Remote Viewing

[RedCairo]

I will consider responding more tomorrow if I have time. I feel like I'm just feeding a troll and my very limited personal time is too valuable for that.

RC

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

If you believe that I am trolling, I suggest you contact Gene or Dave and make a case that they ban or punish me.

I have a valid argument. The blimp is crashing into the ground, it's not floating, and nothing else the viewer says even comes close to being a hit.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Had the "Viewer" said, "It's A Blimp", that would have been a definite hit in my book.

UFO alien abduction photo, with a worm hole.

 

[Tommy Allison]

The target photo is interesting. In fact it's not a photo at all though. It's a CGI image by Johannes Ewersthat happened to take 1st place in the Internet Ray Tracing Competition '99.

http://www.irtc.org/stills/1999-04-30.html

And it has nothing to do with the fact that Gulliver failed, conclusively at his attempt to remote view an image.

 

[dorkbot]

his attempt to remote view an image.

If I'm not mistaken, the RVers in this thread have stated a number of times that they are viewing a location/event and that the image is feedback.


When I watch the footage I would consider the following to be fairly obvious "hits":

Sense of occasion
‘dazzle’...seeking to display
Pushing, shoving
Sign writing / words on front
Pushing, a tumble, making a ‘move’
crowds, a throng
seems like slow motion
tilted to one side, moving down at an angle
real nervous
‘flying visit’
something erupting away from central figure

I'm well aware that stating this after the fact could be viewed as confirmation bias and that is why judging of such data by third parties as to what constitutes a hit has historically been highly contentious. On the other hand, this is clearly not descriptive of a pastoral scene of puppies in a field of daisies. You can see how this is also clearly not the same as a photograph which is apparently what some demand that it be. Even the term Remote "Viewing" is problematic because it implies sight. Remote Sensing seems a better term.

 

[KRG]

I was about to post something similar to that, Dorkbot.

First, kudos to Gulliver for having the guts to undertake this.

Second, I do think there is not a great deal that an analyst, based on this session alone, would get from it as to what the objective was. Descriptors, yes, but not identifying the objective. (Which is why a number of us work in and with teams of viewers, retasking as needed until you can draw a reasonable conclusion. But I do think there is data in the session that is relevant.)

Recall the viewer is viewing the scene, not the photo itself. The scene apparently did come through to some degree, even though the addition of NASDAQ makes the photo different from that taken at the time (or the film frame).

Voices / Sense of occasion (big occasion / Person to person
(There was a crowd and famous narration by the announcer: "Oh, the humanity!")

Concern, sympathy / Outwards display / Kneeling, supplication
‘dazzle’...seeking to display / Flashing lights

STRUCTURE Ringed, circular / Domed roof (re: construction of blimp)
Sign writing / words on front (NASDAQ)
Appears to be ‘stuff’ floating in the air (reminds me of tickertape) (blimp and fire)
Sense of big occasion again

LIFEFORM
crowds, a throng (there was one)
seems like slow motion (In the film it appears that way)
tilted to one side, moving down at an angle (the blimp itself)
‘man down!’
‘flying visit’ (it was a flying visit by the blimp)
something erupting away from central figure

Again, using this one as a stand-alone session, an analyst would not in all probability be able to identify the objective/target. As part of a team effort it might have contributed useful or even vital information, depending on what was being sought by the client.

KRG

 

[Gulliver]

Okay. Allow me to respond.

Many thanks to Stillborn for setting this up. In itself, a photograph of the Hindenberg crash would have made a great target. Alas, despite my stating waaaay back that words, numbers and artistic representations don't make good targetting cues, a painting has been used. In future, ANYONE out there intending to task for a remote viewer....please do NOT use paintings.

This particular painting depicts a scene that never happened. At what point in time did a blimp with the word NASDAQ crash and burn into a pylon? Never. It just didn't happen. So when little old me shuts his eyes and tries to access an event that never happened...well...instead I get a jumble of impressions as my subconscious tries to interpret what the hell is going on.

I mention a large white domed structure with words on the front. I mention that something is floating in the air. I mention a sense of a big occasion with flashing lights. I mention a pushing, shoving crowd. I mention something tilted to one side and moving down at an angle, that this feels like it is happening in slow motion. I mention that I feel real nervous. I mention something erupting away (explosion) from a central figure (blimp). Someone's hand held high (look up there). A trilby hat (dress mode of the time). A flying visit. Something close to release, hanging on a thread (about to fall?) An object, overhead.

I suspect that there are many here who would only be satisfied had my data comprised the single sentence: It's an artistic representation of the Hindenburg Airship disaster with the words NASDAQ written on the side.

Alas, remote viewing doesn't work like that. One is dealing all the while with vague impressions from the subconscious, odd little bits and bobs that often leave one baffled. Occasionally things cohere into a more unified picture but, as in this case, often the data bits take some sorting. That's the beauty of remote viewing...we always check our results against FEEDBACK and decide how well we did from there.

Still, I could have done better. I know what my mistake was. At the beginning of a CRV session one produces what is known as an ideogram - an instantaneous scribble that communicates the general nature of the target, the 'gestalt'. My dominant ideogram was 'life-form' and thus my focus for the session was somewhat skewed...I chased the wrong tail, so to speak. Ended up with the impression that I might have had a boxing match or some kind of assassination attempt on my hands. Something involving a big crowd, and something/someone hitting the deck.

Flawed viewing...it happens. I would rate this session at a paltry 30-40%. Dodgy target source and schoolboy viewing error to blame.

Still, I am more than willing to view another go next week, if Stillborn is happy to set up another target. Like this one, it will all be made public on this thread after the event.

I humbly proffer myself as the Paracast remote viewing guinea-pig, for the majority of you to study, and for Tommy Allison to shove down his boxer shorts when his mummy's out at work.

Gulliver

 

[Stillborn]

I thank Gulliver for doing the test. I apologize if I picked a bad pic, and therefore wasted his time. Given the parameters, it was harder than one might think to find an image. I did almost use an actual pic of the Hindenberg, however, it wasn't in color and not "vivid". I'd be more than willing to do more tests, if anyone is interested. I think I have a better understanding of a more appropriate pic now. Again, I apologize for any screw ups on my part.

 

[RedCairo]

Actually Stillborn, a target like 'the hindenburgh' is a good choice. It's the 'not-a-photo of not-an-event' that complicated it considerably. However even based on the basics of the photo -- which I might add make the target a bit more 'the photo rather than the target' [since 'the target' doesn't technically exist, unless I misunderstand that] -- in general you chose something fairly singular and specific, interesting and distinct.

The basics were good, only the detail was iffy but I don't think that ruined the RV just complicated it a little. If the viewer's willing to do yet more with you then you're in luck, choose another.

(Tip: when I task other viewers I sometimes just go to google images and pick some keywords I find interesting at that moment and then click a random page# in the result and then look at the options and choose a photo from there. I just try to make sure it's a photo of something substantial so the entropy is decent (eg not a hat or a bug or a greeting card) and usually with the qualities I noted.)

RC

 

[RedCairo]

OK, I'm going to address a few tidbits from past on the thread that I hadn't got to yet, and the email I responded to above during which I was so irked I completely forgot to answer any of it but one line. (Turns out this message was too long so it may take a few.)

I am bothering to post this for the few people here who are genuinely interested in remote viewing; it is neither a defense of RV nor of any session, but simply attempting 'discussion' on a 'discussion board' (I know, what a concept. The whole 'attack-prove-it-anything-you-say-is-just-excuses' precludes all conversation period, let alone intelligent discussion about details, so I am ignoring this environment long enough for at least this post).

I may have to bow out after this simply because my time is very limited and, nothing personal, but I prefer to spend it in ways that I feel has actual value to the people I'm talking with which I don't think is the case here for the most part, though I wish you well in your focus of choice. In any case, onward:

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."

Yea, that's funny. This is a bit obtusely missing the forest for the trees though: the point is not that it is a spoon. The point is that it is a physical thing which is allegedly affected by intent. If you could bend a fork tine, you could stop a man's heart. I'd say that has considerable ethical and military implications. (Humor: the last two sentences, I uttered on 10/30/95, to which the EEG researcher I was talking with said, "Speaking of ethical and military implications! I met this man who said he did remote viewing for the US Government...." -- which is how/when I was introduced to RV. I'd never had the slightest interest in 'divination' to that point.) I might add that I cannot give any defense for spoon bending as I have never even seen it done. I've seen a lot of people yelling like idiots at silverware but so that's about it so far.

I see no reason to believe that the so-called viewer "made contact" with the target, particularly since the blimp is not floating but rather has caught fire and is falling.

The target is a blimp, and they float, and whether or not it was floating at that moment, that is "a fundamental quality" of the target-focus (the blimp), and even if it had been completely deflated on the ground this is the kind of data that could potentially come across in a target about a blimp. I say this not to the defend the session which you are welcome to (as you guys have done) dismiss with as much sneer as possible, but rather to educate about the nature of psi: this would not be unusual data for this kind of target.

I might add that particularly in a first session, a viewer is likely to get pieces of the overall target including the time period just before/after and the space around--in fact one of the goals of viewing skill is to get better at NOT getting all the 'surrounding' info and getting more concise to the 'focus point'. Even just looking at something often gets 'peripheral' info, but in viewing everything--time-events, concepts, etc.--are involved, so even a highly focused task is a more complex 'conglomerate of energy' than it might seem at a shallow surface view.

You mean to tell me that in remote viewing, you intentionally avoid nouns?

Yes. The quote someone had above from the old DIA manual is a fairly good description, although many of the models of RV in science have evolved since then.

The non-labeling focus is because the brain automatically attempts to fit 'recognition' to all incoming information; it is what the brain does really well. When a speeding red car is hurtling toward us the brain does not give us the 3,000 separate pieces of relevant information in fragments and mixed sequence and let us figure it out; whatever we are capable of absorbing at a glance (which is actually a *ton* of information; even catching a ball involves a ton of info) -- our brain takes any incoming info and instantly starts trying to categorize and label it and usually, most 'forms/dynamics' in life we are already familiar with, and our brain is rapidly 'modeling the expected based on memory' at the same time more info is pouring into it and this all happens too rapidly to consciously follow.

If I got real-life data the way I got RV data I'd be dead long before I figured it out LOL! I'd still be on "sense of motion, red, hard, white or silver, rubber -- " (crash!). There are many reasons that RV data has problems--one is that example [mind attempts labeling like crazy], but there are others, including memory being a real problem (for related but not the same reasons I won't get into here).

It's damnably frustrating during RV because what info one is getting is piecemeal (particularly in the first work on a target), sometimes literally just fragments. Not like "I see a big landscape with a building and some people and a barn on fire" but more like 'sensing' tiny pieces, as if someone took 'the target', zoomed into ultra closeup, and then fed you tiny pieces of it "through your middle" that are such partial pieces that even finding words to translate is easier said than done -- except 'the target' is not just a visual but is also a little bit the past and future of it, a little bit emotion and concept and relationship and everything else. A corner, a color, a certain angle of round, a sense of something rising--damn near "nebulous" frankly--and much of this has to be translated into words.

Now some is not so nebulous, and a lot of different elements in an overall viewing situation can contribute to it going better vs. worse -- including an overall group of well intended people, a sense of importance to the session on the viewer's part, a 'real world current' target/event vs. 'a picture of the past' (although the latter is much better for one-off demos/trials), a target with something of real interest, high shannon entropy gradient, and so on. What I mean is that some targets, some situations -- this is not easily predictable unfortunately but there is *some* tendency common enough to have made it into a science effect-size at least -- just "come through better", at least some aspects of them, than others do; the data may be more clear or vivid. Even in the RV world for example there are some viewers who won't work on photo-based feedback for practice but only 'real world' because for them that 'comes through more clearly'.

Sometimes the issue is less the data a viewer gets than how they get it. There are innumerable ways to 'perceive' (RV brings in a whole bunch I'd never thought of before, including some rather offbeat imaginal [not to be confused with imaginary] ways that the mind helps act-out or demonstrate information) and often the manner of transmission can cause artifacts or inaccuracy. Over time a viewer often learns to adapt or compensate for this as a known.

Long-term experience makes one better at translating things accurately (and in fact perceiving them at all well enough to reach communication level), and brings in more data and often more specifically. One of the things that sometimes keeps a viewer having heart, even when they are not yet anywhere near the personal skill they'd like to be, is that they can clearly see that they are getting better over time, which wouldn't be possible if there were nothing to it, so that part can keep one hanging on.

RV impressions are ridiculously subtle (usually). They often get more pronounced as the viewer gets more altered-state, or gets farther into a very long session or repeat session on the same target [without having had feedback of course]. And it depends on the viewer, the target, the tasker intent, etc. of course; as noted, it's unpredictable how a given individuall, target, moment in time, will combine to an end result. But the point is that much of the time, it's like trying to translate a half-remembered dream from five years ago, one that comes through your middle not your eyes.

This seems to me to indicate that remote viewers intentionally obfuscate, make vague, so as to bring to the activity apparent, rather than actual, accuracy.

The measure of accuracy has to be determined by the application and each individual session or combined analysis within that project. There are times when getting "something flying" and "floating" would tell you to look for 'something that flies or floats' -- and that might be enough answer depending on the question and what was being looked for -- and there are times when that would not be useful in the slightest, and you'd have to re-task the viewer to describe more about whatever element you think best applies to what is being looked for (the 'eruption from the center' or whatever it was, might be of more interest in a session like this--if I knew nothing else about the target but the session data, that is what I would probably retask on, trusting that it was probably part of the focus of the target).

RC

 

[RedCairo]

Your explanation as to why nouns are avoided?

"The brain has no context whatever on data for that level of decision; it would be up to the analyst to know the 'tasking context' to put description into."

[...] What does it mean for a brain to have no context on data for that level of decision?

It means if I show you this image:

You might be unable to tell me that this image is, OF COURSE, the stocking'd leg and uniform of a circus performer with an elephant, and that in fact when your brain got that information it was mostly upside down and sideways and had a bizarre sense of 'breeze' and half a dozen micro-instant flashes of association that are from your memory bank concerning probably previous red lycra visuals, circus visuals, elephant rides, and god knows what else, many of those ALSO appearing in 'pieces' completely out of context, some almost as slightly-opaque overlays, but everything usually so subtle it can be just below the threshold of what can even be articulated. Sometimes it's a friggin miracle information makes it to the paper at all.

A viewer works on perceiving, on translating what they perceive, on articulating what they perceive via sketch or words. They look at hard feedback. They compare every word/phrase/line of data they wrote down with the target, with their remembered-experience of what made them write that down, and they hopefully learn something from that. Rinse, repeat 10,000 times.

Like any sensory process, active repeated use for input and neural mapping to 'meaning' of input is required. Unfortunately this is a VERY long term practice; probably one of the most frustrating arts on earth for that reason and others. Everybody is working on it. Even the most public 'expert' (McMoneagle) fails sometimes and he is learning still, and forever. Everybody else has varying levels of skill, some better than others, all subject to variance.

Some people, like Gulliver, are more courageous and "this is weird and fun" than others -- they have the guts to go out in public and try it just for the hell of it. They've seen it work enough times (and sometimes stunningly) to believe in it, but they know it varies and it might suck or be great or be so-so, and no matter what the case it might still get trashed by people. But they have enough interest in the viewing and lack of concern for public opinion to be willing to go for it. I really admire that in viewers.

Psi by nature is a personal and often kind of intimate experience and it is not easy to put out for people to stomp on, because psychologically it feels less like a work report than a love poem or something; more personal.

Why is it up to an analyst to know the "tasking context" to put description into?

Because the more successful approach in RV tends to be asking a specific question for which you can take a specific "descriptive" answer and apply that info, knowing what you know so-far. Remote viewing is not designed for things that radio satellites, intelligence agents and cameras can do. They are all vastly better at all of that stuff.

RV is best utilized (aside from the 'personal hobby' element of course) to address things that nobody knows or can even give an 'educated guess' about, or to reduce the larger probability-set when there are a zillion options and you have to start looking somewhere, etc.

A tasker would not be asking, "What is one given thing in the whole universe, describe it so I can guess what it is." Usually taskings are more like a PI/detective that has a good deal of info already but is looking for some important detail, or a lead to one of some choices, or description of one specific thing, etc.

Two important considerations are:
(1) RV data is not used alone but in concert with other forms of intell/info;
(2) RV data is often a 'process' to get. It's not like you just ask someone, they hand you something and it's over; in a perfect world yeah, not usually though. It often involves multiple viewers and/or tasks, re-tasking the viewer(s), compiling the info and evaluating which of it might apply to the specific question(s) and how, etc.

It's not a magic-8-ball; it requires both skill and something of an art in the people managing and utilizing it, as well.

Some have it, and are willing to make the effort because it can be amazing when it's all done well, and it can provide something nothing else can.

Some psychological profiles really need very simple things and clear facts and are not really intuitive or flexible enough to figure anything out (eg no amount of related, symbolic, analogy or allegorical, etc. in the data would do them any good because they're so "over-literal" in their information processing), and they'd be terrible as RV managers or evaluators. To each their own.

What is "tasking context?"

The known question and reason for doing the viewing.

If I'm a detective tasking a viewer to describe the current health-state of a missing woman, the target is the woman's health but the tasking 'context' is the larger reason for the viewing--that a woman is missing, that it's a police investigation, and more specifically, that we are looking for a woman of known description who's been missing for 7 days now.

If the viewer describes something biological, dead, in a forest-like area, sense of violence/drama, I don't need to be a rocket scientist to 'guess' what they are referring to, nor do I need to get that data and go "Hey! If they didn't say that was Jane Doe, HER, how do we know this isn't just coincidence?!"

The viewer had a task and they had NO idea what it was but some numbers. Unless they're describing nothing but an object or a zebra or something, it's considered that whatever data is provided--though it will vary in specificity, application, accuracy and detail--at least might pertain to the specific question asked. This may be wrong but some baseline 'try it' points are in place here.

In most applications, tasks are specific and the context is specific. Only in science does remote viewing provide a judge with 5 deliberately-disparate options and have someone choose 'which it matches best'; only in media or the internet (or practice) does someone merely attempt to describe a target and then see 'how well it matches'. Only in really hardshell cases like the Japanese FBI with McMoneagle is a viewer asked to describe a bunch of stuff including multiple locations, 'path through' all those locations, and detail, in order to find someone missing sometimes for decades -- probably about 3 people on earth could do that and McMoneagle is one of them (and the others are private).

Eventually other people might be able to do that; he has over 30 years of more than full time experience -- most people are working adults with families and lives and even if they are really 'into' RV, the number of hours available to an employed adult with a life are at best 'hobby-level'. For most of us viewers to get the equivalent experience of someone like McMoneagle we will need to live to be about 400 years old. In the meantime, we do what we can where we are, we look at hard feedback, we evaluate what we did poorly on and what we would like to have gotten and didn't, and then we do it again and, like any other art or skill, hope to improve with practice. If the theorists are right and human beings simply have some kind of biological sensory functions which allows us to perceive nonlocal energy, the issue is learning to wake those senses up and use them, and get enough real-world hard-fact experience with them that the brain will learn how to 'map meaning'for them.

Who is the "analyst" and what defines his or her role?

The roles common in remote viewing are (off the cuff this is. I should write this up so it's more formal...):

Project Manager - outlines things; a scientist or detective may play this role. Defines the protocol, scope of the project, sometimes the specific data desired.

Tasker - is often the project manager as well, (a) looks at what info is needed, (b) thinks about how to best put that into formats that remote viewing can be expected to address (eg physicals vs. abstracts), (c) considers questions that "descriptive data" is going to be useful as response to (as no labels or abstracts are predictably obtainable), (d) considers the viewer(s) available and their known strengths or weaknesses in this art [eg some people are better with person targets, some better with technology], (e) assigns numbers to it or drops it in software that assigns it one and gives the number to the viewer. Often when the session comes back, they might after looking at the data, (f) re-task the same question if they didn't get what they thought answered the question [add it to the flow of overall tasks to that viewer, so they don't know it's a retask usually], or (b) might re-task a different question, or perhaps a question about something within the session.

Viewer - collects information 'intuitively' and attempts to translate when necessary and record it all legibly.

Interviewer or Monitor - this is an optional role. It is difficult to keep some degree of 'influence' out of the situation since a viewer is de-facto 'suggestible' because they are "being open" at that moment, so this should either be someone really good or nobody at all. In a traditional science sense, the role here is simply to 'facilitate' the viewing, help keep a person on track in logic (viewers may be altered-state), to ask questions that come to mind (as the viewer's unlikely to think of them on their own when in that state), etc. In a scientology sense [!...don't get me started...] this is a 'controller' role called monitor which makes sure the viewer is 'doing things right' and 'directs them'. In today's world most viewers don't have any kind of interviewer or monitor.

Analyst/Evaluator - these terms vary a little in usage but generally, an analyst is someone who analyzes the session based on the historical tracked accuracy of the viewer on each specific kind of data and a target/tasking genre in general. This usually assigns 'probability weights of accuracy %' to data points based both on that person's stats, and on a long list of 'tells' that people familiar with RV see and recognize as implying a viewer may have had more/less analytical or target influence at a given point. (This has nothing to do with the target, to which the analyst is at least initially blind; it is only regarding the session and viewer. Sometimes target context or detail is provided to the analyst afterward and some additional work is done based on that genre of target in the viewer's historical performance.)

An evaluator is someone who takes the data and attempts to figure out how those puzzle pieces fit into the 'tasking context' -- given the question asked (tasking context), and the known situation (the larger target context), how might that data answer the question? Separate from both of these descriptions, the word "analyst" is often used rather 'generically' to mean any or all of the above, and in general, 'the person who considers the data, the question, and decides what to do from there' -- so this is often another role the project manager plays as well.

In a science role, usually the above is instead a 'judge'.

There are other peripheral roles (a viewer profiler for instance, who tracks the accuracy of a viewer in detail and may also play the literal 'analyst' role mentioned above). This entire situation is fairly flexible as long as the viewer stays doubleblind to the target detail and preferably to its nature--this as much for the sake of data evaluation as anything else.

Sometimes the viewer WILL know a target's nature either unavoidably or because they get that in the first 10 minutes of session. Then they have to spend the rest of it fighting 10x as hard to keep their brain from putting every damn impression into a 'labeled specific' based on what they think they might already intellectually know about the target, filtering information that doesn't fit into that, mutating information so it better-fits, etc. (this is referred to 'AOL-Drive', aol being 'Analytical Overlay').

It only takes several sessions of letting this happen and being 'sure' before a viewer discovers what a mistake that is and learns to do what they were told all along and 'avoid labeling'. This is why most real viewers actually prefer the doubleblind because while on one hand it removes their context entirely, on the other hand it prevents assumptions. Some viewers work DB for an initial session(s) and then 'generically frontloaded' (eg 'the target is a person' or 'the target is an object') for a followup session, so their mind has some context for the information modeling. In a good session a viewer only gives labels if something very clearly came across exactly like that. Most (not all!) data is actually a memory-clip from the brain's database of experience, of something "like" the target. This is a whole subject of its own but yet another reason why psi is easier to do poorly than well, but has immense potential if only humans could get a handle on the details.

Some of us are working on it. Not omniscient yet.

RC

 

[Tommy Allison]

Okay. Allow me to respond.

Many thanks to Stillborn for setting this up. In itself, a photograph of the Hindenberg crash would have made a great target. Alas, despite my stating waaaay back that words, numbers and artistic representations don't make good targetting cues, a painting has been used. In future, ANYONE out there intending to task for a remote viewer....please do NOT use paintings.

This particular painting depicts a scene that never happened. At what point in time did a blimp with the word NASDAQ crash and burn into a pylon? Never. It just didn't happen. So when little old me shuts his eyes and tries to access an event that never happened...well...instead I get a jumble of impressions as my subconscious tries to interpret what the hell is going on.

I mention a large white domed structure with words on the front. I mention that something is floating in the air. I mention a sense of a big occasion with flashing lights. I mention a pushing, shoving crowd. I mention something tilted to one side and moving down at an angle, that this feels like it is happening in slow motion. I mention that I feel real nervous. I mention something erupting away (explosion) from a central figure (blimp). Someone's hand held high (look up there). A trilby hat (dress mode of the time). A flying visit. Something close to release, hanging on a thread (about to fall?) An object, overhead.

I suspect that there are many here who would only be satisfied had my data comprised the single sentence: It's an artistic representation of the Hindenburg Airship disaster with the words NASDAQ written on the side.

Alas, remote viewing doesn't work like that. One is dealing all the while with vague impressions from the subconscious, odd little bits and bobs that often leave one baffled. Occasionally things cohere into a more unified picture but, as in this case, often the data bits take some sorting. That's the beauty of remote viewing...we always check our results against FEEDBACK and decide how well we did from there.

Still, I could have done better. I know what my mistake was. At the beginning of a CRV session one produces what is known as an ideogram - an instantaneous scribble that communicates the general nature of the target, the 'gestalt'. My dominant ideogram was 'life-form' and thus my focus for the session was somewhat skewed...I chased the wrong tail, so to speak. Ended up with the impression that I might have had a boxing match or some kind of assassination attempt on my hands. Something involving a big crowd, and something/someone hitting the deck.

Flawed viewing...it happens. I would rate this session at a paltry 30-40%. Dodgy target source and schoolboy viewing error to blame.

Still, I am more than willing to view another go next week, if Stillborn is happy to set up another target. Like this one, it will all be made public on this thread after the event.

I humbly proffer myself as the Paracast remote viewing guinea-pig, for the majority of you to study, and for Tommy Allison to shove down his boxer shorts when his mummy's out at work.

Gulliver

Failure, thy name is Gulliver. How's that feel there buddy? EPIC FUCKING FAIL.

You're telling me to shove something down my shorts, when you went on and lectured me all about how fucking talented you were, and then EPICLY FUCKING FAIL A SIMPLE TEST?

DO NOT USE PAINTINGS??? You're supposed to be a Remote Viewer, and supposed to be trained at this right? Ah, but you have an excuse. I was waiting for you to spew out some kind of psychobabble about how Stillborn was actually an abductee, and that his experiences tainted the image that he selected, and was overpowering to where you could only read him, and not the image. If you're going to lie, use some fucking imagination.

FRAUD, is more like what you are. A laughable joke to me. Not because you failed this test, but because you continue to have this attitude that it's the photo that threw you off, when in fact it was your lack of ability that was proven. You should do 9 more of these tests so you can see what kind of percentages you come back with. I would wager that you don't do better than 10 percent.

Oh and by the way regarding my mother, you might want to use your "psychic powers" to remote view that little factoid you ridiculously untalented fuck.

 

[Tommy Allison]

If I'm not mistaken, the RVers in this thread have stated a number of times that they are viewing a location/event and that the image is feedback.


When I watch the footage I would consider the following to be fairly obvious "hits":

Sense of occasion
‘dazzle’...seeking to display
Pushing, shoving
Sign writing / words on front
Pushing, a tumble, making a ‘move’
crowds, a throng
seems like slow motion
tilted to one side, moving down at an angle
real nervous
‘flying visit’
something erupting away from central figure

I'm well aware that stating this after the fact could be viewed as confirmation bias and that is why judging of such data by third parties as to what constitutes a hit has historically been highly contentious. On the other hand, this is clearly not descriptive of a pastoral scene of puppies in a field of daisies. You can see how this is also clearly not the same as a photograph which is apparently what some demand that it be. Even the term Remote "Viewing" is problematic because it implies sight. Remote Sensing seems a better term.

The problem with your defense is that these people went into this test knowing that it was an IMAGE they were looking at. There's a difference between an image, and an event. Had the photo been the Hindenburg disaster, it would have still been a complete, and total failure.

This is the equivalent to reading the works of Nostradamus, and finding where he told the future based on interpretation. The whole point of remote viewing is to be able to tell an image, a set of numbers, a place, a time, and being able to describe them CLEARLY.

This lack of clarity, this idiocy and claptrap that these people are using to describe something that is supposedly a science is laughable to me, because I've read substantially on this subject and know what the agenda and design of the process is. To sit there, and spout out "Feelings" and hoping that something sticks, is utter bullshit. It's cold reading, just like every other fake psychic pulls on people who talk to the dead.

You want definitive proof that Remote Viewing works? I have a better test.

Walk into a room with a black envelope in your hand, put it in front of the "Viewer". Ask them to tell you what is inside the envelope. If they can't tell you what it is, when it's right in front of them, then chances are they aren't going to be able to tell you about the picture from thousands of miles away.

 

[David Biedny]

Will everyone please CHILL OUT?

My first reaction to the data returned from Gulliver was not great, but I'll be frank, in looking over it carefully, I have to agree with dorkbot: there are elements of the reading that are really quite interesting, given that the image could have been literally anything. I would say that this definitely merits another experiment, and this time, I would like to select the image, if that's OK with Gulliver and Stillborn.

Meanwhile, I implore everyone - Tommy, I'm looking at you - to just calm down a notch, there's no reason to resort to personal insults and comments about people's mothers (Gulliver, here's my evil eye). I appreciate folks taking the time to put these issues to some sort of test, let's all take a breath and play well with each other, OK?

dB

 

[fahrusha]

No Ingo Swann does not give interviews and lives in relative seclusion in NYC's West Village, the last I know.

 

[RedCairo]

I appreciate the forum owners allowing a few new folks from another online world to come and chat for awhile. I'm afraid daz and Gulliver are on their own here; I wouldn't hang out in real life with people who behave like some of your locals, so I don't see any reason to do so online. Some others seemed ok though. I appreciate the opportunity and wish you all well.

RC

 

[aaronpsych]

I think it's also important to consider sampling a number of target experiments for each viewer in order to appropriately arrive at a mean average of their performance. As Daz stated, he is not correct 100% of the time. Sampling one target could unfairly over or under estimate the viewer's performance. I believe the results of Gullivers experiment are interesting enough to warrant further study.

The way this thread grew and evolved into experimentation of remote viewers abilities is a testament to how great this show and forum is. Despite the 'tiffs' along the way the level of discourse and ideas presented constantly blows my mind and challenges me.

 

[daz smith]

Gulliver,
sorry missed all this traffic this last 24 hrs or so - work got in the way.
Good attempt dude and some valid data - well done for trying in such a friendly atmosphere.

I like the target choice (hindenberg event) - this event is exactly the type of thing a remote viewer should pick up quite well. The feedback image - a manipulated cgi image (mm not good) but this is why we need to discuss targets first to stop any problems and get a level playing field for all involved.

Like most remote viewing most of the time It want a great and convincing hit - but bearing in mind the target could have been absolutely anything there was some valid and interesting data.

all the best...

Daz

 

[Gulliver]

I would say that this definitely merits another experiment, and this time, I would like to select the image, if that's OK with Gulliver and Stillborn.

Sure, David. Work it out amongst you and let me have the target numbers by the start of next week.

Like I said, I am happy to play guinea pig here. I totally get people's skepticism (I was a total psi-skeptic up to the age of 25) and appreciate that at the end of the day the proof is in the proverbial pudding. So bring on the next one and I'll see what I can do. Hopefully better.

Regards to all,

Gulliver

 

[Roger]

Will everyone please CHILL OUT?

....

It seems to me that RV is one of the most conservative of paranormal phenomena having a very well documented history and track record. I'm new here, and I have to admit that I feel a bit disappointed in some of the posts in this thread that seem to me to be unnecessarily argumentative.

As with all natural phenomena, nature will behave the way it behaves and will rarely live up to our preconceptions or expectations. Natural phenomena is what it is and not what you want it to be. So it is with RV and clairvoyance and other paranormal phenomena.

Our understanding of RV, like other natural sciences, have limitations; even in "hard" science there are grave limitations within the most brilliant theories. Where there is soft science, we are left with the challenge to deal with paradox and ambiguity.

You have to make sure you have a suitable "question" or your test will yield nonsense. Testing of any hypothesis should be within the applicability of the theory in question including an evaluation criteria that is suitable to the hypothesis and theory under test (which I don't think has been adequately explained so far; this should answer the question, "how do you know when you have a good test result?").

Best of luck with your test and evaluation.