• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Remote viewing - how do they do it?

galla

Scholar
G
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
58
I have not been able to quite figure out what remote viewing is and how people who believe in it have managed to convince themselves it works. If a random target is to be drawn or described by someone, the odds of them getting anything right are extremely small, so why would they think anything of it?

I'm not talking about formal experiments such as the crap at SRI or about tricks by famous psychics. I'm talking about workshops etc. where people draw - with enough accuracy to convince themselves - that they remote viewed something.

Are the targets not random? Do the people running the test fake the results by substituting the target so the person thinks they got it right? Does anyone have any information about this? It just seems impossible that anyone would get anything even vaguely right.

Someone I know was converted from (allegedly) skeptic to believer after attending a retreat where (among other things) she remote viewed something (along with a roomful of other people). From what I can gather she found out later that she'd drawn the correct thing, and my suspicion is that the leaders of the retreat simply substituted the target to give her a hit. But she now works part-time as a leader at the retreat and would know if this is routinely done to encourage newbies or whatever.
 
Part of it, as Mojo implies, is in what you define as "right." How specific does the drawing have to be before it is a "hit?" If the object was a bowling ball, and I drew a clock, would that be a "hit" because it was round?

If I recall correctly, ne way to do a properly controlled RV test is for there to be, say, a dozen pre-selected images, all sufficiently different so as there is no chance of any of them being mistaken for any of the rest.

Both parties, the "sender" and "receiver", know all of the images in advance.

One of the twelve images is selected by random means (rolling of dice, whatever). It is shown to the "sender", who then "sends" it to the receiver, who notes which of the twelve images he has "received."

This is repeated with, say, six of the images.

This is of course all done with testers in charge of both parties, in a double-blind manner.

Ask your friend if she has ever tried anything along these lines to test her "abilities."
 
galla said:
I have not been able to quite figure out what remote viewing is and how people who believe in it have managed to convince themselves it works. If a random target is to be drawn or described by someone, the odds of them getting anything right are extremely small, so why would they think anything of it?
Click to expand...

That's the problem: The target isn't drawn or described in a precise manner. It is interpreted: A tall something can be a tree, a mast, a chimney, anything. The point is that it is post-hoc interpretation to fit the target.

galla said:
I'm not talking about formal experiments such as the crap at SRI or about tricks by famous psychics. I'm talking about workshops etc. where people draw - with enough accuracy to convince themselves - that they remote viewed something.

Are the targets not random? Do the people running the test fake the results by substituting the target so the person thinks they got it right? Does anyone have any information about this? It just seems impossible that anyone would get anything even vaguely right.

Someone I know was converted from (allegedly) skeptic to believer after attending a retreat where (among other things) she remote viewed something (along with a roomful of other people). From what I can gather she found out later that she'd drawn the correct thing, and my suspicion is that the leaders of the retreat simply substituted the target to give her a hit. But she now works part-time as a leader at the retreat and would know if this is routinely done to encourage newbies or whatever.
Click to expand...

Show her this forum, and we'll do a simple test, this time with Zener cards. There will be no "judging", either she can "get" the figure on the card, or she can't.
 
RSLancastr said:
One of the twelve images is selected by random means (rolling of dice, whatever). It is shown to the "sender", who then "sends" it to the receiver, who notes which of the twelve images he has "received."
Click to expand...

This of course is how it should be done! But obviously it's not done this way because no one would get significant results. I'm wondering how it's done at workshops etc. in order to get impressive results.

I read about David Morehouse's remote viewing courses (http://www.davidmorehouse.com/WHAT is RV.htm) - it seems he has a poor reputation in that "industry" but he's the first one I happened across. In the class students spend 90 minutes producing 45-65 pages of verbal and visual data, which produces 35-40% "accurate and usable data".

How anyone thinks these pathetic figures are remarkable baffles the mind. In later courses you fly off to other universes and report back, so it's a case of "anything goes" - you can't even get a grade for accuracy.
 
RSLancastr said:
If I recall correctly, ne way to do a properly controlled RV test is for there to be, say, a dozen pre-selected images, all sufficiently different so as there is no chance of any of them being mistaken for any of the rest.

Both parties, the "sender" and "receiver", know all of the images in advance.

One of the twelve images is selected by random means (rolling of dice, whatever). It is shown to the "sender", who then "sends" it to the receiver, who notes which of the twelve images he has "received."
Click to expand...

As far as I know, remote viewing traditionally does not have a definitive sender and receiver. That would be a telepathy test. RV protocol (or what passes for it) is primarily based on the assignment of a random number to a predetermined location; the number is communicated to the subject who then describes what resides at that location (or not). Sometimes a person may travel to a location, either at the time of viewing or afterwards, to act as some kind of focus for the subject.
 
They associate the "remotely viewed" picture with the real object in any way they can and then say they were accurate.

Examples:

The remote viewer draws a line.
The test object is a ball.
"obviously, the guy saw the ball and associated with baseball. the line is a bat."
 
They associate the "remotely viewed" picture with the real object in any way they can and then say they were accurate.

Examples:

The remote viewer draws a line.
The test object is a ball.
"obviously, the guy saw the ball and associated with baseball. the line is a bat."
 
baron said:
As far as I know, remote viewing traditionally does not have a definitive sender and receiver. That would be a telepathy test. RV protocol (or what passes for it) is primarily based on the assignment of a random number to a predetermined location; the number is communicated to the subject who then describes what resides at that location (or not). Sometimes a person may travel to a location, either at the time of viewing or afterwards, to act as some kind of focus for the subject.
Click to expand...

I see how this could be confusing; particularly if the remote viewer is also a telepath ..

If there is another person at the site, how does the viewer/telepath know if they are remotely viewing the site or just reading the other persons mind ?
 
Diogenes said:
I see how this could be confusing; particularly if the remote viewer is also a telepath ..

If there is another person at the site, how does the viewer/telepath know if they are remotely viewing the site or just reading the other persons mind ?
Click to expand...

I always find these reservations about whether it is remote viewing or telepathy or whathaveyou ridiculous.

I don't care what it is - for now. Speculating about the nature of what it is is way premature. Just show that you can read/see/sense/feel/experience which Zener card it is.

No, no interpretations about towers, bridges, churches, or ships. If you can see a ship, then you can damn well see if it is a cross, a circle, a square, a star or some wavy lines.

Once you do that, then we can work out just what to call it.
 
Viewing what's in a sealed envelope when no one knows what it is would not be telepathy. In woo theory, presumably, there's a difference between doing this and telepathy. Remote viewing, as I understand it, allows you to view some other place and describe it without there being anyone there sending you mental images. So if someone claims to have telepathic abilities, you couldn't test them by this method. And if someone claims to be able to remote view, you shouldn't need a transmitter.

Then again, I'm sure some remote viewers do prefer a transmitter, which makes it indistinguishable from telepathy... but I don't think they care. As in the afterlife experiments by Schwartz where he didn't seem to notice that almost all his "results" should have been attributed to telepathy, not contact with dead spirits.
 
All The Afterworld's A Stage

How the famous paranormal researcher, Montague Keen, became the object of Gary Schwartz' experiments into the world of the dead. And a new term was coined: "Departed hypothesized co-investigator."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom