Remote Viewing

[dorkbot]

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.

Out of curiosity, were they trying to read the lead articles or view the cover images? I can see where reading an article would be very difficult. Describing the gist of an engaging cover photo, while still predictive, seems somewhat less difficult. Convincingly describing one cover photo out of seven would be 14% accuracy.

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.

It strikes me that reproducing lab proven work in a public manner might actually be the most appropriate thing to do in this particular case. I wouldn't be trying to explore new territory here. I would agree that if you want "proof" of RV you would have to be willing to review a really massive amount of material over the course of months. Even a convincing demonstration here will not be "proof", it will just be a demonstration. Proof would be tens of thousands of double or triple-blinded carefully controlled experiments but you have to spend time reviewing the literature to see those and you have to trust that the parties involved were honest, careful and accurate.

The cover photo test, or something like it is the only way I can think of that permits this scenario of a public demonstration over the net to an audience comprised of people with mixed scientific and technical ability to be truly blind. If you were to use one of the sites that randomly presents an image, most people are not going to have the technical ability to verify that the mechanics of it are clean.

The only other type of demonstration that seems appropriate for the net is what thegreenman suggested but it does involve human trust. I would just add that the encrypted files should be signed and the signatures made available in advance to everyone on the board. The only trust point involved would be that Biedny doesn't tell the RVers of the contents.

I would agree that derekcbart's challenge to find him is not in line with my understanding of proper RV protocol. I believe a better approach for a task like this would be something like derekcbart providing a photograph of distinctive objects placed upon his mantle to a third party and then the third party providing the RVers with a blind coordinate to represent the location in the photo.

I'm curious if anyone can suggest another mechanism for producing a random yet appropriate image that is elegantly easy to verify to this audience as being truly blind? A convincing public demonstration must be one where all parties, hostile, sympathetic and neutral, agree in advance to the method and as to what constitutes success.

 

[dorkbot]

Oh, one other question. Do you guys use Faraday cages and a sidereal clock? If so, I'd be interested in any comments of experience with such.

 

[Robabbott]

I believe that Daz is a credible person. he has done his homework and has a good understanding that Remote Viewing is a protocol or method to organize information. With the work that Ed Mays (former program head for Star Gate), Dean Radin, James Spottieswood, prof. Jessica Utts and a dozen or so other researchers have done, it is clear that the evidence is mounting that there are capabilities that exist that are part of the psychic nature of humans. As more research and information is compiled, more will be known. Remote Viewing is simply a method of organizing and reporting the information is a descriptive means. Perhaps what is flawed is not a general belief of what may well be possible for everyone. But, in that some may look and be surprized to find that they only see what they decided to look for to begin with. Such is the basis of self deception, instead of self exploration.

It is not what we know that is important. It's what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know.

 

[daz smith]

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.

That's starting to sound more like a fair/level playing field.

daz

 

[daz smith]

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.

You see that's the problem - you want to ignore nearly 30 years of research from credible scientist, and you also want to ignore the fact that I've done this over and over double blind or so and more in public and you want a personal showing just for you - why - do you really believe that every other person involved in RV and its research is deluded?

Can a person do what they claim they can do or not?

Yep, the evidence is there, on my site, on others sites and being done as we speak in public RV demonstrations like this one:
The Farsight Institute | Global Climate Change RV Study

you can download and view my rv session and the feedback for the first target here:
The Farsight Institute | Global Climate Change RV Study
It will please you to know that I actually didn't do too well on this target ( but it is predictive) why not come back each month and see the new targets and examples there are plenty there and the projects going toi last approx ten months to a year.

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]

Derek, no offence but you sound over aggressive in your comments, almost foaming at the mouth in an attempt to disprove.
I'm afraid I'm NOT a SPY and NOT in the spy game.

If the playing field is fair and level I will play the game - if not I wont.

daz

 

[David Biedny]

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.

I think those parameters are entirely reasonable, and would be willing to work with them. While I would have liked to make Derek a part of this process, it looks like his organization is a bit inflexible in their policies, as their primary goal is to debunk at any cost. Derek did not create this policy, so it's not his fault, but The Paracast is willing to work with those interested in getting to the bottom of this situation.

dB

 

[RedCairo]

Oh, one other question. Do you guys use Faraday cages and a sidereal clock? If so, I'd be interested in any comments of experience with such.

Faraday: a lot of research related to this. No diff. However psi info might be transferring, EM shielding has no effect on it whatever.

LST: I've tried viewing with a chart of that for my location in mind (had to make it manually from the Navy's clocks). So far, in all honesty, I have not seen any real difference either way. I don't know whether others do or not. Most viewers are not going to be getting up at 3am to view because the LST is favorable then LOL.

I don't have enough data that I should say this, but 'informally' I can say that when the sunspots have been insanely high, it seems my viewing was unusually crappy. There is some research associating this with psi as well (Spottiswoode mainly). Why this would seem to matter and LST wouldn't, I have no idea. Oh, ref: http://www.jsasoc.com/library.html

On the LST topic, Greg Kolodziejzyk (ref: http://www.remote-viewing.com/indexmain.html ) did some very serious personal layman's research with Associative Remote Viewing and posted all his stats for public review. This is a big deal because ARV, being binary in his usage (standard protocol except he did his own judging), is a very clear "right or wrong" determination, as opposed to the unavoidably subjective nature of judging remote viewing normally (less so for fuzzy set analysis but nobody does that outside of the lab) -- so it's fabulous for "real world, where rubber meets the road" kind of statistics, even outside the lab.

Greg had very clear LST effects -- but interestingly, at a different time than Spottiswoode found on the mass research review, and Greg also saw a significant effect based on the feedback time too -- not just viewing. Now, he is hardly 'normal' by cultural standards -- the man got insanely rich young, retired, has won two world records so far -- he is not exactly your average bear, which makes me wonder if maybe he is just some kind of outlier on that stat. He ceased his ARV trials because his schedule just made it unworkable, but he'd won a lot of money at the point he stopped. (His protocol is intended, doubleblind, with feedback; his methodology is just 'relax and describe'. Fwiw.)

I wish more people would document this kind of thing. ARV stats summary is here: http://www.remote-viewing.com/DataSummary05/index.html but also linked from the front page (as that direct link isn't in a navigation frame).

RC

 

[derekcbart]

Okay, I will revoke the offer of an informal demonstration. I was asked by David and Tommy to put forward some thoughts on this so I did. Unfortunately, what is seen as inflexibility on my part by some I see as inability to do what is claimed on the part of others.

The reason that prior tests are irrelevant in our examining of a paranormal claim is because we simply don't care what was done before because either someone can do what they claim to do or not. If you can remotely view something then you should be able to do it. You should not have to rely on previous examples of your doing something to prove that you can do something.

So far it appears as though you are claiming that you can remote view, but you cannot remote view letters, cards, numbers, people's locations, or anything else that would be worthwhile in espionage situations, which is why the government was spending the money researching the alleged ability in the first place.

I do not mean to come across as overly negative, but if remote viewing cannot do the above mentioned things then what good is it for? It is kind of like spoon-benders. Spoon-bending is repeatedly put forth as a paranormal ability, but what good is it for? At what point in your life have you ever said to yourself, "I really wish that I had a bent spoon at this moment."

I keep imagining the following conversation at CIA headquarters:

CIA Operative to Remote Viewer:
"We need you to find where Osama bin Laden is."

Remote Viewer to CIA Operative:
"Well, in order to find Osama bin Laden I first need to know where he is."

CIA Operative to Remote Viewer:
"What? If we knew that then we wouldn't be asking you."

Remote Viewer to CIA Operative:
"I'm sorry, but that's just how it works."

CIA Operative to his supervisors:
"What are we doing wasting our money with these people?"

I'm sorry for this overly snarky post, but what good is remote viewing if you cannot find people or read letters, cards or numbers?

-Derek

 

[dorkbot]

Faraday: a lot of research related to this. No diff. However psi info might be transferring, EM shielding has no effect on it whatever.

I heard an interview with Targ where he said that while it is pretty clear that info transference is not happening via EM, blocking EM w/ a cage seems to offer noticeable benefit, as if EM sources interfere or add distracting noise to whatever is going on. Is there disagreement on this point at present?

For someone serious about this, a homemade cage could be made that, while not "cheap", would seem to be within the range of the dedicated amateur. I was kind of curious if there are amateurs out there that have built cages as an aid, rather than testing for EM transference.

 

[dorkbot]

You should not have to rely on previous examples of your doing something to prove that you can do something.

I don't get any sense that this is what is going on here. I see the RVers wanting to ensure that any demonstration is testing their claimed abilities, not someone else's claimed abilities or someone else's preconception of what RVing should be.

Could you relate what problems you see with thegreenman's proposed test and why that would not be a satisfactory demonstration?

 

[derekcbart]

I don't get any sense that this is what is going on here. I see the RVers wanting to ensure that any demonstration is testing their claimed abilities, not someone else's claimed abilities or someone else's preconception of what RVing should be.

Could you relate what problems you see with thegreenman's proposed test and why that would not be a satisfactory demonstration?

I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with thegreenman's proposed test, but how is remote viewing a picture of a place a better test than remote viewing the place itself? That is what I don't understand.

-Derek

 

[bgudeman]

I am a contractor currently working on a project at Ft Meade in Maryland (where the initial remote viewing started) and also working on another project at Ft Detrick with SAIC (who headed the whole remote viewing for the US government). Being around these people day to day they are just normal folk doing their 9-5.
I do not think they realized what they had with the program an how they could quantify it for budget reasons that is why it stopped. Red tape crap...

 

[RedCairo]

The target is the location; the photograph is simply feedback for the viewer and for evaluation. Having a trial set up by someone more objective is good though. I like Greenman's suggestion. Hopefully the viewers will like it as well.

RC

 

[Tommy Allison]

I am seeing a lot of sockpuppets on this, and other RV threads.

 

[Apocalypto]

Remote Viewing is real. I liked the show, and I found Daz to be credible and intelligent.

He'll do well on the test.

 

[daz smith]

Derek,

So far it appears as though you are claiming that you can remote view, but you cannot remote view letters, cards, numbers, people's locations, or anything else that would be worthwhile in espionage situations, which is why the government was spending the money researching the alleged ability in the first place.

I do not mean to come across as overly negative, but if remote viewing cannot do the above mentioned things then what good is it for? It is kind of like spoon-benders. Spoon-bending is repeatedly put forth as a paranormal ability, but what good is it for? At what point in your life have you ever said to yourself, "I really wish that I had a bent spoon at this moment."

I can remote view, but I never once on the show, here or anywhere else said I can remote view 100% accurate, all the time or that I can remote view anything.

Its like being an athlete some days you do well, some you beat your personal best and some days you just suck.

Now carefully read what i say so as I don't need to again repeat it- please (as you keep miss quoting what we are saying)

Numbers and words don't exist - have no sensory data so are HARD to remote view successfully - we know this from years of trial & experimentation - not impossible but very hard to do.

Peoples locations - yes this can be done - but its not the entire target that's the problem with your setup its the wholly negative (want you to fail) attitude.

See my other posts which show a feedback email from a client police chief proving remote viewers ands psychics were 100ft away from finding a missing person (we provide gps coordinates) - it can be done - but not all the time as we have discussed. Now that is useful in an espionage situation.

we have continually stated that remote viewing and other psi skills are NOT 100% accurate and they are NOT 100% consistent, and that there are things that are better targets and things that are bad targets. The 30 years of lab research has shown us this over and over.

May I suggest you read the readily available scientific information form labs like SRI and SAIC amongst many others - its available free from my website just a click away

As to the question of what use is it/spoon bending analogy - well the police chief found it useful becasue all the 3 months of efforts to this date had produced nothing. The family found it of use becasue they had closure and had found their loved one. And this is just one example of many...

Used WITH other information and without any other available sources to get the needed information, remote viewing can be a useful tool.


all the best...

Daz

 

[Gareth]

Im not sure who Daz quoted there, but the question "what good is it if you cant do thos things?" ... well the most obvious one would be enemy bases/installations.

I would think THAT would be one of the main reasons for the Govt program too.

 

[Ralph]

I am seeing a lot of sockpuppets on this, and other RV threads.

Naah. What has happened is that Daz's Paracast interview and the pending RV Demo has piqued the interest of the fairly active, practicing RV community that Daz is a member of. I am a member of both the Paracast forum community and the other RV community (TKR), and I recognise the other RV individuals here. As far as I can tell, they are real McCoys, not sock puppets.

Regards
Ralph

 

[kipspritely]

Do a test. If you make claims, back them up. So far, all I have heard is excuses.

And by the way, who would want you to fail Daz? It would be great if remote viewing ability was tested and proven right here.

Also, I see problems with the encrypted image idea for a test. Would this prove genuine remote viewing? Would it prove you are good at social engineering buy questioning those who know what the image is? A lot of variables, but I will take what I can get.

BTW, I want to believe. I just need proof.

 

[dorkbot]

Also, I see problems with the encrypted image idea for a test. Would this prove genuine remote viewing? Would it prove you are good at social engineering buy questioning those who know what the image is? A lot of variables, but I will take what I can get.

In the proposed demonstration, there is only one person that will know what the images are and that is the person who encrypts them. Everyone else would only have a copy of the encrypted files. The encryption key would only be made public after the RVers have publicly posted their work.

Social engineering can largely be addressed by asking that the encrypting person not have any contact with the RVers until after they have posted their work. Care should be taken that the sample photos have not been previously posted to the web or otherwise made public in any way.

The integrity of the proposed demonstration relies wholly on trusting that the person that encrypts the files will use a strong key and not consciously or unconsciously divulge the key or contents prematurely.