Remote Viewing: A Proposal for a test.

Great Debates
1

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 ~

2

Would e-mailing a picture be allowed?

3

I’m in.

I’ll play viewer or judge as needed.

(I’ve already failed Czarcasm’s coin test though).

Are you sure this shouldn’t be in MPSIMS. I can’t really see the debate.

4

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! :slight_smile:

Tris

“Don’t let it end this way! Tell them I said something.” Poncho Villa’s last words.

5

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

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. :eek:

7

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.

8

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

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. :slight_smile:

Rich

10

Rich_rv wrote:

Right, but I’m thinking here about testing. So far, my ideal for a test for RV would be to remotely view the contents of an envelope in, say, a room next to the one the viewer is in. Or, if there’s enough security (like a camera taping the room before, during, and after the session), the envelope can be taped to the wall of the very same room the viewer does his/her work in. My desire is to make the “remote” part all of five or ten feet, instead of five or ten thousand miles.

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).

11

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

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

Okay, gotta remember to include the time. Down to the second?

Rich also wrote:

Yes, but…

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.

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’m well aware of that. The reason for the test is to see if what is claimed is true or not. If RVers claim just 15% accuracy, but random chance would rate 2%, then there’s a wide margin which should be easy to measure and verify.

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.

I want to test those things that RVers claim. That is, those things that are, indeed, testable. Arnold asked, in the other thread, “what test could disprove RV?” That’s the test that should be run.

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:

As I’ve written above, I, also, don’t want to hamper viewing abilities, I want to help them, so that the “recognizable result” of a test is even more apparent.

14

Will there be a control group of non-RVers also trying to generate terms/impressions/gestalts that describe the target?

15

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

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

“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. :slight_smile:

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. :slight_smile:

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

Good point. I had thought about simply creating a master word list, and a random number generator, and making the lists up that way. By using the mechanical methods, a fairly close approximation of random could be provided, as a baseline for comparison. I suppose non believer viewers could also be a control group, although, if the phenomenon works as has been presented, those viewers might well be equally successful.

Once I get the skeptics a bit more organized, if I still haven’t heard from the proponents, I will certainly go to those web sites to ask if they are interested, or not. If not, I will try to find the nature of the objections, and see if those can be overcome. One holiday weekend is not enough time to assume an absence of interest from the various viewer groups.

Logistical considerations make this a bit harder to do. We can lock a stack of photos up in a Lawyers Office, and get a fairly cheap secure data storage for pretty low cost. Encrypted image files stored on the Internet would be even cheaper. Then remote viewers can spend a day, week, or month, or whatever time they desire on each target. Doing that with a room for each target, and providing security, and still leaving the remote viewers with time enough to live ordinary lives during the testing period presents a problem, primarily of cost. When do we put the object into the room? How long is it there? Do we use the same room for different objects? Do we try for different rooms for each object? That’s a lot of rooms, and a lot of security considerations.

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

I second the appointment based on the stringent scientific principle that the Judge should look as much like James Randi as possible.

:smiley:

I’ll participate if you need extras.

20

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

:frowning: