Remote Viewing

[Tommy Allison]

I sent David an E-mail with an image.

Hopefully David will use this image in the next round of testing.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

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.
Gulliver

Yes, you mention a large white domed structure with words on front. That's a hit, really? Because I have looked at that picture a hundred times and still do not see any large white domed structures, if we define structures as buildings (which, according to the drawing, is what you had in mind), nor anything domed. That's a miss. And Nasdaq isn't a word, it's an acronym that means "National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations." And, anyway, you used the plural "words," not the singular, so even if we stretch the meaning of "words" to include "acronyms," which we should not do, it's still a miss.

Yes, you mentioned that something is floating in the air. Again, however, there is nothing floating in the air. There's a blimp that's crashing to the ground. Some have said that "floating" is a fundamental quality of a blimp and therefore you've made a hit. Not surprisingly, the only people saying that are the ones with a serious investment in remote viewing. They stretch the concept of precision to its breaking point so that general and meaningless phrases fall under bogus standards and conditions that attempt to adhere together a big pile of dirt, eg, "fundamental quality." The blimp isn't floating, nothing is floating. Period. It's a miss.

You mention "a sense of big occasion with flashing lights?" And you consider that something of a hit? There are no flashing lights, period. And as for "a sense of big occasion," it is so general as to be applicable to almost any situation. As Tommy Allison put it, it's just cold reading.

There is no pushing, shoving crowd in the picture.

"I mention something tilted to one side and moving down at an angle, that this feels like it is happening in slow motion."

That, I must admit, is almost impressive. But it's sandwiched between one hundred misses, so I'm not sure how impressive I ought to consider it.

The rest of it is, again, so general as to be applicable to a great number of situations, hence your parenthetical assertions.

You put this at 30-40%? I am curious as to how you arrived at that figure? It'd put it somewhere between 1 and 5%, which is so low as to be attributable to chance.

 

[derekcbart]

Hello.

It seems pretty clear from the consensus that this particular remote viewing test was a failure. However, all that this means is that the viewer failed at this one attempt. It does not mean that another viewing will be a failure or that all remote viewings are a failure. Only additional attempts can lead to making that form of general statement.

-Derek

 

[Stillborn]

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

I'm fine with you selecting the image.

I'm tempted to post the Mr.T vid, treat your mother right lol.

 

[Stillborn]

I saw the comment that the image could be anything a couple of times, that isn't quite correct. There was a recommendation given to me for the image to be exciting, or emotionally charged, vivid etc. I was going to just take a pic of my tube of tooth paste lol, but that was too dull.

So if David or someone else is going to do the next test, discuss with Gul what sort of target images are good. Or, I can send whoever what he sent me.

 

[daz smith]

Yes, you mention a large white domed structure with words on front. That's a hit, really? Because I have looked at that picture a hundred times and still do not see any large white domed structures, if we define structures as buildings (which, according to the drawing, is what you had in mind), nor anything domed.

In remote viewing a viewer generally describe s a structure as anything that has a structured shape - this could be a building, car, or many things. NOT necessarily a structure/building.
Please bear in mind that a remote viewer will always try to DESCRIBE with as many low level words as possible trying NOT to name the target form the building impressions.

With this in mind there is a structure - it is white - hard to tell in a CGI image, does it have words on the front - yep.

And Nasdaq isn't a word, it's an acronym that means "National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations." And, anyway, you used the plural "words," not the singular, so even if we stretch the meaning of "words" to include "acronyms," which we should not do, it's still a miss.

Cmon - its a word - your being picky.

Yes, you mentioned that something is floating in the air. Again, however, there is nothing floating in the air. There's a blimp that's crashing to the ground.

Well the image is FEEDBACK only. The actual event is meant to be the target. The event lasted longer than the millisecond it took to create the image - and unless the tasking for this target say describe the target for the milisecond of the photo' then it would also include the time in the event when the blimp was floating.

Some have said that "floating" is a fundamental quality of a blimp and therefore you've made a hit. Not surprisingly, the only people saying that are the ones with a serious investment in remote viewing.

Or maybe they are the ones who know the proper use of a target, FEEDBACK and what they see. there is a domed object that is floating with a word on it in the feedback image.

ou mention "a sense of big occasion with flashing lights?" And you consider that something of a hit? There are no flashing lights, period. And as for "a sense of big occasion," it is so general as to be applicable to almost any situation. As Tommy Allison put it, it's just cold reading.

No flashing lights - what you mean there is NO really big flash/explosion going on in the eedback image and event - and that the light form this is continual with no strat or stop time so it doesnt flash - whos really streching here.

"I mention something tilted to one side and moving down at an angle, that this feels like it is happening in slow motion."

That, I must admit, is almost impressive. But it's sandwiched between one hundred misses, so I'm not sure how impressive I ought to consider it.

The rest of it is, again, so general as to be applicable to a great number of situations, hence your parenthetical assertions.

You put this at 30-40%? I am curious as to how you arrived at that figure? It'd put it somewhere between 1 and 5%, which is so low as to be attributable to chance.

LOL this is why any test will never to be agree fully agreed before hand becasue whatever a remoet viewer presented you would get silly comments back.

daz

 

[Ralph]

Will everyone please CHILL OUT?
I would like to select the image, if that's OK with Gulliver and Stillborn.

Could I suggest that the target coordinates be posted and made available for any RVers and non-RVers to give it a go?

We could use the following process.
1. David selects the target and assigns the random identifying number.
(I think David is the person we have most trust in, otherwise we would not spend 2 hours listening every week .
2. David posts the coordinates on this thread, and specifies on what date/time the feedback will be provided.
3. A separate thread be created where RVers and non-RVers can post their impressions - either as words, or images/pdfs.
(Use a separate thread so people who are doing the target do not have to see others work, and can do it blind.)
4. At the allotted time, David posts the feedback on the thread.

Is this acceptable to RVers and non-RVers?

The next thing we would then need to discuss is what to look for that would consititute a target hit or miss

 

[David Biedny]

I saw the comment that the image could be anything a couple of times, that isn't quite correct. There was a recommendation given to me for the image to be exciting, or emotionally charged, vivid etc. I was going to just take a pic of my tube of tooth paste lol, but that was too dull.

Well, then I have a big problem with this last test - the details of the reading seem to dwell on just these types of potential elements, and to know that these types of adjectives were supplied as being "optimum" for this RV session makes me very, very wary. Gulliver, can you confirm that Stillborn was given these specific words as operational parameters?

In terms of the process of choosing future images, I will consider a list of attributes that are less desirable, NOT more, and will then look at the existing documentation on RV protocols to verify any such constraints. What I will not do is adhere to some preconceived descriptors that I feel would significantly skew the experiment, as it now appears to have happened in this last case, if what Stillborn states is indeed accurate.

dB

 

[thegreenman]

Yes, you mention a large white domed structure with words on front. That's a hit, really? Because I have looked at that picture a hundred times and still do not see any large white domed structures, if we define structures as buildings (which, according to the drawing, is what you had in mind), nor anything domed. That's a miss. And Nasdaq isn't a word, it's an acronym that means "National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations." And, anyway, you used the plural "words," not the singular, so even if we stretch the meaning of "words" to include "acronyms," which we should not do, it's still a miss.

Yes, you mentioned that something is floating in the air. Again, however, there is nothing floating in the air. There's a blimp that's crashing to the ground. Some have said that "floating" is a fundamental quality of a blimp and therefore you've made a hit. Not surprisingly, the only people saying that are the ones with a serious investment in remote viewing. They stretch the concept of precision to its breaking point so that general and meaningless phrases fall under bogus standards and conditions that attempt to adhere together a big pile of dirt, eg, "fundamental quality." The blimp isn't floating, nothing is floating. Period. It's a miss.

You mention "a sense of big occasion with flashing lights?" And you consider that something of a hit? There are no flashing lights, period. And as for "a sense of big occasion," it is so general as to be applicable to almost any situation. As Tommy Allison put it, it's just cold reading.

There is no pushing, shoving crowd in the picture.

"I mention something tilted to one side and moving down at an angle, that this feels like it is happening in slow motion."

That, I must admit, is almost impressive. But it's sandwiched between one hundred misses, so I'm not sure how impressive I ought to consider it.

The rest of it is, again, so general as to be applicable to a great number of situations, hence your parenthetical assertions.

You put this at 30-40%? I am curious as to how you arrived at that figure? It'd put it somewhere between 1 and 5%, which is so low as to be attributable to chance.

I couldn't give a number figure but I'd say it looks quite a bit better than random chance to me. How's the test proceeding?

 

[thegreenman]

Well, then I have a big problem with this last test - the details of the reading seem to dwell on just these types of potential elements, and to know that these types of adjectives were supplied as being "optimum" for this RV session makes me very, very wary. Gulliver, can you confirm that Stillborn was given these specific words as operational parameters?

In terms of the process of choosing future images, I will consider a list of attributes that are less desirable, NOT more, and will then look at the existing documentation on RV protocols to verify any such constraints. What I will not do is adhere to some preconceived descriptors that I feel would significantly skew the experiment, as it now appears to have happened in this last case, if what Stillborn states is indeed accurate.

dB

Please, Just pick an image David, Let's get the ball rolling.

If the critics here get any more abrasive and disrespectful towards the potential RVers. I wouldn't blame them for dropping out before we even get the test started.

 

[Gareth]

Some of the comments in here make me embarrassed to be part of this forum. FFS, if they say that an artistic representation is not a good image then take that as the truth until proven otherwise.

I too am concerned though about the possible descriptors stillborn was given when choosing a photo.

Still waiting for absolute confirmation of that, because if that wasnt the case I agree with David that were some interesting results.

Looking forward to the next test.

 

[Stillborn]

Some of the comments in here make me embarrassed to be part of this forum. FFS, if they say that an artistic representation is not a good image then take that as the truth until proven otherwise.

I too am concerned though about the possible descriptors stillborn was given when choosing a photo.

Still waiting for absolute confirmation of that, because if that wasnt the case I agree with David that were some interesting results.

Looking forward to the next test.

I relooked at the message with his image recommendations. The actual word Vivid, wasn't used. INTERESTING, dynamic, was used, and "I cannot stress enough that dull targets lead to dull lacklustre viewings...the best targets are those that jump out at you, that have some kind of impact, be it emotional, aesthetic or otherwise."

Hope Gul doesn't mind me sharing this tidbit from a PM. This sort of thing has been openly discussed here in the forum, so it's no secret. Think some other RVers mentioned something similar if I'm not mistaken.

Part of Gul's drawing reminds me of the Hindenburg film with the announcer crying etc. People falling out, perhaps needing helped up. I rewatched the film and there is some debri on fire floating in the air. Just maybe he picked up more on the event, than the image that depicted it. Hopefully future tests will be less confusing and less open to interpretations.

 

[Gareth]

Well I dont think theres any reason to suspect shenanigans based on those words then. Interesting and dynamic dont necessarily mean a 'sense of occasion' etc.

I do agree with Davids earlier post.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

Just listening and will throw in my "theory" on attempting to read the future... the reason that it's difficult is because it has not yet been solidified... it is based on probability, not done deals. While MOST things will tend to take the course that their momentum is driving them towards, sometimes something will "surprise" the flow and cause a probability to change, which also affects the flow of everything else touching it, and what with EVERYTHING being connected, can cause all kinds of varying degrees of difference in all things.

"Difficult to see... always in motion is the future"

 

[Tommy Allison]

I sent David an image, that is from one particular manual that I have in my possession. For anyone to say that my harsh criticism is unwarranted, I will state for the record that I do believe that the ability exists.

I know first hand how it is supposed to work. I'm not going to go into the details, but let's say for the sake of argument that I know quite a bit on the subject, and what its agenda was.

I tried to talk to David about this a bit earlier today but the phone died in mid conversation.

The goal of RV training is to create a viewer who can know the difference between a real event, an imagined event, a real place, a real object, or an image of any of the above. The goal of RV, is to be able to gather intelligence without having to physically be in the location.

If I were to be told that I needed to find someone, chances are I would be given one of their personal effects, and by psychometry, check the vibration of the object, to the vibration of the person and then home in on that person. That would be one way of finding someone.

The first test for ANY RV student, should be very simple. The image used, would have been a good target, however it did indeed use some imagery that could have been associated with the hindenburg disaster. The problem is that the person doing the test knew in advance that this was an image they were looking for, not an event. There's a difference.

If I were to be asked to remote view an image, I would likely be told where the image is located, or... Shown the image, and then explain the location of the image.

An RV'er should be able to do these things, without having to be ambiguous, or nebulous in their feedback, because for one, if you're doing RV for the government, and they want you to tell them the troop strength of a military base outside of Prague, and you have only vague numbers, or symbology, the information is useless.

I'm not spouting conjecture, I'm repeating what I know first hand in regards to what our military, and intelligence community expected from RV.

I myself have asked to be tested, but because of some conflicts and such I've not been inclined to do so.

In light of what has transpired here, I will make the time.

 

[daz smith]

Well, then I have a big problem with this last test - the details of the reading seem to dwell on just these types of potential elements, and to know that these types of adjectives were supplied as being "optimum" for this RV session makes me very, very wary. Gulliver, can you confirm that Stillborn was given these specific words as operational parameters?

In terms of the process of choosing future images, I will consider a list of attributes that are less desirable, NOT more, and will then look at the existing documentation on RV protocols to verify any such constraints. What I will not do is adhere to some preconceived descriptors that I feel would significantly skew the experiment, as it now appears to have happened in this last case, if what Stillborn states is indeed accurate.

dB

There is nothing needed when choosing a target and its feedback to be in play. Almost anything (with good feedback) can be a remote viewing target. Some things as discussed just make better targets - like those with change. Its not a prerequisite its just a known.

When doing a target - the remote viewer is wanted and should be focussing on the event, location etc NOT the feedback photograph or video clip - this is just a tool used to say 'heres the target - not lets see if anything matches your data'. The image or video is not the target - its feedback.

For example:

if we use the last test - the hindenberg event.
The targeter would write on a sheet of paper.

XXX - 1234 (the random number)

Then write what you want the viewer to do in a brief line, so we all know when evaluating the results:

'The viewers is to describe the 'hindenberg' event only'

Then if you have a feedback image - paste this in place aswell or have it ready to finally deliever to the viewer.

You seal this up - zip it up or whatever - you have set the target;
a. you chose a random number.
b. you wrote what you want the viewer to do - so we all know when assesing the results.
3. you have feedback available.

Now, you give the remote viewer the random number (not the sealed file) and await his data.

The only thing I would say Image wise is that becasue the viewer is focusing on the event or thing then you need feedback image or video that is real and not cgi or photshopped as the viewer is recording real data form the actual event - so you need accurate feedback imagery to see how accurate this is. (we do have occasions when the target is the feedback photograph - but these arent good rv practices) The viewer is generally to go to the event being recorded and shown in the feedback.

You need no other guidance other than the feedback should not be a tampered, morphed, cgi, or phtotshoped image. And to remmebr the feedback is a snapshot of the target and not the target itself - the things in the image are the actual target.

hope this helps - this is why i said from the start PEM me and we can devise a working example togther they just jumped the gun a bit.

All the best...

Daz

 

[daz smith]

I sent David an image, that is from one particular manual that I have in my possession. For anyone to say that my harsh criticism is unwarranted, I will state for the record that I do believe that the ability exists

dude this is front loading - you already said to much - we now know the image is in a manual. Too much information - its now not blind.

You see this is the problem we've created. People run headlong into wrongly and speedily created flawed tests which are flawed on many levels and this makes for messy experiments and messy answers - lets slow down and do this properly or not at all.

This means some of you guys need to learn how to target and protocols etc, and how to do this so as we are all satisfied otherwise its just not going to work.

Its a case of too many cooks - David pem me or something and we can create a working test with NO problems then we can share the test and do the viewing. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time. I said from the start if done properly I will participate - but this isn't going well so far.

Daz

 

[Stillborn]

I'm a little confused as to what is meant by feedback image. Are you suggesting we show pictures to the remote viewer? I probably misunderstood.

I'd like to see Gulliver and Daz try with the next image, or object, whatever. Who ever conducts the test, release the results at the same time.

David are you wanting to do the next test? If not, I can, or if someone else wants to give it a go I won't mind.

 

[daz smith]

The goal of RV training is to create a viewer who can know the difference between a real event, an imagined event, a real place, a real object, or an image of any of the above. The goal of RV, is to be able to gather intelligence without having to physically be in the location.

No the first part is incorrect the second part is correct.
The remote viewer using a method like the military CRV - goes through a process of describing. The mantra for this then and now is 'describe don't identify'.

Its not up to the remote viewer to say the difference or know the difference between anything - as this would involve analysis of the incoming data - this is a big no, no for the remote viewer. Its up to the analyst to evaluate the data and make these decisions - not the remote viewer.

Yes the goal is to get intel without physically being there.

If I were to be told that I needed to find someone, chances are I would be given one of their personal effects, and by psychometry, check the vibration of the object, to the vibration of the person and then home in on that person. That would be one way of finding someone.

This is clairvoyance or psychic.
Remoet viewers only need a random number.

The first test for ANY RV student, should be very simple. The image used, would have been a good target, however it did indeed use some imagery that could have been associated with the hindenburg disaster. The problem is that the person doing the test knew in advance that this was an image they were looking for, not an event. There's a difference.

Incorrect. the best first test for a remote viewer is something large and substantial like a mountain.
NOT something small like a photo - which is a 2d object. Remember the viewer describes thing using vision, taste, touch, smell etc - you cant get very good sensory data for a 2d photograph. Which is why the photo is for FEEDBACK purposely only - and the photographed event is the actual target. In the case of the last test the cgi image was an event that didn't exist or take place - which is why Gulliver got data form the real Hindenburg event the photo mimicked.

If I were to be asked to remote view an image, I would likely be told where the image is located, or... Shown the image, and then explain the location of the image.

maybe maybe not - it doenst matter - we dont very oftern rv images - the target is the REAL thing in the image.

An RV'er should be able to do these things, without having to be ambiguous, or nebulous in their feedback, because for one, if you're doing RV for the government, and they want you to tell them the troop strength of a military base outside of Prague, and you have only vague numbers, or symbology, the information is useless.

A remote viewer to a degree can get this type of data.
the target in your example above would be:
'descirbe the troops and their strength at xxx location'.

No reason why a viewer couldnt do this. I think you are mixing the role of the FEEDBACK image/ video material with the ROLE of the actual target itself - the target generally is not the feedback supplied.

daz

 

[daz smith]

I'm a little confused as to what is meant by feedback image. Are you suggesting we show pictures to the remote viewer? I probably misunderstood.

I'd like to see Gulliver and Daz try with the next image, or object, whatever. Who ever conducts the test, release the results at the same time.

David are you wanting to do the next test? If not, I can, or if someone else wants to give it a go I won't mind.

Yes you misunderstood. The viewer doe not have ANY information.
The role of feedback is feedback. Its something to look at and compare to the viewers data to see if they are accurate. Its NOT the target - its feedback.

NO STOP!
if we are going to do this lets conduct a proper test - planned first.
No need to rush - let a few of us conduct and create a sound test.

daz