Remote Viewing

[Stillborn]

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

I'm not rushing you.

 

[jbrazel]

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.

Your argument is in my opinon not valid. I get that you don't understand that the photograph is feedback and it is not the target that the subject is trying to remotely view which was the crash of the Hindenberg, but honestly "nothing else the viewer says even comes close" seems to be a bit of an overstatement when contrasted with dorkbots list of possible hits.

Also you may want to go back and listen to the other RV show in the archives with Paul Smith as the guest. He explains some of the terms like "analyst", "tasker", avoiding labeling with nouns or "analytical overlay breaks" and other terms frequently used in RV or as you describe "psuedo-scientific jargon".

 

[jbrazel]

The Independent Investigations Group has a standing Remote Viewing test that is open to anyone who wants to try it. BTW, this would not be for the IIG $50,000 Paranormal Challenge unless that person specifically applies for that using the form on the IIG website at The IIG $50,000 Challenge

The Center For Inquiry-Los Angeles is located at 4773 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, California 90027. James Underdown's office is on the second floor. There are several items in the office with Jim's name on them so the person should be able to determine which office is Jim's. In the office there is a black bag with two envelopes in it. One envelope contains a number. The other envelope contains a word. All the remote viewer needs to do is tell us what is written inside each of the envelopes. The remote viewer should email their results to the IIG at steering@iigwest.com and, in this case, they should probably cc Gene and David at whatever email they say should be used.

-Derek

Why do you have a standing Remote Viewing Test that frontloads the viewer with information? This is a pretty basic and fundamental flaw in your "challenge" according to every cursory review on the subject of RV that I have ever read.

 

[dorkbot]

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.

Hopefully this will be helpful and not just add additonal confusion but I thought this might add a bit of clarity as to the different ways that photographs are used in RV.

To quote McMoneagle, "Photographic targets are not the same as photographs of targets." What is being attempted in these demonstrations use photographs as Research and Study targets where the location/person/object/event is what is to be viewed. This is quite different from an Application target where a photograph is shown to the viewer as a kind of a beacon for them to view things that are not in the photograph.

Photographic Targets

This is where research and applications took distinctly different paths. There are a lot of different ways to use photographs as a targeting mechanism. Each one requires a detailed adherence to a specific protocol or procedure. Since I could actually write a book on photographic targeting alone, I will stick to the central issues, which are: differences between research types of targeting and applications targeting. What, and how much of what, do you allow the viewer to see.

1. Research and study targets.
This one I'll do first because it's the easiest. The simple rule is: if you are using photographs as targets, then they are never shown to the viewer till after the remote viewing has been completed, and the results have been evaluated. When used as targets, they can be sealed within an opaque envelope and given an identity number that is then used as a targeting mechanism, just as in the coordinate system. They can also be stored in a way that prevents viewing them until the remote viewing and evaluation has been accomplished, such as inside a computer file where they have been given coded identity numbers. The coded number is provided to the viewer, but not the photograph, until viewing and evaluation has taken place and the results filed. In research and study, there are no variations on this theme. The reason is because the photograph itself is the target (or at least is a paper representation of the location, object, person, event).

2. Applications targets.

This is very different from research use of photographs. In this case the photograph is not generally the target, but is one step removed from it. In other words, the photograph is used to get a viewer to a specific target of element within the target that might be of greater interest.

There are Lots of ways to use photographs to get a remote viewer to a target. However, each way presents a change in the basic protocol, so extreme care must be taken when handling photographs as targeting material.

Using Personal Photographs:

You can use photographs of people as unwitting outbounders. In the case of wanting to know "where" a missing person might be, since there is absolutely no way the viewer can know this information anyways, showing the actual photograph of the individual to the viewer is probably okay. It wouldn't be okay if you were going to ask the viewer something about the person that might be derived from the photograph. Photographs of individuals known to be in an area of interest would be another reason for showing the viewer a photograph of an individual, but you should never tell the viewer specifically what you are interested in with regard to the area.

Using Other Photographs:

It is actually easier to state what a remote viewer shouldn't see rather than what they should, as it is always a judgement call. Viewers should not be shown photographs of the specific target of interest. If you are interested in what's going on inside a building, you do not show the viewer ( or monitor) a photograph of the building. If you are interested in what someone might be carrying in a briefcase, you don't show the viewer a picture of the briefcase. Everyone automatically wants to argue; why not? Well, one of the beautiful things about remote viewing is a viewer's ability to provide what otherwise would be very surprising information. But this can only be done when they have not been steered into some sort of expectancy, or their boundaries have not been perceptively fenced. If you interest is in what the person is doing who is carrying briefcase, your assumption that the briefcase might contain information pertinent to that interest may be false. By showing viewers a photograph of the briefcase, you will encourage them to limit their perceptions to only the contents of a briefcase, or what might fit within it. In fact, anything the viewer does in reference to this target from that day forward will be mediated by what they feel about briefcases and their possible contents. It would be better to cut a very small square from tha tphotograph that depicts the person's face, and ask what the person is doing.
To shorten what would otherwise be an inordinately long chapter in this book I will suggest the following rules when using photographs:

1. Always provide as little as possible in the way of photographs to a viewer. You can always go back later and expand on what you may be provideing but you can never undo what someone has already seen.

2. If a photograph implied anything at all about what you might be interested in, put in in a sealed envelope and give it a coordinate.

3. Don't assume that because you can't ferret out information from a photograph, the remote viewer can't either. Most really good remote viewers are a lot more sensitive to information in photographs than the average person.

4. Above all else, never assume a photograph is the most accurate way to target a remote viewer. Whatever limits the photograph may also limit the viewer; that is fence them in psychologically with regard to other possibilities or information.

McMoneagle, Joseph - Remote Viewing Secrets - 2000 - pp 77-80

 

[Tommy Allison]

I can say with near 100 percent certainty, that the image that I sent to David, is one that NONE of these supposed "Trained" viewers has seen.

Which is why I've not told anyone what manual I'm actually talking about. The image in question is very simple, and any "Trained" Viewer should have no trouble ascertaining what it is.

The fact that I've seen someone fly off the handle about, defending what they believe RV is, proves to me that they have NOT read or know anything of this manual.

 

[derekcbart]

Why do you have a standing Remote Viewing Test that frontloads the viewer with information? This is a pretty basic and fundamental flaw in your "challenge" according to every cursory review on the subject of RV that I have ever read.

Honestly, we thought that this would make the demonstration easier for the remote viewer. By telling the remote viewer where to look it removes the trial and error of figuring out where to look. If we said where Jim was then the viewer would not need to figure out where Jim was because where Jim was isn't important in the demonstration. What is important is what is in Jim's office. As for describing the what the items were, Jim always had an envelope with a word and another envelope with a number. Comments made on this thread said that was too difficult to remote view and then we added a picture and a card (I had suggested a playing card, but it could just as easily be a Zener card) because comments made on this thread said those would be easier targets to view. The objects in the envelopes are the targets, so all of the discussion about needing pictures to be representative of the target are immaterial.

-Derek

 

[jbrazel]

DSM-IV manual perhaps?

 

[Tommy Allison]

DSM-IV manual perhaps?

Uh... No. Trust me, nobody on this board has seen this one before.

 

[dorkbot]

I rewatched the film and there is some debri on fire floating in the air.

Actually, when he used the word "tickertape" the first thing I thought of was floating ash. The Hindenburg measured 804x135, all covered in doped cotton. From what I can tell, the most popular theory as to it's demise is that the skin ignited.

...the incendiary paint theory asserts that the major component in starting the fire and feeding its spread was the canvas skin because of the doping compound used on it. Proponents of this theory point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminum-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB). These components remain potentially reactive even after fully setting. In fact, iron oxide and aluminum can be used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite.

It seems reasonable to guess that there must have been a tremendous amount of light ash thrown into the air from what must have been something like 110,000+ square feet of doped cotton.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Actually, when he used the word "tickertape" the first thing I thought of was floating ash. The Hindenburg measured 804x135, all covered in doped cotton. From what I can tell, the most popular theory as to it's demise is that the skin ignited.

...the incendiary paint theory asserts that the major component in starting the fire and feeding its spread was the canvas skin because of the doping compound used on it. Proponents of this theory point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminum-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB). These components remain potentially reactive even after fully setting. In fact, iron oxide and aluminum can be used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite.

It seems reasonable to guess that there must have been a tremendous amount of light ash thrown into the air from what must have been something like 110,000+ square feet of doped cotton.

It goes back to the argument that the testee, was to RV an IMAGE. Not an event. It's why this whole exercise is a wash.

I gave Derek and David both the same image from the book I have. I KNOW that nobody has seen these tests.

 

[Gareth]

It goes back to the argument that the testee, was to RV an IMAGE. Not an event. It's why this whole exercise is a wash.

I gave Derek and David both the same image from the book I have. I KNOW that nobody has seen these tests.

But from what I can tell the dont do that. The image is supposed to be feedback while the target is an actual physical place or event.

Is the image a photo of a thing/event?

If its not then it probably wont be a good test, as the RVers in the thread have indicated that 2D object not a good target for RVing.

 

[David Biedny]

If its not then it probably wont be a good test, as the RVers in the thread have indicated that 2D object not a good target for RVing.

I think it would be productive for Daz, Gulliver or any of the other RV enthusiasts to show us specific citations in existing formal/military RV documentation that support this issue.

dB

 

[Gareth]

I think it would be productive for Daz, Gulliver or any of the other RV enthusiasts to show us specific citations in existing formal/military RV documentation that support this issue.

dB

Absolutely.

I do hope we can get through the 'red tape', and arrive at conditions all relevant parties are satisfied with.

 

[Ralph]

I can say with near 100 percent certainty, that the image that I sent to David, is one that NONE of these supposed "Trained" viewers has seen.

Tommy, The more you say about the target you have selected, the harder it becomes for remote viewers. Let me try and explain what happens. (To give context I completed basic training in Remote Viewing about 3 months ago, although I have read about the field for around 7 years. I have done about 50 test targets and consider myself a novice viewer. I do not consider myself psychic).

Whenever you say ANYTHING about the target, my mind starts to piece together the information and GUESS what it might be, matching it to things in my experience. As much as I try and control this, I cannot (like the instruction "don't think about a pink elephant!" results in you thinking about a pink elephant).

So here is what has gone through my mind from reading your post. As you read these, be aware the issue is NOT whether these impressions are correct or not, the issue is that I have already started to create an impression about the target that my mind will use to filter and steer the conscious perception of any impressions that I get when I am RVing.

Which is why I've not told anyone what manual I'm actually talking about. The image in question is very simple, and any "Trained" Viewer should have no trouble ascertaining what it is.

manual - I think "must be technical, skill or procedural related photo."
"I just bought a workshop manual for my car - it could be a car manual."
"I was looking up an IT procedures manual at work on Friday - maybe a photo related to doing something."

Very simple - I think "there is probably only one main element to the photo. I think about simple landscapes."

The fact that I've seen someone fly off the handle ... they have NOT read or know anything of this manual.

I think: "The manual may be about communication skills, or human interaction skills, perhaps a photo of two people at a table"

Now, I bet all my first impressions above are incorrect. However, I cannot un-think them. My impression of what the photo could be is tainted by these thoughts. In an RV session, I am going to battle with either rejecting pieces of information I get because they do not fit my preconceptions or creating descriptions that do fit my preconceptions. Guys like Daz and Gulliver are much more experienced and I hazard to say will find it easier, however, they are not machines, and have the same mental processes.

That is why RVers want BLIND targets. All we want is a random target identifier. No other communication. That way we don't have to worry about our minds weaving a fairy story around whatever facts we might have.

 

[Stillborn]

I have a photo ready that should work. I've told no one about it.

Daz, I think many here want to see a demonstration. Without which, your words fall flat in their minds. If you wish to discuss parameters with me, pm me your phone number and I will call you and discuss, or send me the info. However, the parameters I will make known to the public.

 

[Gulliver]

Guys. Enough...

The fundamentals for tasking remote viewers are easy. Read these four sentences below, digest them, understand them:

1) The remote viewer is NEVER attempting to describe the target image. The image serves merely as a signpost, sending him to the actual site. Hence with the Hindenburg trial...I was never attempting to describe the image in the envelope...I was actually AT the target site. Hence the crowds, the sense of occasion, the large object listing to one side, the flashing lights, the 'flying visit' etc etc.

The remote viewer is NEVER attempting to describe the target image. The image serves merely as a signpost, sending him to the actual site. Hence with the Hindenburg trial...I was never attempting to describe the image in the envelope...I was drawing data from the actual target site. Hence the crowds, the sense of occasion, the large object listing to one side, the flashing lights, the 'flying visit' etc etc.

Repeat: The image is NOT the target. It is merely the mechanism through which the viewer is sent to the target site. The written cue HINDENBURG DISASTER / DESCRIPTION OF EVENT would also have sufficed.

You can now see why there are problems created with artistic representations. Where is the viewer being 'sent'? Into the creative mind of the artist responsible? Things get muddy when you use paintings, pictures etc. Always use a photo.

2) The viewer should be totally blind to the target. ANY information given prior to the viewing is likely to make an accurate description harder to achieve for the viewer (imagination kicks in, the mind starts guessing). It also makes judging the data harder as the viewer could simply have guessed based on the info available.

3) Boring targets are hard to view. Think of the subconscious mind as a child, easily bored. If a target has little of interest then focus can quickly be lost. Interesting targets make analysis easier afterwards, as they have unique features that tend to jump out from the data, signalling that a hit has occurred and the viewer's data is on target.

4) Success is measured by comparing the data to the feedback. For each bit of data provided by the viewer ascribe a YES / NO / IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL to the question 'is this found at the target site?'. You should then be able to tally a percentage of the data that accurately fits the target. (It is based on this method that I ascribe a 30/40% accuracy rate to my Hindenburg session, which, I admit, is fairly lacklustre.)

- - - - - - -

Okay so now that's done, here are a couple of perfectly suitable RV targets. If I was tasking them I would simply

1) Print out the image and place in an envelope
2) Ascribe two random 4 digit numbers and write these on the envelope
3) Write the cue 'describe the focus of the photograph at the time it was taken' on the envelope.
4) Send the viewer the numbers

So here we are then:

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/02/safari/image/1.shark-cage.jpg

http://mathildasweirdworldweblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/the-sphinx-500.jpg

http://www.buckbaker.com/resources/img/Buck-Baker-Race-Cars.jpg

Any of these targets would be great for RV. There are approx 600 million more like them on the internet. Just use your imagination.

Be aware of how RV works, however, and learn what to ecpect from a half-decent session. With the shark target, for instance, you may well get

large life form
grey
panic, worry
water
fish?
sense of being caged, danger

Don't be expecting the viewer to turn around and say

'It's a shark approaching a couple of guys in a cage'

...unless they are insanely talented. We all aim to be that good one day lol

- - - - -

Okay so hopefully that cleared a few things up. I will keep an eye on my PM inbox...hopefully one of you will sort out a target soon and let me have the numbers.

Please though, just one tasker, one target. Nice, clean tasking set-up.

Gulliver

 

[David Biedny]

Gulliver,

OK, That's a good, clear message with good, clear parameters. Thank you.

By the end of the day today - Sunday - you will get a PM from me, with the target numbers. We shall then proceed.

dB

 

[Gareth]

Gulliver,

OK, That's a good, clear message with good, clear parameters. Thank you.

By the end of the day today - Sunday - you will get a PM from me, with the target numbers. We shall then proceed.

dB

Hopefully you picked the target and the feedback image David.

 

[David Biedny]

Hopefully you picked the target and the feedback image David.

That will indeed be the case.

dB

 

[fahrusha]

:exclamation:18 pages of comments! Sorry I just can't read it all.
A few notes. I studied Remote Viewing with David Morehouse, Skip Atwater and Paul Elder. I've spoken at length a number of times with Joe McMoneagle and been in a seminar with Russell Targ. I agree with most of what Daz Smith said. My biggest point of contention is the confusion between the CIA and the DIA. All the gov't. projects spoken about on the show to the best of my knowledge were DIA projects authorized by General Stubblebine and headed by Skip Atwater. There were Navy projects going on at the same time unbeknownst to Atwater, the members of which started the Hawaii Remote Viewing Assn.? School? I have excellent reasons to believe RVing projects still exist in this and other gov'ts black ops.
Missing from the program I believe (I still have 15 minutes to listen to) were references to binaural beats (trademark "Hemisync") that I used in my programs. It is a big help in training the brain to get to the place you want it to be.
I have seen remote viewing work a number of times and I've done it as well.
In my experience the easiest targets for people to "see" were real time real objects set on table top. Visualizing happiness at getting the target right and celebrating good feedback also work well.
Best,
Fahrusha