Remote Viewing in Hawaii: continuation of the Staff Reports thread

Great Debates
181

Glenn, a few more questions:

Who taught you analysis at Fort Meade?

Were you taught intelligence analysis or remote viewing analysis? There are, of course, massive differences in data gathering methods between the two (spies, after all, tend to know what their targets are), and so it seems clear to me that analysis of the gathered data must go about differently, as well (especially for RV, when the target is not known).

Who taught you remote viewing, and where?

At the HRVG Web site, the Philosophy section says, in part,

Have all other forms of remote viewing and analysis (methodologies) been dropped in favor of the one you are employing and speaking about?

Since you say,

why is it that we see people pointing to a single raw session and saying, “see, remote viewing works!”? Is that also not prudent?

You wrote,

Is it ever possible for a person to say which bits of data go into category 1, 2 or 3 before knowing what the target is?

It’s now obvious, at least, that Critical Analysis cannot be performed without knowledge of the target(s):

So this allows us to break “analysis” into two parts: analysis done prior to the target being revealed, and analysis done after that point in time. I think it’s more than clear that Duck Duck Goose, for just a single example, thinks that data generated during the later parts of the analysis (after the target is known), is being presented to the public as coming from before that time.

182

Aloha DDG

You do indeed live up to your name.
In this game, kids sit down in a circle facing each other. One person is “it” and walks around the circle. As they
walk around, they tap people’s heads and say whether they are a “duck” or a “goose”. Once someone is the “goose” they get up and try to chase “it” around the circle.

It would seem that you have been having us “on”. It also seems that you are unable to understand what has clearly been placed before you. I have indulged your request for more information only to find that you are incapable of cogitating what has been presented to you. It is indeed unfortunate. I often wonder how is it that so many people have lost their objectivity when presented the opportunity to expand both knowledge and experience. It seems a bit of a waste to have spent so much time trying to help you and see you diminish my effort by making analogies to three rabbits and the 3 stooges. It is an insult of the highest order.

My dialog with you is ended. Please don’t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out. Whether you leave as a Duck or Goose does not really matter…the view is the same.

Aloha

Glenn B. Wheaton

183

Aloha Dave,

Before I invest any more time in this effort tell me now if you can debate and not summarily dismiss topics and subject matter that require common sense and thought?

ALoha Glenn

184

Uh, Glenn?

Have you forgotten that this isn’t your little bulletin board? The Duck isn’t going anywhere.

185

Here’s a simple test for the “Aloha” gang (and anyone else who thinks they have a “special” talent):

For the last two years I have had a special coin sitting next to my computer. I don’t need to know the history of the coin, the mindset of the person I got the coin from, or a description of the coins’ surroundings.

Just tell me what the coin is.

If it’ll help(though I don’t know why it should matter), I live in Portland, Oregon.

186

Glenn, can you be any more insulting?

When have I, in this thread so far, shown a tendency to summarily dismiss anything?

Or did you, for whatever reason, think that I was a different DaveW from the one who’s been posting to this thread already?

And since when is asking questions a ‘debate’? I’ve tried to debate with you, and received a mixture of a little rational thought, some abuse, and mostly silence in return. So, instead, I’ve decided to ask questions more than anything else. Your answers will either confirm or refute the conclusions I’ve drawn so far (which are, at the moment, malleable) about remote viewing. I’ll let you know if I have a breakthrough.

Given your record of failing to answer direct questions from me, I won’t expect an answer to any of the above, either.

187

Glenn, All these years with remote viewing experience and yet you could not remotely see that DDG is well respected here. With your remarks you demonstrate to be a poor analyst in finding who’s who here. No wonder you guys can not get more funding. You feel insulted and yet I see that DDG was only having some fun in a subject that at best is an inefficient way to collect information. I rather trust an image phone, in the end they are more reliable and cheaper.

And it looks like the door is actually going to hit you, and soon, if this continues.

188

I posted the same test over on the RV board. The results so far?

It’s a TRA*P!

Too much “noise”

It could be a foriegn coin or a token(it’s not)

A general attitude of “We’ve can do it, but we don’t have to prove it to you!”
I’ve refined the test to eliminate so-called noise. I told them exactly where on the desk it sits, and that it’s not a foreign coin. Can anyone help me eliminate any other excuses that might pop up?

[Edited by Czarcasm on 11-07-2001 at 07:53 AM]

189

The three fairies in Disney’s Sleeping Beauty were named Flora, Fauna and Meriweather.

Bibbedy-bobbidy-boo…

190

Now Glenn’s RV group is complaining that I’ve given them too much information! I suppose that if I had drawn a picture of the coin, put it in a sealed envelope, and made up some nonsense number to represent the envelope with the picture of a coin it would be so much easier to “see”.

On the other hand, perhaps RV works only if Glenn’s people, using Glenn’s test, are the only only ones who get to handle the envelopes and interpret the results. If I sent them a sealed envelope with a photo of the coin inside, do y’all think I could trust them not to peek before making their guesses? :wink:

191

Dick says you violated the blind conditions protocol right off the bat by telling them it was a coin. Glenn concurs. Not only is it TMI, but it also may be a trap. Timelord says all they need to do is wait long enough and you’ll tell them what kind of coin it is.

Glenn says your test is not acceptable, that it’s unsuitable. And I have to admit he does have a point. You should submit a real target to them, going by their requirements.

What is a Target and how do I submit it for viewing? So, yeah, it looks like just saying “a coin next to my computer” is trivial. You should have made it the subject of a search or a mystery, or a scientific or technical object. Also, you should have provided a representation of the coin, either a photograph, a video, or a written description of it.

Kathy sounds interesting. I’d like to talk to her. She has more actual information on what’s involved in the analysis than Glenn has ever given me.

This seems fairly clear. They all finish the session, hand in their papers, and then the feedback begins and they’re told what the target was. And then presumably the “analysis” begins, in which the words that fit the target are pointed out with happy cries, and the words that don’t fit the target are ignored.

Okay, fine, I got that. No fair filling out data worksheets after you’ve been told what the target is. But it still doesn’t address the issue of interpretation of the data, the “analysis”.

192

Let me get this straight.
I mail them a photograph or description of the object or event, and then they guess what it is? These people are, for the most part, close personal friends that visit each other in person. What exactly is my assurance that clues aren’t dropped along the way(I would never insinuate that the actual photo or description would be distributed, of course!), or that the interpretation sessions aren’t manipulated to show the skeptic the error of his ways?

Would they agree to my sending the photo or description to a neutral third party, who would hold it until the sessions are through, whereupon a copy of the sessions would be publicly revealed to me, and a copy of the photo or description would be released to them?

193

I’d like to ask some questions about RV.

Can you see a specific place? (If so, how much detail can you give?)

Can you see into the past? (or the future)

I understand from earlier in the thread that you get ‘good’, ‘bad’ and ‘neutral’ data from the initial viewing.
How do you tell which is which? (I don’t mean to be rude, but if you judge the quality of the data after the target is known, isn’t this a self-fulfilling process?).

Who is the best viewer (by % hits), and what % do they attain?
How do you judge a hit?
Would the best viewer do a scientific experiment? (assuming we could agree the conditions)

194

I have no doubts that what Kathy says is true, that when they’re doing a session, the viewers really don’t know what the target is. You’d send them the photo (or whatever), they’d assign a random target number to it, and they’d do a session without any of the viewers knowing what the actual target was. But afterwards–ah, afterwards… I also have no doubts that after they had all turned in their papers and the identity of the target was revealed, they would all simply pick out the words that applied to it and ignore the words that didn’t. It all takes place in the analysis after the session. They don’t need to have “clues” dropped during the session, by a monitor or “close friend”, if the analysis consists of everyone sitting around looking at the word lists and saying things like, “Hey, ‘barnum’ could mean like elephants!”

Or if there’s a single analyst who knows what the target is and who says things like, “Hey, ‘barnum’ could mean like elephants!”

Or if there’s a single analyst who doesn’t know what the target is, who looks at all the words and makes a guess as to what the target is, but is wrong, and who then goes back to the word lists and says, “Oh, now I see–where she put ‘the assassination of JFK’, that was obviously contamination, so that’s bad data, we’ll throw that out”.

I spent some time last night trying to figure out how your coin test could be “too hard” and “too easy” at the same time. I think it comes down to “scope for imagination”. Remote viewing is a tremendous exercise of the “imagination muscles”. The people who said viewing a coin was “too easy” meant that saying the target is simply “a coin” doesn’t give them any scope to flex their imaginations. How can you spin a lovely word portrait about “a coin”? Might as well ask them to make up words and phrases about a toaster oven. There’s no scope for poetry, for the drama of one’s psychic abilities to unfold, is what I mean.

The people who said it was “too hard” meant somewhat the same thing. You didn’t give them enough clues. If you’d said, “a Roman coin”, that would have been different. “I get a sense of great antiquity…” Or “a Canadian coin”. “white, cold, north, maple leaves…” Like that.

I personally don’t think there’s any point in pursuing this, C. I don’t think you’re going to prove anything. I don’t think you’re going to change any of their minds about remote viewing, any more than you could change my stepmother’s mind about the virtues of crocheting an endless stream of baby afghans for people who don’t really want them. “Oh, how nice…”

Let’s pretend this is an episode of Star Trek (the old Star Trek, the real Star Trek) and leave these people in peace on their planet. “They have what they want, Bones. They’re…happy.”

195

So, I have a few questions.

Is it possible to identify the subject of a photograph, clearly, unambiguously, and with confidence, if the identification must be made by all the various people, viewers, reviewers, analysts, cheerleaders, and familiars before the photograph is revealed to anyone participating in the test?

If the photograph is one of a limited set of photographs, prepared by a separate agency, and stored in a secure facility unknown to all participants in the test; does that affect the likelihood of identifying the photograph?

If the photograph is of a well known object/event does that affect the likelihood of identification?

Is a drawing/artwork more or less likely to be identified than a photograph?

Does the existence of other drawings/photos in envelopes in situations and places other than the test in progress affect the process of identification? (There are a lot of pictures in envelopes out there in the world.)

Does the participation of multiple “remote viewers” and multiple reviewers, and analysts make the chance of identification more, or less likely? (As in, one answer from the entire Organization, rather than a spread of answers from various members.)

Does the existence of physical photos, as opposed to digital images stored on data media make any difference in the identification process? Would that be altered by encryption?

Given various combinations of answers, is it at all possible that the Remote Viewing community would participate in a public demonstration operated completely by a fair tribunal of selected judges, using the most favorable circumstances consistent with true “dual blind study protocols”?

Now, for some plans.

Everyone who participates must identify themselves according to three criteria:

Skeptic/Adherent/Neutral

Participant/Observer

Judge/Jurist

Three Judges are necessary, and the Judges cannot be Jurists, or Participants. A neutral Judge is needed, and must be acceptable to all participants and observers by prior affirmation. That Judge must qualify only on the matters of neutrality and honesty. The Skeptic and Adherent participants should appoint the remaining Judges, without review by the other factions.

The Judges must exactly determine the criteria of success, failure, and indeterminate result. This applies to individual identifications, and the final analysis of all trials. These criteria must be in place before any trials are begun.

Jurists must be willing to meet in corpus, at a time agreed upon by the Judges and Jurists, and make a final determination on the result of the study. Jurists who fail to attend will be eliminated as jurists immediately, and if the number of Jurists drops below three, the test will be automatically considered indeterminate. Jurists and Judges will have an agreed upon right to examine all raw data, all correspondence, and all records made on the subject of the test by all participants. (Socialization and beer drinking by Judges and Jurists should be postponed until after the final determination has been made, and recorded. After that, I am sure a major drinkathon is likely, and Participants and Observers should be invited!)

Observers should be given reasonably free access to any procedure directly associated with the test, if it does not unreasonably intrude on the private lives of the Participants. Observers must agree not to engage in communication with Participants or Jurists during the test other than those needed to gain such access. Participants are free to communicate among themselves. Jurists must agree to forgo any communication with Observers or Participants on matters related to the test, until after the conclusion of the test. Jurists may freely confer with other Jurists and Judges, after the results have been submitted for their judgment.

The final results will be offered freely to all interested parties, by electronic, printed, or broadcast media without charge. Copyright shall be surrendered to the Public Domain upon first publication, with the sole caveat that no alteration to the original document is to be made, and all addenda to be identified as such.

The first step is to identify members, and appoint an interim Judge to create the test membership list. No one is to receive remuneration of any sort for participation, before or after the fact. Individual right to public speaking payments on the subject of remote viewing, but unrelated to the test itself are not subject to this caveat, except that public statements made during the period of testing which are violations of the Observers or Jurists restrictions would be grounds for elimination from the test.

Tris

“The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards.” ~ Alexander Jablokov ~

196

Forget it.

As for my bringing in a neutral third party to moderate and ensure security, I got this response from the HRVG bulletin board group and Glenn-We’ll do the testing our way or no way at all, and don’t let the palm trees hit you in the ass on your way out.

Of course, they said it with plenty of "Aloha"s, so I guess that means that they are still a kind and gentle group, Right? :frowning:

197

Pardon me, Czarcasm, but I will wait for a direct reply before assuming that no one wants to be open and honest. I suppose a complete absence of a reply will eventually be the equivalent.

Tris

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung ~

198

great questions.

Q1:It is possible to identify the target as you describe but not reliably or even most of the time. Key words are clearly and unambiguously…confidence varies as in anything else…confidence helps.
As far as what data the viewer gets, it does not matter if one of the participants who is not a remote viewer becomes aware of the target. If a monitor knows thetarget, he can consciously or subconsciously affect the viewers performance.

Q2: No.

Q3: Possibly. There is a theory subscribed to by some RVers that says targets with a great deal of synergy, intensity or
uniqueness are easier to identify or provide good data on.

Q4: Assuming the drawing represents the target site same as a photo, there should be no difference. One could just as easily provide written or verbal feedback. "The target is Devil’s Tower, Wyoming, July 5, 1999 (or “present time”, etc)
The targeting directive should include a time reference.
What if the target is the WTC buildings? Your photo may show them as they were. That is the data that should be obtained if you specify that time frame. If you specify a post 9/11 date, the data should reflect that.
Q5: No. The target is the specific one referenced by the tasker. This envelope thing is just another way of providing a means of carrying out the task and tracking and handling the feedback. The feedback could be a reference photo on the internet, or written, or verbal or a photo in a book.

Q6: There is no guarantee that multiple viewers will provide a “better” answer? It has occurred where a majority of viewers provided incorrect data and one or more of a minority have provided the correct data. It has also occurred that several RV individuals or teams, looking at the same target, have each provided different data. The cause of the crash of TWA 800 is a prime example. RVers have provided at least 5 different reasons, but sinc enone have published their raw data there is no way to evaluate it.

Q7: NO. See above…written, verbakl alternatives, etc.

Q8: I doubt it. In actuallity the “remote viewing community” is very factionalized…or do I mean fractionalized…
At best you …may…get someone or some group do participate. To paraphrase: It would be easier to drive your camel through the eye of a needle… or ask for volunteers to practive root canals on. :slight_smile:

Your plan looks good.

There is a skeptic society here in NC that has done many tests of various claims and would probably be willing to participate.

Rich

199

All this stuff about envelopes…

Rich, what if the task is to remotely view the contents of an envelope, and not some thing represented by the contents of the envelope? Is this ‘doable’, or does the target need to be a landmark of some sort? What if I tell you exactly where the envelope is? How about the contents of a box? A room?

200

OK Czarcasm, I’ve now remote viewed your coing and we’ve got:

copper musty hero horses freak dark alteration drama car soot long smokey

How’d I go?