|
|
|
|
#1
11-09-2001, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In the other thread, now in multiple pages I have proposed a test of the phenomenon of Remote Viewing. I intend to participate, and offer my own services as Interim Judge. For this position I must be acceptable to all participants as an honest examiner, and fair executor of an entirely open process for installing the final team of test participants, observers, and jurists. I will also be the implementing authority on the appointment of the three judges.
If there are other prospective Interim Judges, please post here, so you can be considered. (note: the final Judges will be chosen by the two teams of participants, and observers, and the entire testing team must accept the third Judge as an neutral, and honest person.) After the Judges are selected, I will step down in favor of their authority for the actual conduct of the test. For the test we will also need a group of volunteers willing to continue their participation over an extended period. Those wishing to become members of the Proponant test team must decide for themselves how their teams are organized, and what actions they will take. Those decisions must then be submitted to the Judges for consideration by the entire testing team. The Skeptic test team will have the responsibility of maintaining all copies of information submitted by the Proponent team, in reasonably secure conditions, and strict chain of custody records indicating the exact time when those items came into the Skeptic team's possession. No one but Judges and Jurists may see those documents until after the final judgment has been made, at which time all such documents will be published and placed in the Public Domain. The skeptic team may submit objects for consideration by the final judges to be included in the target database. Such objects must meet these criteria, and those other criteria later to be decided by the team as a whole committee, before any test procedures begin: The viewing target must be a person, place or object, or an event of simple momentary duration and singular location. (The Kennedy Assassination, but not the Hundred Years War. The Wedding of Princess Diana, but not the Continental Congress.) If possible, a photo (or other graphic representation of good quality) of the event, or thing should be obtained, and two copies made. The object designation must include a reasonable time designation, such as a date, or possibly a date and time, to the hour, or even to the minute, if such is significant to the event. (One small step for a man . . .) The names of as many people as can be provided, if they are in the picture. The location pictured, as precisely as it can be designated, for instance "the southeast corner of Thirteenth and H streets, NW Washington DC." "My dad's farm" would not be acceptable, unless the address was included. Objects that are not fixed in location should be in pictures cropped to minimize the inclusion of non-target details. (Show the artist's conception of Pioneer Ten; not Pioneer Ten, in the assembly building prior to launch.) Famous objects, people or events are not required, or excluded, but indistinguishable events or objects are not encouraged. (One traffic jam is much like another, and the precise location is hard to differentiate even with an eye witness view.) Distinctive, but little known events are encouraged, if clear representations are available, but not if only descriptive information reveals the distinction. (The murder of Czar Nicholas cannot be distinctly represented, but the photo of the unnamed young Pashtun woman from Afghanistan who was on the cover of National Geographic is certainly acceptable.) A rose is a rose is a rose. Hannoverians notwithstanding, we are not going to play varietal horticulture trivia. The Royal Standard of the ruling house of Medieval Saxony is a flag. Calling it a flag is certainly a correct identification. The Judges and the Observers will list an ascending order of identification, by detail. And example would be: A flag. A flower. A lotus blossom. A white lotus blossom against a red background. A drawing of a white lotus blossom against a red background. The flag of Hong Kong. In other cases the list might look like this. People. A crowd of people. An angry crowd. An angry crowd inside a large building. An angry crowd inside a building, with policemen. A man shoots another man in front of a crowd with policemen inside a large building. Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald in the parking garage in front of the Dallas Police. This is an example that would also have a very precise date and time, since that knowledge is easily available from the context. Do not send your photos in to anyone yet. But do consider them for now, and perhaps obtain good copies for later. A large number of photos in the data pool will provide a much more reliable source of test objects for our experiment. Proponent testers or observers are not eligible to submit photos, and are encouraged not to make specific suggestions as to objects. (Examples of categories of objects that are, or are not suitable are allowed, in this discussion, of course.) Any test object specifically mentioned here is automatically disqualified. Eventually all test objects will be prepared for a double blind test procedure, by participants of the Skeptic test team, under observation by the Judges. I should stop here, and await responses, in case this is entirely my own pipe dream. Persons interested should designate their position on the subject in their posts, and make clear the limit of their willingness to participate. I am a Skeptical Participant. I shall make no decisions on the final judgment, unless asked to do so as a skeptical Jurist, or the Skeptical Judge. I will make determinations on the stated agreements of the participants until permanent Judges are appointed. Anyone else want to play? Tris ------------------------ "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." ~ Thomas Jefferson ~ 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#4
11-09-2001, 02:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Czarcasm: So far, that seems to be within the parameters. I cannot say that the final parameters will include digital storage, but if needed, I can print up a couple of copies for you, and mail them in. Don't send anything yet.
Gaspode: I have serious doubts that this entire test procedure will go forward to a conclusion without a debate or two breaking out. If we can keep it below the level of fisticuffs, I will be satisfied!  Tris -------------- "Don't let it end this way! Tell them I said something." Poncho Villa's last words.
|
|
#5
11-09-2001, 02:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would love to participate, and I may be able to get her interested as well. I've participated in a ganzfeld experiment, which is very similar to the proposed "pool of targets" concept, with the difference that someone is looking at the target trying to 'send' it to the viewer. Remove the 'sender' and you have a remote viewing experiment.
My wife is a student of such phenomena, and is inclined to believe in their validity, while I am inclined to disbelieve. However, both of us demand evidence to form an opinion, so I'd say I'm "skeptical-neutral" and she's "adherent-neutral" on your scale. I wouldn't mind being a judge, if Lulu participates we could keep each other honest.
|
|
#6
11-09-2001, 10:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Link to the other thread.
Note: If you're coming in late, the other thread doesn't have much hard information on remote viewing--it's mainly "I believe! Remote viewing works for me!" witnessing posts by members of the Hawaiian Remote Viewing Guild. Also, it's five pages long. 
|
|
#7
11-09-2001, 12:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Triskadecamus,
I think there is a serious problem in using a message board as a scientific test. I expect from your posts that you will be a fair Judge. But I don't know you personally, and neither do the remote viewers in Hawaii. Surely you need to involve a known person or organisation. Somebody with a website, who can be clearly identified. Perhaps a newspaper (the Chicago Reader?) would be interested. It might be newsworthy. I post from the UK, and can ask a local paper here, if you want.
__________________
Arnold Winkelried: 'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
|
|
#8
11-09-2001, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Glee,
I had not supposed that Cecil Adams, or the Chicago Reader were in any way sponsoring this endeavor. It just seemed to me that no one was able to find hard data of any type and that such data would not be that hard to generate. Since no one else wanted to step forward, I did. Now please note I have appointed myself Interim Judge. It is not my intention to let the validity of this test rest entirely upon my reputation here at the Straight Dope Message Board. That would be unreasonable. But I do have a reputation here, and it is, in my own estimation strong enough to base a beginning upon. I will not appoint Judges, or Jurists. I will facilitate a process where the Proponents and Skeptics themselves will appoint Judges. I will then step aside, and accept the new Judges as authorities. I will not be the authority by which any decisions are made, except in the case that there is simply insufficient interest in sustaining the effort needed to complete a decent number of trials, and data collections. If even that decision is not felt to be reasonable, I will certainly step aside in favor of those who feel they should continue. If the Reader, or Ed, or even Cecil himself say "Tris, we are locking the thread, don't try that again." I will certainly not deny their right to do so. The Board is simply a fairly widely read forum in which to discuss the manner in which a test may be conducted. It allows a free exchange of opinions and gripes from all participants, and an open message area inclined to the sort of examination that is proposed. This endeavor is not going to happen entirely without cost. I will state at the outset that although I will willingly bear some level of cost in communication, and provide some on line storage of data, and even print a few photos from files, it will require true volunteerism from the participants. I will not be willing to engage in collection of funds, transfers of funds, or payments of bills on behalf of others. I will not accept payment for any services, and strongly encourage all participants to consider making that a specific requirement of participation. Yes, some foundation might do a better job. But they have not. The AAAS, or any other real scientific association are welcome to join in. Anyone is welcome to join in, and each will be accepted as an equal member of the test team, and the team itself will appoint such authority positions it feels are needed. I have proposed Three Judges, and at least Three Jurists. Perhaps more would be better. So far, there are not enough of either for that to be a reasonable consideration to consider. This thread is only a discussion on the proposal. I intend to keep it current with any off-the-board developments. The Chicago Reader, aside from its generous presence alone, has no involvement, and no administrator or employee of the SDMB has made any contribution other than as private individuals expressing an interest in participation. Tris ------------------------- "There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." ~ Hippocrates ~
|
|
#9
11-10-2001, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
all this stuff about envelopes
Viewing the contents of an envelope is doable, as is the contents of a box, room, etc. Historically, such taskings were not a major part of the military program at least as far as the Stargate program. Operational targets were generally broader but could have led to subsequent taskings of more precise "locations".
Telling exactly where the envelope is theoretically should not make a difference, but I don't think there is any research on that. Personally, I think it could help if the location information does not provide any clues as to the contents or could tend to create a "story-line". If you say the envelope is in Mr Xyz's office at Boeing that could be detrimental. It's hard not to "create" data from previous data. "red, mechanical, large, powerfull, liquid, noisey..." could immediately create a mental image of a fire truck. If "heat" is my next thought, is that from the mental image or from the target? --------------------------------------------- As for the experiment, I hope it comes off but as I said before...... like pulling teeth. RV is the only "talent" I know of where demonstrating one's ability is "unprofessional" or somehow to be avoided at all costs. One student told me recently she felt that if she did a demo that was a failure, then it would convince a skeptic he was right and put a bad light on RV. Professionals apparently don't like being "tested" or putting on dog & pony shows n or do they seem to like any sort of psi "competitions". Its a whole 'nuther world. Maybe the skeptic and the RVer will never meet. If the handfull of psi researchers don't even test and publish RV experiments why should skeptical science? Oops...gettin on the soapbox. Rich
|
|
#10
11-11-2001, 02:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rich_rv wrote:
Quote:
The reason for this is that places many miles away cannot be controlled adequately. For a simple example, a viewer may or may not get images of "crowds of people" when viewing the Indiannapolis Motor Speedway. It would depend on whether or not the session occurs on a big race day. A single photo cannot convey these differences. These "real-world" targets cannot be controlled. Another, more detailed example: when looking at some of the sessions on the HRVG Web site, there was a picture of a fish with a coral reef in the background. Location was somewhere in the Carribean. At any time other than when the picture was taken, that particular fish wouldn't have been in that particular position near that particular part of the reef. A session done at the time when that particular spot undewater was occupied by sampling equipment from a marine biologist's field trip would yield very different results. Glenn claimed the picture itself is not the target, they just represent the target for the purposes of recording, so the targets themselves are highly variable (and it's no wonder tests come out badly!). But then we've got to get into the next point: what would the targets be? I don't know if you saw it in the previous thread, Rich, but I was trying to narrow things down. Glenn spoke about the 'gestalts' one gets during a session. My immediate thought was to limit the targets to individual gestalts, if at all possible. So, in those envelopes, my idea is to stick cards with specialized symbols which respresent unique gestalts, or unique sets of gestalts. If "red" is a gestalt, then one test target could be a blank red card. The only impression a viewer should get from this target would be "red." Well, wait, there may be gestalts from the containers of the targets. So, we can define all the gestalts about the envelopes themselves, and the cards themselves, and then ignore them if they come up during a session. No target should ever be designed to contain the gestalt "rectangular," for example. That way, if "rectangular" comes up in a session, we ignore it as meaning the card or envelope, not the desired target gestalts. (Of course, this all depends on one's defintion of 'gestalt', and I'm sure I'm not absolutely certain what it means in reference to remote viewing.) Do you at least see what I'm getting at, Rich? Now, to be fair, I've also heard that viewers do best with a target that's got a lot of "bandwidth," or lots of gestalts. If the only measure of success is the viewers' impressions, then I have no doubt this is true. As such, I would argue that for a test to be truly fair, "points" need to be deducted for things that were there, but were missed. Say an image has 100 'gestalts' in it, and a viewer saw five of them. If you only compare the viewer's work to the image, one way, then it's 100% correct. The viewer saw "red, blue, fish, water, and mouth." All of which are, indeed, present in the target image. But, the viewer missed "coral, pink, yellow, oval, stripes, vertical, etc., etc." To me, this is no more than 5% of what's there, and should be counted as such. In other words, if the viewers who participate don't feel comfortable trying to view something that's been designed to "evoke" just a few gestalts (a very-stricted-controlled target), then they must face some sort of "penalty" for for not viewing all the gestalts available in a more-complex, less-well-controlled target. Anyway, these details are all really jumping the gun as far as the OP is concerned (or perhaps not, since Tris jumped the gun as well and has started proposing example targets, too, it seems). The first step, after all, is to get a whole bunch of RVers to agree to be tested. If a set of rules about the test are settled on first, without any "believers" saying yea or nay, there won't be many takers. It's more important to get the people together first, so that the rules can be created with everyone involved. Statements about what will or won't be acceptable targets won't be seen as "suggestions" by many, but more like "demands," and that will just alienate RVers right from the start (see the responses Czarcasm got over on the HRVG board).
__________________
The Skeptic Friends Network "My dream is of a day where every SDMB poster will have a quote of mine in their sig." - Arnold Winkelried
|
|
#11
11-11-2001, 09:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Perhaps my target definition was premature. However, I specifically was avoiding the impression that I wanted anyone to see the picture of the site, or object, or person that was the target. I am much more interested in determining if the target itself is the thing viewed. That may be a personal assumption, and if the putative test team decides that the picture itself is the target, so be it.
To the "viewers" themselves, I make this assurance. I am not trying to control the environment in an attempt to hamper, or interfere with the phenomenon of viewing. I am attempting to find out if there is a recognizable result that can be seen by anyone that the viewer has gained information from the target without any channel of observation as I currently use the term. I don't intend to be hovering over the group of viewers. As I see it, no one needs to be present in the viewing process other than the proponent team. The big advantage of double blind methodology is that no one has to worry about the appearance of misconduct by the participants. The testers must be very strictly monitored, and controlled. But the participants will not have any information with which to cheat. They cannot be accused of spilling the beans, because the testers will have all the beans locked up, in a city thousands of miles away. After the test, the participants on the skeptic team will not have to worry about being accused of misjudging their results, because the judgment of those results will not be under their control either. For x number of targets, the viewing team will send x number of results, sealed, to the head Judge. That information will not be available to anyone, until the jury is finished making it's determination. No one can interfere with the information in either direction, since they will never have access to it. As to the general, or specific nature of the actual targets, I have some specific concerns. I am willing to be convinced that they are unreasonable, but I am also fairly sure that whatever constraints are agreed upon, a list of several dozen targets can be assembled easily. From fifty or so, a random set of a number agreed upon by the participants (probably ten or twenty) should provide a fairly decent set of statistics for the jury. If others feel that ten is too many, or twenty is not enough, that specific fact seems to me to be subject for consideration by the entire team, and a final determination by the judges. However, without willing subjects to demonstrate the phenomenon, no such is possible. We await news of a willing viewer, preferably, a larger number of viewers. Tris ----------------------- "Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty." ~ Erwin Schrodinger
|
|
#12
11-11-2001, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK, you want to view hidden objects with all of the classes of participants at hand. I believe that is a standard psi test protocol that has been used for "psychic testing" for many years. Swann mentions participating in such tests.
I don't know of any such experiments being run using the hrvg or CRV type methodologies. As for the Indy example, it could be targeted several ways. The task should include the time.... present time (time of viewing), time at which feedback photo was taken, specific date and time perhaps specific location within the track, etc. If a feedback photo or written tasking refers to a time at which cars are racing, crowds, maybe a specific accident.. the data should show that. If it doesn't but otherwise describes the track it is technically a miss but how is the other valid data evaluated? If a viewer was asked to identify the target from a choice of 4 dis-similar photos, he would probably choose correctly if he had track data but nothing on actual racing. This is as you describe for the hrvg fish target. The tasking should state that the target is the fish/location shown in the photo at the time the photo was taken. The time does not have to be known by the tasker. The tasking should specify what is being sought and when. National Geographic is a popular source for students training feedback photos. The photo could be tens of years old and a city may now exist in that pretty desert scene (or vice versa). If the tasking is time of photo the viewer should not come up with city data. IF the tasking is present time, the viewer should come up with city data. With no other information at hand, the session would be considered a miss. Remember that whatever data is produced depends on the talents of the viewer. A poor viewer may produce equally ambiguous data regardless of the tasking. A highly talented viewer should produce high quality data which, in the above desert/city example could make the miss look even more off target. ------------- good data vs missing data. That will always occur, same as if I showed you a photo for a fration of a second and asked you to list everything in the photo. You may recall the church, two people, a car and grass but did you see the dog, the sign and the two trees? RV is not a video. If the target is a parade as defined by a feedback photo showing a part of the parade having a marching band, an antique car and a Mickey Mouse character with spectators on the side next to a building........ RVers do not claim 100% accuracy nor 100% data transcription. I guess it could depend on what you want to test. Does the data match the target? Can the true target be determined from the data out of a batch of 4? What percent of the objects at the site are described/ not described? You say: It's more important to get the people together first, so that the rules can be created with everyone involved. Statements about what will or won't be acceptable targets won't be seen as "suggestions" by many, but more like "demands," and that will just alienate RVers right from the start (see the responses Czarcasm got over on the HRVG board). Absolutely....... You could even do a dry run or two to check out the protocol. I think the first step is to find some willing viewers and ascertain their experience and what methodology they will use. Rich
|
|
#13
11-12-2001, 12:58 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Okay, gotta remember to include the time. Down to the second?
Rich also wrote: Quote:
Even a "poor" viewer should do better than chance, given enough trials, than someone who just writes down random gestalts. This gets back to something else I was talking about in the original thread: the ideal test should be designed in such a way that the best viewers should say, "that's as easy as pie!" and believe that they will score as close to 100% as possible. It should also be designed so that "random chance" results would be on the order of single-digit percentages. In this way, even if the best viewers have a few bad sessions, out of many, they'll still score very high, and there will be no ambiguity in the results. Success for the best of viewers shouldn't be the difference between, say, 10% random chance and a 12% percentage in the viewer's session. If that's what would be expected today, however, then I'd suggest waiting 50 years or so. Wait for the training methodologies to work their way up to some solid results first, with the youngest of today's viewers. Quote:
Quote:
And, as per my comments above, I think there should be ways to increase the margin without significantly increasing what chance alone would do. Hey, here's an idea (tell me if it would work): Get 5 or 10 viewers to RV the same target. After they've all done their independent sessions, get them together to decide which bits of their data to keep and which to toss. They submit for judgement, as a group, one set of final data, selected by whatever method they choose to use. Since Lyn Buchanan is convinced that different viewers have different talent areas (colors, motion, whatever), this could be a simple way for them to "team up" and produce more-accurate results. Quote:
In fact, every RVer who agrees to be a part of the test should be asked that question: "what test could we run of your personal RV abilities that, if you fail, could prove to you that your abilities do not exist?" Each participant could then be tested in a personal fashion, within reason (the final data for a single viewer, after all, does need to be comparable to others'). Known "trouble areas" could also be avoided, thus improving the margin of success (if a viewer states that she fails 100% of the time if the target has a lot of red in it, for example, then don't give her any such targets, so that her success rate should be higher). Now, I know you, Rich haven't hopped up and said you'd like to be a part of the testing, and I also know that in the previous thread, you made it clear that your own skill wasn't all that fantastic, but if you'd humor me for a moment: what test of your own abilities could prove to you that they don't exist? Tris wrote: Quote:
|
|
#15
11-12-2001, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tris, I don't think you'll have a shortage of volunteers willing to provide the images you require. The trouble you'll have is finding people willing to be tested for the ability, because they have a mistrust of those who don't already believe. In the interest of fairness, I would suggest you go ahead and make the offer on some of the remote-viewing websites, such as the HRVG bulletin board. If you contact enough of them, you might find one or two open minded enough to take you up on the offer.
I realize that we could use non-believers for the receiving end of the test, but that leaves us wide open for the accusation that the recievers weren't really trying or were deliberately screwing up the project.
|
|
#16
11-12-2001, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This may also be premature, but I have a suggestion about the targets. From the little I've seen, most RV work seems to work on targets that abound with detail. This adds to the number of gestalts available, so that it improves the odds of a hit, even if one is just tossing out random gestalts.
Some have suggested targetting photos rather than targetting the place that was photographed, but some RVer's seem to object. It is too easy for the viewer to 'drift' and end up viewing a location rather than a photo. How about making the target a room? The room would be bare of all furnishings, and hopefully without windows. In the room, simple objects could be placed, which would represent as few gestalts as possible. For instance, if the target was a photo of a swimming pool, there could be hits on things relating to deck chairs, sun, clouds, trees, bathing suits, or any number of things. But if the target was an empty room with a kiddie pool in it, only gestalts like water, round, plastic or suchlike would work. The other things would be misses.
|
|
#17
11-12-2001, 10:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Down to the second?"
Not necessarily, I never thought about that precision. Actually a photo feedback "at time of photo" is certainly a precise instant. "Present time" taskings can mean the time that the viewer is doing the session, so the data may vary depending if its day or night..... or that tornado is passing by. Looking back, I think the term has been frequently used more generically to represent "now-a-days", not 1776 or 2054. ----------------------------------- Even a "poor" viewer should do better than chance, given enough trials, than someone who just writes down random gestalts. Well maybe, but how are the total number of objects to be determined? The larger the number of items, the longer the viewer would have to remain viewing and would probably need a monitor to keep going looking for more objects. This would probably work better for well defined targets with a limited number of objects. A session may run 30 to 90 minutes. Typically, a viewer working alone reaches a point where there seems to be nothing more to "see" and ends the session. Trying to go on can lead to imagination and story building. I think I would put that kind of test into the "advanced" catagory. I think something on the order of Saltire's idea would be OK. I don't think you need a specially created room. Find targets that have limited gestalts/ objects. Many swimming pools are pretty basic. library.... a gym..... sauna room --------------------------------------- "that's as easy as pie!" LOL, that's a new one on me. I have never heard that said about any aspect of RV. The closest thing would be using highly focused targets like "the sun" or a specific ice cube or a specific marble, etc. -------------------------------------- "In this way, even if the best viewers have a few bad sessions, out of many, they'll still score very high, and there will be no ambiguity in the results. Success for the best of viewers shouldn't be the difference between, say, 10% random chance and a 12% percentage in the viewer's session." Well, here's another problem. It'll be hard enough to get anyone to do one target let alone several or many. I think that before too much more time is spent discussing the experiment, you should find some RV participants. ------------------------------------------- "If that's what would be expected today, however, then I'd suggest waiting 50 years or so. Wait for the training methodologies to work their way up to some solid results first, with the youngest of today's viewers." Joe McMoneagle believes that RV talent cannot be improved beyond anyones individual ability,similar to any other talent. The 220 hitter will never bat 300 although he may have a hot streak or two. Some paople reach their peak level quickly, others need a whole lot of coaching and praqctice, but they only get as good as they get. -------------------------------------------- "That's exactly my point. Because it will always occur, it's important to take it into account. The misses cannot be ignored just because they happen all the time. They must be measured. True remote viewers should have fewer of these misses than random guesswork. This is another method of measuring whether or not it "works." I think this is more a measure of quality of data or usefullness for operational work. A "good" viewer will provide quantity as well as quality. Most of the rest will barely be able to find the right neighborhood. ------------------------------------- " Since Lyn Buchanan is convinced that different viewers have different talent areas (colors, motion, whatever), this could be a simple way for them to "team up" and produce more-accurate results." Most viewers, including me, don't take the time to create a data base as Lyn suggests (this opinion is based on my personal conversations with other RVers). Other than that, I don't know. I have to pass to someone with more experience. -------------------------------------- "Now, I know you, Rich haven't hopped up and said you'd like to be a part of the testing, and I also know that in the previous thread, you made it clear that your own skill wasn't all that fantastic, but if you'd humor me for a moment: what test of your own abilities could prove to you that they don't exist?" I would try to participate if I thought there were enough "good" viewers. It has been my experience that most participants in informal public exchanges of targets are those who say "I'm not that good". There is a definate trend that the better one gets (or beleives themselves to be) the more reluctant they are to get on stage. Witness that there are extremely few examples available from anyone who teaches RV or has been an RVer in the military or has professionally used or studied RV. What would convince me it doesn't work? Not any one session..... or series of sessions. I suppose its kinda like seeing a UFO and being asked what it would take to convince you it didnt happen. If it was as simple as demonstrating how a magic trick works ...... yeah. And maybe it really is but the arguement presented earlier don't convince me. I did at times give a lot of thought to whether my "good" sessions were just a collection of lucky matches but couldnt convince myself. Right now I am not convinced that RV can or has ever produced a large amount of really usefull real world data. Any compendium of such public documanted data (raw data without the drama and BS) would create real thin book. Now that I think of it, maybe that's why demonstrations are derided by many as "parlor tricks". There is more entertainment than beef. But that's not to say there aren't any "amazing" examples of RV. If describing whats in the box is a real talent, who's to say its less valuable than trying to hit a ball into a hole in the grass? ---------------------------------------- Wevets asks: "Will there be a control group of non-RVers also trying to generate terms/impressions/gestalts that describe the target?" That would be cool. ------------------------------------------ Czarcasm sez: " I would suggest you go ahead and make the offer on some of the remote-viewing websites, such as the HRVG bulletin board. If you contact enough of them, you might find one or two open minded enough to take you up on the offer." I think that is the next step. Try contacting the various instructors asking for their help in setting up an experiment. It could be time consuming especially going beyond one trial per viewer, so you may get that as a reason for not participating. I will try to participate in some capacity. If they refer you to the Stargate e-mail group, be aware that most of the members have no formal RV training so it would be important to specify that only trained RVers participate. (There are also several levels of training which could be documented.) ---------------------------------------------- This link will give you a good list of RV groups. One or two are often, er,... grouchy. And there are the various "alliances". http://www.largeruniverse.com/links.html Rich
|
|
#18
11-12-2001, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If there is a person trusted by everyone, who has an empty room, and is willing to perform the chore of manipulating the objects according to the plan, it might be doable. But to be really secure, they would have to have at least locks, with keys held by another party, and a third party who selects and places the objects, so that no possible data leak can exist. I don't see that happening. Tris ------------------------ "It was a woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her." ~ W.C. Fields ~
|
|
#19
11-13-2001, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 I'll participate if you need extras.
|
|
#20
11-14-2001, 07:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tris, I have noted the difficulties you have had over at the HRVG bulletin board, and I have a simple request to make. Ask them if they would promise to take the test if you would reveal your name to them, just to see what the answer would be. I'm afraid, though, that you still wouldn't qualify as a "Competant Authority", which they translate to someone who already believes in RV and claims to have it.
As I've said before, RV groups claim that Remote Viewing is a proven fact, and thus any test to actually prove its veracity is an attempt by outsiders to undermine it. Testing to see how good you are at Remote Viewing=Good Testing veracity of Remote Viewing=Bad 
|
|
#21
11-14-2001, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, Czarcasm, I will reveal my name to them without any promises. I always use my name in Real Life exchanges, and since part of any real test will include personal contacts among various people, that will happen quite ordinarily.
I have responded again to the HRVG, and also on the one other site that I could find with an open forum. If anyone else finds an open forum that they think would be willing to accept my offer, let me know. I am still considering this offer opened, and pending acceptance. I will continue to post at HRVG, and try to overcome their reluctance. My desire is not to prove anything to them, about RV, or about their own group. I wish only to get cooperation. My qualifications have been questioned. I am at a loss to provide them, since interest in RV, and scrupulous Double Blind examination are the extent of my qualifications, and those are the qualities that elicited the demand for qualifications. Perhaps someone here has a degree, and is willing to let me wave it around. (I doubt my high school diploma is gonna impress anyone. It certainly never impressed me.) Tris --------------------- "Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." ~ Carl Jung ~
|
|
#22
11-14-2001, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe one of these sites?
http://www.remote-viewing.com http://www.irva.org http://www.crviewer.com http://www.remoteviewers.com http://www.probablefuture.com http://www.king.dom-reg.com
|
|
#23
11-15-2001, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, I have posted a few general forum messages, referencing the thread, sent a few emails, and made my willingness to be an intermediary for anyone who finds the SDMB . . . unfelicitous.
I have only recieved two responses indicating any level of interest in the project at all, and one of those is pretty much not interested other than as an observer. I would like to let a bit of time pass before exploring the methods by which an examination can be made without any voluntary participation by proponents. Let's say, a week from today, unless someone steps up. Tris -------------------- "Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty." ~ Erwin Schrodinger ~
|
|
#24
11-15-2001, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is my first posting, so please let me know if I violate any etiquette.
In the spirit of the JREF (and of DaveW's posts which mention knowing the odds in advance), any test should be designed so that no judges are required (I think this is a requirement for the big JREF million dollar prize). I think someone mentioned on the original thread that it could be done as a matching problem. One person views 10 different targets (each associated with a unique random number) and then tries to match the numbers to the pictures afterwards. Rich_rv mentioned that each viewing might be a LOT of work, so maybe it could instead be 10 people viewing 10 images (with each person assigned one particular image), and then they try to match them up afterwards (i.e., afterwards, each person would see all 10 pictures, w/out knowing the random numbers, and would have to choose the one they think they viewed - each picture would have to be assigned to one person). They can even be given the 10 pictures (without the numbers attached, of course) and debate about them together and help each other as long as they want. But in the end, each person must pick one of the pictures. The chance of one person guessing correctly is 1/10; two people is 1/100, etc. So the odds of getting all 10 matched correctly is 1/10,000,000,000 (actually, it's 1/10! (that's 10 "factorial", not 10 "enthusiastically" ) if you take into account that each picture must be assigned to exactly one person).The beauty of it is that the RVers can be in control of just about everything, and set up conditions any way they want. They can even choose the targets... in fact, I think they could even know what the 10 targets are ahead of time, so they can pick some of their favorites. The chances of getting the match correct are still VERY low. The only requirement is that no participant can know the number-to-picture correspondance until it is completely over and the viewers have ALL selected which picture they think they viewed. Then, as is the JREF requirement, the results will be obvious to all. No judging is required. I think any test that has everyone viewing one picture, then "judging" the hits afterwards will degenerate into a big shouting match. With the above protocol, there is no room for this. Does this make sense? Does it seem like something that might fly? I can work out the math (or maybe someone who is better at this can help out) to see how many correct hits would be expected by chance. I'm curious what any RVers might think, and to get their input to change this protocol in any way that they see as necessary - I just threw this out as a first attempt at it. As DaveW said, the RVers must be very happy with the protocol, and agree that the protocol itself will not hamper their abilities. The only "monitoring" will be to make sure that no one cheats and gets advance knowledge of the number-to-picture mapping.
|
|
#25
11-15-2001, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem so far is that the Remote Viewers don't wish to be part of any test that might cause them to doubt the very existence of RV. They have devised a test that tells them what they want to believe, and seem to be hostile to any suggestion that someone other than a "true believer" test them. The term used on one of the boards for one is, if I remember correctly, "Competent Authority".
Again, unless people who believe they might have this ability are willing to take part in the experiment, it cannot work. The only people left would be the "control" group, and the people who don't believe but take the test anyway. The second group will automatically be accused of fudging the data to make RV look bad, guaranteed.
|
|
#26
11-16-2001, 12:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ChuckieR wrote:
Quote:
Especially the part about the viewers getting to see the targets beforehand. The HRVG crowd calls this "frontloading," and it's very bad. They won't touch a "frontloaded" test with a ten-foot pole. I would have thought it would make it easier, but apparently that's vehemently not the case. Oh, and thanks for bringing up the calculations again, because I'd forgotten about wevets' question about a control group. If things work out right, no control group should be needed, since the probabilities should be calculatable. Control groups are necessary in experiments for which you cannot calculate (beforehand) the chance of success. With a test of RV, the claim is basically "we can do better than guessing," and we should be able to calculate what results "guessing" would get without actually measuring it. By analogy, we can calculate the long-term odds of rolling snake-eyes without actually performing a bazillion rolls of the dice, so if someone claims to be able to telekinetically change the odds, no "control group" is needed to verify that the claimant should roll a two something other than 1 time in every 36. Another thing about this methodology (the "matching problem," which is, in RV lingo, a "target pool") is that according to what I read in Jessica Utts' report, the folks at either SRI or SAIC determined that a pool with 100 targets was optimally-sized. If more or fewer targets were in the pool, the viewers didn't do as well. So, if a pool of targets is the methodology eventually adopted, remember "100". And welcome to the SDMB! As long as you keep putting my name in the same sentence with JREF you'll get along great here! (Actually, I'm not affiliated with JREF in any way, I'm just hoping to gain some prestige through proximity.  )
|
|
#27
11-16-2001, 07:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
More bad news, Tris.
Mr. Glenn Wheaton of the HRVG is now telling his flock not to participate in your experiment. It seems that we don't have the proper attitude, and we won't all reveal our true names to him. He had other not-so-nice comments, but they were the same tired "Gather up, True Believers!, Circle the wagons and insert the Holy Earplugs of Truth" missives that we've seen before. Perhaps one of the other websites I've found will pan out. If not, I'll find more.
|
|
#28
11-16-2001, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[sigh] This has to be one of the saddest things I have ever read.
http://hrvg.org/cgi-bin/hrvg_bbs_hot....pl?read=13008 Blinders--check! Earplugs--check! Gag--check! Toe the line--ready--march! Rich_rv--if you're still with us--I'd like to commend you for your extremely civilized and intelligent participation in this entire discussion, and I'd also like to let you know that I detect, under your RV posts, maybe just a tiny spark of the Light of Skepticism. Anybody who actually goes out and looks on the Web for information on RV methodology, instead of merely taking someone's word for it, would fit right in here at the SDMB. I'm saying that I think you have the makings of a Doper, Rich, (and that's a compliment, in case you didn't know ) and I think we'd all be pleased if you spent more time here at the SDMB. We do have other forums, you know, and there are so many other things to talk about under the sun, besides remote viewing.We promise not to tell Glenn. And, if you're seriously worried about him checking up on you and finding out that you're posting here at the Evil Straight Dope, you could come in through the back door, in disguise. You could e-mail an administrator, like TubaDiva, and ask her to de-register your user name of Rich_rv and then re-register under a different name. If you just ask for a name change, your "Rich_RV" posts would still be here but with the new user name on them, and he would know who you are. Anyway, Glenn never needs to know that you're posting here, and maybe asking some--dangerous--questions. But note--do not do this "name change" by yourself. In other words, don't simply re-register with a second user name, because that's against the rules. E-mail Tuba and talk to her about it, she's a nice lady. tubadiva@aol.com ah, another brand pulled from the burning [exits singing] rescue the perishing, care for the dying, snatch them in pity from sin and the grave...
|
|
#29
11-16-2001, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
a) Those conducting the study will not reveal their identities beforehand. b) The only organizational affiliation the conductors have is that they post on the same message board. c) The discussions prior to the study have not always been respectful and open-minded. d) The results of the study would carry no weight in the broader scientific community. The objections all seem valid to me. Are they just obstructionist tactics? Perhaps. But trying to tar-and-feather someone for stating those objections is a bit much.
|
|
#30
11-16-2001, 01:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, if you still plan to try this, even if the RV groups won't participate, I'll play. I know next to nothing about remote viewing, so if I'm assigned the role of "viewer" you should keep that in mind. I promise to maintain a neutral position - I have no investment (emotional or otherwise) in the success or failure of the experiment.
Given the lack of pro-RV participants so far, I don't expect a universally acceptable definitive answer, but the test proposed would be both fun and interesting. I don't see the harm in trying. Maybe I can finally see the famous Moderator Underoos.
|
|
#31
11-16-2001, 01:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
FortMarcy wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Glenn's objections are all based on an Appeal to Authority: we aren't, in his words, a "competent authority," so therefore it is impossible for us to do proper or meaningful science. That is not valid logic.
|
|
#32
11-16-2001, 04:38 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
) until it is all over. This could be done, for instance, in a room with both "skeptics" and RVer representitives present, as long as no one can communicate the ID/Image mapping to the viewers. Otherwise, almost anything goes.Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But as Czarcasm points out, maybe they are just happy to do their remote-viewing in private, for their own enjoyment, and not trying to convince anyone else that there is anything to it. Quote:
|
|
#33
11-16-2001, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I did suggest near the beginning of the thread that you involve a known person or organisation e.g. a newspaper as a neutral judge.
The big weakness of the test under discussion is the selection of the images. If a 'fraudulent skeptic'* or a 'cheating viewer'* is in charge, they can bias the results, or communicate to their fellows. *this description is for illustrative purposes only. Since Randi has been mentioned, has anyone asked Glenn why his group don't collect the $1,000,000?
__________________
Arnold Winkelried: 'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
|
|
#34
11-16-2001, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Which of the following studies would you more likely participate in? a) A study where the scientists told you who they were up front. b) A study where the scientists would be identified after you agreed to volunteer. a) A study conducted by scientists trained in the field who work at the same research institute. b) A study conducted by various people who discuss things on a message board. a) A study destined to be published in a scientific journal after peer review. b) A study destined to be published on a message board. It's one thing to trust yourself. It's quite another thing to get others to trust you.
|
|
#35
11-16-2001, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Hey, could I get a link to that? I think it could come in handy this holiday season when I see some of my kooky relatives
|
|
#36
11-16-2001, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ChuckieR:
One of the simpler protocols mentioned earlier is to RV a target via the reference number then display a set of photos, four is typical. The viewer and anyone else looking at his data can then rank the photos according to what they think is the best match, or just pick out the one they think matches. Everyone can judge. The photos should be substantially different from each other so that an arguement can't develop whether the data refers to "Boat #1 or Boat #2". I wouldn't even put a boat and a plane or a car in the same set. This is a common experiment and was tried at the 2001 RV Conference as suggested by Russel Targ. Chance calculations are also straightforeward. The more pictures in the set the fewer experiments would be required to get a warm fuzzy feeling one way or the other. Some people do not like this because they have an issue on whether to try to RV the actual photo, describing what it depicts or RV the actual site where the photo was taken. I will try to get some comments from some of the former Stargate folk. Another simple method is to just have a target viewed and present the data. It may be the most ambiguous method but its possible for everyone to go away feeling their particular viewpoint was confirmed. ------------------------------------------------------- DaveW said: "Especially the part about the viewers getting to see the targets beforehand. The HRVG crowd calls this frontloading," and it's very bad. They won't touch a "frontloaded" test with a ten-foot pole. I would have thought it would make it easier, but apparently that's vehemently not the case" Front loading is strongly avoided, especially by beginners. Some claim that it can be used by those with lots of experience and ability, but it still causes a problem. It only taskes a few key words to set your mind to thinking you know which photo is the target. One way you may understand it is to select a batch of photos, then have someone else give you a few words that match two or more of the photos. Use adjectives not nouns. Is "tall, circular, hard" the center of focus water tower in photo #1 or is it the telephone pole in the distant background of photo #2? Your conscious mind will try to tell you. There is another form of "acceptable" front loading. The viewer can be told that the taget is an "object", or an "event", or a "person", or a "location", etc. I don't particularly like that either. Any experiment for the purposes such as discussed here inherently requiires a blind target. ---------------------------------------------------- DDG: Well, I have been almost banished from more than one RV discussion board and once banished from one, but that was more of an honor. I could have made a fortune selling "Banned From....." T-Shirts. I would have used my regular handle of Rich, but it was already taken. I am also a member of the Triad Area Skeptic Club (now known as Carolina Skeptics) out of Greensboro. They have done some tests from time to time with people who have made extroardinary claims. http://www.wfu.edu/~ecarlson/tasc/ On the other hand, I did take an in-person RV course from Paul Smith and some on-line lessons from hrvg and attended two RV conferences. I also confess to visiting the Rhine Research Center and the A.R.E in Virginia Beach. I've met Glenn, Dick, Valtra and others from hrvg and have been haunting their BB since it was formed. I've met and talked to and e-mailed & BBed with most of the people listed at the RV Conference website since the Hale-Bopp days. Heck...I've even gotten through to Art Bell once. http://www.rvconference.org/cgi-bin/...shtml&cart_id= My main "sparks of skepticism" lie in two facets of RV, and I am defining RV as remote viewing done by a formal methodology such as hrvg or CRV, not some free form psychic data gathering or altered state on consciousness such as ERV. One can use a crystal ball I suppose to "remote view". Personally, I focus on the formal written methodologies and at this time prefer CRV to hrvg. Spark #1: The claims made for "formal" RV far surpass any publicly available documentation. Most of the public WOW stories from Stargate were not done using formal CRV type methodologies. There is even less documentation on usefull information derived from RV. The Alexandria Project (archeology) which is very interesting rv/psi wise did not employ hrvg or CRV. The many experiments run using procedures such as the target pool discussed above did not use CRV or hrvg. Someone at hrvg suggested that you-all may be interested in RV no matter how it is produced, but as I say, my interest lies in the formally structured methods. Spark #2: RV is unequivically and inseparatively intertwined with the UFO/ET phenomenon. Certain RVers and RV groups downplay it or have very little or no association with it but allmost all......... have played with it. The most outrageous are Ed Dames and Courtney Brown. Others claim to have been abducted, physically seen or been regularly tasked to RV UFO/ETs. All military RVers have "been to the mountain"..... the Galactic Federation. All this stuff is unique to the RV section of psi. Prior to RV/Stargate no other psychics or psychic groups focused on UFOs and ETs. The otherworldly happenings were always spiritual entities, the dead and the reincarnated. ---------------------------------------------- FortMarcy; I can relate to those arguements from Glenn but this topic came up on the Stargete e-group some time ago. My view was that RV/psi is always on the defensive and ought to go offense for a change. Set up a protocol and open the door to those interested and create an ongoing data base of knowledge, open to the public, good, bad or ugly. Unfortunately, those who apparently have the most talent are the least likely to participate. And that aspect alone IMHO gives a cultish undertone to the whole field. Rich
|
|
#37
11-16-2001, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Target Sets
Paul Smith suggests the following:
The tasker selects the target set, but selects the actual target out of that set randomly. It could even be better to select several target sets, then randomly select _both_ the final target set _and_ then the actual target within it. This removes the tasker even further from being able in anyway to prejudice the results. Rich
|
|
#38
11-16-2001, 11:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am not a scientist. I don't even play one on TV.
I have a high school education. While in high school, all those many years ago, I was taught the concept of double blind testing. The most interesting thing about it to me was that it did not require any authority to be valid. You design a test that eliminates all the variables, and ways of cheating, and you have only people who don't know the right answers examine the results. Now dishonesty is a possible problem, in any test. I am not a crook. But, hey, we have heard that one before. But, whatever the qualification that I might have, or lack, it was never my intention to be the authority, in this test. You see, I am a professional at one thing. I teach people how to do things. Not difficult things, but very simple things. And there is one thing I do know for sure about doing things. It starts with stand up. Amazingly enough, that is the single biggest problem with most human effort. You see, you can't even take the first step, until you stand up. So, I stood up. Now, some things take more than one person. So, I asked if anyone else wanted to stand up. A few have. Thanks. Unfortunately, everyone seems to standing on one side, so far. We can proceed without the cooperation, or even permission of RV groups, using their published data, and random scrambling a control group of their trials, to see if that changes the rates of hits for the entire sample. If it does consistently change it, there is a data exchange between viewer and object. Unfortunately, that test does not eliminate the possibility of deliberate fraud. Since I did not intend to leave unproved suspicion as a possible result, I asked if anyone wanted to participate in a test that could eliminate fraud. I am not sure why that is perceived as a threat. The use of cyber handles seems a silly thing to be concerned about, especially from someone who purports to be able to observe me directly from half a world away! I did think of one thing that makes me a bigger threat, though. (OK, so not really, but someone at work pointed it out.) You see, having a University, with dozens of PhD's and Professors find out your hobby is based on wishful thinking is one thing. But being debunked by a high school graduate from his living room? Now that's embarrassing! So, let's see if we can line up a few big guns, to cut down on the risk factor, OK? I will just sit back in the background and sort buttons. Tris --------------------- "The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards." ~ Alexander Jablokov ~
|
|
#39
11-16-2001, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[hijack]
For Freedom: It was a nine-year-old, actually. http://skepdic.com/tt.html Quote:
|
|
#40
11-16-2001, 11:50 PM
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
FortMArcy wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Freedom asked: Quote:
glee wrote: Quote:
A group of an equal number of skeptics and believers (none of whom will be involved in later stages of testing) sit down in a room with a stack of National Geographics (an HRVG favorite), and cut out, say, a thousand photos, which would be immediately sealed in envelopes as they're snipped. As soon as they're sealed, the envelopes are tossed into a big bag. Once all the photos have been cut out, the group will clean up all trash and magazines, pour the contents of the bad onto a table, and leave the room with nothing but the big bag and the pile in it. A second group of people come in, again an equal number of skeptics and believers, and bring with them a shredder. 100 envelopes are randomly drawn from the pile and placed in the bag again. The bag will then be sealed. The 900 envelopes still on the table will then be thrown into the shredder immediately. Once all the extra photos are shredded, the confetti and the shredder will get shoved out the door. This second group of people would then randomly create a target ID (agreed to as acceptable by the entire group), and write that ID on the first envelope, and on a piece of paper. Repeat for the second envelope, third, etc.. Once all 100 envelopes have been IDed, and the list of IDs is complete, the group will seal all of the envelopes in the bag again, and deliver it to a safety deposit box or other trusted security together as a group. For the utmost in security, this second group should then not participate in any of the later stages of testing, after they hand over several identical copies of the list of IDs to those who will be participating in those later stages. Target selection is now complete. So, even if the first group consists of only two people (one skeptic, one believer), each will be able to remember only 500 photos (yeah, right). But, only 50 or so of those images will be targets. If the test were designed so that "random chance" worked out to also be 10%, then cheating cannot work any better than random guessing. Actually, it'd be best if the first group of skeptics/believers grabbed a bunch of people off the street to actually snip the photos and stuff them in envelopes. The group would do little but supervise and keep an eye on each other, making sure that the others weren't looking too closely at issue or page numbers. Oh, and the whole stack of magazines, cut and uncut extras, needs to be destroyed as soon as the original batch of 1,000 photos have been snipped. The first group can take them out and burn them together, along with any other trash from cutting, as soon as they leave the room.
|
|
#41
11-17-2001, 12:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Hopefully some RVers will still participate. It may be wise at this juncture, instead of asking them to be subjects, ask if they would help define the protocol. They risk nothing in doing that. Once the protocol is complete, it may be easier to find subjects when the protocol has been approved by fellow RVers.
|
|
#42
11-17-2001, 12:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FortMarcy, the potshots are not exactly flowing in one direction. Mr. Wheaton and Company are not above name-calling and aspersion-casting themselves, on both this message board and their own. They have indicated that any questioning of their "ability" will be considered an insult, and that any testing by an outsider will not be tolerated.
|
|
#43
11-19-2001, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That being the case, the participation of anyone in HRVG is highly unlikely. But they haven't fired a single salvo on this thread, yet they have been denigrated here. How does this help achieve the objective of the thread? After reading this thread, would a remote viewer be more or less likely to volunteer? It just seems to me that the discussions here should be about the study, and the sideshow should be relegated to more appropriate forums.
|
|
#44
11-19-2001, 01:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you could find a remote viewing group that would be willing to participate in an experiment by an outside group to determine the veracity of remote viewing itself, please help us out. We have people willing to come up with target photographs and/or drawings-what we need are people willing to try to "recieve" said pictures, and the conditions they would be willing to work under.
|
|
#45
11-19-2001, 08:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Duck Duck Goose and DaveW
Thanks. I have been trying to get my relatives who believe in Healing Touch to do this same test. I have run into the same problems this thread is having with the Remote Viewing crowd. I once let a couple of them do an "analysis" of my body. I know full well the problems I have had, and was curious if they could pick up on ANY of them. After missing all the major things wrong(past and present), and telling me they got strong feelings from my right knee, I tried to tell them my history and let them know that I had never had ANY problem with that particular body part. They just told me that this confirmed how good Healing Touch was, since they were telling me something I didn't even KNOW was wrong. In my head, all I could hear was.... "And for three easy payments of $19.95 we can solve that problem....." Thanks for the link. Have a good holiday.
|
|
#46
11-20-2001, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FortMarcy wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It also occurs to me that most of what appears to be denigration here is, really, the pointing-out of ignorance (of proper scientific testing, of logic, etc.). That's what this message board is supposed to combat. While it's not appropriate to bring up unrelated ignorance in a thread (for example, I could post to this thread about a friend getting recently suckered in by a naturopath, but I won't), Glenn's mistaken ideas about a "competent authority" are directly related to the subject at hand: the testing of Remote Viewing. Perhaps I, for one, could use different words than "silly" or "ridiculous" to describe Glenn's statements, but I'd be stuck with transparent synonyms, anyway. Would calling Glenn's objections "logically-challenged" really be any better? Freedom, you're quite welcome. Good luck with making you relatives "see the light" even with this new information. I predict the first objection will be along the lines of "what does a nine-year-old know?"
|
|
#47
11-20-2001, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey, I did write a pit response! But, I figured, "Hey, why inflict it on everyone?"
So I printed out a copy, and put it away in a dark closet. Tris. -------------------- no, really.
|
|
#48
11-21-2001, 10:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, I haven't generated even any imaginary Pit responses, mainly because it's so abundantly obvious that the HRVG people are totally serious about this, and it would be supremely tactless, pushy, and obnoxious of me to drag them to the Pit and flame them for what they truly believe. It would be like dragging Great-Aunt Betty to the Pit and reaming her out for crocheting all those baby afghans. Hey, it's her hobby, leave her alone...
Only total assholes deserve Pit threads in their honor, and IMO nobody at the HRVG even comes close. The same way that one swallow doth not a summer make, a few snippy remarks do not a Pit thread make. Sorry, guys. You'll have to try harder to inflame the Evil Straight Dope's ire.
|
|
#49
11-26-2001, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tris, I've been doing some checking on the history of Remote Viewing, and there seems to be quite a few links between SRI(the institute responsible for promoting RV to the U.S. Government) and the Church of Scientology. Please be very careful giving out your real name and/or address to any groups that have ties to either SRI or the government-run programs, o.k.?
|
|
#50
11-26-2001, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Well, the cat's out of the bag now, I signed that pit response I mentioned, and it has been just sitting there in a dark closet all this time. Not much chance in staying hidden from the forces of RV now, eh? Thanks for the heads up, Czar, but no one is after me. I am the least worthwhile target for identity crime in the world. I already have no credit, I don't own anything, and the CIA already has my name. They got bored with me decades ago, as did the FBI. I turned myself in to the IRS again last year, as I do every year, and demanded that they audit my Short Form return. They refused, again. The Mormon Church has Evangelist missionaries in a group apartment in the same building with me, and they won't even talk to me. I haven't seen a Seventh Day Adventist in years. The only telemarketers who call here are looking for the guy who had the number seven years ago. I don't even get offers for credit cards. Just because there is a conspiracy, doesn't mean that there is anything for them to find out. Some people are just so damned dull that even a peeping tom won't spy on them. Tris ---------------------------- "Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty." ~ Erwin Schrodinger ~
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
