OMG! I can haz Remote Viewing!

The other day I thought I’d check out the Australian Skeptics Facebook Page. I didn’t have to scroll far to see someone advertising their conference on Remote Viewing – The bloke’s name is Stephen Hamper. While he was quite confident in his belief, he was less than impressive when asked for evidence.

So, what is remote viewing?

Having read and liked the explanation given at Skeptic’s Dictionary, I’ll lift it from there:

Remote viewing (RV) is a fancy name for telepathy or clairvoyance, the alleged psychic ability to perceive places, persons, and actions that are not within the range of the senses.

Kicking over some stones

On my little quest for knowledge about Remote Viewing I came across a forum where people were posting their “Target Reference Numbers” or TRNs. They are basically a way to file your “targets”; which, in good practice should not be used on yourself, but rather someone else – Like me, for instance.

From RVcommunity.net

 

 

Am I PSI?!

After reading it I thought “Great! I’ll give this a go!” I should point out that I followed the instructions and conducted my “remote viewing” session first. This comprised of me tracking down a pen and some paper.

Having prepared, I began to scribble and came up with this little masterpiece:

My RV Scribble

I’m going to stop right here and explain how some of this may seem to work; one of the phenomena is subjective validation, which occurs when two unrelated or sometimes random events are perceived to be related on the basis of a preconceived belief or some kind of expectancy – and of course, when a hypothesis is SEEKING a relationship between the two events. This is basically confirmation bias – you expect something is going to happen, and when it does (or as similar as you are willing to accept it does) you consider it a HIT.

 

For Example, my scribble It’s utterly useless. I did not spend any amount of time trying to do a “session”, yet let’s look what happens when we go looking for similarities between the my scribble and the target.

So, what was the image I was Remote Viewing?

TRN "3276-1870"

 

 

And what have I got?

VIOLA! I can Remote View! We can draw similarities between the two. The beak, the Head, it’s all there. That’s a WIN!

I'm PSI!

Which means what? I’M PSI! It’s so obvious! .. No. Far from it.

Let’s step back. I didn’t need to do much square-peg in to birdhouse-circle stuffing to get a correlation between the two.

This goes to show without an ounce of effort a vague scribble can be compared to an image, a photo, etc – and when you’re looking for it – might make you think you can remote view!

There are a number of other things that can be done to make Remote Viewing seem plausible, and for that, I refer to PROJECT ALPHA – Where a couple of ballsy magicians fool PSI researchers, despite having told them how to catch them out.

57 Comments

  1. …i am the stephen hamper he is referring to…… and the claims are true………you can visit the entire documentation of the exhibition on Remote Viewing here
    http://particle-space.com/blog/2011/06/11/remote-viewing-by-stephen-hamper/
    …this link also has links to the full remote viewing session with 80 photos of a complete Remote Viewing session (not a single sketch as our author above shows)

    Hi Stephen, thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment.
    You link to an exhibition, while as body of work is interesting, as scientific evidence of Remote Viewing is rather lacking.
    You mentioned 80 photos, most of them sketches with a few photos thrown in, which you have stated were added after the remote viewing session as a means of demonstrating a correlation. As part of a scientific investigation, this injects bias in to what you claim is evidence of remote viewing.

    however, bayani, you appear to HAVE shown the rv ability….i would suggest you learn the proper protocol to complete a “full” remote viewing sesion, as you have seen with my example, and your results will become more detailed and refined with practice….and, yes, it is a skill which you improve upon like learning a musical instrument…..the same amount of commitment would be reqired to achieve levels in any field

    It was not at all surprising at all to me that you have said this, rather it demonstrates that you’ve completely dismissed what was written about, and the point of the exercise. There was absolutely no effort on my part to perform a “Remote Viewing”. I randomly scribbled on paper. While I agree with you there is an element of skill involved, I contest it is either one of self-delusion or fraud.

    ….and yes, anyone can remote view, you just have to be shown how…..however the above explanation of REMOTE VIEWING is somewhat incorrect and a bit misleading
    …..”Remote viewing (RV) is a fancy name for telepathy or clairvoyance, the alleged psychic ability to perceive places, persons, and actions that are not within the range of the senses.”
    …not correct…and this is the mistake many people make who do not research the topic properley
    The term “Remote Viewing” has one definition with two separate parts to it. The first part of the definition says it is:?The process of an individual acquiring information about a person, place, thing or event which is distant in time or space, when that …information could not be accessible to the individual through any means?currently known to science. Sounds like psychic work, yes? The second part of the definition is the groundwork for the first part.
    Remote viewing is technically: A certain type of psychic or “ESP” process, defined as Remote Viewing instead of ESP by the fact that it is done within an approved Remote Viewing protocol.

    You alleged that the description given in my post was incorrect, yet you validated it as being correct in your own description.
    It was noted it was an alleged psychic ability, and your description states just that – “A certain type of psychic [..] process,..”.
    You either did not read what was written, or completely misunderstood what was said.

    ?There are rules in RV to ensure the information one is obtaining could not be accessible to the psychic through any means but psi. These rules, taken as a set, are called “the Remote Viewing Protocol.”

    What you are attempting to refer to is not “Remote Viewing Protocol” but the “Scientific Method”.

    …..Remote Viewing Protocol
    The combined set of rules, regulations, processes, procedures, and instructions in a laboratory experiment is often called the “protocol.” In Remote Viewing, the protocol encompasses every aspect of the experiment. The details can vary, but there are three points of RV Protocol that are always expected to be followed:
    * Planned and Aimed.
    The psychic session must be planned and done on purpose. If you get a “spontaneous insight” or have a dream, that is not Remote Viewing. RV is when you intend to collect information about a specific target.
    * Double-Blind. In most experiments, if the person giving the answers does not know the question, it would be called “blind” or “single-blind”. Remote Viewing is required to be “double-blind”. That means there are two (double) layers of “blinding”.

    Please provide documentation from your industry experts detailing the protocols used to test the validity of Remote Viewing, perhaps the DETAILED methodology used for THE BEST EVIDENCE for Remote Viewing would be the best place to start.

    ….if you have any further questions regarding Remote Viewing i am happy to answer, and can defer to experts within the industry….you may also contact me through http://particle-space.com/
    we can all do this….just try it for yourself…that is the only way to be convinced

    If you actually believe the only way to be convinced by something is to try it yourself then you are sorely mistaken. Humans are highly fallible animals; if you want to convince me, do it under controlled investigations. The data will speak for itself.

    thankyou….stephen hamper?http://particle-space.com/

    Cheers!

    Like

    Reply

  2. …it is commonly said “people who dont believe in Remote Viewing havent read the research”

    …you can find details to all your questions in the book The Complete User’s Manual for Coordinate Remote Viewing by D. David Morehouse….

    ..or

    The DIA Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual
    http://www.rviewer.com/crvmanual/

    CRV (formerly known as ‘coordinate remote viewing’) was the skill developed for the US government’s Star Gate program (sometimes written as ‘Stargate’) to teach ordinary soldiers how to literally become “psychic spies.” Now it is available to all, not just the military. The DIA CRV Manual was developed in 1986 by Paul H. Smith as the primary author, with much collaboration from the Ft. Meade Army personnel who were Ingo Swann’s direct students (Bill Ray, Ed Dames, Charlene Shufelt, and Tom McNear), under the guidance of Skip Atwater, who had extensive interaction with Ingo Swann and Hal Puthoff throughout the CRV development and training process. The manual was intended to serve as a comprehensive explanation of the theory and mechanics of CRV as developed by SRI-I. At the conclusion of the writing, Fred (Skip) Atwater forwarded a copy of the manual to Ingo Swann for his assessment. .

    …..you can also access the 89, 901 pages of declassified information on the military Remote Viewing progeam here:
    http://www.stargate-interactive.com/

    CIA STAR GATE ARCHIVE
    Release of Archives

    After nearly eight years of promises, the Central Intelligence Agency has at long last released the bulk of the so-called “Star Gate Archive” to the general public. At 89,901 pages, making up some 11,985 documents, the Archive is a monumental record of the US government’s foray into remote viewing under code-names such as GRILL FLAME, CENTER LANE, SUN STREAK, and others, with the most widely known being STAR GATE.
    Included in the almost 90,000 pages and 12,000 documents are:
    Never-before disclosed reports of the scientific research conducted by scientists such as Dr. Harold E. Puthoff, Russell Targ, Dr. Edwin C. May, and others at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
    Actual operational remote viewing reports containing remote-viewing-derived information on many of the most infamous targets of the Cold War by legendary remote viewers such as Joe McMoneagle, Mel Riley, Bill Ray, Paul H. Smith, Lyn Buchanan, and numerous others.
    Extensive previously-secret correspondence and administrative documents disclosing many of the who-did-what-to-whom details that have been embargoed for decades.http://www.stargate-interactive.com/

    like i said…it is commonly said “people who dont believe in Remote Viewing havent read the research”

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks for coming back!

      …it is commonly said “people who dont believe in Remote Viewing havent read the research”

      Stephen, Remote Viewing “How-To” guides are not evidence that remote viewing is a real phenomena. Additionally, not even the people who legitimately researched Psi were convinced that Remote Viewing was real.

      The data has not demonstrated that it was a real phenomena.

      It should be noted that Harold E. Puthoff was involved with the Church of Scientology for a decade, and advocates concepts such as Remote Viewing.

      Also, in 2000, Paul H. Smith commented on David Morehouse’s book Psychic Warrior:
      “Please don’t take too much of what Dave Morehouse says in his book and his interviews too seriously. There are very good reasons why he is odd-man-out in the RV community–many of them similar reasons to why Ed Dames is, too.”

      In fact, in this video with David Morehouse, this self-proclaimed “psychic warrior” guessed correctly just 15% of the time.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “What Is Bilocation?”

        By PSI TECH’s President

        Bilocation is a word that any avid remote viewing researcher will come across and it is also an experience that all remote viewers have while implementing the TRV protocols. Technical Remote Viewing is still a fairly young technology, having only been introduced and put into use for twenty years, since 1983. We have had to develop new terms and definitions as this skill grows and becomes more popular to effectively explain how it works and why it works. Bilocation is one of those words that have been given new meaning by the science of Technical Remote Viewing and therefore it is often misinterpreted. I am continuing our series of TRV Public Education by explaining what bilocation means in TRV terms and what it does and how we deal with it. I am presenting this is a Q and A format using actual questions that we are asked the most frequently.

        1) I have often seen the term “bilocation” used in descriptions of how TRV works. What exactly does it mean?

        Answer:

        In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is defined as:

        Main Entry: bi·lo·ca·tion
        Pronunciation: ‘bI-lO-“kA-sh&n
        Function: noun
        Date: 1858
        : the state of being or ability to be in two places at the same time

        In PSI TECH’s TRV Generation II Dictionary, it is defined as:

        Bilocation: The required mind state for accurate remote viewing to occur. The remote viewer’s attention span is split in half so that half of the viewer’s conscious attention is at the target matrix site and the other half is with the viewer tending to TRV structure.

        Explanation:

        In TRV terms it is quite literally being in two places at once. After the TRV protocols are initiated, the viewer’s attention splits. One half of the viewer’s conscious and unconscious attention is at the target matrix site (or the target blueprint in the collective unconscious) and the other half is with the viewer’s senses tending to TRV structure. Bilocating in TRV structure induces a heightened sense of awareness referred to as “a state of high attention.” This is the optimal mind state to effect the remote viewing process.

        Some of the physical symptoms of bilocation are:

        A) Pausing as if in a daze
        B) Forgetting what to do next
        C) Waving the pen in the air
        D)Misspelling words
        E) A disregard for the surrounding activities
        F) Rhythmic rocking or tapping
        G) Decreased eye movement and blinking
        H) Forgetting common words and names
        I) A Dazed look in the eyes
        J) Decreased body movement.
        K) A wavering walk

        In the beginning of TRV training, one should not try to operate a vehicle until at least 15-20 minutes after ending a TRV session.

        2) When in a state of bilocation, should we lose all perceptual contact with our present environment (i.e., the room we are TRVing in or even our bodies) and be completely absorbed in the target site?

        Only half of your perceptual attention is in the room with you (in your body) tending to TRV structure and the other half is (or should be) exploring the target matrix site. If one half lessens or goes over more than 50%, then the viewer will begin to feel like they are “off target” or like the target has become an experience (and then you forget to collect data.) It is essential to maintain a 50/50 balance while bilocating. That is why the speed (cadence and pace) of the TRV structure is so important.

        3) Sometimes I find myself in a daze after performing a session. Is this related to bilocation?

        Yes, the dazed feeling is the hang over effect of bilocation. This feeling is most pronounced during the first few months while the TRV trainee is first installing and learning the TRV protocols. However, it does dissipate with time. The hang over effect never completely goes away (according to our empirical research) but it does begin to dissipate more quickly after one becomes accustom to the TRV structure and routine. Getting up, walking around, drinking water and writing your session summary helps to dissipate bilocation more quickly. We recommend not trying to analyze the TRV data until at least 20-30 minutes after ending a TRV session.

        4) How do we effectively manage our attention to be focused at the target site, while another part of our attention remains attending to TRV structure?

        We have found that the actual TRV protocols induce the perfect state of bilocation. The viewer must progress in a rhythmic type of cadence and speed, going from decoding the ideogram in stage 1 to the stage 2 sensory data and the kinesthetic contact of the Stage 3 sketch and then to the sorting of abstract data in the stage 4 table; all the while dealing with imagination and personal feelings according to the way TRV structure dictates. It’s a perfect system.

        5) Is there any way to “force” bilocation to occur?

        We can induce a forced state of a 50/50 bilocation by adhering strictly to TRV protocols. There is also a more vague and less precise type of bilocation that is forced by using the Ultra Meditation and Brain Supercharger products (available at http://www.mind-tek.com.) These other states of bilocation are induced for various reasons such as passive learning, stress reduction, and/or relaxation.

        6) People who utilize altered states or O.B.E. experiences do not write down information while they are in their mind states. Isn’t that a more exciting and fulfilling experience?

        Yes, there are people who practice OBE’s (“out-of-body” experiences) who recount having thrilling and profound experiences. The OBE’s were experimented with for Intel collection purposes in the department of defense before remote viewing protocols were discovered. The results were minimally successful because the person who had the OBE could not effectively recall the details and information that they were meant to gather on their data collection mission. They tried having a monitor sit next to the person while he or she was in the OBE state to document the data but the experience itself still often overwhelmed the OBE participant. The part of consciousness that sorts out information and places it into categories does not engage properly in an uneven state of bilocation; thus the OBE participant had no tool box to work with for data collection purposes.

        7) After about 12 level 1 targets, during an S3 sketch, I began seeing an image to the left of my vision, which later turned out to be a darkened piece of an arch way. I’m not sure if this was the beginning of bilocation or something else? After doing a few movements, does bilocation slowly creep in and does it stay there until you consciously make it go away?

        The process of the TRV induced state of bilocation is the mandate to collect information using all of our senses. That includes, visual, smells, sounds, tastes and kinesthetic contact. However, we are also dealing with the other 50% of our conscious state that is suppose to be tending to TRV structure. When we slip out of TRV structure, (this usually occurs by slowing down) imagination and judgment begin to infiltrate the data collection process.

        Signs of infiltration are:

        A) Slowing down
        B) Trying to discern if you are “on target” or “off target”
        C) Worrying about being wrong or right
        D) Questioning the outcome of the TRV session
        E) Trying to guess what the target is
        F) Becoming creative with the data
        G) Persistent distraction of external stimuli
        H) Continuous engagement of personal feelings
        I) A feeling of knowing what the target is

        (All of the above stated symptoms of infiltration occur while the remote viewer is remote viewing.)

        8) When bilocating, are we actually “going” anywhere?

        This question is often asked by RV researchers and RV novices. When we are exploring a target via TRV, we are directing our attention to a specific blueprint (or topic) in the collective mind (or The Matrix.) As we initiate the TRV protocol and become bilocated, we begin to sense the target, smell the target, hear the target and see fleeting images of the target, as well as kinesthetically feel the target. We can actively experience the target while we passively document its data. We do not actually “go” anywhere even though at first it may feel that way. As we learn how to manage our attention, we become accustom to the feeling of bilocating only the required 50%.

        It is difficult for a non-TRVer to understand this process because it is very much like trying to explain what it feels like to swim or ride a bike. One does not really know about swimming or riding a bike until one has had the experience. It is difficult to explain TRV also because there was not another method like it beforehand, so there is no comparison or template to fall back on. This is why there is the continuous necessity to separate remote viewing away from the rest of the parapsychological and psychic processes. The ideas of TRV were scattered throughout the fields of psychology, philosophy and parapsychology but it wasn’t until 1983 that these idea were formulated into a breakthrough method that created a teachable system that any person could learn: Technical Remote Viewing. http://www.trvnews.com/tsl/032103/index.html

        Like

    2. by Ingo Swann (1998)

      “As I have discussed in other writings, I’ve always been interested in
      Psi phenomena, and beginning in 1970 it chanced that opportunities to extend that interest in depth were made available.

      Anyone with more than a mere superficial interest in Psi phenomena
      must of course encounter the rather smelly morass of social resistance
      whereby the authenticity of those phenomena are methodically deconstructed, thus suspending them in doubt.

      This social resistance, even if smelly, has largely been successful in
      destroying all concerted approaches to Psi phenomena. This success is
      specifcally active within high strata of societal power, and which strata
      are otherwise entirely disinterested in what lesser mortals DO experience along these lines.

      Why it is that governing societal factors need to deconstruct the
      provable existence of at least some vital Psi phenomena is therefore
      something that needs to be examined and understood.

      Along these lines of inquiry, the existence and methods of the
      machinations against Psi development can easily be brought to light. But the reasons that govern the implementation of the machinations none the less remain obscured.

      Thus, the societal resistance to Psi breaks neatly into two aspects:
      to prevent Psi development; and to keep obscure the actual reasons for doing so.

      One reason for the blanket suppression which has been offered up by
      many before me is that effective formats of Psi would disturb any number of social institutions. Those institutions would feel “threatened” by developed formats of, say, telepathy, which might thereafter be utilized to penetrate their secrets.

      There is some rather clear truth in this. Indeed, it is because of
      this truth that some echelons of humans are at war with the Psi potentials of the human species – because those echelons have motivations they would prefer never to be disclosed via Psi penetration.

      If this is the case, the chief preventive measure would be to stamp
      out altogether any real understanding of Psi. Indeed, something like this
      has taken place.

      And there cognizance of the nature of the situation might remain –
      more or less being defined as humans in conflict with their own Psi
      potentials because Psi penetrates secrets.

      Indeed, on my part for a long time I assumed that this was the
      beginning and end of the story regarding the methodical suppression of Psi by high societal echelons – such as represented by government, science, academe and media.”

      PENETRATION
      Copyright (c) 1998 by Ingo Swann.
      Published in the United States by Ingo Swann Books, P.O. Box 2875, Rapid City, South Dakota 57709-2875.

      Like

      Reply

  3. You “didn’t do a session.” Had you done one, your negating comments wouldn’t have to attest to your flaming ignorance. Blame yourself. You set an example of how not to remote view, and you are right!

    Like

    Reply

    1. I thought it was blatantly obvious I was taking the piss out of a pseudoscientific belief — It’s clear you missed the point.

      I didn’t do a “session”, and yet I am able to draw post-hoc correlations to the “target” when compared to a scribble, which were subsequently touted by Stephen Hamper as being evidence that I was remote viewing.

      It is this exact kind of poor understanding and use of methodology that is rife in pseudoscience. — it’s the very definition of the word: “based on theories and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”

      BOOM!

      Like

      Reply

      1. Then isn’t what you have done an example of either (or perhaps both) the informal fallacies knows as Straw-man fallacy or False Analogy?

        Like

      2. On further thought, it is probably an example of an assertion fallacy – assuming the conclusion – Assuming that the correlation between your sketch and the target is completely chance (I am sure the RVing camp would argue that this cannot be assumed).

        Added is the false analogy fallacy-since correlations are demonstrated in a random scribble and these are by chance, than any correlations in the admittedly different process of Remote Viewing must be due to chance.

        But I fear I am being to analytic. The entry was clearly intended to primarily take the piss, and not make serious logical or scientific conclusions.

        Thanks for a thought (and discussion) provoking blog!

        Like

      3. It’s not a false analogy. No analogies are drawn at all, as far as I can tell.

        Remote viewing is, of course, one of the many things that relies on mystical forces which remain stubbornly unverified by empirical science. After this amount of time, to say nothing of Project Stargate, we can be pretty certain that the null hypothesis has not been refuted. Bayani presents the null hypothesis, and shows how a claimed refutation of the null hypothesis is no such thing. It’s not, I think, intended to be logically rigorous but it is a simple demonstration of the way the human brain is programmed to wrongly infer nonexistent relationships, a very well-documented phenomenon.

        Like

      4. Let’s have a look, shall we?

        Strawman Fallacy
        A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.

        In my article I clearly stated that Remote Viewing is:

        the alleged psychic ability to perceive places, persons, and actions that are not within the range of the senses.

        If you disagree with this, by all means, consider it a Strawman.

        Additionally, my assertions about the psychological phenomena that can account for what is observed is not a misrepresentation of Remote Viewing, rather it provides one well-evidenced mechanism that results in the same observations.

        Essentially, no – it is not a Strawman.

        Let’s have a look at the next fallacy suggested:

        False/Weak Analogy
        Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison.

        A comparison was made between “Remote Viewing” and lets call it “Sham Remote Viewing”.
        That is, as opposed to being of the opinion that I possess or have trained to possess these “powers” and using thorough Remote Viewing “protocol”, I scribbled randomly – and (you’ll need to take me at my word, unfortunately) looked at the picture after i had finished my scribble.

        I think this is a legitimate comparison as the point was not to strictly compare the two, rather to demonstrate a simple fact – that given enough random scribbling a “Remote viewer” would get a “hit”.

        We are pattern-seeking animals.
        Pareidolia is a much a part of us as breathing is.

        Like

      5. Hi Bayani Mills. Interesting thread and discussion. Just thought I’d note that you appear to be unaware of one key condition to successfully and consistently “remote view” – state of consciousness, state of mind. Being able to maintain a theta state, day dream awareness as it were, is very important.

        As for scientic proof that RV is a real phenomenom, the offical American Institute of Research report (which concludes that the statistical effect is small to medium, but real) can be found here;-

        Click to access AirReport.pdf

        Now, is everything known about the phenomenom? No.

        I congratulate you on your own descision to investigate reality and do you own research.

        Like

      6. Hi Pat,

        Thanks for dropping by, and for your acknowledgement of my skeptical viewpoint. I am quite open to being moved by robust evidence for Remote Viewing, but I must reiterate that the evidence presented thus far has not been compelling.

        Indeed, I have heard about the AIR report, and while I am still yet to read all of it, I am aware of Paul H Smith’s review of the report, of which he has commented on this at his website: http://www.rviewer.com/airmx03.html

        It would however appear that you’ve either cherry-picked the findings of the AIR report, have been mislead by others stating that the AIR report supports Remote Viewing, or perhaps been misread as to what the findings by AIR actually were.

        Indeed, in Chapter 3-62, the report discusses a key methodology problem:

        “Parapsychologists are unique in postulating a null hypothesis that entails a true effect size of zero if psi is not operating. Any significant outcome, then, becomes evidence for psi.”

        The reasons why this is important are discussed in the Report in Chapter 3-61.

        Additionally, the actual conclusions of the report included:

        “However, the existence of a statistically significant effect did not lead both reviewers to the conclusion that this research program has provided an unequivocal demonstration that remote viewing exists. A statistically significant effect might result either from the existence of the phenomenon, or, alternatively, to methodological artifacts or other alternative explanations for the observed effects.”

        The other conclusions are available in Chapter 5 and are not positive as to the validity of Remote Viewing.

        Whether everything is known about Remote Viewing is of no consequence, indeed there are many concepts we accept and live with for which we do not know “everything” about.

        Thanks again for your reply; I would encourage you to reread the AIR report (given that you imply it is a good review of the information), and importantly reread the acknowledgments by the AIR report to its findings, how methodology can be improved, and where they acknowledge their shortcomings — all of which are discussed by Paul H Smith, understandably from the viewpoint of an advocate of Remote Viewing.

        Like

      7. Well pal, once upon a time I really didn’t dig the idea of psychic ability at all outside of fantasy novels. What changed my mind was setting up a few targets of my own (sealed envelope, cue and generated my own target number) and posted the target tags up on sites. Got quite a few sessions back, analysed them, and had to admit there was a consensus contained within a cross analysis. Quite a useful primer on targetting by Daz here;-

        Click to access Tasking%20targets.pdf

        And my own copyright free, public domain thoughts on analysing sessions here, but it’s just the draft;-

        Click to access BasicRVAnalysis.pdf

        Like

      8. HI again Pat,

        That’s actually one of the problems both Paul and I are discussing – the cognitive perception and analysis issues that arise from self-testing.
        For example, my less than rigorous example used only an identifier, an outline with parts a and c, a cue, and the image [details not known till after clicking the identified (which was a text link]. I had expectations that I would find correlations between the image and my drawing, and indeed I found them. This is why decent research is so intensive, as to attempt to remove cognitive phenomena and personal bias to the project.

        Did you not have any response to the comments about the AIR report? I ask, as you used it as scientific proof, and given my response to it, I gathered you would perhaps have provided some kind of support or retraction of support for the document, or at least acknowledgement of what I pointed out. There was the issue of methodology, the acknowledgement of the limitations of the study, and the lack of conclusion for Remote Viewing as the causal agent for the results produced.

        Now, I’ve looked at the “useful primer” you’ve provided, but before answering must ask what happens with this target-tasking document? Is it given to the subject? If not, what is the subjective given? What are the regulations regarding how the information is given, and how are the targets selected? I know it’s not an exhaustive line of questioning, but it may suffice for my response.

        Thanks for the additional information.

        Like

  4. Bayani –You have your own logical fallacy going here, I’m afraid. Just because subjective validation can be shown to occur, it doesn’t mean that it explains all of even some claims of remote viewing. The not-so-Amazing-Randi falls prey to this fallacy all the time, seeming to believe that because he can demonstrate that something similar in appearance to a psi phenomenon that he has somehow debunked it. This, of course, is question begging without the further step of actually showing how what he did was the same as what the psi claimants did.

    But he never makes that further step, and neither, unfortunately, have you. All you have shown that _you_ can demonstrate a form of subjective validation (of course, not completely, since you are not attempting to fool yourself or others with it).

    What most skeptics are unaware of (because they tend to be oblivious to the large body of scientific literature in the field) is that parapsychologists have been aware of the subjective validation problem from the early days of the research and have created sound protocols for dealing with it, such as blinding conditions in both viewing (or other ESP tasks) and judging, randomization, protection against sensory leakage, and so on. And yet, under very sound scientific conditions, highly statistically significant results still are produced, and many very strong prima facie matches turn up — ones that literally are impossible to have been the result of subjective validation.

    If you are interested, I would be happy to point you to a discussion of the scientific results, and a location to see a handful of these prima facie results.

    Best regards,
    Paul

    Like

    Reply

      1. BTW, I’m afraid I came across sounding to critical of you in my comment. I should have added that what you have done is actually valuable. There are plenty of novice (and even some experienced) remote viewers who don’t understand/are unaware of the issue of subjective validation. It’s always good to educate folks so they don’t mistake wishful thinking for real ESP results.

        Like

    1. Hi Paul,

      Thanks for dropping by and commenting. I’ll address your concerns point by point.

      1.

      Bayani –You have your own logical fallacy going here, I’m afraid. Just because subjective validation can be shown to occur, it doesn’t mean that it explains all of even some claims of remote viewing.

      It’s interesting you would assert that given your acknowledgement that:

      There are plenty of novice (and even some experienced) remote viewers who don’t understand/are unaware of the issue of subjective validation.

      Given this very fact, I would suggest it is completely plausible that Subjective Validation alone could account for most, if not all of those aforementioned. Subjective Validation is merely one of many factors than can work individually, or in connection with other psychological phenomena, not to mention errors in scientific investigation/methodology – As such, I should clarify that my position did not rest on Subjective Validation alone, as what may have been gleaned from my article.

      2.

      The not-so-Amazing-Randi falls prey to this fallacy all the time, seeming to believe that because he can demonstrate that something similar in appearance to a psi phenomenon that he has somehow debunked it. This, of course, is question begging without the further step of actually showing how what he did was the same as what the psi claimants did.

      I am not quite sure how you arrived at the decision that I was begging the question, and while I can not speak for Randi, although I suspect you are referring to Project Alpha, I did not make a proposition and fail to provide evidence.

      My proposition was that the genuine belief of Remote Viewing can be attributed to a number of well-evidence psychological phenomena such as Confirmation Bias, Subjective Validation, as mentioned earlier and statistical biases, such as Selection Bias, Observer Bias, Sampling Bias, to name a few – of which, you acknowledge are valid factors when it comes to research in to Remote Viewing.

      If this was not the case, there would be no need to provide controls for them, as you suggest there are (though perhaps I am assuming too much and there are no controls for these factors).

      3.

      But he never makes that further step, and neither, unfortunately, have you. All you have shown that _you_ can demonstrate a form of subjective validation (of course, not completely, since you are not attempting to fool yourself or others with it).

      I am happy to acknowledge that yes, I was demonstrating confirmation bias when pattern-seeking my scribble and correlating it to the image provided. My intent was not blanket “debunk” Remote Viewing, but to demonstrate how a random scribble can be considered Remote Viewing.

      Consider this: replace me with someone who sincerely believes they have the ability to Remote View, someone who has undergone all the protocols as part of a research paper. They scribble the same image I have, and open the same image I have. Their conclusion would be the same — a hit.

      There is no discernible way to tell the two single instances apart.

      What Remote Viewing Researchers needs to do is to show a statistically significant hit rate by those purporting to have the ability, compared to those that do not – and having the results “judged” (as you put it) by blinded researchers.

      To date, I have seen no such data, despite consistently asking for it; which leads me to..

      4.

      What most skeptics are unaware of (because they tend to be oblivious to the large body of scientific literature in the field) is that parapsychologists have been aware of the subjective validation problem from the early days of the research and have created sound protocols for dealing with it, such as blinding conditions in both viewing (or other ESP tasks) and judging, randomization, protection against sensory leakage, and so on.

      Despite consistent requests to those who claim to be Remote Viewers to provide clear, concise methodology on how controls are implemented, I am yet to have been presented with such data.

      I have however, been inundated with YouTube Videos, “Testimonials”, links to commercial books, links to credulous blogs, websites, and the ilk.

      And yet, under very sound scientific conditions, highly statistically significant results still are produced, and many very strong prima facie matches turn up — ones that literally are impossible to have been the result of subjective validation.

      Despite consistent requests to those who claim to be Remote Viewers to provided robust scientific investigation in to Remote Viewing, I am yet to have been presented with such data.

      It should be noted that I consider it a red flag when someone wishes to present prima facie matches as evidence. I am not aware of the scientific method accepting extraordinary results at face value. What I am aware of is scientific investigation holding those results to account, and after systematically subjective the data to further investigation, more research, tighter controls, and having been replicated using the same controls independently – would the data be seriously considered.

      I believe this is what is called “being skeptical”. A skeptic isn’t someone who’s cynical. A skeptic questions and do not accept things “prima facie”.

      If you are interested, I would be happy to point you to a discussion of the scientific results, and a location to see a handful of these prima facie results.

      Best regards,
      Paul

      All I am after is robust, statistically significant, scientific data — and with some luck, that which has been replicated independently.
      And so, I am looking forward to it,

      Regards,

      Bayani

      Like

      Reply

  5. Bayani–

    Sorry for the delayed response. Most of the end of last week and the intervening weekend has been taken up assisting with my son’s Boy Scout Eagle project – which is, I’m happy to say, completed.

    I am going to forego the interleaving of my replies with your replies interleaved with my original reply to your article, since it is (as you can see) too confusing to do it that way at this point! 🙂 I will merely address what I understand you to have said and meant in a contiguous point-by-point discussion.

    1. Concerning subjective validation: I feel the need to amend my original argument against subjective validation/confirmation bias as an adequate explanation for remote viewing by making my argument stronger (rather than weaker): Subjective validation cannot be used to explain _any_ instance of actual remote viewing. It can only explain either 1) cases where real remote viewing took place but the viewer rates his or her performance more highly than it deserves; or, 2) false positives (cases where remote viewing is claimed to have occurred but has in fact not). You have demonstrated in a round-about way an instance of case 2).

    Note, indeed, that it is according to your own criteria alone that you can count your demonstration as “remote viewing.” Merely performing an arbitrary sketch, matching it to a presumed RV target, and then self-declaring that you have performed RV does not in itself constitute RV. (Indeed, if you were my RV student, even if you were really trying to execute a real RV session, I would have counted your result as a miss.)

    There is thus no inconsistency in my objection that your claim commits a logical fallacy, even though I acknowledge that some remote viewers may be unaware of subjective validation (and may even have performed weak or no remote viewing and used subjective validation to try to interpret it as a success). I argue that what you have done is claim that you have performed remote viewing when in fact you haven’t.

    Your demonstration may bear a superficial similarity to remote viewing. But it presents no external nor internal identities with remote viewing. For your argument to go through, you must claim that what you did is identical to remote viewing. But by attempting to assert such an identity based only on a superficial similarity, you commit a logical fallacy, because no such identity exists. You can only escape this charge by demonstrating that your performance is indeed identical to remote viewing. But this you cannot do, because the only linkage with actual remote viewing is the (very) superficial similarity and your self-declaration that it is remote viewing. Thus you beg the question.

    Indeed, the existence of significant numbers of prima facie remote viewing results (which I turn to next) makes the subjective validation argument against remote viewing of little weight.

    2. On the subject of prima facie evidence: By prima facie evidence I mean something along these lines: a remote viewing result that so clearly resembles the correct target that any unbiased rational agent would acknowledge a match, assuming no other disconfirming facts. By disconfirming facts, I mean that the result was produced by a scientifically-sound experimental protocol, and was not the result of fraud, sensory leakage, or other similar non-ESP source.

    Science accepts this kind of prima facie evidence all the time. Some examples are a variety of psychological experiments and in the various taxonomic sciences, which could not exist without prima facie judgments concerning isomorphisms among exemplars of plants, animals, geological structures, and so on. Prima facie evidence of the sort I have in mind would be problematic only in cases where it is the _only_ evidence available, or if the protocols under which it was produced were either undisclosed or demonstrably flawed.

    In the case of remote viewing, high-quality prima facie results are not the only evidence available, and any prima facie results offered as scientific evidence is accompanied by documentation of the protocol under which it was produced.

    On the other hand, I do _not_ mean by “prima facie evidence” merely anecdotal reports or results that bear only a vague and perhaps accidental resemblance to the intended target.

    Here are some examples of prima facie remote viewing results. Since they were meant merely to show examples of solid remote viewing results, I have not provided a detailed description of the protocol. However, I can guarantee that they were all produced under appropriate blinding conditions with controls to preclude pre-knowledge of the intended target, sensory leakage, or cheating. http://www.rviewer.com/Student_Sessions.html

    3. Concerning your proposition that psychological phenomena such as confirmation bias/selective validation, selection bias, observer bias, sampling bias, etc. are sufficient to explain belief in remote viewing, and your assertion that if remote viewing were real there wouldn’t be a need for controls for these phenomena. First, you are correct, there are controls in remote viewing research for all these features of human psychology – not just because they might produce false-positive remote viewing results, but often because they get in the way of successful remote viewing. But you seem to have another logical fallacy lurking here in your assertion that “if this was not the case [apparently: that remote viewing was false] there would be no need to provide controls for [these various biasing factors].”

    Let’s take this statement and apply it to standard psychology research. Your original statement could be reconfigured in this way: “If it weren’t the case that psychological phenomena were false, then there would be no need to control for confirmation bias and all these other kinds of biases in psychology research.” But we know first, that these biases were actually _discovered_ by psychology research and, second, that many psychology experiments must control for them to produce valid results.

    Yet even though these biases exist, and even though they must be controlled for in psychological research, it clearly does not follow that human psychology itself is a figment of our imaginations (else how could we possibly imagine anything at all, LOL?). Since remote viewing is a mind-based phenomenon, then it stands to reason that quirks of human psychology should be relevant and need to be controlled for. But this begs the question against your assertion – if there is a need for controls for various forms of psychological bias in normal psychology research – and yet human psychological functioning nevertheless exists – why then would the need for these kinds of controls mean that remote viewing _didn’t_ exist? Obviously a requirement for controls against bias is no indicator of the existence or non-existence of a psychological phenomenon, whether involving ESP or not.

    4. About your repeated, consistent (and thus far reportedly unmet) requests of remote viewers to provide information on methodology, controls, and statistical results in remote viewing: I will take your word for it that you’ve received no adequate response. But I have to then ask – of whom have you actually made these requests? Of hobbyist remote viewers who are exploring the phenomenology and themselves not yet gained solid grounding in the science behind it? This describes the vast majority of the folks you might encounter on the Internet. If you are really intrigued by the phenomenon, I wonder why you haven’t tried your own bibliographic search? There is actually quite a lot of material available, from Dean Radin’s and Jahn & Dunne’s (and others’) books, to links to peer-reviewed papers hosted on various websites, to the archives of the Star Gate program whose provenance is without dispute.

    If, on the other hand, the goal was merely to challenge the unprepared in hopes of either disabusing them of what you perceive to be their falsely-held beliefs or instead to send them scurrying for more education on the subject, then I understand and appreciate your motivation. I gain some satisfaction in doing the same with assorted under-prepared novice skeptics I encounter who say things like “there is absolutely no evidence for remote viewing” or “science has proved that remote viewing (or other ESP activity) can’t possibly work.”

    Obviously, the best response to you on this topic is to point you to credible, statistically significant remote viewing results – which I will happy to do. I had originally thought to merely post an extensive bibliography of this material. However, my reply here is far longer than I had anticipated. So rather than post a long list, I will simply point you to the library section of the non-profit International Remote Viewing Association: http://www.irva.org

    There are not yet links to all the articles posted there, but I have agreed to help them with that, and as we get permissions and so on, we hope to get _all_ the articles archived or linked. In the meantime, many of the ones for which there are not yet digital copies can be found in academic and public libraries.

    You can also access my dissertation via http://www.rviewer.com/Background_Reading.html – look for the link on the left side of the page about six down. Chapters 7 and 8 focus specifically on remote viewing. But you may also be interested in Chapter 5 on presentiment and Chapter 6 on DMILS. Chapter 9 considers precognition, while Chapters 10 and 11 deal with (among other things) standard skeptical arguments against the ESP evidence.

    In wrapping up this (fairly interminable) post, I will summarize what you will find there:

    In my own bibliographic research I came up with the following:

    Presentiment experiments: 23 conducted, 12 of which were statistically to highly statistically significant, with three others not reaching significance but in the positive direction. (By chance only one should have been significant.) Since my investigation wrapped, several more experiments have been published — all of which produced significant effects. These experiments were conducted among at least eight different unaffiliated labs in two countries.

    DMILS experiments: At least 68 studies conducted, of which 40 were significant (where only three could be expected by chance), another 6 were significant but had mixed results (eg, joint skeptic/proponent experiments run by Schlitz & Weisman, etc.), and eight were positive but non-significant — for a total of 54 out of the 68 that were either statistically significant or at least in the positive direction. (Among the failed replications were a number testing the boundary conditions of the phenomena in question and therefore not conducted according to formula; it isnot surprising that these to fail.) These experiments were conducted among an even larger number of labs in at least three different countries.

    Remote Viewing: The total number of replications (numbering in the thousands) is difficult to tabulate. But one benchmark is from 1984: 28 published studies, with more than half (15) statistically significant (where only 1 in 20 should be by chance). 18 unpublished studies were found, of which 8 were statistically significant. Of importance here is that a large number of the non-significant “replications” actually strayed considerably from the original model, and so it was unsurprising that they failed. A 1989 comprehensive review ordered by the Defense Intelligence Agency (as required by congressional oversight) reported 25,449 remote viewing trials in 157 experiments performed by 227 different individual participants yielding successful results to the tune of p = 6.12 X 10^-14 (the results were broken down more finely than this, but would take too much space to lay out here).

    I do not include here the highly-statistically significant results from a number of associative remote viewing studies (though these can be reviewed in the dissertation). Of particular note was an ARV experiment done by an undergrad class at the University of Colorado that invested real money in the stock market based on remote viewing data alone. Starting with seed money of $10K they performed 7 correct predictions in a row with no failed ones and ended up with approximately $26K at the end of the experiment.

    So…I’m sorry for the grueling recounting here…but you asked!

    Best regards,

    Paul

    Like

    Reply

    1. Hi Paul,

      Thanks again for the reply.

      Due to the restrictive nature of comments, I will address your points over the next few days via a new post, to which further discussion will be far more viable.

      I’ll update this comment with a link to the posts as I post them.

      Response One

      Like

      Reply

  6. I’ll ask for evidence. To any remote viewer who is reading in the next 24 hours: what am I wearing? I’ll go easy on you – I am in Sydney, and I promise to keep the same outfit on for that duration. GO!

    Like

    Reply

    1. ….from my understanding of the remote viewing protocol you have already given too much information…………sessions are usually performed with best results “double blind”…..

      ……your task proposes an enormous amount of “front loading” which would/could constitute false positive and/or cloud the session with typical “AOL’s” (advanced overlay)…………….

      ….i would suggest reading about the correct ways to “task” a question in the format of a TRN (target reference number)……the typical format being 2 random 4 digit numbers

      ie: xxxx/xxxx

      …you can find details to all your questions in the book The Complete User’s Manual for Coordinate Remote Viewing by D. David Morehouse…

      ..or

      The DIA Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual
      http://www.rviewer.com/crvmanual/

      “What is the Target Ref­erence Number.”

      The Reply from Major Ed Dames:

      The Target Reference Numbers or TRNs is a system that assigns ran­dom numbers (reference numbers) to a hidden or blind target or ques­tion that you want to provide to another Remote Viewer.

      Since Remote Viewing unlocks the true power of the unconscious mind, the Remote Viewer in training doesn’t need to know what the actual RV target or question is; they simply need to follow the protocol using the TRNs as a pointer to the hidden target and allow their uncon­scious mind take care of the rest.

      When a Remote Viewer hits a target using this TRN system, it proves with­out any doubt that their mind has received the data at an unconscious level. The reason for using TRNs, especially for beginners, is to elimi­nate the chance of one interjecting personal imagination or analytical over­lay into their data which can skew the session results. Think of TRNs as case numbers for a filing system, thus the name, “Target Reference Num­bers (TRNs)”.

      When a student is achieving 80% accuracy or higher on blind targets using TRNs, then one may choose to forge the TRN system and simply run a target front loaded. Front loading simply means the Remote Viewer knows the question or target before they start their session.

      The format of TRNs are from the original military program and are simply random numbers with no meaning other than being a pointer or refer­ence to the blind/hidden target or question or being provided to a viewer.
      http://blog.remoteviewingprojectx.com/target-reference-numbers/

      …..ps…..better change those clothes 🙂

      Like

      Reply

  7. Bayani, surely you know that all the peopel who prove RV to be bogus are closed-minded biased scientist pseudoskeptics and all those who assert it to be true are open-minded solid crusaders for Truth?

    That’s why the US Government terminated Project Stargate: it was targeted by a conspiracy of pseudoskeptics.

    Of course remote viewing is real! That’s why all police searches now have a 100% success rate and the military no longer deploys expensive satellites and spy planes, it’s why nobody needs to plant bugs any more and it’s why we don’t need to send robot explorers to the moon and Mars to examine them.

    The TSA has the last laugh: the infamous body scanners are in fact a smokescreen for a highly trained team of remote viewers. But if anyone finds out they will send the b lack helicopters to kill them.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I was coming on to let Bayani know that I am being hammered by a writing deadline (which I am already overdue on) and won’t be responding for a bit.

      However, I couldn’t resist your comment, Guy. You should be aware that sarcasm is a lazy argument. It is essentially an irrational technique that pushes for a conclusion without bothering to state premises or use logical principles to support the desired conclusion. When I was a TA, I would count points off of my philosophy students’ papers if they used it, no matter which side of an issue they might be defending. If anything, sarcasm is a technique that undermines the whole premise of true skepticism and doesn’t reflect well on the rest of the skeptical community when it is employed.

      But since you “asked” about the study the CIA used to justify closing the Star Gate program down, let me educate you a bit on that “study” which you apparently respect.

      In the study, the AIR decided that RV had never been of use for intelligence work, and that it probably never would be of use to it, based on the following research:

      1) They evaluated the final 40 of the operational remote viewing sessions done over the 18 years of the military program (out of an approximate 2,500 operational sessions that were done).

      2) They evaluated the final 10 of the remote viewing experiments done during the 23 years the research program existed (out of almost 200 experiments).

      3) They interviewed the five remaining personnel (among them the secretary) in the program for a total of about five hours. They interviewed _none_ of the rest of the 35+ personnel who had been assigned to the military program over the 18 years (and many of whom were still available with active security clearances).

      4) They started their review in July of 1995,and finished it in September. Why is this important? Because the Star Gate program was terminated on 30 June 1995 and its personnel reassigned to other positions elsewhere in the intelligence community (yes, they were interviewed after-the-fact).

      You don’t have to take my word for this. They acknowledge each of these points at one place or another in their own report (except for the closing date of the program — but that can be verified from other sources).

      Skeptical conspiracy? You tell me!

      Like

      Reply

      1. You are apparently labouring under the misapprehension that my intent was anything other than comedic.

        I have had enough trouble with the remote viewing cranks on Wikipedia that I have a fairly sound understanding of what they claim, why it’s false, and what they’d need to do to fix this. Hint: continually repeating the same flawed protocols and the same refuted assertions is not part of that fix.

        Like

      2. …guy chapman…….RE: “I have a fairly sound understanding of what they claim, why it’s false, and what they’d need to do to fix this”

        ….how about you back up your statements with some facts…..it appears you have contributed nothing substantial at all except your “humor”

        …..are you even aware of the correct remote viewing protocol?

        ….i look forward to inviting you to our next exhibition on remote viewing soon….you will be able to see the results of many experienced remote viewers who apply these skills for yourself…..i might suggest you research some of the international remote viewing organisations, as australia is in its infancy in this area

        ……yes, you will be amazed your own potential once you open your mind……good luck 🙂

        Like

      3. Using the scientific method, proposals can be tested and compared with the null hypothesis. In this case the null hypothesis is a set of well documented phenomena chief among which is confirmation bias, whereas the alternative requires the postulation of an entirely new set of forces which have never been objectively observed.

        The burden of proof lies firmly with those proposing the supposed novel effect – and it turns out that the more you control out the possibility of confirmation bias and other errors, the more the purported effect vanishes. The response to this is usually special pleading: that the involvement of skeptics somehow interferes with the effect. This is not a new phenomenon and was I believe first formally documented by Andersen, HC, (“Kejserens nye Klæder”, Reitzel, Copenhagen, 1837).

        Your no doubt sincere wish to believe in remote viewing cannot, I’m afraid, overcome the scientific method and Occam’s razor. If there was even one experiment that convincingly refuted the null hypothesis we would not even be having this conversation.

        Like

      4. …guy chapman…….RE: “Your no doubt sincere wish to believe in remote viewing cannot, I’m afraid, overcome the scientific method and Occam’s razor.”

        …what you seem to forget with your rhetoric is…….i have proved it…….it is not a wish for me just to believe in remote viewing

        ..i CAN now remote view………….again and again 🙂

        …you can prove it yourself too…………all you have to do is try it…..that is the proof…..no reading, data or fancy words will convince anyone…..try it for youself with the proper protocol…….then you can get back to me with YOUR results……

        it is your archaic belief in the scientific method to prove all things which will be your limiting factor in your own personal development

        ….release your fears

        try not to restrict your potential…..

        ….here is another example of a remote viewing session i completed……BA DA BOOM 🙂

        Like

      5. No, you have not “proved” it. If you had, this conversation would not even be taking place. Instead of arguing the toss with skeptics you’d be sipping champagne bought with the money you won from James Randi and sundry other skeptics.

        Go away and come back when you have proof that stands up to independent critical analysis.

        Like

      6. ……lol…..as i said i PROVED it to MYSELF….i am the only one i needed to convince…

        …you can prove it too for yourself….try it…..dont be scared to fail…..you will have all the proof you need “IF” you try it for yourself

        ….predictably if you dont try it you will just come up with some feeble rhetoric to avoid trying it (..lol…wait for it)

        ..money you should be aware is not my motivation….enlightenment is…..think about that 🙂

        ….i think the expression goes something like

        “you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink”

        Like

      7. Hi Paul,

        I’ve responded to a couple of points and will move to finalize the rest soon; thanks for the notice of intention.
        Hopefully Stephen has had a chance to chat to you about the opportunities I have on the table to discuss RV the evidence-based skeptical community (as opposed to the casual skepticism of the public) via digital media; if not, I’m sure he will soon.
        Hope to hear from you soon, either for the offers, or to discuss the evidence-base for RV here. 🙂

        Like

      8. “Now, I’ve looked at the “useful primer” you’ve provided, but before answering must ask what happens with this target-tasking document? Is it given to the subject? If not, what is the subjective given? What are the regulations regarding how the information is given, and how are the targets selected? I know it’s not an exhaustive line of questioning, but it may suffice for my response.

        Thanks for the additional information.”

        The target documents – be they a cue, a photograph, an object, or a combination of these; are sealed and kept seperate from all participants until the viewer has been given the target “tag” – the random sequence of numbers (or alphanumeric, so long as it is random enough not does not contain words) is given to the viewer.

        The viewer then produces session data – a record of their impressions and intuitions during a recorded time frame. Session data need not just be a written document, although that is the typical product format. it could also be a voice recording, including video, perhaps even cardiograms and EEG records.

        So the viewer is “blind” to the nature of the target. EVERYONE in communication with the viewer at the time of the session should also be blind, so as to prevent non-verbal communication via body language and similar, or unconcious communication via whatever methods. That is the core requirement, in my opinion. A double blind protocol which precludes information transfer except by intuitive method.

        AFTER the session or sessions have been finished, the viewer is shown the contents of the target package. This is called the feedback. Once feedback has been given, further sessions will not typically produce reliable information in the short term. Perhaps the reliability of the method is affected by conscious analytical thought.

        Giving the viewer any other information prior to the sessions being done is called “front loading”, and although some – maybe all – very experienced viewers seem to cope with this, most viewers do not.

        Some people argue that analysis should also be performed blind, with the analysts also unaware of what the target really was. The classic method of doing that is to present the analyst with 5 possible targets (including cue/photograph/object) and ask them to give a rank order target that matches the given session data.

        An alternative objective method, which I go over in my presented document, is to match similar words and concepts across session data from different viewers, to give matches between viewers. Which would be expected if the phenomenom is a genuine information transfer using anamalous cognition within a double blind protocol.

        Like

      9. See, what you’ve described here is quite different to some of the other protocols described by others; and indeed I agree – Double blinding is imperative, though I would suggest triple blinding be used for this data type – which you mentioned – the data analysis being performed blind.

        I’m not sure why Feedback is important (I’m sure it would be to the remote viewer, but it’s irrelevant to the accuracy of the task).

        You mentioned Front Loading (which may very well be considered hints); did you mean to say that most do NOT get Front Loaded because they produce less accurate results, or that only experienced remote viewers get Front Loaded, because not it’s viewed as a hindrance to the results?

        I noted in your document (on RV Analysis) as part of a BASIC REQUIREMENT to analyze RV results:

        “1) The idea that RV may, sometimes at least, work.”

        This is problematic, as we are being told we require a particular bias to analyze the data.

        Moreover, the same document points to the AIR Report as “official proof” of Remote Viewing, despite the ACTUAL report stating:

        “Our conclusion is that at this juncture it would be premature to assume that we have a convincing demonstration of a paranormal phenomenon. In fact, until a plausible causal mechanism has been identified, and competing explanations carefully investigated, we cannot interpret the set of anomalous observations localized to one laboratory with one set of methods.”

        On the matter of methodology, there is no discussion of analysis when compared to a control group – it is always the analysis of remote viewer results alone.

        This is problematic as it presumes that remote viewing is the base line; obviously this is a bias due to “basic requirement” number 1, but it means that for the purpose of determining Remote Viewing validity, the analysis is flawed.

        Like

  8. “You mentioned Front Loading (which may very well be considered hints); did you mean to say that most do NOT get Front Loaded because they produce less accurate results, or that only experienced remote viewers get Front Loaded, because not it’s viewed as a hindrance to the results?”

    Essentially, front loading the viewer directly does not work nearly as well as formulating an accurate and sharp cue as part of the target. The cue is rather like setting the aperture on a camera – varying the cue will vary the accuracy and consistency of the session data. Front loading is best avoided without a lot of experience (20 years is one figure that I quote from, J McMoneagle’s “Remote Viewing Secrets”.

    “1) The idea that RV may, sometimes at least, work.”

    This is problematic, as we are being told we require a particular bias to analyze the data.”

    Well, if you have the prejudice (pre-judgement) that RV cannot ever work, then analysis will also contain a particular bias, if it is continued at all.

    ““Our conclusion is that at this juncture it would be premature to assume that we have a convincing demonstration of a paranormal phenomenon. In fact, until a plausible causal mechanism has been identified, and competing explanations carefully investigated, we cannot interpret the set of anomalous observations localized to one laboratory with one set of methods.””

    That is not from Jessica Utts and I suggest you continue reading to understand her take on the statistical proof of effect. And incidentally, less than 1% of all experimental data from SRI was considered for the report . And 99% of the session data from the Fort Meade Operational Unit, which for a time operated under the name Stargate, remains classified. Why bother hiding that unless it is a real world phenomenom? You might as well classify Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny.

    Like

    Reply

  9. Hell all. I’d like to add a comment to the contrary of trying to debunk Remote viewing. Please keep in mind that many skeptics will not see the obvious because just as they think believers are too quick to believe, skeptics themselves have been wrong for rushing over important facts and details to prove themselves right.

    You mentioned that the video mentioned 15% accuracy. Do you really think it took them 20 years to determine a 15% accuracy? Use your head. The government, on the surface has announced publicly that remote viewing was not longer used yet Dane Spotts, Prudence Calabrese of Transdimentional Systems (yeah the one who they claimed was a whacko after clearly tainting her target and obviously setting her up for failure during the famous hale bopp comet incident) and others have been and some are still being contracted to remote view for military intelligence interests. This has been admitted and revealed by military personnel and in news reports during the most recent wars of the past few decades.

    Just as with hypnosis when they say subjects will not do things against their nature after years of research. That too was done to cover hypnosis’s real power because infact the C.I.A. and black programs determined that they could, using hypnosis, turn on a personality and then turn that personality off and you’d never know what you did… no matter what personality type you were.

    There actually is more evidence that remote viewing does work than there is that it doesn’t and it’s funny to see how people are so quick to debunk anything beyond the physical and quickly mum it up. This is the TOTAL reason we have problems being enlightened, higher level beings… suppression. Scientists have even admitted that after years of researching the brain that there is literally areas of the brain designated and become activated when we meditate, pray, try to use telepathic or other type of psi abilities. But I guess you think these lobes are fake too.

    All things beyond what our society comfortably labels as ok and not weird or hoakie is immediately met with people attacking and claiming how dumb or unreal they are. But we continue to have ancients depicting people from the stars in ships teaching their ancestors about life, spaceships depicted in antique paintings of Jesus birth and several other famous paintings beings such as Jesus and others that all have beams of light coming out of their hands and surrounding their heads and we learn of the “light beings” and other phenomena that tells us in so many ways that we are capable and designed for this stuff but have been forced to turn it off for centuries.

    Before you try to debunk something make sure there isn’t so much evidence of its validity first. And too, just because the government announces something that had already been secret that it’s no good don’t be gullible enough to just tun drop your head and say “See, they just told us it’s no good” after all they’ve already did a bad job at of covering up and lying about in the past anyway. Open you mind and be your own thinker.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Mr. Mills, if you want evidence contact remote viewer 001 Joe McMoneagle, Major Ed Dames, Courtney Brown, Dane Spotts, Joany Doriff or any other experienced RV’ers out there and find out why they continue to teach others this mind science ability and then you’ll come up with answers.

        But if you think you’re just going to see it pop up on the evening news or be the talk on YouTube right now you kidding yourself. I mean aside from the validity of RV the government told us so many things that have been proved otherwise showing how they tend to cover what they want and mislead as needed.

        From the JFK inconsistencies to the cover up on E.T. beings coming to Earth, to why the Vatican has secrets being hidden in the structures below that they don’t want the general public to know… Why all this?

        So for you to just lie down and say Well, they said there’s no evidence to the contrary and not giving any proof that there it is only 15% accurate is just as bad as a believing that there is not Opium, oil, underlying secret interest to place more control on things in the name of Terrorism or other resource interest partially or completely driving these recent wars. And not just some weapons of mass destruction which by the way have never been found.

        Or do you really feel that buy just blurting out that no one has been able to supply evidence is a solid basis for your proof.

        One case in point. Prudence Calabrese has a very fun and free spirited personality. She would periodically lay some targets out there for RV target practice for her members to give feedback on. This one in particular was titled “Taste Like Chicken” in the feedback area the several RV members, students and even those self taught all gave uncomfortable accounts of their sessions and how it was awkward for some of the males and hit on their sexuality.

        This was the feed back of several of them before they even knew what the target was for sure.

        Surprisingly the target was of an adult actress perfoming oral sex… I guess only your saying that if we counted, only 15 of them were the ones who got it right? lol jk but I saw several targets where there were more accurate accounts than inaccurate. i also followed Courtney Brown of the Farsight institute and Joseph McMoneagles literature and work. I also have read and listened to Major Ed Dames…. My point is I’ve went further into it and researched it and even to the point where my ex-wife and I when through training and believe it or not more so at the beginning it seemed like 15 percent average. I have not trained in a while but the people i’ve met and my ex-wife (who truly was great at this) was hitting targets at an alarming rate with some damn good accuracy that surprised me because she was the skeptic who just wanted to support me, her husband at the time and come to find out she’s great at it.

        Get your research in order and don’t just read the reports to the general public contact some of the men and women in the psi RV trenches and get the facts directly from them. If you still say it’s only 15% I’ll be totally surprised.

        The fact that they help to locate things constantly, help businesses make winning decisions and have been tested and proven to help people win lotteries (this was a test not an abuse of the lotto winning system btw). Should make you wonder about that 15% report.

        Sorry for writing another book.

        Like

      2. No worries on the book.

        Joe, I have got in contact with experienced RV’ers, and to date, they have not provided any convincing evidence of either the existence of this “skill”, and by extension accuracy.
        It’s funny you’d mention YouTube, because there is an ABUNDANCE of videos on YouTube about Remote Viewing – I’m not sure if we’re using the same service – I think we are, but I am certainly getting MANY hits for Remote Viewing on YouTube. – 12,600 at last check.

        The “Tastes Like Chicken” title would be considered front loading by some RVers; and if we were to be serious about investigating the validity of RV as a real-life claim, would not be used a target reference.

        As for “getting in the trenches” I’m a member of a Remote Viewing group on Facebook, which is frequented by many, including Paul Smith, and again, in my quest for evidence, am yet to be presented with evidence that is of such robust integrity that it would raise my eyebrow.

        Thus far, I have been presented with many logical fallacies, and embarrassingly, many do not understand why controls are in place during scientific investigations — They don’t even know what they are controlling against!

        I’m aware of a “lotto” Remote Viewing that was recently held and thus far no one has reported success.
        I wouldn’t get hung up one report stating 15% accuracy. Percentages mean nothing without context.

        I could say works 50% of the time. Of course, it means bugger all if I had a sample size of 2.

        So no, it doesn’t make me wonder.

        Like

      3. ……yes Bayani Bacalla Mills is commenting in the facebook remote viewing group….although from his skeptics viewpoint a lot appears to be going over his head

        https://www.facebook.com/groups/remoteviewingadmin/?ref=notif&notif_t=group_activity

        ….there are ample suggestions for research to all of Bayani Bacalla Mills questions on remote viewing in the above forum……

        ….what he has missed is……..just try it……again and again….you will see the results for yourself

        we can all remote view

        this will challenge your belief structure…….its not for closed minded people …….it is for people wishing progression in higher states of consciousness………it may just change your life

        Like

  10. Dear friend, why don’t you just look up Joseph McMoneagle… but REALLY look him up. Look up the experiment on Japanese tv, on missing children, which was considered almost impossible to predict at the rate he did (you’ll see why, when you do your little research about him) and maybe check out a little about his life (he’s been paid by companies to remote view… you know… “stupid” executives… what can I say? 😛
    I’ve seen remote viewing work personally in occassions that there was NO LOGICAL way to have seen something, and I’ve seen it work on other remote viewers, in one occassion the remote viewer found in google maps the picture of a building where he thought a missing girl was taken, and guess what… yeap, they found her belongings there… Unfortunately not the girl, since she was been moved all the time.. don’t know what happened at the end, but I can imagine…
    Anyway… it’s admirable that you try to find the truth on your own, but having had astral projection experiences and other ‘paranormal’ experiences, since I was four, I find it almost dramatic that those that are looking for evidence end up more fanatically against and blind IN FRONT of the evidence, than those they fight against… yes… you fight against something. Your own self, my friend.
    And yes, you DID remote view in your little experiment. You did get the target, cause you don’t HAVE to do anything special, and honestly half of my correct sessions were the ones I did the less effort for… You’re dealing with the unconsious realm, so you don’t have to have a clocked practice in order to ‘enter’ it. Most of the times it’s happening out of the blue and with no intention at all, and to be honest the more tense someone is during remote viewing the worst he’s going to do.
    And one more thing… OPEN YOUR EYES, and THINK LOGICALLY! You talk beautifully, but YOU THINK FANATICALLY, and answer me this little silly question. How could your little sqribble be correct if you had a rollercoaster, or a mountain, or a train for a target!!!????? Seriously… not all drawings can be matched to any photo, and believe me I’ve tried this myself, in the beginning with my first ‘bad’ sessions. When you’re out of target, you’re out of target, no matter how hard you try to match your results with it…
    Well, got to go to f…g crazy astral land (excuse my french) to remote view my next incarnation, so if you excuse me… 😛
    Be strong, friend. Oh yes, and open minded. :))

    Like

    Reply

    1. So your arguments are:
      1. RV is real because there was an experiment in a TV show that:
      a) Has no documentation about the controls, if indeed there were any.
      b) Has no documentation about a statistical analysis, if indeed there was one, and
      c) Has not been replicated

      2. That RV is real because Joseph McMoneagle has been hired by companies.

      3. That RV is real because you have “experienced it personally”. (Mirages are experienced by people too, despite the fact people think they see water, there isn’t any. This is why Personal Experiences makes for *really* bad evidence.

      4. That RV is real because you could not work out how it could be done. (This is a logical fallacy called “The Appeal to Ignorance”) Other people, like those who do statistical analysis and work in psychology, can however, explain how the seemingly impossible isn’t as impossible as it seems.

      5. That RV is real because of an anecdote about a girl and an RV using Google Maps – though, I suspect you mean Google Earth.

      6. That RV is real because you believe in OTHER paranormal experiences. If Unicorns were found to be real, it would not automatically mean that Dragons are area. The argument is a non-sequitur.

      7. That RV is real because you’ve had OBE’s (an experience that can be induced in to people) since a young age. Interestingly enough you don’t at all question if you have made a Type II error. (False Positive).

      8. That RV is real because you you don’t understand what Subjective Validation is. I didn’t remote view anything. I scribbled on a piece of paper and *I* decided that it looked like the photo. That is not remote viewing.

      9. That RV is real because you think I am not being logical. Which is hilarious, because I am asking for good evidence, and you, and everyone else who advocates that it is real consistently *FAIL* to provided it.

      I suggest, if you seriously consider yourself a logical thinker, to explore what logical fallacies are.

      You can check out http://SeekTheEvidence.org or the many other critical thinking websites out there that explain why many of the arguments you have presented are not *good* arguments.

      10. That RV is real because you think my scribble can’t be matched to anything else. I could match my sketch to any of those things, very easily because of the very nature of the subjective application of meaning to the scribble used in Remote Viewing.

      11. That RV is real because I’m “close minded”.

      I’m completely open to someone proving that RV is real. But I’m not going to be so credulous, so gullible to accept ANYTHING as evidence.

      The effect of RV needs to be done under controlled conditions where great steps are taken to stop people knowingly cheating (Like in Project Alpha, or indeed the “psychic” Popoff who was fed information via a radio, or indeed like Sally Morgon who was recently accused by her own fans of being fed information) and inadvertently cheating.

      Any positive results need to be confirmed by muliple independent replications using the same methods, with those undertaking the replications to be critical of the methods used by the initial team.

      Humans didn’t fly in to space by being credulous fools. We got there by thinking carefully, critically, and by using evidence – not personal experience.

      Like

      Reply

  11. You’ll also have to excuse my english (not just my french), cause it’s not my mother tongue…
    Cheers and adios (no, Spanish isn’t either) 😛

    Like

    Reply

  12. And unfortunately you continue to fool yourself as being a SERIOUS investigator labelling someone with experiences different than yours as credulous fools.
    Ok, let’s see your OWN L O G I C A L process of investigation. (that Will trully be hillarious)

    1. You didn’t check on McMoneagle, GOT YA!!! You didn’t, cause if you had, you wouldn’t even make the mistake of stating your three “becauses”… becaaaaaause, they’re all three wrong, my friend. Now, a TRUE investigator of the truth and an open minded person, would definately have a look at it first, before presenting himself as the wise one. (ignorance is bliss, yes, but only for the real fools, right? Not for us) The EXPERIMENT was replicated in different sessions for different ‘targets’ (people), controlled ON AIR and used the same methodology… Do your homework and then let’s talk about this particular point talking about the same thing and with full knowledge of it, ok?.

    2. Very logical anti-argument. The point is I didn’t use it as a basic argument (I don’t know how you call this i n English, sorry), but as an INDICATION. I’m sure that’s the correct word. You know, my father was a police officer of high rank, and proficient in law and stuff too. The weird thing about indications is that they are not PROOF of a suspect being a criminal but can surely INDICATE the possibility of it, guiding investigations accordingly. Actually, an investigation is merely BASED and dependant on indications, at least at some point of time or reference. Do we disagree on that? So… what does the FACT that McMoneagle and actually a few more PROFESSIONAL RVers are being paid by huge bussinees corporations lead you to investigate? Let’s see: A. The business-men deciding on that are complete idiots, especially if they pay him REPEATEDLY for various projects. B. The business-men just hit another million dollar idea incorporating rv in their projects and after having successes they continued replacating the success/hiring the same man for other projects. That’s a very logical approach actually, and it’s what makes someone a leader in a field: They have the open mind, the vision, and the curiosity to try something new, and after testing it for a couple of times, they do what proved to be successful. Easy, ha?

    3. Tell me something, pleeeeeaaase. How do you prove something? Where do you start? Don’t you need to prove it to yourself at least up to a point? Do scientists do experiments in public first, or in their own laboratories? Come on, let’s do an easy guided meditation (just kdding, but follow me on this). Try to remember the first time (and hopefully the last, unless you’re a slow learner or a daring child) that you got burned with a match. When that happened didn’t it prove to you that holding a match until the flame reaches your fingers, will most definitely burn those fingers? Now, you grew up, and you learned at school about the properties of fire, and the neuro network of your body, and bam, it all fit to place.
    So, you see, mother Nature made us smart when she gave us the ability to learn by personal experiences, and then analyse THOSE experiences and COMPARE them to other people’s similar experiences etc etc. That’s a logical process, my friend, at least that’s what they taught me in Greece, according to Socrates’ and Aristoteles’ LOGICAL approaches. You start with what you are able to observe yourself (personal experience) and guess what (that will blow your mind!): your “good” evidence is a pile of many many many recorded and compared PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. As for the mirages, they tend to dissappear after a while (when you’re moving towards it). There are ways to ‘check’ such an experience by the results. For example (some of my personal experiences with RV): I was able to keep a standard and continuous rate of rv lottery numbers for over a period of 2 months, where I played twice a week, and rv correctly AT LEAST (and NEVER less than) three numbers out of six, with my highest rank being four numbers quite a few times. Now, in my personal lab, where I’ve been playing the lottery at least once a month for over 20 years, I must have ‘predicted’ 3 numbers about 4 times tops! Now…. is that an indication (see previous) to you, or not? Would you give it a second thought and actually investigate the matter with an OPEN MIND, or not?

    4. I accept the different opinions in general, but not the provocative attempt to imply that I said something I didn’t! I didn’t say or even implied that rv is real BECAUSE I don’t know how it works. And if you consider that as a logical and serious or even smart attempt to have a conversation, then you’re wrong, my friend. Many things were and still are unknown to people, to scientists, to thinkers, etc, but they still make attempts to prove them right or wrong, thus the existence of MILLIONS of THEORIES in all fields of critical thinking, even physics and maths, which are considered very strict and ‘closed’ sciences. Is that correct or not? What I did say (and I’m sure it was very easy to comprehend it as such even with my poor wording) was that the fact that we don’t know how it works doesn’t mean it’s not real… Do we disagree on that? Funny thing: people didn’t know what gravity is and how it works, until a guy named Archimedes shoute Eureka… I’m sure they’ll be a Eureka moment in RV community. I’ m sure many would rathere there would never be such a moment in rv community, and I bet my head you’re one of them… I know, you’re a logical thinker and you’re ready to ‘believe’ in rv, the problem is I never proposed that you should believe in rv, I only proposed to ‘check it out’ with an open mind, and you didn’t even check out the first indication of the experiment with McMoneagle!!! Now, what do you want me to make out of that, ha? 😛

    5. Yes it was google earth, sorry. That ‘article’ falls under my recent arguments numbers 2 and 3, thank you very much 🙂

    6. I challenge you to point out WHERE I said that particular thing!!!!!! Seriously… you’re far from a critical thinker, and I’m beginning to get a bit irritated. I don’t know you personally, but I’ve encountered your type so many times, that I really have no more patience for another ‘smart’ one that has all the answers even for things SCIENTISTS still don’t have a conclusive answer. I’m more than willing to have a nice conversation here, and trust me I’m known for my LOVE and PASSION of a good conversation, but I’ m afraid we’re missing the basic elements here for that. I know I’m not helping either, but can you really blame me? Where on earth (Google earth or other) have I even implied that I suggest RV is real because I believe in ‘other’ paranormal things, or that I’m prone to believing anything paranormal just because I have astral projection experiences!!!!!?????? WHERE?

    7. Same as above, and a few more things for you coming right now: We didn’t even discuss my experiences with astral projection, so you have NO idea whether I question them, how I go about TESTING my experiences all those years (about 36 to be exact), and so many more parameters. I don’t know what you mean with a ‘false’ positive. Give me an explanation and I’ll tell you if I’ve done that too (I’ m sure I have, though!) Since we didn’t discuss about astral projection in particular, you have no idea what I ‘believe’ or ‘think’ about it, and let me tell you. I know very well whether astral projection can be induced, to what extend, and to what people. Bring me scientific documentation that astral projection can be induced to anyone, anytime and with the same properties of the experience. I’ll give you a hint of what I ‘think’ about such experiences. Have you read the theory about the holographic universe? About how our brain is actually a strong indication of the valididy of this theory, and they’re using this knowledge in artificial intelligence research now? Well, the brain is miraculous, because it is a micro-Cosmos, and yes astral projections and all that CAN be induced, up to a point but for particular people at particular situations and given parameters… But that’s really scientific, isn’t it? The proble is, since we don’t even know 100% how the brain works, we can’t identify the needed parameters for every single ‘different’ brain. I hope we’ll find out soon, but until then, astral projection comes either naturally and effortlessly, or through test and error approaches to find out what works individually FOR you. Ok?

    8. Oh, no, I know very well what subjective validation is. The problem is You don’ t know what rv is. There have been many different protocols and experiments, even with targets that were not given yet, where the rv was given only a reference number and asked (blindly) to rv the target that the supervisor WOULD chose later. The results remained the same, no change at all in success rates. Also, you don’ t have to do a particular remote viewing session. There are literally about 10 different documentated ways of doing remote viewing, but rv can be done at an instant. I never did a particular remote viewing session that took me more than 1 min LITERALLY! ONE MINUTE tops to get the lottery numbers and everything else I’ve remote viewed ever. Others need 30 minutes or so. Sometimes they get instant remote views like mine for particular targets. But, since you REJECT EVEN THE POSSIBILITY that you remote viewed anything, ok, I’ll accept it for your peace of mind and my fingers’ comfort that you didn’t remote view anything, and just happened to have a similar picture there, ok. Happy now?

    9. I know what a logical fallacy is, the problem is I didn’t make any, because all my ‘argument’s as you stated them, where not stated by me as ARGUMENTS in that way, as I hopefully proved to you with this looooong message. However, I do perceive an inlogical fallacy of you seeing everything that is not according to what you’ve already DECIDED that is right or wrong, as ‘false’ arguments, which is actually called fanatism in psychology theories. Yes, there’s science fanatism, which is everything BUT science, and I know many scientists that actually despise that kind of approach to sciense, since it’s the one thing that can totally ruin a research: the predetermined belief that somethig is supposed to be of particular properties. and refusing to investigate anything that seems to fall outside that belief, labelling that “anything” with other scientific names (and supposingly based on critical thinking axioms. Actually, I have a family friend that used to work for Nasa (physist) that pointed this out to me about 10 years ago. The conversation I had with him really changed my life. And he is a REAL scientist. Think about this and answer honestly to yourself “are you being a fanatic here?” Oops, I can almost rv what you’ll say, so don’t say it. I’m not a fanatic, cause you see, I’m constantly testing my own experiences and I have even dismissed some of my old beliefs. My main proof? I used to be an orthodox christian, now I tend to believe in the extistence of a power/energy source that has no cnocious knowledge or/and involvment with anything in the cosmos. Big step, wouldn’t you say? But in order to make such big steps, you must be open to INDICATIONS, you know?

    10. Ok, I can’t upload a photo, but PLEASE, get around 10 different phtograhps upload, lets say one with a tree, one with a cloud, one with a mountain, one with a tennis ball one with a chicken making an egg, and… whatever else you want, and point me out how you could match this thing you made… I’m really curious, and I PROMISE to applause you if you do. On the other hand, did you notice what I said about my own rv sessions? When I had a fail session, I couldn’t match it no matter how hard I tried! My fail sessions were CLEARLY failed sessions, but the fact that I rved numbers (which are considered almost impossible to rv) is a very strong indication that rv works… at least I see that as a strong indication. Don’t you?

    11. Once more, where the f… did I say that rv is real BECAUSE you’re close minded? Seriously, are you doing this on purpose, or do you seriously SEE that that’s what I said? Just because you couldn’t find a way to disagree with me -cause as a fanatist that’s all you want- you just MAKE UP arguments I supposedly did????
    Stop it, and let’s have a nice, humorous but elaborative conversation here. Unless you’re already bored with me and try to find a way to get me the hell out of your nice blog 🙂

    Cheers and yia sou (in Greek)

    PS excuse my boldness, but you really pissed me off at some points, saying I said things I didn’t… 😛 Although I’d still be bold, that’s how I like to talk, hope you don’t mind. You’re free to be as bold as you want! 🙂

    Like

    Reply

  13. Oh, I’m sorry, I totally forgot to comment on your best argument yet.
    The popoff /sally morgan argument… Ok, these guys -as far as google says- are NOT remote viewers, instead they are ‘psychics’ and one is an evangelist healer, right? As for the Project Alpha it self, I’ m sorry but it actually proves my argument, lol. Cause, after the initial success to fool the researchers, more formal experiments were conducted that proved the hoax! Right? Remote viewing is under FORMAL experiment testing for more than 20 years, so… I don’t know what’ you tried to prove here.
    You’re mentioning non-rvs to prove that rv has been proved cheaters and frauds.
    That means you really have no idea what remote viewing is. A brief story: A remote viewing session is CONSIDERED a remote viewing session when particular parameters are met that make sure no fraud is possible. These parameters are called protocols. That’s how the army labeled them, in order to ensure that the procedure and the results would remain scientific and measurable every time, in order to be able to analyze them. Yes, the methodologies that have been tested are very particular. the only thing that changes is the so called ‘cooling down’ period, where some people need 30 min or more to get their brains to a particular frequency, or less. some are using brainwaves nowdays to achieve that.
    Phew, I’m going to have some tea now! My mouth is dry with all that talking!

    Like

    Reply

    1. And unfortunately you continue to fool yourself as being a SERIOUS investigator labeling someone with experiences different than yours as credulous fools.

      I don’t consider myself a “serious” investigator, I consider myself an amateur skeptic.
      I didn’t say anyone who has experiences different to my own are credulous fools. Check my reply.
      I said humans didn’t get to space by using personal experience as evidence.

      1. You didn’t check on McMoneagle, GOT YA!!!

      You specifically asked me to “Look up the experiment on Japanese tv,”.
      I did. But I don’t understand Japanese, so there’s no useable information I can derive from the TV series.

      You didn’t, cause if you had, you wouldn’t even make the mistake of stating your three “becauses”… becaaaaaause, they’re all three wrong, my friend.

      Turns out I wasn’t wrong.
      – There was no good documentation of the methodology.
      – There was no statistical analysis.
      – There was no replication.

      Now, a TRUE investigator of the truth and an open minded person, would definitely have a look at it first, before presenting himself as the wise one. (ignorance is bliss, yes, but only for the real fools, right? Not for us)

      I decided to look in to it further and found this: http://www.dojopsi.info/forum/index.php?topic=1061.0

      About the Remote Viewing Results, note the following:
      – “the Japanese gave me the name and birth data (when known) of three targets”
      – “On a sticky note attached to each envelope, I asked for a description of the target and the target’s location.”

      About the Live Challenges, note the following:
      – “the following cannot be considered remote viewing under controlled conditions by any means”

      The article was a recount by NANCY MCMONEAGLE. Want to guess as to who that is?

      I’ve looked in to this, and it still fails to impress me.

      The EXPERIMENT was replicated in different sessions for different ‘targets’ (people), controlled ON AIR and used the same methodology…

      This is where you demonstrate that you don’t understand what a well-controlled scientific experiment entails. It’s clear you do not understand what “replicated” means in the context of a scientific study.

      Do your homework and then let’s talk about this particular point talking about the same thing and with full knowledge of it, ok?.

      That’d be great, but you’ve got a lot to learn about logical fallacies and the scientific method; I’m happy to talk further if you can show that you truly understand what the scientific process is, that you understand what logical fallacies are, and that you are aware of at least some of the cognitive biases involved with personal experience.

      2. Very logical anti-argument. The point is I didn’t use it as a basic argument (I don’t know how you call this i n English, sorry), but as an INDICATION. I’m sure that’s the correct word. You know, my father was a police officer of high rank, and proficient in law and stuff too. The weird thing about indications is that they are not PROOF of a suspect being a criminal but can surely INDICATE the possibility of it, guiding investigations accordingly. Actually, an investigation is merely BASED and dependant on indications, at least at some point of time or reference. Do we disagree on that? So… what does the FACT that McMoneagle and actually a few more PROFESSIONAL RVers are being paid by huge bussinees corporations lead you to investigate? Let’s see: A. The business-men deciding on that are complete idiots, especially if they pay him REPEATEDLY for various projects. B. The business-men just hit another million dollar idea incorporating rv in their projects and after having successes they continued replacating the success/hiring the same man for other projects. That’s a very logical approach actually, and it’s what makes someone a leader in a field: They have the open mind, the vision, and the curiosity to try something new, and after testing it for a couple of times, they do what proved to be successful. Easy, ha?

      The word you are after is not “indication”. What you’re trying to describe is “correlation vs causation”. Correlations between events is not evidence of causation.

      While I agree that investigations use many correlations; these are referred to as lines as evidence. (eg. blood on a shirt is correlated to the blood of a victim; in and of itself, it proves nothng in particular. You can not draw a conclusion from this correlation, as you assert is possible with your argument..). Investigators need to causal relationships to strengthen their case.

      The argument that there must be something to RV if “professional RVers” are being hired by “huge business corporations” isn’t evidence that Remote Viewing is real. It is a logical fallacy.; an “Affirmation of the Consequent”. Refer: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

      3. Tell me something, pleeeeeaaase. How do you prove something?

      Through the scientific method.

      Where do you start?

      With a falsifiable hypothesis.

      Don’t you need to prove it to yourself at least up to a point?

      No. Do you need to prove to yourself that cutting your head off will kill you?

      Do scientists do experiments in public first, or in their own laboratories?

      Science isn’t restricted to people in white lab coats. So long as the methodology is robust, the location is rarely of consequence.

      Come on, let’s do an easy guided meditation. Try to remember the first time that you got burned with a match. When that happened didn’t it prove to you that holding a match until the flame reaches your fingers, will most definitely burn those fingers?

      Yep.

      Now, you grew up, and you learned at school about the properties of fire, and the neuro network of your body, and bam, it all fit to place.

      Yep.

      So, you see, mother Nature made us smart when she gave us the ability to learn by personal experiences, and then analyse THOSE experiences and COMPARE them to other people’s similar experiences etc etc.

      No. While we have the ability to learn from personal experience, you assume our conclusions are always correct.

      We are inherently terrible at assessing situations and comparing them to others’ experiences; thus the need to quantify, measure, and perform experiences to be able to do these things. It’s why stories of fanciful animals such as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and the Chupacabra persists – things are not always what they seem, and to assume they are, is fallacious.

      That’s a logical process, my friend, at least that’s what they taught me in Greece, according to Socrates’ and Aristoteles’ LOGICAL approaches. You start with what you are able to observe yourself (personal experience) and guess what (that will blow your mind!): your “good” evidence is a pile of many many many recorded and compared PERSONAL EXPERIENCES.

      No. Science doesn’t use personal experiences. And your assertion that it does, again confirms you do not understand the scientific process and the evidenced used during it.

      A thermometer’s measurement is NOT personal experience.
      A laser-reading of distance is NOT personal experience.
      Mathematical Algorithms are NOT personal experience.

      In both cases they FAR exceed personal experience, they remove personal prejudices, cognitive biases, and other physiological anomalies from confusing the results.

      As for the mirages, they tend to disappear after a while (when you’re moving towards it).

      That doesn’t matter. The point was that people still BELIEVE their personal experiences, even when they are wrong. It’s the crux of what I’m talking about.

      There are ways to ‘check’ such an experience by the results. For example (some of my personal experiences with RV): I was able to keep a standard and continuous rate of rv lottery numbers for over a period of 2 months, where I played twice a week, and rv correctly AT LEAST (and NEVER less than) three numbers out of six, with my highest rank being four numbers quite a few times.

      Of course there are ways to test personal experiences, and that is what I’m advocating. Rather than the use of your personal experiences as evidence, you should be saying “I have documented my RV attempts and their results, including methodology and results, and these can be analyzed”.
      If that’s the case, I’d be interested in seeing the documentation on that. bayanimills@gmail.com

      If you’re still currently doing “predicting” results with the accuracy that you claim, I’m happy to devise a way that you could demonstrate your beyond-chance ability and have it documented.

      Now, in my personal lab, where I’ve been playing the lottery at least once a month for over 20 years, I must have ‘predicted’ 3 numbers about 4 times tops! Now…. is that an indication (see previous) to you, or not? Would you give it a second thought and actually investigate the matter with an OPEN MIND, or not?

      I don’t think it’s an indication of Remote Viewing; from all accounts I’ve heard from from “Professional” Remote Viewers, RV is not the perception of the future, but the perception of the present.
      Predictions are the realm of Fortune Tellers, of which there are thousands of different methods, of which, all advocates claim that their methods work.

      But, provide the documentation on that too.

      4. I accept the different opinions in general, but not the provocative attempt to imply that I said something I didn’t! I didn’t say or even implied that rv is real BECAUSE I don’t know how it works.

      I didn’t say you said that. Your argument was “there was NO LOGICAL way to have seen something”. Your argument is fallacious.
      The logical fallacy of the “Appeal to Personal Credulity”, where someone makes a conclusion (Remote Viewing is real) because they can’t think of how it could be done/don’t know how it was done. (Personal Credulity).

      The fact is, there are MANY far more likely possibilities that you have not considered, yet you opted to chosen setttle with one of the most unlikely. Usually, in these instances, people say “I don’t know”, rather than “Remote Viewing must be real”.

      Many things were and still are unknown to people, to scientists, to thinkers, etc, but they still make attempts to prove them right or wrong, thus the existence of MILLIONS of THEORIES in all fields of critical thinking, even physics and maths, which are considered very strict and ‘closed’ sciences. Is that correct or not?

      No. Phsyics is not a closed science, there is always something we can learn, and any time there is dis-confirming evidence of that may overturn out current understanding of it, it is investigated. eg: Faster Than Light Neutrinos.

      Science is about starting from a null hypothesis and proving a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed, it is accepted. When hypothesis fails, it is rejected, and if it is inconclusive it withholds judgement till there is better evidence.

      In instances where Remote Viewing is subjected to greater controls to prevent cognitive biases affecting the results, the “effect” regresses to the statistical mean – ie: No better than chance. A “positive” result in Remote Viewing is often taken as evidence of Remote Viewing; it isn’t. Statistically you will have what are considered “hits”, depending on how much flexibility you want to give the judge or judges.

      What I did say was that the fact that we don’t know how it works doesn’t mean it’s not real…Do we disagree on that?

      That’s true. But there isn’t good evidence that demonstrates it IS real. And that’s the problem. I don’t even care if you don’t provide an explanation of the mechanism for Remote Viewing, but I am not impressed by the “evidence” that remote viewing is real, at all. You, and everyone else before you have systematically failed to produce good evidence demonstrating that Remote Viewing is real.

      Maybe someone in the future might produce it, but I am not about to start believing in something “because someone might”. In the same way, I wouldn’t expect you to believe that a cheese hat can make you fly, “just in case” someone provides evidence for it in the future.

      Funny thing: people didn’t know what gravity is and how it works, until a guy named Archimedes shouted Eureka…

      Archimedes shouted Eureka when he worked out that the volume of water displaced is equal to the volume of the objected placed in the water – in his case, his limbs. It had nothing to do with gravity.
      Additionally, people are well aware of the consequences of gravity, but its our understanding of it is still not complete.

      I’m sure they’ll be a Eureka moment in RV community. I’ m sure many would rathere there would never be such a moment in rv community, and I bet my head you’re one of them…

      I believe you owe me your head. Because that’s not the case. If there was truly evidence for Remote Viewing that would be awesome!

      I know, you’re a logical thinker and you’re ready to ‘believe’ in rv, the problem is I never proposed that you should believe in rv, I only proposed to ‘check it out’ with an open mind, and you didn’t even check out the first indication of the experiment with McMoneagle!!! Now, what do you want me to make out of that, ha? 😛

      Sure you have. All your points have been an effort to convince me that remote viewing is real. I’m a member of a remote viewing group on Facebook where Paul H. Smith is a member, in fact, he’s commented on this blog. I am still yet to be convinced by what has been presented by him, or by others.

      5. Yes it was google earth, sorry. That ‘article’ falls under my recent arguments numbers 2 and 3, thank you very much 🙂

      Still an anecdote.

      6. I challenge you to point out WHERE I said that particular thing!!!!!!

      Your argument was that you had been having “astral projection experiences and other ‘paranormal’ experiences, since I was four, I find it almost dramatic that those that are looking for evidence end up more fanatically against and blind IN FRONT of the evidence”

      You were appealing to your personal experiences of other alleged paranormal things as a basis for asserting that people, like me, should accept that RV is real. You noted that the disbelief in RV was against the evidence, yet you have failed to provide anything beside personal experiences and references to TV shows.

      Seriously… you’re far from a critical thinker, and I’m beginning to get a bit irritated.

      Examples where I have failed to think critically?

      I don’t know you personally, but I’ve encountered your type so many times, that I really have no more patience for another ‘smart’ one that has all the answers even for things SCIENTISTS still don’t have a conclusive answer.

      I don’t think I have “all the answers”, especially for things those with expertise don’t have a “conclusive answer” for.
      I could very well make the very same assertion.

      I’m more than willing to have a nice conversation here, and trust me I’m known for my LOVE and PASSION of a good conversation, but I’ m afraid we’re missing the basic elements here for that. I know I’m not helping either, but can you really blame me? Where on earth (Google earth or other) have I even implied that I suggest RV is real because I believe in ‘other’ paranormal things, or that I’m prone to believing anything paranormal just because I have astral projection experiences!!!!!?????? WHERE?

      I’ll go over it again; You were appealing to your personal experiences of other alleged paranormal phenomena as a basis that Remote Viewing as credence. If that’s not what your point was, what was?

      7. Same as above, and a few more things for you coming right now: We didn’t even discuss my experiences with astral projection, so you have NO idea whether I question them, how I go about TESTING my experiences all those years (about 36 to be exact), and so many more parameters.

      So, just how did you test your personal experiences?
      What documentation do you have that details your testing methods?

      I don’t know what you mean with a ‘false’ positive. Give me an explanation and I’ll tell you if I’ve done that too (I’ m sure I have, though!)

      I’m rather sure you have too.
      But, given your propensity to accept personal experiences as empirical evidence, I wouldn’t expect you to know what Type I or Type II errors are.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Type_I_error

      Since we didn’t discuss about astral projection in particular, you have no idea what I ‘believe’ or ‘think’ about it, and let me tell you. I know very well whether astral projection can be induced, to what extend, and to what people. Bring me scientific documentation that astral projection can be induced to anyone, anytime and with the same properties of the experience.

      Brugger, Peter and Marianne Regard. “Illusory Reduplication of One’s Own Body: Phenomenology and Classification of Autoscopic Phenomena,” Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 1997, 2 (1), 19-38.
      Brugger, Peter. “Reflective mirrors: Perspective-taking in autoscopic phenomena,” Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 2002, 7 (3), 179-194.
      Out of body experiences and their neural basis, BMJ 2004;329:1414-1415 (18 December)

      You mention Astral Projection as as a matter of fact, and given you’ve been “testing” it for 36 years, I find it improbable you discount common neurological phenomena as a satisfactory answer.

      I’ll give you a hint of what I ‘think’ about such experiences. Have you read the theory about the holographic universe? About how our brain is actually a strong indication of the valididy of this theory, and they’re using this knowledge in artificial intelligence research now? Well, the brain is miraculous, because it is a micro-Cosmos, and yes astral projections and all that CAN be induced, up to a point but for particular people at particular situations and given parameters… But that’s really scientific, isn’t it?

      Yes, I have. Quantum mechanics however is often misinterpreted (by those advocating psi) as implying that the human mind controls reality. There is a legitimate notion of quantum holography in physics, but it has nothing to do with psychic phenomena. Quantum holography is a method firmly grounded in modern physics that permits the imaging of hidden objects with entangled photons.

      http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/

      The proble is, since we don’t even know 100% how the brain works, we can’t identify the needed parameters for every single ‘different’ brain.

      We know that the brain works by sending electrical impulses around the place. We know the general function for most parts of the brain, and this information is being refined every day through real scientific research.

      I hope we’ll find out soon, but until then, astral projection comes either naturally and effortlessly, or through test and error approaches to find out what works individually FOR you. Ok?

      No, not ok. It’s a logical fallacy to be arguing from ignorance. You are right, the phenomena known as “astral projection” does occur naturally – There is no evidence however that the experiences during the phenomena are actually happening.

      8. Oh, no, I know very well what subjective validation is. The problem is You don’ t know what rv is.

      I’m betting you don’t know what Subjective Validation is [ http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/subjective.htm%5D, and how it affects our perception of reality, along with many other cognitive biases.
      I’d say, the problem isn’t that I don’t know what RV is (a bit weird given that I see many remote viewers disagree about what it is), rather the problem for you is that than I am well aware that the psychic techniques of remote viewing is consistent with simple, well known magic tricks.

      There have been many different protocols and experiments, even with targets that were not given yet, where the rv was given only a reference number and asked (blindly) to rv the target that the supervisor WOULD chose later. The results remained the same, no change at all in success rates.

      Evidence, please.

      Also, you don’ t have to do a particular remote viewing session. There are literally about 10 different documentated ways of doing remote viewing, but rv can be done at an instant. I never did a particular remote viewing session that took me more than 1 min LITERALLY! ONE MINUTE tops to get the lottery numbers and everything else I’ve remote viewed ever. Others need 30 minutes or so. Sometimes they get instant remote views like mine for particular targets. But, since you REJECT EVEN THE POSSIBILITY that you remote viewed anything, ok, I’ll accept it for your peace of mind and my fingers’ comfort that you didn’t remote view anything, and just happened to have a similar picture there, ok. Happy now?

      No.

      9. I know what a logical fallacy is, the problem is I didn’t make any, because all my ‘argument’s as you stated them, where not stated by me as ARGUMENTS in that way, as I hopefully proved to you with this looooong message.

      No, you don’t. You make them left, right and centre. You are completely oblivious the fact you’re using them.

      However, I do perceive an inlogical fallacy of you seeing everything that is not according to what you’ve already DECIDED that is right or wrong, as ‘false’ arguments, which is actually called fanatism in psychology theories.

      Firstly, I don’t.
      Your arguments aren’t fallacious because they are against what I’m saying, they’re fallacious because they aren’t arguments at all.

      Secondly, your understanding of “Fanaticism” is incorrect.
      Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical enthusiasm, not disagreeing with people.

      Yes, there’s science fanatism, which is everything BUT science, and I know many scientists that actually despise that kind of approach to sciense, since it’s the one thing that can totally ruin a research: the predetermined belief that somethig is supposed to be of particular properties. and refusing to investigate anything that seems to fall outside that belief, labelling that “anything” with other scientific names (and supposingly based on critical thinking axioms.

      Yes, that’s right. It’s called pseudo-science; which sort of gives it away, when uncritical advocates (fanatics) of ESP, Remote Viewing, Astral Projection, NDE’s are often referred to as pseudo-scientists.

      What often happens here, is a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

      Actually, I have a family friend that used to work for Nasa (physist) that pointed this out to me about 10 years ago. The conversation I had with him really changed my life. And he is a REAL scientist. Think about this and answer honestly to yourself “are you being a fanatic here?” Oops, I can almost rv what you’ll say, so don’t say it. I’m not a fanatic, cause you see, I’m constantly testing my own experiences and I have even dismissed some of my old beliefs.

      That’s not disproving you as a fanatic.

      My main proof? I used to be an orthodox christian, now I tend to believe in the extistence of a power/energy source that has no cnocious knowledge or/and involvment with anything in the cosmos. Big step, wouldn’t you say?

      Not really, no. You went from believing in one unsupported theory to another.

      But in order to make such big steps, you must be open to INDICATIONS, you know?

      Yep!

      10. Ok, I can’t upload a photo, but PLEASE, get around 10 different phtograhps upload, lets say one with a tree, one with a cloud, one with a mountain, one with a tennis ball one with a chicken making an egg, and… whatever else you want, and point me out how you could match this thing you made… I’m really curious, and I PROMISE to applause you if you do.

      Done: http://www.bayanimills.com/2011/10/09/rv-challenge-accepted-subjective-validation-ftw/
      There’s pretty good ones there!

      On the other hand, did you notice what I said about my own rv sessions? When I had a fail session, I couldn’t match it no matter how hard I tried! My fail sessions were CLEARLY failed sessions, but the fact that I rved numbers (which are considered almost impossible to rv) is a very strong indication that rv works… at least I see that as a strong indication. Don’t you?

      No, because the problem isn’t the numbers, the problem (in this instance) is in the judgement process. It is highly subjective.

      11. Once more, where the f… did I say that rv is real BECAUSE you’re close minded? Seriously, are you doing this on purpose, or do you seriously SEE that that’s what I said? Just because you couldn’t find a way to disagree with me -cause as a fanatist that’s all you want- you just MAKE UP arguments I supposedly did???? Stop it, and let’s have a nice, humorous but elaborative conversation here. Unless you’re already bored with me and try to find a way to get me the hell out of your nice blog 🙂

      I thought you said you knew Logical Fallacies? What you just asserted I did was is a “Strawman Argument”. And you’re right, it was. I should rephrase it.

      You asserted that if I am “Open Minded” I will believe in Remote Viewing. That may very well be true, but the problem is, you want me to be “Open Minded”, which not the same as “reasonable”, or “rational”. Which, if you approached Remote Viewing with a skeptical line of inquiry, you would concede there is not the evidence base you claim there is.

      Cheers and yia sou (in Greek)
      PS excuse my boldness, but you really pissed me off at some points, saying I said things I didn’t… 😛 Although I’d still be bold, that’s how I like to talk, hope you don’t mind. You’re free to be as bold as you want! 🙂

      No worries!

      Like

      Reply

  14. I’m here trying to read your huge message. Just give me time! And I thought I write long messages, lol!!! (I’m also using a dictionary, cause your vocabulary is really giving me a hard time). Be patient, and I’ll answer all of it, agree where I need to agree, and … discuss what I feel the need to discuss, ok?

    Like

    Reply

  15. Here we go:
    1. I agree on the documentation, but as far as statistical analysis goes, I need you to explain to me, what would a statistical analysis be in that case, othere than he did find 12 missing people that the japanese authorities were looking for for years? I’m willing to learn. Tell me. And the replication would be? There is a particular methodology. Even if he was given all the data the authorities had, he still had the same advantage or disadvantage they had. And still he found them.
    If you are looking though for a strictly scientific controlled experiment then you have to check the military documents of over 30 years. Very enlightining, and down to earh, may I add. I do agree though that you’re right. It wasn’t a strict “lab” experiment. But the results WERE measurable, no?
    2. I was very clear as to “indications” or correlations. I did say that you cannot use them as proof, but you can use them to guide your investigation. So I don’t see how we disagree on that.
    3. When I said that you need to prove something to yourself AT LEAST UP TO A POINT, you know damn well I didn’t mean you need to cut your head off to prove that you’ll die if you do. There are two kinds of personal experience. I’ll try to translate them from Greek, as I’ve learned it. The direct experience and the indirect experience. You know the flame can burn you, if you get burned, but THANK GOD you can learn that by watching someone else get burned. A child doesn’t know that you can get killed by cuttinf off your head, trust me, I know, I have two children, and one almost killed me once while playing, cause she didn’t “know” she didn’t have the experience of the knife being able to cut your guts in pcs and send you to papa God! As for the ‘laboratories’ I think I was clear by the rest of my ‘speech’, I was referring to anything that could serve as a means or a place to prove something, and I’m glad we agree on that. Now, in order to even begin considering to prove something scientifically you need two things: an “indication” (I think this word serves us both better) and a methodology. The indication however may be evidence of something completely different than you thought at first, right? And the methodology might be completely wrong for that particular proof you’re looking, that’s why methodologies and procedures change according to new indications or problems arising, until you can get to one final procedure that always gives you the same measurable and predictable outcome, correct? So no, I never assumed that our conclusions from personal experiences are always correct, but EVERY little experiment, even the most scientifically controllled is actually a PERSONAL experience, at least until we get to the point where we have the final really closed procedure. Are you following my thoughts here? I don’t want you to misunderstand me again. Cause you seem to interpret me the wrong way.
    Lte’s make it a little simpler. WHAT is a personal experience? A personal experience is something you perceive subjectively with your 5 senses and personal axioms and judgement. Right? For example,since you mentioned the thermometer, many times I’ve touched the cheek of my children to check if they have a fever and when my husband would do the same his ‘experience’ would be totally different, and would ask me to put the thermometer. Sometimes I was right, sometimes he was right. The point is our senses gave us different conclusions, until we used the thermometer which cannot lie, right? Now, take that little example and EXPAND it to a lab situation. This is a very real thing, very logical, according to the few things we know about human senses and expectances and the way our brain works. Now, you get some measurements from your experiment. You “see” a particular outcome, and a collegue of yours “sees” a different outcome, and gets ths idea that you’re actually looking at something else than what you were searching for. You know what I mean? In that sense EVERY experiment, BEFORE we reach a DEFINITE procedure that can be used at all times with a 100% predictability of the outcome, is ALWAYS a personal experiment, no matter how you want to call it. Call it scientific observation, it’s still the same. It’s an OBSERVATION of results and measurements, and therefore it’s but an experience that needs to be categorized, analysed, and modified if needed. Do we agree so far? Are you still with me?
    So, yes, you compare experiences and use the outcome to form a scientific methodology to prove them right or wrong (like the thermometer in mine and my husband’s case). If we didn’t touch our child at all, if we didn’t observe the difference in what we perceived (observation) we wouldn’t check it with a different methodology. Now, we live in the 21 st century and we’re lucky enough to have a theromometer. Before that, different proven to work for particular INDIVIDUALS procedures were used. Like in the case of making yoghurt. You can use a thermometer to check the milk, or you can do it the ‘old fashioned’ way, and stick your little finger and count up to an individual number (usually ten) and see if it gets burned!!!
    4.I mentioned the mirages because there ARE ways to test whether a personal experience is right or wrong. Of course you may chose to believe it, but if you actually continue ‘walking’ towards the outcome, you’re meant to be proven wrong… you know? So, of course you need to be a skeptic, but if you didn’t believe there is a possibility of finding water in the dessert, you wouldn’t move towards the mirage, you know? That’s what an open minded person does. Accepts the possibility that maybe this ‘mirage’ is not a mirage but a real oasis. And is always ready to prove to himself that unfortunately it IS a mirage. Still he goes that way JUST IN CASE!
    5. LOL, I knew you were goint to ask for a demonstration of my rv abilities. I was smiling writing about it. The truth is I’m just beginning a new ‘session’ of experiments, this time with a co-ordinator, because last time I was doing it by myself, and it’s very difficutl that way. I’m also using associated remote viewing methodology this time. I just talked a couple of hours ago with my co-ordinator, cause he said he couldn’t understand part of his job, and within the next few days I’ll be given blind targets. Now, since we decided to start with a few numbers only (not all 6 of them), in order to map my use of unconscious symbols (understand how my brain works to that account, remember my last post?) I don’t know how I can get you in this. I can send you the resutls of my rvs and you can check the results in the greek lotteries and check out with us. What do you say? If you’re interested, I’ll send you an email with my first session and the target as soon as I have it.
    6. You asked for documentation on what? I didn’t get it. On the fact that RV can be done for future targets as well? Who says RV is only for present targets? That has never been the case in any scientific experiment of the army where it originally was formed as a methodology. What they found out was that rv is not limited by time or space. The problem is when you have a future target, you need to be very specific as to the ways you can estimate the correctness of the outcome of the session. So, lottery is an ‘easy’ way to check, you just check the numbers you got, and bam, but the other problem here is numbers don’t exist for your unconscious, so you need some kind of symbolism. So, NO, NO, NO. Please tell me which “professional” rvers told you that??? And for any documentation, really, you just need to read what was released by the army. You’ll have all your answers there, statistics, demonstrations, analysis, hypotheses and experiments, methodologies, everything, dates, whatever.
    Rv can be done on ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, but in order to keep it ‘scientific’ you must have a way to measure the outcome. So if you do a rv session on Crhist (they did that too in the army, to see what they would get, and the results were astonishing, even though not measurable they had a similarity with what chirst is perceived as by the collective unconsious, that is Love), you can’t check the correctness of your outcome, but if you do an rv about an existant target, or a past event for which you have many data, or about the outcome of a future football game (they do that a lot, actually), you can be sure to get measruable results.

    Ok, I got to rest my brain now! Will be back shortly!

    Like

    Reply

  16. Ok, I have some time for at least one more point.
    You said: “The fact is, there are MANY far more likely possibilities that you have not considered, yet you opted to chosen setttle with one of the most unlikely. Usually, in these instances, people say “I don’t know”, rather than “Remote Viewing must be real”.
    I’me a firm believer of the argument: “usually the answer is the simplest” (or something like that”. I don’t know what rv is for you, but apart from any methodologies meant to describe and analyze it, the rv procedure itself is physical, normal, and exists apart from all methodologies in the world. And remote viewing, at least ‘translated’ painly means “VEWING” “PERCEIVING” things that are not at hand, from other places and time lines (REMOTE). Do we agree on that? So, quite plainly I just remote viewed (no matter what methodology I used, and how strictly scientific it was) this inner natural and normal ability concsciously. I would love you to give me an even simpler explanation of that, because I remind you that the difference in the rate of success occurred while doing this rv approach, instead when I didn’t use it all this time I had a normal rate of success.
    What is simpler explanation than REMOTE VIEWING. Honestly. Please don’t tell me statistics… The statistics of me predicting something (remote viewing) I am sure is greater than simply getting the numbers by chance for a consecutive almost 20 drawings. Or is it? I’m open to this. Point to a simpler explanation and I’ll be glad to accept it.

    Then you say:
    “In instances where Remote Viewing is subjected to greater controls to prevent cognitive biases affecting the results, the “effect” regresses to the statistical mean – ie: No better than chance”
    Could you please tell me where you found that “evidence”. Are we talking about rv sessions where you’re supposed to chose between two targets or something, like predict the fall of the coin? I mean, I don’t know if there’s been such experimentation, but how can you describe BY CHANCE a particular place and even draw it? Yes, if the “judge” is too flexible, like you are with your own experiment and the 10 pictures I asked you to upload then you can match everything. But, like I said, no serious rv controller would accept them as hits, I wouldn’t accept them as hits for myself, and most serious rvers wouldn’t accept them, but you, on the other hand, are ready to accept them in order to “prove” the flexibility of the procedure 🙂
    Check out the best rvers of the army, and the drawings they made for specific targets and let me know how it is possible to do that ‘by chance’…

    Going for another brain stimulator and see you later! 😛

    Like

    Reply

  17. Ok, I just barely took a look at the rest of the message, I really can’t answer all that, I would need at least a couple of days out of work and we’d still be going in circles. But I did see (lol) the Archimedes bullshit I wrote. I’m so sorry, of course it wasn’t gravity, and I swear to God I’ve even used this story (the right version of course) at my work, so trust me I knew it… but I’m just a regular old gal with a regular oooooold brain 😛
    So, I’ll be sending you an email shortly to arrange the experiment stuff, ok? Mainly to confirm that this is the right address, ok?
    I’m sure that’s more interesting for both of us. So, see ya 🙂

    Like

    Reply

  18. Yaa My Friend you compare experiences and use the outcome to form a scientific methodology to prove them right or wrong (like the thermometer in mine and my husband’s case). If we didn’t touch our child at all, if we didn’t observe the difference in what we perceived (observation) we wouldn’t check it with a different methodology. Now, we live in the 21 st century and we’re lucky enough to have a theromometer.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s