Craig, daz has said in this very forum that the protocol he uses is not testable. He claims it is usable, but not testable. The discussion here is a simple test, not a use of the protocol. The two are quite are different.
I never said this?
RV has been tested to its death in labs - I have tens of thousands of blind trials i can shove in front of you from credible labs, most peer reviewed.
Even Hyman and Utts at the conclusion of the CIA/Military assessment (however bad the assessment was) confirmed an effect that was not chance or due to bad protocol or experimentation.
Every time I do an rv project its BLIND - they are all tested - because if i dont supply info that the client/project manager needs - then its not useful.
Yet they keep coming back to me - so I must be doing something right.
RV and PSI can be tested. But lets be fair and honest - if you are truly scientific and truly wanting the real answer that science can allow - then the playing field for the tests should be fair and as unbiased as possible and should be understanding to both the needs of the psychic and scientist.
Take the recent discussions about the tornadoes. I find the sum total of words and diagrams a miss while Daz does not.
of course you do - ill bet you even think my sydney target was a miss aswell.
Daz sets up a protocol. People are able to follow the protocol. It's usable. It doesn't mean that it works, but people involved can get the job done. The people involved consider it to work. This is a usable protocol.
I didn't and dont setup protocols - we use the tests that have been used for years. I didnt setup the protocol for the Paracats Radio show test - we agreed on its setup, they tasked me a blind target, which I feel i competently described. Even they the sceptical hosts were shocked we got the target.The main protocol I work within is the actual protocol for remote viewing:
1. it must be planned and not spontaneous
2. there must be a chosen target
3. this must be blind - the viewer and no one in the vicinity of the viewer is to know the target.
4. psi/rv data must be recorded in some format
5. there must be feedback to gauge accuracy of the remoet viewing.
ut the protocol is not testable. Who knows better what they saw? Is it me or is it Daz? I say Daz. I am making a choice based on second hand information. Daz on the other hand saw something first hand and tried to convey what he saw, felt, or whatever. So I proposed to Daz that a target is chosen from a group of say 10 targets. Then he figures out what the target is and is shown all 10. He picks the one he saw, not the one I think he saw. This reduces, not necessarily eliminates, the interpretation. This is testable.
This is a form of testing that is common in rv work - after the rv session the viewer is showing four photos and they have to pick which they feel matches their data best - then they are shown the real target.
an independent person reads the rv data and picks one of four target pictures - then they are shown the actual target to see if there is a match.
like this:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 661094581#
The method currently in use is not testable. I tried to match things up on several occasions and for whatever reasons I don't see the match. Daz can say I being obstinate. I can say whatever. It leaves the test a mess. But if the procedure is tweaked it becomes testable.
RV is testable but you have to differentiate here.
What I am doing MOST of the time is NOT lab based scientific testing of remoet viewing
- most of what I am doing is people generally testing theories and using
rv - not proof of concept.
Yes for a lab based experiment the multiple target/matching photo approach would be best or good to use and was used over and over in the available documents. its been done over and over - this type of experiment was used in the military program for rv analysis yet they still got rv matched results - its nothing new -read the documents.. and/or watch the video above
The problem Craig is things are not tested. The claim here is that it works.
Incorrect - there are over 35 years to tested reports of rv - I can supply them if you want - some are already on my website - youre just ignorant and haven't read them.
I tried to match up the tornado rv. Except for 1 word cherry-picked it was in my mind a failure.
LOL yep and you still say this doesnt describe a tornado.
The Structures are;
Manmade, of mixed sizes and shapes.
At least one of the structures has a rough/texture surface feel.
One of the structures is tall with multiple levels to it, feels lipped in part.
Very linear accents seem to be part of the design.
This structure feels important to the location/region.
The structures feel like they are exposed to an aggressive, natural flowing motion.
The structures feel stepped and from above appear closely located.
Location feels close to a curved area of land/coastal.
There is a motion at the target which is;
Aggressive and fluid, free in its movement.
This builds to a crescendo and then dissipates downwards.
The movement feels penetrating as it interacts with the location and structures.
The flow/movement is against the structures in a wild, uncontrolled manner.
The motion builds to a release then it trails away.
As it builds its motion is spikey with aggressive movements then it recedes with a
release of energy ‐ much like an orgasm.
'm not looking for a bigger, or better test. I'm looking for an actual test. What is being done is not a test and is so open to interpretation and the possibility of matching hundreds or thousands of other events that I don't see anything useful happening.
Incorrect - there are hundreds all documented, time after time by labs and peer reviewed - read them!!! Ray Hyman and Jessica Utts did and found an effect, many others have too. You're not looking for a test, your just looking for a self perpetuating argument. Read all the literature then come back and say there are no test because , quite frankly you are talking rubbish.
did you watch the video - did she nor describe the target - was this not correctly picked as the target from others - as per your required test?