Remote Viewing in Hawaii: continuation of the Staff Reports thread

Great Debates
81

You can find some additional information at Lyn Buchanans site at http://www.crviewer.com. FAQ. The cut and paste below is his answer to your question, “What is it good for.”

READER:
>…I resist the “factual” potential of CRV.
>If one thinks for a moment on the social, political,
>religious, historical and revolutionary capacity
>of CRV it is not too difficult to begin to wonder
>what its potential applications are.
ANSWER:

"The great potential of CRV is, so far, mostly untapped and unexplored. To date, the main impetus in researching and developing CRV has been to provide another scientific method for collecting strategic and logistical information (as you call it, the “factual potential”) in the arena of national defense. In spite of what one might think from the lack of good information and the wealth of outright disinformation which is being placed before the public, it repeatedly served that purpose, and served it very well. But no longer.

The withdrawal of federal support and funding is both a curse and a blessing to CRV. First of all, it is a curse because funding is necessary for the development of many of the new applications for which CRV would be beneficial. It is a blessing, however, because those further avenues of development weren’t being investigated by CRV’s past owners. The exposure of the already-developed CRV to a curious and inventive public will open up many new applications - ill funded as they might be - simply because people can have it as a new tool to use in the everyday situations of personal, business, and academic life.

Examples:

  1. At its most basic level, CRV is nothing more than training a person to establish a dependable, understandable, and repeatable path of communication between his/her conscious and subconsious minds. The “psychic” information comes into the subconscious, but because of lack of efficient pathways, rarely ever makes its way to consciousness. When it does, it is usually contaminated by “things” it picks up along the way. CRV training establishes and clears that path. Once people can communicate with their subconscious minds, whole new worlds of applications open up, psychological (mental health, for example) and psychophysical (sports and other physical ability enhancement - being able to achieve “the zone” on command, for example) to name only a few.

  2. With my heavy background in computer science, I am convinced that it is possible to set up virtual environments where the impressions of the subconscious can be translated into graphical representations to give greater substance to their understanding. The VR environment would also allow the subconscious minds of multiple CRVers to join, interact, and strengthen each other. I have the capabilities in place to do such work. Without the huge amounts of funding, however, I fear it will not be done.

  3. The Monitor’s course is presently designed to teach people how to administer, help, guide, and assist the CRVer in his/her effort to bring the true subconscious impressions to the surface unpolluted, WITHOUT INJECTING INFORMATION OR BIASES INTO THE PROCESS. Only slight changes in the course would help train psychiatrists and psychologists to interact with their patients in the same way. I have found in the past months that almost all reporters and the majority of researchers are also in strong need of the same training. The Monitor’s course offers hard-core, provable and repeatable methods for the prevention of such artifacts as false-memory syndrome, interviewer bias, etc.

  4. As has already been started with the Assigned Witness Program, CRV offers a way to “witness” events for which there are no available witnesses. It is not limited to time or location. As such, it is a good tool for providing that crucial bit of information which would get a stalled criminal investigation back on track for normal working methods.

  5. There are several trained CRVers right now, who are looking into the use of CRV as a medical diagnostic tool.

  6. There is very strong evidence that CRV allows for a technique designed to influence (not change) the past. I am presently starting some research on this topic, which will hopefully allow people to affect their own past decisions. I will take as large a set of uninfluenced decisions and their outcomes as possible as baseline data, then begin a time of documenting decisions, waiting for the outcome, performing the Controlled Remote Influencing process in light of what the best decision would have been, and seeing if an overall rise in correct decisions results. I will be starting with stock market actions (buy/sell/do nothing), simply because they are so numerous, already so well documented, and provide hard and fast feedback. Also, success might help in funding. If things work out, the research may be moved into the realm of more personal decisions. Then, one distant day, IF success can be documented over thousands of trials, and years of time, it may finally become incorporated into the formalized CRV training.

  7. As with any other tool Mankind has at its disposal, CRV can also be used to do some harm. I wish I knew a way around that, but I don’t. I can do things to control CRV, but there is no way to control the people who leave here having learned it. People are people and always will be. Like Shane said to the little boy who asked why his mother thought guns were evil, “It ain’t the gun, kid. It’s the guy using it.”

At the present time, I feel that the development of new applications will probably be very slow in coming. Any funded research being done is in the area of pure research, not applications research. That, in my opinion, is a huge mistake. The research people are still in the “tell me what’s in the envelope” mentality in order to prove CRV’s existance. Any applications developments are presently being done on by small, “shadetree”-type individuals, generally working alone, or in small, unfunded and unsupervised groups of “dabblers”. The funding for past applications was, by necessity, oriented along the line of information collection on specific categories of targets, and now that funding has dried up. It looks like there is no new applications-oriented funding on the horizon. Therefore, the research that I and others are doing, goes on at a small level and will probably continue to do so while the research labs keep getting millions for predicting whether a card has a star or a wavy line. Such is the way of things."

82

I think the link I provided in the posting above was not properly cut and pasted. Try this one to Lyn’s website and look for FAQ’s

http://www.crviewer.com/crviewer/crvpage/index.html

83

If I print up ten pictures, and print ID numbers on them, then post one ID number here on this board, could you remote view it, if the picture is in my house? I’m thinking that we could do a little experiment, where you remote view one, then I could post the pictures (without numbers) and all the RVers could tell me which one was the one they were viewing.

My opinion is that there would be only a 1/10 chance of getting the right one, but if RV actually exists, it would be greater. It would be a small sample, but should be fun. And if two or three RVers got the right one, it would go a long way towards making your point.

So are any of you RV people game for this?

84

It WOULD be a great experiment. But keep in mind that it depends a great deal on the abilities of the persons or person who takes you up on your hunt for RV credibility. Out of five people you might get one person who is just learning or has completed an RV course. He/she might get 0 out or 5 or 2 out of 10. Then you might get an exceptional person who has been at RV longer and gets 5 out of 5 or 7 out of 10. The point is, you have no way of knowing this persons abilities or how far along they are in their remote viewing skills.

Joe McMoneagle has said in his Remote Viewing Handbook,that begining viewers are usually at the white belt stage of viewing. They get some basic gestalts. The yellow belt stage viewer gets some basic gestalts but soon begins getting feelings or even visuals about the target. Then the black belts actually hits the targets head on and not only provides sensory data but pictures that either match or come CLOSE to matching the target in question. It takes a lot of practice to get to that stage. Joe, a bit of a martial arts guy himself, likes to call remote viewing RVdo. There are different levels as there is talent.

There isn’t anyone who can’t walk up to a baby grand and hammer out “Chop Sticks.” There are quite a few who can take lessons and learn to play reasonably well. But there are not that many who become concert preformers. The same applies to RV.

Anyone can learn to remote view. The people with the natural talent are going to shine. So when you ask people “out there” who rv to try your targets, how do you know what talent level they are at? Are you really going to accept or dismiss RV based on that? I would hope not!

A few months ago I was doing very good at getting congruent data during my sessions. Sometimes I actually drew a picture of the target. But not always! There were days I couldn’t even CONNECT with the target. Who knows why. Joe McMoneagle who is considered one of the few “world class viewers,” has his off days as well, but he also has a level on innate talent that few people possess. Also keep in mind that the people who were engaged in the RV project for CIA and DIA were the best of the crop. They looked for people with abilities and trained the best of them in CRV.

The last several weeks I haven’t been able to RV at all. As I have gotten older I have had some problems. I just recently went through a sever hearing loss. Two CAT scans and MRI later, and lots of drugs to help reduce daily vertigo and infections, I have not hit one single target. One, a person in my shape doesn’t feel like it, and two the drugs interfer with perceptions. Lots of great lucid dreams though. But thats not what we’re talking about is it. (:slight_smile:

Please note that I DO understand where you are coming from.
It took me almost three years of research ( I’m not using the word as strongly as some of the more scientific minded people on this message board use it ) and many many e-mails back and forth with people like Joe , Lyn Buchcanan, people at the HRVG site, and many others before I realized that if I were ever going to KNOW if RV was a reality I was going to have to STOP letting them do all the work. I was going to have to stop asking them to PROVE what they already knew to be a reality and FIND OUT FOR MYSELF by taking a class in RV. CRV was too expensive for me. I went the HRVG route. It took six months of intensive training online at $25 per month to help cover their cost for keeping the website going. HRVG is a non profit group. At first I didn’t think I was going to make it. THEY din’t think I was going to make it. But I kept saying to myself, “If they can do it, THEN I can do it.” And to my utter surprise I started getting some astounding sessions. I still can’t believe it!!! But there was absolutely no way for me to know what the target was before I completed the session and got feedback.

Take some grandfatherly advice and don’t depend on others who call themselves remote viewers to prove to you if RV is for real. You have no way of knowing where they are at in their training. You might luck out and get someone who gets 10 out of 10 ( more likely 7 out of 10 ) and walk away saying WOW!!! Or you might get someone who can’t do better than 3 out of 10, or worse and walk away saying, “See. I told you it was BS.” You sound too intelligent for that, but believe me there are some people who will take that route.

As I said before, you can’t tell someone what water taste like who has never tasted water. They will have to try it for themselves.

85

Curt C:

I forgot to mention something about “targets.” HRVG constructs it’s targets differently than CRV or SRV. But if you want to learn how to CUE a target then go to http://www.farsight.org and click on their text book. You want to choose pictures that are “stand alone” subjects if you can. Too much in the picture only tends to confuse the remote viewer. A picture of Ayers Rock in the distance is a good example of a stand alone target. The facade of the Alamo is another good example of stand alone.

If you are looking for target pictures I would recommend checking out the following website:

http://www.planetware.com/slidesho.htm

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
Robert

86

Robert, if you want to provide us with information, you could provide us with the following information:

What is involved in the analysis of the viewing? What procedures, exactly, does the analyst follow? How many people participate in an analysis, at each stage of the proceedings?

That’s the sort of information we’d like to know. I believe that the analysis stage is when it is decided that the viewer either did or did not hit the target, and I would like to know how it’s decided whether or not the viewer got it right. Petra mentioned in the other thread that a sort of “committee” got together, looked at the viewing results, and discarded any “anomalous bits” that didn’t seem to fit the target. I would like to know what the criteria are for what constitutes “anomalous bits”, and how the decision is made to discard them.

I believe that the entire analysis procedure is heavily slanted, first, towards totally subjective interpretation of the viewing results, and second, towards “hitting the target”, that is, that the analyst wants very much for the viewer to have gotten it right, so he interprets the results in such a way as to make it so.

87

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lucid *
**

Sorry it took me so long to say so, but thanks for trying to answer me. Unfortunately, that URL doesn’t really do it. I see a lot of pictures (which have been well-picked-over by others on this thread), but you haven’t really told me how they relate to my question (which was on the second page of the original thread, for those wondering). I can see why some people would think that this might be an example of a good hit, but it is far from complete.

Like most others here, I want more details. The problem with the HRVG site (and so many others) is that the information seems widely scattered, or even partially missing. Under exactly what circumstances was the first page written? Was it before the session? After? What is the meaning of the word “cue” here? Was the viewer a Lennon fan (which might have predesposed him to the target)? How long did it take to create these 11 pages? Were these the only 11 pages written?

Anyhow, I specifically asked for someone to summarize any RV session that appeared to be a hit, because I didn’t want to just be given a URL. I know it seems lazy of me, but I’m not going to start sifting through an entire website for this stuff. Someone will have to tell me an anecdote, in detail, involving a RV that actually came up with some unexplained information, before I’m going to think looking at the HRVG site is worth even another minute of my time.

88

robert gargg wrote:

No, really, what is Remote viewing good for? Most of what I see from the cut&paste you provided is Buchanan griping about how there’s no money for research. If CRV works, money should be rolling in from people looking for lost items or people. All that’s in that ‘answer’ is unsupported claims that CRV works for intelligence gathering (how are we supposed to verify that?), and a boatload of pipe-dreams (influencing the past without changing it? Pull the other one. Or get a dictionary).

Okay, okay, the part about intelligence gathering is what I was asking about. Given that as an idea, an RVer ought to be able to tell me what the left-most book on the top shelf of the right-most stack closest to the main entrance to the Library of Congress is. Or, what’s on the billboards right now on my way to work. Unfortunately, these stink as tests, since it’s far too easy to cheat. For some reason, I’ve got it in my head that at least the location of a thing to be viewed is required, so my asking, “what is in the painting that’s on my office wall?” would be an unfair test, because I’m unwilling to hand out my home address.

On the other hand, I read that RVers find missing people all the time, so it shouldn’t be that hard. If anyone wants to take up the challenge, I’ll even go so far as to say there’s only the one painting hanging in the room, it was painted by me, 15 years ago, and I can look up and see it as I type this. I’ll give you all TBOAD, and won’t cover it up to prevent cheating.

While you’re at it (if you are), there’s a small beige spiral-bound pad of paper on top of a piece of computer equipment on my desk. On the top sheet of paper, uncovered, it has two of the target IDs written on it from my previous post. It also has words on it describing what one of them is. I promise not to touch the pad for the next two weeks. If you could also tell me what kind of computer equipment the pad is on, and what brand it is, I’ll give bonus points.

Even more bonus points: there are nine objects sitting on top of my computer’s monitor, what are they? (The pad of paper isn’t one of them, so there’s a big hint for you all.)

Anyway, I think we’re stuck with Buchanan’s Lament: RVers will be doing “what’s in the envelope” tests until such a time as they are shown to have a statistically significant success rate when the tests are done publicly, above-board, and with a serious scientific methodology. Many trials, so that your own concerns, robert, are taken care of (with regards to quantifying the capabilities of individual RV practitioners and also making sure that people aren’t having crappy months).

Right now, all I hear from RVers is that “it works.” It’s vague and sometimes evasive. At times, like once in this thread, it’s downright hostile. We’ve seen very little hard evidence that can be seen by anyone as being proof of RV. I’d suggest to those at HRVG, for example, to get a third person involved, to write down, with precise times, everything the viewer does, says, doodles, or writes. That would eliminate every single “when was this written” question asked so far in this thread. Just publishing pages of stuff without precise explanations of what, where, when, and how, is sloppy science, at best. At worst, it’s non-science.

(Buchanan’s web site even describes a statistical nightmare when trying to rate CRV. What is CRV’s Accuracy Rate? describes throwing out “can’t tell” results in step 6. Let’s say there were 72 hits, 28 misses, and 10 “can’t tell” results. Throw out the “can’t tells” to get 72% accuracy, and it’s not that far off. If, on the other hand, there were 900 “can’t tell” results, then CRV’s definite-hit accuracy is just 7.2%, or a factor of ten smaller. Step 6 makes the 72% figure meaningless.)

Right now, all I hear from the investigative skeptics are the failed results of envelope tests. Michael Shermer’s, for example, in his book, The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense. The excerpt available at Amazon, is, in fact, the start of Shermer’s relating of his RV experiences (it’s a pity it ends halfway through).

Given what I’ve read here, on the HRVG Web site, at Buchanan’s site, TV shows, other articles, and from the skeptics, I will believe, until further evidence comes along, that Ray Hyman (as quoted by Shermer on page 7 of the excerpt at Amazon), has the most-realistic appraisal of the subject:

Oh, DDG: I already knew that. :wink: Of course, I’ll have to dispute your claims about RV and ‘stuff’. It seems like RV generates a lot of papers with writing and drawings on them.

89

Aloha,

I had not intended to post to this forum again as It is more of an arena than a forum, but I was amazed at what passed for math in the thread about wavelengths. Truely amazing results for wavelengths at 8 hertz. Did you make that up or fumble through someone’s online RF site? Truely amazing math and no one else questioned it hmmmm. I am by trade an RF Engineer and work for Global Interactive, as well as being the Station Engineer for KHLU the Univision affiliate in Honolulu. When I saw the math it made more than a few alarms go off. First you need to look at 8 hz correctly. The full wavelength for 8 hz is 123,000 feet. The 3/4 wavelength is 92,250 feet. The 5/8’s wavelength is 76,875 feet. The 1/2 wavelength is 61,500 feet. The 1/4 wavelength is 30,750 feet. Next you need to learn a great deal more than you know before you can comment on the viability of the body to receive or emanate frequency. It is pretty much the only thing the body does. Before you try and pass yourself off as some RF commando you should actually know something about it.

ALoha
Glenn Wheaton

90

Someone asked about HRVG analysis: on that point I can’t help you. I only went up to stage four of the HRVG protocols. When I do a target from the HRVG site, I send in the session and analysis is done on their end by better trained viewers. You will have to address the question to Valtra, Dick, or Glenn Wheaton. Sorry I can’t help you with what you are looking for.

91

Glenn, this is exactly the kind of hostile post which doesn’t help turn this into your idea of a ‘forum’. You are only perpetuating your idea that this is an ‘arena’. I suppose that makes your complaint self-fulfilling.

Perhaps we should both show our math. Wavelength is equal to the speed of light divided by the frequency. To use English units, as you did, that’s 186,000 miles per second divided by 8. I get 23,250 miles, or 122,760,000 feet, or nearly 1,000 times longer than the figure you posted. Convert this to meters, divide by 4 to get quarter-wavelength, and once again I am looking at 9,375,000 meters or so, as in my above post (in which I started with the speed of light at 300,000,000 meters per second). My math checks, in English or Metric units.

Seems to me that you are using a value for the speed of light that’s 1,000 times too low, or are using 8,000 Hz (8 kHz) instead of 8 Hz. You can appeal to your own authority all you like, but it still looks like you’re wrong.

I would like to see a reference which says the human body is a good source of electromagnetic radiation outside the infrared band. For whatever band(s) you choose. By “good source” I mean “generates radiation which, at a distance of 50 feet, is at least twice as powerful as background noise.” By “generates” I mean “generates,” not “reflects,” “refracts,” or “is transparent to.”

92

Glenn: I am sorry that you don’t feel we have given you a “fair forum”. :frowning: Apparently what you would define as a “fair forum” would be one that is merely a “platform”, a podium from which to expound your views (and jargon) on remote viewing, without expecting any questions from the audience, or at least, without expecting any awkward questions that could not be easily satisfied by spouting still more jargon.

I suppose that what you perceive as “good cop/bad cop” tactics would be the varying responses from Dopers to your posts. Some of us seem sympathetic, some of us are openly contemptuous. This is not “good cop/bad cop” but is merely part and parcel of the type of vigorous discussions that go on here at the SDMB

We have other registered members here who are believers in many things in the paranormal spectrum, from moon landing hoaxes to UFOs to all the various conspiracy theories, and *they * don’t seem to find it overly threatening that people disagree with them.

We call this forum Great Debates because in here, we “debate”. Merriam-Webster defines a debate as:

This is a forum for “regulated discussion between two matched sides”, or at least, we’d have two matched sides if you would give us a little more to go on besides jargon. Why won’t you answer any of my questions about the analysis process? I am going to assume that this is because it’s totally subjective, and because it is subject to multiple inputs (the “committee”), and because it is a group effort, and that there’s no way you can find to justify it by saying it’s “scientific”.

The “facts” I would like to have are as follows:

  1. When the viewer is finished writing on his papers, and he gives them to the analyst, is the analyst then alone in a room to do his analysis? Or is the analysis carried out by more than one person at the same time, in a group or “committee” effort? Are there several people at the same time looking at the viewer’s results and deciding whether he hit the target, or is the analyst working alone?

  2. If the analyst is indeed working alone at the preliminary stage of the analysis, does he then give his results to someone else to review? Ever?

  3. This was mentioned earlier, that sometimes when the analyst comes back with his answer–“the target was the sinking of the Titanic”–but the target was actually “the murder of John Lennon”, that then a “committee” gets together, reviews his analysis, and decides that the viewer’s drawings and word lists indicate that he viewed “the murder of John Lennon” after all, and the analysis is changed to read “hit”. Does this happen? What happens when an analyst guesses wrong as to what the target must have been? Are the results simply discarded, or are the results changed to read “hit”?

  4. What exactly are the criteria for analysis? Petra mentioned in the other thread that during the analysis, certain “anomalous bits” that don’t fit the target are discarded. How does the analyst know which “anomalous bits” don’t fit the target, if he’s not supposed to know what the target is until after he’s finished his analysis? How does he decide which words to discard?

  5. Petra said in the other thread that you have scientific proof that remote viewing works. Is there? If so, what?

  6. Somebody (Robert, I think) says that remote viewing is indeed useful, that it tells us many things. I’d like to know what things. Like what? What useful information has remote viewing given us so far, about anything?

93

Rainfall wrote:

Glenn, if you’re going to blast somebody for not knowing enough about some subject, you should check your own facts. DaveW already pointed out the factor-of-1000 error in your wavelength calculation. But you statement above says to me that you don’t know anything about either physiology or RF. I’ve been pretty much of an expert in the measurement of RF signals for nearly 20 years, and I’ve never before come across the phrase “emanate frequency.” What do you mean by it? Are you saying that the body can emanate electromagnetic waves?

And the part about “pretty much the only thing the body does” is just ridiculous. You can see from my earlier posts that I’ve been very polite, but when you started insulting others, using completely bogus information, it told me a lot about you. So far you’ve claimed to be knowledgeable in RF, remote viewing, and psysiology. You just proved that you are wrong in RF and physiology. Is your RV knowledge any better?

94

Aloha,

It seems I misquoted myself. My quote is for 8Khz not 8hz. I would have to stand corrected and apologetic on that issue.

