Daz - Remote Viewing Test

[ciscop]

well
i dont know what clown taught you how to do RV
but obviously you arent doing it well since you relate music to a tornado
you are cherry picking

thats why you wouldnt do the test we propose for us here on the forum
you cant do it

[ProfWag]

Hey Daz, you may say this "is a great description of a TORNADO," but speaking of music, this is also a great description of Johan Sebastian Bach's "The Art of the Fugue." Think of Bach and then re-read what you wrote. Seriously.

but you are also ignoring all the sketches - and you are also just taking this one example of remote viewing out of context on its own. I have supplied hundreds of examples in links.

All you can do is try to match any other silly and unrelated things like music to the actual experiment and to add stupid videos to go along with it - in desperate hope that comedy and sleight of hand will make some people be distracted form the actual reality - i see the amazing randi taught your sleight of hand sceptics - well These are generally only part correct - and as I also said we aren't allowed to name things - only describe.
But as I've said before - you haven't even tried read how and why remote viewers do certain things, why some data is put to one side - its as I said trying to explain to monkeys who haven't even bothered to understand and read-up of the subject they are discussing.

I'm sorry Daz, I just don't get it. If you are so hell bent that you described a tornado, then when you were writing your summary, why in the hell didn't you write "it's a tornado" rather than throw out all sorts of words (that even with a drawing of a tornado would still appear to me to be a description of a Bach piece) and then after an object is identified, it's associated with some of the words that were written down. Unfortunately, I believe this is why your practice is not taken seriously by mainstream science. It appears everything is subjective.
I realize that specifics is not the way RV is done, but I also believe it's why it has yet to be proven useful.
P.S. You can say all you want about how silly music is in relation to your description, but the fact remains that I believe that it sounds like classical music and when I read your summary to my wife, she also said classical music without any input from me. Granted, we didn't look at the drawing of a tornado, but if you were summarizing your reading, then a drawing shouldn't have been necessary. Also, I've never asociated the word "orgasm" with a tornado, but orgasm and music, well...that's a different story...

[dazsmith]

I'm sorry Daz, I just don't get it. If you are so hell bent that you described a tornado, then when you were writing your summary, why in the hell didn't you write "it's a tornado" rather than throw out all sorts of words

Look I don't mind debating with you guys - but please read whats been written.
Its been stated by me more than once the make-up of CRV Controlled Remote Viewing is a structure that tries to cut noise - it does this by limiting analytical processes within RV - one of these is naming and naming need an amount of analysis by the remote viewer. So every thing is sketched and described and we try not to name the target. When we do get an overwhelming need to name it we do so with AOL: for Analytical Overlay. Which in fact I did anyway within this RV session?

P.S. You can say all you want about how silly music is in relation to your description, but the fact remains that I believe that it sounds like classical music and when I read your summary to my wife, she also said classical music without any input from me.

OK - but when you put the rv data side by side with the known data a tornado - is the data form the remote viewer incorrect as a description or correct - it matters not that without knowing the target you thought it was music - when the target is know and you mark each piece of data can/does it apply to the target?

Also when you look at the whole rv session and you look at the sketches that show ' flow movements interacting with structures' and 'exposed to motion and sound, aggravation, buffeted, wild, flowing motion' and a little sketch of waves downwards - then the next page a sketch with a comment: 'a strong penetrating movement similar to a sandstorm' then there's pages 11 ' a feeling of air being pushed and moved in a direction - agressive' - then this is clear its not music - you're basing all your decision on little sound bites not the entire rv session and data.

Mark my summary properly and you'll find its probably over 90% accurate to the description of a tornado - the target.
Mark the entire session and you'll see I AM describing and sketching a tornado and its effects.

Also, I've never associated the word "orgasm" with a tornado, but orgasm and music, well...that's a different story...

Well maybe an orgasm and the release is how I see things - doesn't mean its wrong - just that different descriptions work in different ways with different people - but when you mark the data it can and does apply to the target.

Again - lets move on to the Sydney opera house target - try another - surely If I can keep doing this time after time you can see a pattern?
http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/11.4. ... sydney.pdf

Daz

[Nostradamus]

Mark my summary properly and you'll find its probably over 90% accurate to the description of a tornado - the target.

I would have ranked it under 25%, maybe as low as 10%. Other than the cherry picked word tornado I see virtually nothing.

[ProfWag]

Mark my summary properly and you'll find its probably over 90% accurate to the description of a tornado - the target.

I would have ranked it under 25%, maybe as low as 10%. Other than the cherry picked word tornado I see virtually nothing.

Daz, I hope you don't become too frustrated and decide to quit posting as I find your evidence and experiments quite fascinating and hope you continue, but unfortunately, I have to agree with Nostradamus on this. Also, when you said: "you're basing all your decision on little sound bites not the entire rv session and data." my perception is that that is what you are doing with your summary which is trying to find something that matched the target.
I'm really having a difficult time comprehending the usefulness of RV at this point in my study this phenomenon. If you were able to take what you wrote down and then determined that you described ________ (fill in the blank) and then it matched the target, then yes, I could see a benefit. But if you can't comprehend that what you described until after you are shown what the target was, then no, I can't see how that could be very useful.
For example, if you described what looked like the Sydney Opera House and then said "I'm seeing the Sydney Opera House and the single, (not a choice of 4 or 5) blind target was then identified as the Sydney Opera House, then most definitely, that would be an important discovery in the field of psi-research.

[ciscop]

i hope daz stops posting links and actually do a test for us

but nah...

since he knows whats going to happen (best case scenario he does it and rambles and mumbles a huge amount of words and then cherry picks the one that it is related to the object)
he wont do it

would you daz?

[rachelschmink]

I see a problem with the subject that was chosen: a tornado. It's a heavily loaded term, it doesn't have a particular visual representation, and it could be described any number of ways. I think that this is at the cause of the disagreement here.

What would be a better test? Simple, concrete drawings. Agreements beforehand on whether the description can be metaphorical or not. For example, one of the Smiles/emoticons on this site: Or, a simple sketch of a stop sign. Or, a triangle.

Anybody know if tests have been done with these kinds of targets? That'd be interesting.

[dazsmith]

What would be a better test? Simple, concrete drawings. Agreements beforehand on whether the description can be metaphorical or not. For example, one of the Smiles/emoticons on this site: Or, a simple sketch of a stop sign. Or, a triangle.

Hiya,
Not a good target for remote viewing I am afraid.

RV works best with real/physical targets. In fact the studies at SAIC gev the indicators that the best targets are those that have ENTROPHY - or change.
good targets are:
man made structures: large buildings. bridges, statues - ie. Eiffel tower, statue of liberty, pyramids, white house, golden gate bridge,etc, etc
Events: Jfk assassination, titanic sinking, hindenberg event, Elvis first las vegas show, first a bomb test, 911, shuttle launch...
natural structures: mountains, islands, etc, etc
people: Elvis, marilyn monroe, jesus, jfk, etc, etc

targets that have both lots of feedback and change, energy, interest - life is you wish - make good targets.
A coke can sat on a table in someone bedroom beside their monitor for example isn't both interesting or has any change to it and is a bad rv target.

Also pictures like en emoticon have the other bad value of not being physical which makes it a bad target. For example how can i as a remoet viewer using my real physical senses describe an emoticon;
what doe an emoticon taste like?
what does it smell like?
if i touch it - how does it feel?
if i move above it what can i see?
This type of thing.

Hope this helps.

All the best...

Daz

[ciscop]

so if NP gets an image of elvis and puts it in a locked box
can you get the elvis or not?

just do the test

[NinjaPuppy]

so if NP gets an image of elvis and puts it in a locked box
can you get the elvis or not?

What part of.........

Also pictures like en emoticon have the other bad value of not being physical which makes it a bad target. For example how can i as a remoet viewer using my real physical senses describe an emoticon;
what doe an emoticon taste like?
what does it smell like?
if i touch it - how does it feel?
if i move above it what can i see?
This type of thing.

Did you NOT understand??? Besides, I have much too much work to do today to go to Memphis, dig up Elvis and put him in a box. Besides, he's already in a box. Not to mention that I don't care to even think about what Elvis tastes or smells like at this point.

[NinjaPuppy]

ciscop - Daz told you 'NO' and I don't blame him one bit. He took his time to share his experience and personal details and all everyone did was pick his information to pieces. Perhaps if you would ask questions rather than post nasty comments, we all might actually learn something here.

ND and ProfWag approached the subject with hard hitting questions, not snide remarks. There is a difference.

[ProfWag]

Did you NOT understand??? Besides, I have much too much work to do today to go to Memphis, dig up Elvis and put him in a box. Besides, he's already in a box. Not to mention that I don't care to even think about what Elvis tastes or smells like at this point.

Did I mention I was at Elvis' house about 2 weeks ago? From what I saw, he's still laying around the pool there...

[ciscop]

ciscop - Daz told you 'NO' and I don't blame him one bit. He took his time to share his experience and personal details and all everyone did was pick his information to pieces. Perhaps if you would ask questions rather than post nasty comments, we all might actually learn something here.

ND and ProfWag approached the subject with hard hitting questions, not snide remarks. There is a difference.

is just excuses
lame excuses
i wanna see him doing it

not just talking about it and about past experiences
that´s just boring

[NinjaPuppy]

Did I mention I was at Elvis' house about 2 weeks ago? From what I saw, he's still laying around the pool there...

I will assume he was doing the dead man's float?

[ciscop]

hahahahahaha good one!!