Or, if you prefer, it could be that the subjects were looking forward in time to a point where they were told the results. So it wouldn't be telepathy or speaking to the dead, but precognition.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Or, if you prefer, it could be that the subjects were looking forward in time to a point where they were told the results. So it wouldn't be telepathy or speaking to the dead, but precognition.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
ChristineR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,180
There are many different ways. If you're talking about what stage magicians do, it usually involves seeing the drawing somehow--cheating. For people who are trying to do legitimate tests of psi power, it usually is a question of how you determine what is a match and what isn't. You can cover a good proportion of all landscapes by drawing a tower, and something round, and something square. Then afterwards you can say something like "He was supposed to be drawing the tower, but actually he drew the previous target."
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
Sorry about saying "sender". I was indeed mixing up different abilities.
The receiver does know in advance what all of the possible images are. Some are then randomly picked and put, one at a time into a room totally out of sight of the receiver, who then records which of the twelve items/images he is "receiving."
Having the receiver know that set of images from which an image will be selected prevents interpretation of ambiguous images the receiver records.
The double-blinding comes from nobody knowing what the selected image is until after the test is complete.
You wouldn't be testing remote viewing would you? Wouldn't you be testing for the ability to see through solid objects? Don't you have to test the person for what he says he can actually do? In which case, you have no option, do you, than to test his ability to view a scene from a remote location?
I don't care what it is. We can work that out later.
Just tell me what Zener card I am holding up now.
I can't do that. I didn't say I could pick a zener card held in your hand. So of course I will fail your test. But then you are not testing me for what I can do. I said I can remote view a room in a building in a foreign city. Mostly the room, building and city are random, but you could go and see for yourself and see if I'm right.
I didn't mean you, as in you. I meant you, as in people in general.
English....
Over to Zep.
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,608
You can remotely view a room in a building in a city, yet the room, building and city are random? How can we verify it if they're random? Or can you tell us enough information to find the room/bldg/city after you view it?
If you can't identify the specific room until after you view it, it's not testable, because you could get the information ahead of time then merely pretend to view it, then report to us.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Here in Japan you can't go a couple weeks without seeing some melodramatic program featuring some of the prominent 'remote viewers' bringing some poor bereaved family to tears in the 'investigation' into the death of a lost loved one. Just the other day I was clenching my teeth while watching one fool lead a TV crew around the nose while 'mind diving' into the events of Princess Diana's death. His pronouncement being that the driver was not under the influence of alcohol and that the crash was connected to a flash from a mysterious box on the side of the road in the tunnel which was then immediately retrieved by an equally mysterious figure on a motorcycle accompanied by another car.
In all cases the viewers seem conveniently unable to produce any information that implicates any particular individuals or details that would in any way alter the official status of the cases they 'investigate'.
'investigate': read- let poo fly.
In all cases the viewers seem conveniently unable to produce any information that implicates any particular individuals or details that would in any way alter the official status of the cases they 'investigate'.
'investigate': read- let poo fly.
I agree completely, but any consideration for their claims when what they claim in reference to a test differs from what they claim away from the test.
e.g., the psychic who says "I can't perform reliably with the lights on and cameras rolling" but performs for clients with lights a blazing and photo ops aplenty.
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
Yup. As Randi has said more than once: if someone claims they can play the piano, you can't ask them to prove it by demanding they play a violin.
Yeah.
But if they claimed to be able to see specific things from specific sites (and only after interpretating what they had drawn), yet couldn't clearly identify which Zener card it was, I would be very suspicious...
I think this is why it's a good idea if the subjects know the 12 images in advance and are then asked to draw one of them - it's more obvious then which target their drawing should be matched up to. Yes, it becomes a guessing game, but that's a good thing because you have an unambiguous way to score a hit and all you have to do is see if they perform better than chance. (This is essentially the same as guessing Zener cards, with 12 instead of 5, and should be easy enough to set up to please the remote-viewer subject so they can't say they're being tested on something they don't claim to do.)
This is justification after the test. I was referring to setting up the test.
But, you still have to test them on what they claim they can do.
And if he declined this test, because he can see inside rooms, but not what is drawn on cards....
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Whatever you do, you must never tell the remove viewers the results of their viewing experiments. Otherwise you're not controlling for the possibility that they are precognizing the test results.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul