RV Challenge Accepted: Subjective Validation FTW

My RV Scribble

Challenge Acceped!

.. So a challenge came from Peggy, an advocate for Remote Viewing:

“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.”

Method of Acquiring Images

  1. Enter Keyword in to Google Australia
  2. Click Images
  3. Saved Images


  1. tree
  2. cloud
  3. mountain
  4. tennis ball
  5. chicken making egg
  6. doctor who
  7. sombrero
  8. clown
  9. watch
  10. cheesecake


Scaled Original images


Application of subjective validation (as per point of exercise)



  1. Seriously, you don’t expect me to applause you for that? Do you????

    Except from the one with the tree, that you really have to be subjective and desperate to match it, all the rest don’t match at all, and YOU KNOW IT!!!! Stop fooling around. There’s not ONE remote viewer co-ordinator that would accept them as hits! NOT ONE!!! For example in the case of the ball, you SHOULD have at least a full circle in your thing to be considered a hit. And the cloud, the chicken, that guy wearing the thing??? Where on earth are you seeing a match!!!!!!
    Honestly… Is this a scientific objective proof you got there?

    You’re a tough case, mate. Cause you ‘re willing to see things that are not there -and even worse to convince me that there are there- to prove something you’ve already decided it is so (or not so).

    Ok, got to go back to your novel to answer a few points 😛



    1. That’s the whole point of subjective validation, it is completely up to the individual’s personal prejudices.

      How you and I interpret the results are completely different, and some are better matches than others.

      Note, that without an ounce of RVing, you said that the tree was a partial match. Statistically, that will appear as a slight effect in the results. While some people misinterpret that slight result as a small indication of Remote Viewing, it’s not statistically significant;

      You will never get a completely negative result in an investigation in to RV because of that.



  2. Look, I have myopia, I’ m almost blind without contacts, you know? Are you blind?
    SERIOUSLY!!!! This subjective validation you’re referring to here, is as if you would say 8 is not an 8 because you see it as a 2 or a 5. What is it to you?
    I see a f… 8 and I’m telling you there’s not ONE remote viewer co-ordinator that would see it as a 5 or a 2, and even the tree I admitted COULD be taken as a hit if you’re completely subjective and DESPERATE, it is not a hit, and you know it!
    Is this how you’re going to be looking at my results in the experiment? Are you willing to be as OBJECTIVE as possible or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?



  3. And there’s been tons of negative remote viewing results, you know!!! And for targets that were more prone to “subjective validation”, and for that reason exactly the “judgement” was very strict!



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