An assumption of honesty

[TheERK]

Prepare for yet another remote viewing thread.

Remember the HRVG (Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild)? They're still posting RV sessions online. Of course, there's no way to tell from an online perspective whether or not everyone's playing by the rules. So, I wanted to get an opinion on whether one of the newest sessions is 'interesting' or not, assuming that the HRVG is being honest concerning cheating.

Here is the session: http://www.hrvg.org/cgi-bin/param_sessionthumbnail.pl?cf=&dir=s1j2-e9n2&sd=tbnt

Here is the target: LEAD NEWS EVENT / ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT / 13 JULY, 2003.

Here is an analysis and information concerning security measures taken: http://www.hrvg.org/project/tomorrows-big-news-today/tomorrows-big-news-today.htm

Now, assuming honesty (which may or may not be a good idea, but just play along), is this worth further investigation, or not?

 

[Ed]

Yes, very interesting

But

Weren't images like that dominant at the time of the viewing and thereafter? What sort of images would you expect during wartime on soundbite news?

I would have seen speeches, GI's, helicopters. In fact, I do today for the news a month out. The point is if those images are sorta continuous, that is to say if they matched the day before the target, the day after, the day of the reading and the day before, then you are seeing the power of suggestion regarding an ongoing event.

 

[TheERK]

I would have seen speeches, GI's, helicopters. In fact, I do today for the news a month out. The point is if those images are sorta continuous, that is to say if they matched the day before the target, the day after, the day of the reading and the day before, then you are seeing the power of suggestion regarding an ongoing event.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the news of the target date (July 13) is just like the news on the day of the viewing?

The good thing about the session (once again, assuming this really was done a month ahead of time) is that it doesn't have all that stuff: helicopters ,GI's, gunfire, death, etc. The session isn't vague--I think anyone could tell, without looking at what the actual target is, that this clearly depicts a man giving a speech to an audience.

I find the comment about "Stephan" unimpressive. I find the drawing on page 10 to be the high mark of the session.

Eric

 

[Thanz]

I find the drawing on page 10 to be the high mark of the session.

Really? To me the stuff on the right hand side of page ten looks like a bunch of trees. It says "Land 1" at the top. To this they match a speech given on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the sea. Not so much a match for me.

 

[voidx]

Really? To me the stuff on the right hand side of page ten looks like a bunch of trees. It says "Land 1" at the top. To this they match a speech given on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the sea. Not so much a match for me.

Especially when you consider that the crowd for Land 1 are surrounded by tree's . Now unless aircraft carriers have changed significantly since I was little I think this a complete miss. Also the image of bush walking and the whole "raised platform" is just plain dumb. Again the drawing shows heads of people on each side of the "raised platform" not so in the photo. I thought the mediumship people had some thin arguements, but this stuff is ridiculous.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

RVers Wrong Yet Again

We have people campaigning for the Democrat nomination for President, and a Governor's recall election going on. These things were also going on a month ago. And the RVers use their awesome powers to predict someone will be giving a speech to a bunch of people?

This is beyond pathetic.

 

[TheERK]

Re: RVers Wrong Yet Again

We have people campaigning for the Democrat nomination for President, and a Governor's recall election going on. These things were also going on a month ago. And the RVers use their awesome powers to predict someone will be giving a speech to a bunch of people?

This is beyond pathetic.

Way to not contribute to the topic. The question wasn't whether or not RVers have their priorities straight--and they certainly don't--it was whether or not they're accurate.

I don't see you criticizing Randi for asking people to remote view his secret object rather than asking people to remote view something important. The idea is testing for the existence of an ability, not using it practically.

 

[voidx]

Re: Re: RVers Wrong Yet Again

...snip...

I don't see you criticizing Randi for asking people to remote view his secret object rather than asking people to remote view something important. The idea is testing for the existence of an ability, not using it practically.

Uhh asking them to see his secret object is a test for the existence of the ability. And Hands point was that, these events are widely know without the proposed ability of RV. So for RV to picture these events makes any proof of the ability speculative at best. It would make mor sense to RV an obscure event. Anything picturing speeches at podiums is inconclusive at best.

 

[TheERK]

Yeah, it would seem that I misinterpreted Hand Bent Spoon's reply. Yes, there are several news stories that would involved a speech at a podium.

However, it's not 'pathetic' because it's still right. Of course, it's also completely inconclusive, because the chances of hitting that one (main theme: speech at a podium) aren't so bad.