other subjects. Note that in all these, RV is not a stand-alone capability. It is used in connection with other modalities.

In re: another post, RV was used by U.S. intelligence agencies for c. 20 years at considerable expense and with yearly funding difficulties precisely because it was useful in a military context - getting information about people, places, things and events. (That's documented in the many CIA-released files on Daz's web site and in other places.)

KRG

 

[derekcbart]

Hi there.

Just so you understand, when the IIG tests someone we do not care about their theories of how something works, or previous articles that say that it works, we just want to see IF it works. So, it doesn't matter if there are mountains of prior evidence. Can a person do what they claim they can do or not?

I provided Jim Underdown's address because it should not matter to the remote viewer. It is not providing too much information. It is eliminating useless information. All we want to know is what is in the office. This is what remote viewing is supposed to be useful at. It is supposed to be able to observe locations in a clandestine manner and provide actionable intelligence about those locations. The main reason that the government stopped researching it is that after several years of trying no one was able to provide any useful or actionable intelligence on a situation.

If you think that I provided too much information about Jim Underdown's location then try to find me. Only a couple of people on this forum know where I live and none of them have been to my home or my work office. Find me and describe in detail where I am, what I am doing, and what objects are in my location. This is what successful remote viewing is supposed to be able to do.

I don't care about your theories as to how remote viewing works or the previous studies. Can you do it? Today is Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 9AM Pacific Time. I will give you until Saturday, May 2, 2009 at 9AM Pacific Time. You can post your results here and I will not reply to this thread again until after 9AM on Saturday and then I will say if anyone was correct.

If you think this is too much pressure or is unfair in its time constraints then you will see why the government determined it to be useless in providing actionable intelligence. The spy game is full of pressure and time constraints. If you can do what you say that you can do then no amount of pressure or timeline constraints should matter.

-Derek

 

[KRG]

Derekcbart wrote:

Just so you understand, when the IIG tests someone we do not care about their theories of how something works, or previous articles that say that it works, we just want to see IF it works. So, it doesn't matter if there are mountains of prior evidence. Can a person do what they claim they can do or not?

I am not familiar with the work IIG - I will read some of your links. We know that two remote viewers have already offered to do a test here and as I understand it, those tests are under discussion. As I've said before, let them proceed and let's see the results.

By proposing a test laid out by yourself under those conditions, you have frontloaded any of us reading this who might be potential viewers. (You have indicated the nature of the objective, rather specifically.) This is a no-no in RV. In the practical arena, which you refer to, the military viewers were - generally - not told anything about the objective, only given various "tags" or other "coordinates". However, since they were working in a particular context, they say they sometimes had an inkling of what the objective of the day might be. If their information had not proved useful, the project would not have continued for 20 years at a cost of $20 million. (In the lab, the viewer knows nothing about the objective.)

If you think this is too much pressure or is unfair in its time constraints then you will see why the government determined it to be useless in providing actionable intelligence. The spy game is full of pressure and time constraints. If you can do what you say that you can do then no amount of pressure or timeline constraints should matter.

See the above comments. They did work under time constraints and at times produced useful information.

Also, as to theories about how it works, and your not caring about them, those posting here have said we don't know how it works. But since it works, it would be very useful to find out why and could lead to further extensions of the capability, further reliability and accuracy.

KRG

 

[Brian Now]

Does anyone else get the feeling this whole thing is about to derail?

 

[RedCairo]

Re: cost: When the viewing in the military intelligence unit was good, it was more than cost-effective; they had more paying taskers than they had viewers to handle it, for years. When the viewing ceased to be very good, it ceased to be cost-effective.

Re: psi: Remote Viewing is the combination of psychic functioning (an art) and a science-based protocol (science). If there is no science, it is not RV, it is just psychic. If there is no psi, obviously it is not RV, it is just science. The sense of legitimacy that RV gained for itself in the past via both intelligence and research was based on that unique combination.

Most of what has been presented and taught to the public is just the psi. Which is not too different than what humans have had since the dawn of time. Except that in some cases, at least, a good deal of ritual and cloying belief systems are gone, and the process is done with a bit more of a logical approach. Depends on the person.

There is nothing wrong with psychic work. The reason I am interested in remote viewing -- apart from having been a medical-model skeptic at one point, so probably I would not have been able to accept it enough to truly learn and practice it, were it not for the science and historical-intell element -- is because the science-based protocol prevents fraud, delusion, and an endless list of potential error (in process).

It does not make it accurate; RV's science-based protocol is not about psi, it is about "preventing everything that is NOT psi from polluting the process."

At least, everything external to the viewer. The psi part is still an art and still subject to the same issues traditional psi is in that respect (symbolism, representationalism, mistranslation, miscommunication, misacquired target, analytical assumptions (and filters and distortions and...), emotional filters, aesthetic influences, and that doesn't even start on the endless list of things that can impinge on results based on non-viewer issues that are more subtle points of protocol related to target selection, tasking, feedback, interdependency of teams or tasker/viewers, and so on.

Back to the first point: the appropriate use of remote viewing, like any other form of intelligence gathering, is in concert with other sources of information. And, like any tool, you aim it toward what you can fairly well do with it. That is simply a matter of creative management.

I might add that there seems to be some assumption here that what we are suggesting would be an appropriate single-test public-demo on a layman's-forum for remote viewing, somehow constitutes the entirety of what remote viewing at large can do. This would not be accurate. Different viewers have different strengths, just like musicians or athletes or any other skill, and in an intell context viewers may train specifically to a certain kind of tasking(s). Also, the double-blind protocol ensures lack of information transfer, which helps vastly with evaluation of data afterward, so while it may be only 'occasional' that one gets highly specific and/or abstracted information, a good tasker is able to re-task (just assign it in a new number and drop it back into the tasking qeue for that viewer) several times until they get the kind of information they wanted. This however is a different situation than a one-off 'demo' on the internet. So, what is "appropriate" for a test/demo on the internet, should not be construed to constitute what is "possible" for a long term, developed viewer team.

RC

 

[RedCairo]

What I observe above is a repeated attempt to
(a) test a viewer against something they did not claim in the first place -- and repeatedly trying to shift from what they did claim/suggest, to something they did not,
(b) tie the assumed legitimacy of an entire art and branch of science to that single individual's performance [on, see A], and
(c) to then imply that everything in history was obviously useless if this doesn't happen to their satisfaction.

In addition to the psychological issues which makes such personality profiles unlikely to gain any benefit from any demonstration whatever, there is also the minor point -- apparently missed by a mile in the re-interpretation of remote viewing -- that 'remote viewing' is NOT 'remote camera' or 'remote control'.

When one insists on re-interpreting every comment about it as if people are claiming for it some "nearly omniscient!" status, then of course it seems difficult to believe from that perspective; heck that's difficult even for viewers to believe is going to be possible 'on demand'.

Also, anybody with even a shred of interest in scientific legitimacy would not be judging anything -- let alone a fairly massive recent history in science and intell with this subject -- based on what "someone on the internet did". That's into 'scoffer, not skeptic' territory. I'd be happy to converse more about the former program from what little I've learned about it in the last 13 years of effort to do so, but that would be a wholly separate subject from what your die-hard viewer(s) here are doing.

Far as I know there are already two trials people have agreed to and are just working out the tasking protocol for. Why the repeat "do this test" from a third angle (I believe that was the same one that as an amazing coincidence began with every thing known to be worst in RV, and after the viewer had already made this clear). Let the viewers do what they've agreed to do, whenever that tasking protocol is resolved. After that if you still want to rig tests carefully to your interpretation of remote viewing's scope and applications, you could surely offer that in a new thread.

RC

 

[thegreenman]

Here is my solution:

1. David should pick four images of subject locations which he is familiar with and has personal photos of (from vacations, etc...) The images should have strong visual attributes and should be of actual physical places.
2. He should zip and strong-encrypt those images and send them to Gene who will assign numerical values to each file.
3. Gene will then select one file number at random to post to the Forum for DAZ, RC, and others to RV. Gene will also send copies of the file/number to three other Forum Members for independent corroboration.
4. We give the RVers a few weeks to perform their viewings, then post the results.
5. David gives out the encryption key for the subject images and the image holders post their images for verification.

Surely this will meet the needs of The Paracast Community. It won't be irrefutable proof, but I should suffice for us. I'd trust David and Gene to handle this completely.

 

[RedCairo]

That would be a good protocol, as long as the skeptics trust the people who have the images. (And of course as long as your viewers agree.)

(By the way, the two viewers are daz and someone else, not me. I came here for discussion at a reference from the TKR Remote Viewing Forum.)

RC