View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby dazsmith » 26 Mar 2010, 07:44

Nostradamus said:
Daz, I know with all of the posting done here you might have overlooked a post of mine in which I asked for assistance in how you match up your viewing with the event.

It is true that you wrote tornado along the right margin. I don't see how any of the other words on the page are a match. I also looked over other examples of rv and you claim hits when the right hand margin words are obvious misses such as writing MRI scanner for a failed rocket launch.


Okay the tornado session:
So you dont think that for one example, part of my summary of the data(below):
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.

Doesn't accurately describe a tornado event?

ALSO:

Page 6 sketch
of structures with text " flow/movement against structures"

Page 8 sketch - (Bottom) A sketch of a structure and wind with he words: " exposed, motion, sound, aggravation, buffered, wild, flowing, natural".

Page9 sketch - again a structure image - then the words: "flowing, patchy, broken, spaced, forceful, progressive. A strong penetrating movement similar to a sand storm".

Page 11: the words:
" A feel of air being pushed - moved in a direction - feels aggressive".

Page 12: the words:
" A decrease - like an orgasm - an initial build - then release - to trail away/dissipate. Energetic - spikey, builds, receeds, builds all the time then a release of energy".

Are you saying that this descriptive data isn't describing a tornado?
Are you really saying?
I don't see how any of the other words on the page are a match.

Because cmon...

Daz
User avatar
dazsmith
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 May 2009, 22:02






Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Mar 2010, 08:46

Doesn't accurately describe a tornado event?


Sorry. No, not at all. I think of a performance such as a dance recital when I read these words. I think of ballet dancers or modern dance performance in which the dancers flow, build tension, build to a crescendo and then the energy dissipates, and so forth.

p6 I see something like waves on the ocean or flags fluttering in a breeze or a pier
p8 I did misread flowing and thought it was howling. I thought the picture reminded me of breakers on a beach.
p11 and 12 don't make me think of a tornado

If this were a tornado description I would expect to see a lot more words such as the following in the text: chaotic, destructive, merciless, horrific, callous, nasty, dark, powerful, ripping, ruinous, cataclysmic, disastrous, maelstrom, shredded, torn asunder, flay, shred

I don't see these words in the text and that's why I have trouble connecting this rv with tornadoes.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby ciscop » 26 Mar 2010, 08:48

Nostradamus wrote:I would also point out that 270 tornadoes occurred in the US in April of 2009. Which are you referring to?


each and every one of them
or none of them..

that´s the beauty of remote viewing
it can be anything
some rv go as far as to write 100 pages and draw many sketches
eventually theyll find hits
that´s how RV works

nothing precise, nothing exact
that´s why daz chicken out of the challenge
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby dazsmith » 26 Mar 2010, 21:04

If this were a tornado description I would expect to see a lot more words such as the following in the text: chaotic, destructive, merciless, horrific, callous, nasty, dark, powerful, ripping, ruinous, cataclysmic, disastrous, maelstrom, shredded, torn asunder, flay, shred

I don't see these words in the text and that's why I have trouble connecting this rv with tornadoes.


But that would only apply - it the tornado target were destructive - some are some aren't.
But yes they culd be good descriptive words for a tornado - but there agian so were mine.

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.


To say that this does not describe a tornado is ridiculous.
'An aggressive movement that interacts with the location and structures'
'against the structures in a wild, uncontrolled manner'.

You are clearly reaching here my friend.

Daz
User avatar
dazsmith
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 May 2009, 22:02

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Mar 2010, 21:18

To say that this does not describe a tornado is ridiculous.
'An aggressive movement that interacts with the location and structures'
'against the structures in a wild, uncontrolled manner'.

You are clearly reaching here my friend.


I am not the one reaching. I am the one asking why the rv data is such a poor match to the event. Does this match a tornado? Of course not.

But that would only apply - it the tornado target were destructive - some are some aren't.

According to person selecting the target the actual target was "TORNADO / MENA ARKANSAS, UNITED STATES/ APRIL 10, 2009."

From http://www.webhush.com/2009/04/10/tornado-strikes-small-arkansas-town-mena-killing-3/
Downtown of Mena Town in Arkansas was rocked by tornado last night. The storm with hail tornado arkansas down townand tornado took lives of 3 people (2 women and one man) and seriously injured more than 20 people. Besides it had also damaged about 100 homes according to emergency officials.


See here is where I get confused. You want some words to apply to a tornado and then you point out that some tornadoes are not destructive. Yet the target is what I think is a destructive event: 3 dead and 20 injured.

You are clearly reaching and stretching my friend.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby ProfWag » 26 Mar 2010, 22:12

dazsmith wrote:BUT this is OK - if you don't like that target lets use one from my website without all the predictive enigmas involved - a plain old remote viewing BLIND example: how about this one - did I or did i not both name and accurately sketch the target?
http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/11.4. ... sydney.pdf

I did the target BLIND in April, 2008.
The target was then later given to me as feedback in June, 2008. The feedback info is included in the front of the document.
All I had was the made-up number of : 18408-0005 (which I made-up) as a focus point and info up front. (this was the days date and target 5).

Okay, let me clarify and then ask some questions. You did a reading in April based on a made-up number and came up with your result which appears to be a building on the Sydney Bay. Right?
Now, who picked the target and how was it picked? Did someone see what you wrote in April and then in June said "this is the Sydney Opera House?" Did someone not see what you wrote, but detailed of the Sydney Operah House in June and then you matched up your reading with that? Did someone detail a number of different scenes and then you picked one of your readings to match the Sydney Opera House? Were there readings done at the same time in April that didn't match up to anything? Did someone else describe scenes in June that were not identified through RV?
I appreciate your experiments, but if I'm going to be an unbiased judge of what you claim, I feel I ned more information so that chance, coincidence, etc. can be ruled out.
Here's where I'm having a difficult time understanding: If I meditate for a while and a picture comes in to mind. Let's say I see a large, solid, egg-shaped object that appears to twirl rising into the clouds. What happens next? Does someone a couple months from now say they are going to make as a target the Gherkin Building and I say, "Hey! That matches my description?" Or, does someone take my reading and say "Hey, that looks like the Gherkin!"? Or, does someone set the a target as the Gherkin, and then completely blind, I say "I have a description of something. Let's match up what you set as a target and then compare it to my reading from a couple months ago." The latter would obviously only require two pieces of paper, the target (being only one) and my reading (being only one).
Hopefully, you find this a fair and not too confusing question...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Mar 2010, 09:34

I am trying to evaluate one of the posted Daz rv reprts blind. I figured out that I could find a link to a report with seeing anything about the target. I am looking at 2302‐target1 dated Monday, 23 February 2009. I am reading through the report and trying to see if I can find an event in March 2009 that appears to match the words. My goal is not to compare a stated target with the report, but to see if I can find a target based on the report.

My first thought was that words such as wild, energetic, male and female, some feel frantic, and some running made me think of college spring break, but I did not find anything in the news for that time period so I am off looking for other things that might be the target.

I did look into Iraq, but I did not see anything there. Talk of frantic, agitated, almost angry made me think of there.

I'll see what targets might match the report and give an update later.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Mar 2010, 10:13

Here are some of the words that struck me as I looked through the words and drawings:
Busy, warm, dry
Many people running, agitated, almost angry
a surprise energetic change of mind
a movement
abrupt, instantaneous, unexpected, impacting 'change' of direction/flow
tall solid man-made
agitated, loud, excited
tall sectioned structure
people excited adrenalin loud expressive
one so large one so small
uprising, loud voices, shooting, pushing, shoving
gathering pace 'a movement'
people caught up in something larger than themselves

Now I needed to match these up to potential targets for March 2009
1. I looked into the Iranian protests but they began June.
2. A possibility is the assassination of the president of Guinea-Bissau. I downplayed this possibility because of the lack of violence in the words that were listed.
3. Also in that month the president of Madagascar resigned. I didn't like this one since it seemed to match the flavor of many of the words
4. Fargo Residents Forced to Evacuate as Flood Waters Rise. I wasn't seeing this as a natural disaster so I also dropped this idea.
5. Indonesian dam broke killing at least 60. Dropped this one for the same reason as above.
6. Madoff jailed. Now that one caught my eye since it was such a big event.

What I settled on as my target was bank foreclosures in Az, GA, and FL. That seemed to me to high the structures, the movement, and the anger. The drawings of people small against big buildings also made me think of the banks and people losing out and foreclosures to boot. Notice that all of these banks are from warm areas and dry. Georgia was in a drought at the time.

I'll check out the target that was listed in the farsight website and see if I got something.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Mar 2010, 10:16

The target is the launch of the Keppler Mission to look for life on other planets. The
launch was on 6 March, 2009.


Guess I missed that completely. I'll try again.

Guess I didn't understand the drawing on p8. I thought it was fish in a pond or something like that.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby NucleicAcid » 29 Mar 2010, 02:00

Daz, the major problem seems to be that you're generating a large amount of intellectual information, and the target also contains an equally large amount. Statistically speaking, you don't know if you can call that a hit or not. Obviously, if you had written "Tornado," or things meteorological that would be a hit. But you don't know how strongly the cues you wrote down correlate with the cues of the target, and as a result, what you see as a whopping hit, the skeptics see as a whopping miss. Me personally? (I'm a chemistry/psychology student, psychic practitioner, and unofficial parapsychologist, just to give myself some labels) I think it's honestly a little weak. It's no eight martini hit. I made a guess from reading your report before looking at the target, I thought it was some sort of open concert, like Burning Man or SXSW, especially someplace out in the desert.

What you need is a system like GotPsi, where certain keywords are given a value, and compared against the keywords of the target, giving you a numeric score. That way, you can keep track of exactly how well you are doing, or even apply it towards something like Associative Remote Viewing. That way, when people say, "You're full of it, you're totally retrofitting," you can say "Here's the data, here's the z score, here's the p-value." Skeptics do not buy into haphazard words that seem to vaguely correlate with a target that could have been anything (especially considering I've thrown tons of raw numbers conducted in tightly controlled scientific conditions and they won't even buy into that). But even from my optimistic, hippie-dippie psi-believing point of view, you need a more controlled procedure.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby dazsmith » 29 Mar 2010, 17:36

Nostradamus said:
See here is where I get confused. You want some words to apply to a tornado and then you point out that some tornadoes are not destructive. Yet the target is what I think is a destructive event: 3 dead and 20 injured.


NO i didn't say that. You picked example words you said described a tornado - which you said were the ones you'd accept. these words were based around a theme of destruction - which is fine - I just pointed out that not all tornado are destructive. I didnt say this one wasn't. Yes most are but I bet NOT ALL are.Therefore if a remote viewer used your words and the tornado event wasn't destructive then they'd bee off target. In this case the words would fit the event - but then again so did mine?

My words and sketches on this target details a natural, aggressive movement interacting with structures - this too is a good description of a tornado event - the tone of the wording is just not as 'destructive' as yours - was I wrong - no - as the words still describe the event.

Profwag asked:
You did a reading in April based on a made-up number and came up with your result which appears to be a building on the Sydney Bay. Right?


NO.
Firstly not a reading - I Am not a psychic or medium - these are the only discipline who use the term reading.
The sydney example was form a project ran throughout 2008 by the farsight institute:
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Demo2008/R ... Page1.html - background/overview
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Demo2008/C ... _Page.html - remote viewing sessions

This was the first big experiment and a different protocol.
Snipets of this project description are;

"The remote viewers participating in this study have remote viewed various geographically determined targets during two time periods: 1 June 2008 and 1 June 2013. This five-year gap will allow us to look for climate change that may occur over that period.

The various 2008 targets establish a baseline set of criteria by which the accuracy of the remote-viewing results in general may be evaluated. Thus, if the 1 June 2008 targets are perceived accurately by the remote viewers participating in the study, then it is reasonable to assume that the results for the future dates for those same targets will be comparably accurate.

The remote-viewing sessions were conducted prior to the targets being assigned. The targets have now been assigned by a truly random process (explained below) that took place on Wednesday, 4 June 2008. It was not possible for a remote viewer (or anyone else) to know the identity of the target at the time the target was being remote viewed since the remote-viewing sessions were conducted before 4 June 2008. Thus, the targets are assigned in the future with respect to when the sessions were done, and the remote-viewing data essentially predict the future targets.



Public participation

The public has been encouraged to participate in this study by downloading the remote-viewing sessions when they became available and then waiting until the targets are assigned to those sessions using a dynamic and truly random process as described below. The public can then examine the accuracy of the remote-viewing data in describing the assigned targets. The remote-viewing results were made available for public download as soon as they were collected on an on-going basis until 3 June 2008. These results were all encrypted (using Winzip) so that no one could see them until a password is applied to decrypt the sessions.

During this time while the remote-viewing sessions were being completed and downloaded by the public, the targets were not yet assigned to the remote-viewing sessions. The remote-viewing sessions were assigned targets according to a truly random and publicly known process (a so-called "signal marker") that occurred during the first week of June 2008. This event is now known, and it can be seen in a link below (near the bottom of this page). The dynamic event was used to determine which among 999 possible target assignments would be used for this study. A file that contains the identity of this dynamic random event and the complete set of possible target assignments was available for public download since 22 March 2008. Once the password for this file is posted on this web site, it will be clear which targets are assigned to which remote-viewing sessions. That is, one of the 999 possible target assignments is determined by the dynamic random event, and the public will be able to see the actual target assignments as well as the 998 other possible assignments that were not chosen when the decrypted file is examined. Crucially, until the dynamic random event occurred, it was impossible for anyone anywhere to know which target were assigned to which remote-viewing session. All of the this is further explained in full detail in the target assignment file. "

You can get further detail on this project form the webpages supplied (above):


Now, who picked the target and how was it picked?

By a random process a time after we had done the remote viewing
The random event that determines the target assignments for the remote-viewing sessions conducted for the Climate Study (so-called "Signal Marker") occurred on Wednesday, 4 June 2008. The closing DOW Jones Average for Wednesday, 4 June 2008 is 12,390.48. This number allows the assignment of all targets to all remote-viewing sessions that were done for the Climate Study. All of the target assignment files have been available for download (encrypted) since 22 March 2008. In each of the target assignment files (there are three), the following statement is at the top:

"Below are 999 possible target assignments for the Climate RV Study being conducted by The Farsight Institute in 2008. Which target assignment is chosen for the study is determined by the last three integer digits of the closing Dow Jones average for Wednesday, 4 June 2008. For example, if the Dow Jones average for that day closes at, say, 12,345.67, then the target assignment would be #345, and you would find this assignment in the list below."

Since the closing DOW Jones Average for Wednesday, 4 June 2008 is 12,390.48, the last three integer digits are 390. Thus, in each of the three lists of 999 possible target assignments, the 390th entry assigns each target to each remote-viewing session.


Did someone see what you wrote in April and then in June said "this is the Sydney Opera House?" Did someone not see what you wrote, but detailed of the Sydney Operah House in June and then you matched up your reading with that?

No the targets were later chosen by a random process (see above).

I appreciate your experiments, but if I'm going to be an unbiased judge of what you claim, I feel I ned more information so that chance, coincidence, etc. can be ruled out.

Then read the webpages provided - there are three different experiments over three years using multiple remote viewers and multiple rv schools - all in public.

Here's where I'm having a difficult time understanding: If I meditate for a while and a picture comes in to mind. Let's say I see a large, solid, egg-shaped object that appears to twirl rising into the clouds. What happens next? Does someone a couple months from now say they are going to make as a target the Gherkin Building and I say, "Hey! That matches my description?" Or, does someone take my reading and say "Hey, that looks like the Gherkin!"? Or, does someone set the a target as the Gherkin, and then completely blind, I say "I have a description of something. Let's match up what you set as a target and then compare it to my reading from a couple months ago." The latter would obviously only require two pieces of paper, the target (being only one) and my reading (being only one).
Hopefully, you find this a fair and not too confusing question...


The target chosen to go with the remote viewing is done by a random process - as outlined above - not chosen by a person - and no one sees the remote viewing until the random process has chosen the targets - so no human interference at all.

Nuceleicacid said:

Obviously, if you had written "Tornado," or things meteorological that would be a hit

What you mean like the word TORNADO on PAGE 4 (half way down) you mean????
And this is STILL here classed as a miss?????

need I say more?

Daz
User avatar
dazsmith
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 May 2009, 22:02

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby Nostradamus » 29 Mar 2010, 20:09

My words and sketches on this target details a natural, aggressive movement interacting with structures - this too is a good description of a tornado event - the tone of the wording is just not as 'destructive' as yours - was I wrong - no - as the words still describe the event.

You are reaching my friend. The only word describing a tornado anywhere is the word tornado. Music appears on the same page. This is cherry picking. You seem to want to avoid the fact that a highly destructive tornado was not described with words suggesting destruction.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby Nostradamus » 29 Mar 2010, 20:15

What you mean like the word TORNADO on PAGE 4 (half way down) you mean????
And this is STILL here classed as a miss?????

need I say more?

Daz if we used the same cherry picking method you list above then we have to mark other so-called hits as misses. For instance on the Norwegian spiral the term in the margin is MRI scanner. That's a miss. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby NucleicAcid » 29 Mar 2010, 23:08

I'm sorry, Daz, I didn't see that as the gist note (I'm mostly familiar with TRV, I've tried it a few times, not much success).

But nonetheless, you also had Coastal, Tidal, Boat, and Island. That's what the final summation stage is for - where you piece together the most important bits and discard what you feel is the mental noise, which did not specifically say "tornado." This is exactly the same problem that Stargate research ran into - the remote viewers were very definitely getting SOME sort of signal out of the noise, but they couldn't figure out how to extract that signal in order to use it for anything. I think user Craig Browning knows a bit more on the current state of things, but those viewers also have the advantage of having several viewers using the same target - this is a common technique in signal theory, and can work really well.

The whole ideology behind psionics and technical remote viewing (vs intuition and clairvoyance) is that it is controllable; you can use it to do things. Based SOLELY on your report, if I were the information officer in charge of reviewing your report, and I only had your report to go on, I might have thought a concert, a big event at the Guggenheim Museum or Sydney Opera House, a tidal wave hitting an important building in a populated urban area, really any sort of large natural disaster hitting a coastal urban area, etc. But I don't think I would have gotten specifically "A tornado hitting a small rural town in the middle of Arkansas." That's what I mean. I am hesitant to call it a "hit" because it's not a 100% hit, but it's not a "miss" either, because it does seem like you got the general feel of it. If you had gotten "Tornado" from the notes page and put it on the final page, I would call it a 100% hit. But even then, I would assume it were someplace like Mexico or Australia or Florida, or maybe near a very large lake in the Southwest.

Also, I would have to know what the results of the other 998 trials were in order to know if there is any sort of actual success rate. This is just one example you have presented. 999 trials is well enough to have a complete dead-on hit, just by chance alone. Like,if this is one of the only trials of this project that you guys consider a hit, then it's most likely due to chance. I would want to see about this level of correlation between mentation and target on at least a third (33%, that was basically the average hit rate determined in the AIR reports) of the trials, in order to call it a successful project.

I would LOVE to see remote viewing to be developed into a hugely powerful tool, however, things that set up for confirmation bias will actually slow down development - in the same way that practicing telekinesis on a psiwheel in a room with a draft will give you a false feeling that you're having success, when you're not, and thus you're practicing "wrong."
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

Postby dazsmith » 30 Mar 2010, 06:00

That's what the final summation stage is for - where you piece together the most important bits and discard what you feel is the mental noise, which did not specifically say "tornado."

No I didn't because IN CRV we are trained to try to not name the target but to describe as descriptions are more accurate that naming as this incites guesses.

but even so can you truthfully say my summation did not describe a tornado?

The whole ideology behind psionics and technical remote viewing (vs intuition and clairvoyance) is that it is controllable; you can use it to do things. Based SOLELY on your report, if I were the information officer in charge of reviewing your report, and I only had your report to go on, I might have thought a concert, a big event at the Guggenheim Museum or Sydney Opera House, a tidal wave hitting an important building in a populated urban area, really any sort of large natural disaster hitting a coastal urban area, etc. But I don't think I would have gotten specifically "A tornado hitting a small rural town in the middle of Arkansas."

I disagrre - I have also stated that rv should NOT be the sole form or information and should ONLY be used with other information- I have also always said that rarely is it 100% accurate - generally 50-70%, AND in the case of this experiment the other remote viewers ALSO accurately described a tornado event - so the information would have some collective value - just take a look at their sessions to see:
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Multiple_U ... h2009.html

That's what I mean. I am hesitant to call it a "hit" because it's not a 100% hit, but it's not a "miss" either, because it does seem like you got the general feel of it. If you had gotten "Tornado" from the notes page and put it on the final page, I would call it a 100% hit.


Cant do this in RV - the aim of rv is to describe and to try not to name anything.

Also, I would have to know what the results of the other 998 trials were in order to know if there is any sort of actual success rate. This is just one example you have presented. 999 trials is well enough to have a complete dead-on hit, just by chance alone. Like,if this is one of the only trials of this project that you guys consider a hit, then it's most likely due to chance. I would want to see about this level of correlation between mentation and target on at least a third (33%, that was basically the average hit rate determined in the AIR reports) of the trials, in order to call it a successful project.

Well there is two years of work there on-line in 2 different projects with some of the most public remote viewers in the world - go evaluate :)
For example of the first year project - climate change - I hit all the 6 confirmation targets.
for example this one - did I not hit this target:
http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/11.4. ... sydney.pdf
or this one:
http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/11.4. ... island.pdf
I can and do, do this over and over time after time - am i reaching, am i retrofitting, am i self deluding or could the reality be that some of us are just that little bit more sensitive to the quantum/holographic universe and that there is a real effect here?

I would LOVE to see remote viewing to be developed into a hugely powerful tool, however, things that set up for confirmation bias will actually slow down development - in the same way that practicing telekinesis on a psiwheel in a room with a draft will give you a false feeling that you're having success, when you're not, and thus you're practicing "wrong."


I disagree RV already is a working tool, does work and can be very useful.
User avatar
dazsmith
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 May 2009, 22:02

PreviousNext

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest