Skeptics - Remote Viewing test

[dazsmith]

[Nostradamus]

[ciscop]

[dazsmith]

[Nostradamus]

[ProfWag]

[Nostradamus]

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.

[Nostradamus]

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.

[Nostradamus]

[NucleicAcid]

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.

[dazsmith]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[NucleicAcid]

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."

[dazsmith]