Aloha Glenn

95

robert gargg, Rainfall, perhaps it wasn’t clear from my previous post, but my question was directed at those (such as yourselves, I believe) who are learning the method of Remote Viewing:
What kind of experiment would you devise that could disprove the process of Remote Viewing? e.g. if person A claims to be Remote Viewing, but fails test X, then person A is not really Remote Viewing.

96

What kind of experiment to disprove RV? I’ve never looked at it from that point of view. Thats good food for thought. Thank you.

Robert

97

gargg, that’s how science works. You test things to try to falsify them. If you repeatedly fail to falsify a phenomenon, it is accepted as real. Has remote viewing ever been tested this way?

98

Aloha,

An interesting question. The same test used to prove the RV effect should do the job nicely in disproving it. It would depend on the results. I can give you a model of such a test. I would employ a test that consisted of at least 500 runs or iterations. I would use 50 viewers in 2 groups. Group one would be viewers trained in a methodology such as CRV, SRV, TRV, or HRVG. Group two would be given no training whatsoever.

Both groups would be briefed that the requirement is to determine the gestaltic associations in 10 targets that each would work. Let me quantify gestaltic associations. The target pool will consist of images of real places on the planet. In each of the images various gestalts will be present. These can include land, air, water, structures, people, verticals, horizontals, diagonals etc. The goal of a success would be to not only identify the gestalts but to associate their placement from the viewpoint of the image.

This requires a scheme to code an image. You can device a coding system to take any photographic image and give it a gestaltic label. You identify the gestalts in their direct proximity to the camera’s viewpoint. Such a code could be expressed in a pattern code such as AABCCABDADBB ETC.

All viewers would be taught to code photographs in such a way.

A pool of 500 targets would be established. The target images would be coded and placed in envelopes and put in a linear file. Each envelope will be marked with a single number beginning with the number 1 to 500. Using a random number generator the numbers 1 - 500 would be randomized. The file would be re-ordered to reflect this randomization. This file would be sorted into 50 groups of 10 targets each. Each viewer would then have a batch of 10 targets randomly assigned to him or her. The targets in each batch will be randomized one more time to determine the order that the targets will be worked in by the viewer.

The viewers will work one target per day for 10 days. Each viewer will code the results of their site sketches and turn the data in to a test proctor. The proctor will report only the gestaltic code for the day’s target. Daily the viewer reported code would be written on the outside of the envelope of the target worked. After 10 days you will have 500 codes collected by the groups one and two. All the data will then go to a judge who will reconcile statistically the codes on the outside of the envelopes to the codes inside the envelopes using a computer comparison.

There are some other chain of custody and housekeeping issues in conducting the test but I think I have said enough to give you an idea.

It sounds a bit complex but it will tell you if there is something anomalous occurring in the trained viewer group or not. It is a simple test for the presence of the RV effect.

I have in the past acted as a Trusted Agent for the James Randi folks in proctoring tests for Dr. Wayne Carr’s viewers. While Dr. Carr’s test procedures were different I prefer a decision that could actually be determined by a computer.

Aloha Glenn

99
  1. Okay, so how is Dr. Carr doing? He evidently accepted the James Randi challenge at some unspecified date–the URL says “2001/01”–so I’m assuming this is from last January, and it says he’s been working on it for the last year.

http://www.hrvg.org/newsletter/2001-01/challenge.htm

So how’s he doing?

So, in other words, he claims that he can’t prove that remote viewing works because James Randi is beaming negative thought waves–“bad vibes”–at the viewers, and that’s what is messing up the results?

Uh huh.

  1. Still waiting for some information on analysis procedures.
100

Glenn, your test procedure was way more complex than what would be required. Wouldn’t it be much simpler to just choose one from a pool of pictures? You could still have an analysis expert assist in this part. The ranking procedure that was being used in the Randi test is good - it’s more complex than just picking the right one, but it should be able to prove RV one way or the other with fewer trials.

However, if someone complains that having a pool of targets messes up the viewing, then a possible way around this is to make only one target, and after the remote viewing, I could create nine other images, and let the viewers pick which one it was (or rank them in what they thought was most likely). This way, during the viewing, there will only exist one image. However, I couldn’t do anything to reduce the “skeptic effect.” Those bad skeptic vibes are in abundance in my house.

I really would like to do this experiment. Would it be a problem that it’s pretty far away from Hawai`i (I’m in Texas)?