Daz - Remote Viewing Test

[Craig Browning]

Again, we find that the ego and arrogance of the supposedly intellectual reveals the fact that they are never satisfied with any of the answers until the test subject (guinea pig) jumps through another set of hoops created by themselves... all based on the faux belief that their personal contrivance (test) is the beat all approach to it all.

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.

Now I'm really confused

I don't recall reading that but as I've said, some of this number reference stuff and other such lost me miles back... (odd, how I can relate to the skeptics better than I can the psychics, wouldn't you say?)... short story long... how in the hell can something be "usable" but not "testable"? wouldn't it have to be "tested" in order to convey reliability?

Ok... Daz... you've some splan'n to do (think Ricky Ricardo...)

[Craig Browning]

enought with that craig.. please, is just silly your "ego tactic"
it doesnt has to do anything with ego
is not like that
im simply not dumb enought like some here
to just accept any paranormal claim
are you?
if i told you i become invisible at night
would you believe without further prove? would you?


and your conspiracy theories are just plainly dumb, but all right believe whatever you want

Ewe! Find a spell checker the next time

You're deliberately understating your demands here and ignoring the FACT that every single self-professed skeptic does exactly what I've stated; laying their little test out on the table and boasting as to how much bigger, better and more satisfying it is to all the rest...

My "Conspiracy Theory" wasn't something to take literal, it's just observational perspective given how many "came out" of the woodwork in the past decade, riding Randi's fame (not to mention the brown stuff on their nose, in some cases... but hey... Randi would like that, especially if they Frenched)

[Nostradamus]

Craig what happened in a post a long while back was I asked Daz about the protocol. My concern is that the result is left open to a great deal of interpretation. Take the recent discussions about the tornadoes. I find the sum total of words and diagrams a miss while Daz does not.

So here is where the usable part comes in: 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.

But 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.

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.

[Nostradamus]

laying their little test out on the table and boasting as to how much bigger, better and more satisfying it is to all the rest

The problem Craig is things are not tested. The claim here is that it works. I for one don't see it working. I tried to match up the Norwegian spiral and the words on the page made me think of something else - very different that was in my mind a better match. I tried to match up the tornado rv. Except for 1 word cherry-picked it was in my mind a failure.

I'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.

Not big on magic acts so bear with me in this example. What's happening right now is no different than a magic act in which someone makes the ace of spades pop out of the deck and proclaims the card did it on its own. So would you object if I asked the person to pop a card out of the deck without reshuffling the cards or knowing beforehand what card I wanted to 'move on its own'?

[Craig Browning]

What's happening right now is no different than a magic act in which someone makes the ace of spades pop out of the deck and proclaims the card did it on its own. So would you object if I asked the person to pop a card out of the deck without reshuffling the cards or knowing beforehand what card I wanted to 'move on its own'?

No... I'd just right you off as being another asshole trying to ruin everyone's fun (sadly, there are far too many such schmucks out there)

Do understand that I know (kindof) where you're coming from and actually encourage folks to ask similar questions... not to the ball busting level so many "skeptics" want to impose, but to a reasonable level that will trip up 99% of the charlatans out there... that's my ONLY focus, exposing the crooks that prey on the consumer though, on a number of fronts I could care less about the rest even though it does irritate me, primarily due to what I see as the child-like attitude (as heard in many a kiddie show) "You're a fake magician..."

How is that possible?

It's as I've attempted to explain previously; there are "tricks" (techniques) tied to the psychic world but discovery of those methods does not negate what it is and how it is perceived by the majority. To coin a phrase used in the magic forums when all the weenies whine about exposure on YouTube and Tv, etc. "Presentation" is what makes it magickle... as any priest

A frightening high majority of professed skeptics are atheist/agnostic by preference but like most born-again christians (moslems, etc.) have the "need" to force the rest of society to live within the parameters of that belief system rather than living and letting live... respecting the beliefs of others and allowing them to live within those beliefs just as you do. But what's being seen is an evangelic movement within the Atheist world, to equate "Intelligence" to "non-belief" or worse, the ugly implication that if you do believe in anything you're an ignorant fool and it's impossible for you to display any mode of legit intelligence -- those that have & do are quickly "discredited" at the social-political level at least. A frightening easy thing to accomplish given the scores of scholars belonging to the non-belief element.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a reality that can be seen unfolding on a daily basis; something that's been seen unfolding for more than a few generations (though I don't quite agree with some of the fanatical blindness that's going on from "the other side" -- denial being what it is) and it's escalating!

To be honest, I don't mind seeing the demise of organized religion... the world has, on many levels, out-grown such influences and needs to step back long enough to realize that (the Abrahamic faiths in particular) I'm holding onto the plagiarized tales viewed as "Myths" when viewed from the Greek or even Babylonian traditions, but view them as "fact" when set within the scriptures... why?

I can care less if someone believes in some kind of "Higher Power"... just when cult-mind thinking sets the tempo for everyone else to live by.

[dazsmith]

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.
OR
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?

[ProfWag]

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?

Daz, as I pointed out on page 7 of the "Free Remote Viewing Magazinge Issue 3" thread, Hyman clearly disagreed with the findings of Jessica Utts. Why do you insist on using him as an example of the validity of your claim? He states that there were serious flaws in the findings of Utts. Your statement is very misleading to the casual lurker. Sorry.

[Nostradamus]

Daz, I specifically asked a long while back about being able to test what you do and you told me as you have shown in your previous post that what you do does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny. That makes it not testable. You claim utility. I don't see that. I have tried to match things up and I just don't see matches unless I cherry pick.

None of these claims of being blind, and lots of rvs, and labs doing testing make what you do testable. Maybe someplace else someone changed the protocol to make it testable. What you have shown us here is completely subjective.

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.

I suggested something along these lines and you specifically said that you do not do this. I posted a link to where thousands of people tried this and the result was no better than chance.

Again you make claims that this works. You didn't point to the evidence or provide any. You claim support by Hyman and that is not correct. Hmmm ...

[dazsmith]

Daz, as I pointed out on page 7 of the "Free Remote Viewing Magazinge Issue 3" thread, Hyman clearly disagreed with the findings of Jessica Utts. Why do you insist on using him as an example of the validity of your claim? He states that there were serious flaws in the findings of Utts. Your statement is very misleading to the casual lurker. Sorry.

Because even though they only examined the last ten experiments in the 30+ year history of the rv program hyman stated:

We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.

Now Hyman doesn't or wont (is a better way of putting it) agree that the effects are psi - but he clearly states that there were no flaws in the methods and scientific process. Yet Utts does believe they are psi effects - this is not misleading its stating that they both found no errors and that the effects were not statistical flukes. Utts and others find serious flaws in the statements of Hyman - so the circle goes around i am afraid.

Hyman cant find it within himself to admit even though an effect was recorded and no errors observed that psi may have been in effect - yet he cnat also explain what did make the effect if it wasn't error or flukes - hes in denial

Nostradmanus said:

Daz, I specifically asked a long while back about being able to test what you do and you told me as you have shown in your previous post that what you do does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny. That makes it not testable. You claim utility. I don't see that. I have tried to match things up and I just don't see matches unless I cherry pick.

I do not recollect saying that - and don't think I would have - why would I say this when i have over 89,000 documents most of which are scientific scrutiny of remoet viewing - which I have stated over and over on these forums?

As I said watch the video for a perfect demonstartaion of your test - funny how you ignore a good demo when its presneted to you - comment on the video link.

Again you make claims that this works. You didn't point to the evidence or provide any. You claim support by Hyman and that is not correct. Hmmm

Again you show your blind sided sceptical stupidity - I gave you a link to a video demo of exactly the type of experiment you detailed in my previous post - yet you somehow conveniently missed this - i can also supply you documents detailing thousands of blind rv trials of these types of tests but alas you dont want to hear about this either.

I tell you what to make it easier for you to find i will repost the link for you again here, wouldn't want you to keep accusing me of not posting any evidence:

like this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7738671051661094581#

Daz

[ciscop]

Daz
stop posting BS
you only have proved to be a coward and a spammer

if you have done the test
i will tell EVERYBODY
about that amazing guy on the internet who walks the talk
but nah..
you are only another BS artist

[Nostradamus]

Daz, Hyman disagrees with Utts. End of story.

You did say that. I've reposted it before. I guess I'll have to repost it again. Just because someone looks at a document does not make it any better or worse a document.

Again you show your blind sided sceptical stupidity - I gave you a link to a video demo of exactly the type of experiment you detailed in my previous post - yet you somehow conveniently missed this - i can also supply you documents detailing thousands of blind rv trials of these types of tests but alas you dont want to hear about this either.

When someone attempts to match up music to a tornado I guess I'll have to call that stupid.
When someone tries to match up straight lines to a spiral I guess I'll have to call that stupid.

Of course I want to hear about evidence, but despite all of this talk you have failed. Now let me look at this video and see if there is anything there.

[dazsmith]

so you wont comment of the supplied video demo then that fits YOUR parameters of a remoet viewing test - which just so happens to show a great hit by a random/untrained person using remote viewing.

When someone attempts to match up music to a tornado I guess I'll have to call that stupid.
When someone tries to match up straight lines to a spiral I guess I'll have to call that stupid.

LOL my tornado session doesn't mention music - its clearly a DESCRIPTION of a tornado - even named as a TORNADO - not named as MUSIC.
but carry on reaching

Also you still have to comment on my Sydney session - oh but like the video demo you wont because that's harder to dismiss.
Rv isn't exact - I've already stated that 20% or more in rv sessions is generally 'noise' so in some of my rv there will be some noise - but generally they accurately DESCRIBE the targets.
Not only this - i can and do, do this time after time for years on end.
Even if just one of the thousands of projects and rv examples i have done is a hit or a 'white crow' then this shows that not all crows are black.

Daz

[Nostradamus]

so you wont comment of the supplied video demo then that fits YOUR parameters of a remoet viewing test - which just so happens to show a great hit by a random/untrained person using remote viewing.

Are you purposely trying to look ridiculous. I said I would look at the video and I will. So instead of seeing if I do look at the video you quickly post that I won't.

[Nostradamus]

LOL my tornado session doesn't mention music - its clearly a DESCRIPTION of a tornado - even named as a TORNADO - not named as MUSIC.

Daz are you lying or did you forget that you wrote MUSIC on the same page as the word tornado? As soon as I get the image uploaded I will show you your own words. It's clearly NOT a description of a tornado. That's a ridiculous claim. You didn't even get the part of the world right. You stated Milan, Dubai, and island, hot, and dry and none of these things match up with Arkansas.

[Nostradamus]

I looked at the video and it is a better hit than anything I have seen you post Daz. Why is that?

Before they revealed the site I did an experiment. I took out a coin and flipped it twice. I got 2 heads that's 11 in binary. So I knew right there and then that choice 4 was the right choice. The coin was right. I can't believe it. The coin knew that site 4 was the viewed site.