Has remote viewing already been tested?

[TheBoyPaj]

Chemical Penguin,

It's just a bit of fun, but if you fancy testing yourself in an environment where no one can claim you're picking up on clues, have a go at my Remote Viewing Experiment. It's dead easy!

Just click the link in my sig.

 

[pgwenthold]

WHY don't I apply for the million then?

I don't think I cannot win not because i get 'bad energy' or any of the usual 'psychic' excuses, but because i simply don't believe I will be given a fair unbiased test.

Tell you what - you propose the test that you want to use. Assuming it will test what ability you claim to have, Randi will have to accept it. Of course, he will be careful to prevent any cheating, but you won't have any problem with that.

However, I recommend browsing through the discussion in this thread to get some ideas about what an acceptable protocol will be. Remember, you want a test where the correctness or incorrectness of your viewing will be obvious, without any room for Randi to wiggle out of it. Thus, the design where you have one of 4 randomly picked choices that you can view (kind of like what you did before) and you tell him which one it is.

Now, in your two test runs (apparently against nothing) you said you saw 3/10 in one, and 1/10 in another. So let's say that means that you can see maybe 10/100. You don't have to be perfect, only better than nothing.

So let's have a test where you are given an option of 5 choices that are all very different. In 100 trials, you should be able to correctly see 10 of them. In the 90 you don't see, you will just be guessing in the end, and so you will get 80% of them wrong, but you will get 18 right just by guessing. Therefore, out of 100 trials, you should be able to correctly get 28. Sound right? OTOH, there will be variation in the guessing part, so let's drop it to 24 instead of 28. Note that this only requires that you be able to see at half of the rate to which you claimed you did before, so that should make it even easier. Of course, Randi will want to be careful and will probably say that this isn't significant enough, so he will probably ask for more trials. Thus, let's say 240/1000.

Now, a thousand trials is a lot, and it will probably take a while to do it, but that is probably what would be needed to pass the challenge. But if, as you say, you can get at least 1/10 objects right, then it is a small sacrifice for a million dollars, don't you think? Because if you can do that, it is more or less a slam dunk.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I have, over the course of the last three months, developed the amazing paranormal ability to fart so forcefully that I am actually propelled around the room. I can achieve continued flight times of well over a minute.

I think you have the Greatest. Paranormal. Ability. Ever.

Many congrats.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

But if, as you say, you can get at least 1/10 objects right, then it is a small sacrifice for a million dollars, don't you think? Because if you can do that, it is more or less a slam dunk.

I wonder if they would be satisfied it their auto started one try in ten? And they would be willing to fork over $20,000 to a dealer, knowing full well, that's as good as it gets...

Isn't science and technology great?

 

[drkitten]

I wonder if they would be satisfied it their auto started one try in ten? And they would be willing to fork over $20,000 to a dealer, knowing full well, that's as good as it gets...

Well, lottery tickets and mutual funds both sell well.

 

[Joe_Black]

"Yet your other post here on JREF says you also know a man who can perform these other psychic feats. These two
posts are already at odds with one another."

Nope, I only know of that guy from my RV training.

I just don't believe I will be given a fair test, I don't fancy being randi fodder when I can make that much and more on the stock market and gambling when I get good enough at RV.

3.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by
JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.

notice the 'in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.'

 

[scribble]

I just don't believe I will be given a fair test, I don't fancy being randi fodder when I can make that much and more on the stock market and gambling when I get good enough at RV.

As clear as I can make it:

No test will occur until you agree it is fair to you. Period. It's that simple. It's in the rules.

 

[Joe_Black]

The is also rule number 3

 

[specious_reasons]

I just don't believe I will be given a fair test, I don't fancy being randi fodder when I can make that much and more on the stock market and gambling when I get good enough at RV.

3.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by
JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.

notice the 'in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.'

Right, he can make fun of you if you fail. He can provide videos or other documentary evidence out for any news media to use. He can write about your testing.

Are you claiming he would lie and fudge numbers? You have the right, in any protocol you design, to have a neutral 3rd party execute or observe the test. In fact, doesn't Randi recommend this?

Like I said before, not being tested fairly would be evidence of Randi's unfairness. Right now, you just think he's unfair.

If I thought I might have paranormal powers, I'd be chomping at the bit to get JREF's money.

 

[CurtC]

So, Joe, here's an idea. Come up with a way to test yourself. Post the methodolgy here in this forum, for us to evaluate. Incorporate our suggestions, and do the test for yourself. Post the results here. Would you do this?

By the way, what part of the rule about "in any way that Mr. Randi may choose" do you not like? If you have the million, why do you care?

 

[Ipecac]

[BI just don't believe I will be given a fair test, I don't fancy being randi fodder when I can make that much and more on the stock market and gambling when I get good enough at RV.
[/B]

How will remote viewing allow you to do well on the stock market and gambling? I don't see that it will help at all in roulette, craps, or slot machines. I guess you could "see" what card is coming up in Blackjack, although since you're sitting at the table, it seems weird to use "remote" viewing.

Which brings up an idea. If you believe you can remote view the cards in a dealer shoe, then you could certainly test your RV abilities quite thoroughly with a standard deck of cards in your home.

As for how RV would help you with the stock market, I'm still at a loss.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think the reality is that Joe is a dishonest troll OR he's deluded and insane. There is no reason to entertain the notion that Joe has superpowers.

 

[jackmott]

you saw a vase or cup

and it was a sports bottle

you saw a red picture

and it was red letters

you failed 3 times first

and this was one success out of many failures.

You are a victim of wishful thinking.
It's OBVIOUSLY a coincidence.

and your reluctance to be tested is suspiciously asinine. You are refusing to demonstrate something of EXTREME MAGNITUDE, something that would change the world forever, becuase if you fail randi might make fun of you in front of a few intenet geeks?

llllaaaaammmmeee

Just joined this forum and I was looking around in the forums and didn't see anything on remote viewing (although I'm sure there are ppl on this forum who've been here for years and have already discussed it) but I was just curious as to what conclusions were drawn about why Remote Viewing is a fraud.

I myself have tried remote-viewing and got it to work a few times out of many failures. Just incase anyone wants an example here's detail of the first time I succeeded:

(this was done over webcam w/ my girlfriend)
I had my girlfriend place an object in a box then I'd turn off the computer, lights, tv, cover the windows in my room w/ blankets and then lay on my bed and remotely view what was in the box. The first 3 or so times I failed but I finally succeeded when I "saw" a blue vase/large-cup with a red picture on the side of it. And it turned out the item in the box was a blue sports bottle w/o the lid and the words "Reebok" in red printed on the side.

Very possible this might be coincidence even though it's highly unlikely, it's not impossible. But anyways, I was amazed by my first success, so just wanted to know what was wrong w/ this Remote Viewing business.

 

[scribble]

The is also rule number 3

Joe, you sound like a broken record, pal.

What difference does rule number 3 make if you are *garunteed* a test you agree is fair? You are *garunteed* a fair test.

So Randi can use his pictures of you any way he chooses? Why would you care when you've proven him wrong and made a laughinstock out of him? You'll be untouchable, dude. You can make the whole world laugh at Randi.

Unless you think you won't get a fair test. And the only possible way for you to not get a fair test is for you to not be able to make one up yourself. And even if I think you're a bit out there, I don't think you're that stupid. I've got faith that you can come up with a test you think is fair.

 

[Nigel]

I just don't believe I will be given a fair test, I don't fancy being randi fodder when I can make that much and more on the stock market and gambling when I get good enough at RV.

How long do you think it will take for you to be "good enough" at RV?

3.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.
notice the 'in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.'
That's rather standard - when you submit a letter to the editor of the newspaper for instance, or a photo in a contest, the submission becomes the property of the person(s), or company running the contest, etc. They usually say that submissions are not returnable. It shouldn't be surprising Mr. Randi would say that.

 

[Joe_Black]

It means too my understanding that all data can be altered if mr randi chooses it.

I can think of some very fair tests, the are the MUCH better people at RV than me as i am only a begginer and they won't take it so i am very, very suspicious. If they have not taken it a long time ago and beaten it with ease, that is the reason why I believe I will not get a fair test.


"As for how RV would help you with the stock market, I'm still at a loss." You can determine a probable future using RV as long as it is close enought to when you RV it, i am talking days and hours here, not weeks. Roulette, blackjack, after RV'ing a long time you developed like intuition precognition too a degree this can be trained too give you unfair advantages in games, turning a game of chance, into a game of skill.


"If I thought I might have paranormal powers, I'd be chomping at the bit to get JREF's money." - These powers are normal, everyone has them they just need to be trained to develop.

 

[scotth]

It means too my understanding that all data can be altered if mr randi chooses it.

You obviously don't understand very well. It means nothing of the sort.

I can think of some very fair tests, the are the MUCH better people at RV than me as i am only a begginer and they won't take it so i am very, very suspicious. If they have not taken it a long time ago and beaten it with ease, that is the reason why I believe I will not get a fair test.

Or they really aren't that much (any) better, and in fact can't do it all.

"As for how RV would help you with the stock market, I'm still at a loss." You can determine a probable future using RV as long as it is close enought to when you RV it, i am talking days and hours here, not weeks. Roulette, blackjack, after RV'ing a long time you developed like intuition precognition too a degree this can be trained too give you unfair advantages in games, turning a game of chance, into a game of skill.

I find the fact that Las Vegas still exists (and allows gambling) as very strong evidence to the contrary.

"If I thought I might have paranormal powers, I'd be chomping at the bit to get JREF's money." - These powers are normal, everyone has them they just need to be trained to develop.

How much are you paying for this training, might I ask?

 

[jackmott]

Joe, I'll give you a $100 of my own if you can successfully remote view.

We can agree on the test right here in this forum. Sound good?

It means too my understanding that all data can be altered if mr randi chooses it.

I can think of some very fair tests, the are the MUCH better people at RV than me as i am only a begginer and they won't take it so i am very, very suspicious. If they have not taken it a long time ago and beaten it with ease, that is the reason why I believe I will not get a fair test.


"As for how RV would help you with the stock market, I'm still at a loss." You can determine a probable future using RV as long as it is close enought to when you RV it, i am talking days and hours here, not weeks. Roulette, blackjack, after RV'ing a long time you developed like intuition precognition too a degree this can be trained too give you unfair advantages in games, turning a game of chance, into a game of skill.


"If I thought I might have paranormal powers, I'd be chomping at the bit to get JREF's money." - These powers are normal, everyone has them they just need to be trained to develop.

 

[Interesting Ian]

If you are serious about examining what research has already been done about RV then the premier research body is the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research group (PEAR),

What makes them the premier research body?

who have been doing this for at least 25 years now. However, Claus Larsen has already referenced Shapes In The Clouds, in which it is revealed that in 2001 PEAR had to admit that there was NO evidence for RV from their entire 25 years of research data.

Where do they state this precisely?

But this was not news to the scientific world - PEAR's research began to confirm this conclusion many years ago, possibly decades ago.

We're talking specifically about RV here aren't we? You're not trying to be dishonest and trying to taint the rest of their research of anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation??

OK, so decades ago. But this can only be 25 years ago since, according to you, this is when they started. So you claim that from the very start they were getting results consistent with chance. I trust you can provide the appropriate reference?

And yet they pushed on with many different types of research even then, some more valid than others. Only to confirm the result - there is no evidence to support the notion of remote viewing.

What are all these different types of research into RV? You're claiming every single one of them shows negative results?

However, you may not yet be convinced. So perhaps you might go back to research from before Mr Randi was borne - the turn of the 20th century - and you will discover much research in the 1920's that promised something but ultimately led to nothing, even then.

You know what you need to do. Provide the references

So while there may be some possibility that a fanciful notion like RV may work, after something like a hundred years of research that proves there is nothing,

These are very strong and confident assertions you're making here Zep. I hope you can justify your position.

there comes a time when there has to be a decision made - how much more research needs to be done to confirm that there is indeed nothing there?

Until a person like me is absolutely convinced there's nothing there. If there's a possibility of it existing, then it's too damn important *not* to carry out the research.

How much more testing has to be done before we can conclude with some certainty that RV does NOT exist? The answer today is that that point has long been reached for all but the most crackpot, or possibly just grant-hungry, researchers.

There must be a lot of negative evidence out there then! Let's see it all.

 

[jackmott]

Ian, the list of interesting and important paranormal abilities that might exist is endless.

what evidence have you seen that suggests remove viewing is any more likely than any of these endless possibilities, such that it warrants and investment of time and money to see if anything is there?

Can you yourself demonstrate the ability? Or present someone who can? Its so terribly easy to test!

Or are you just going to go on making LONG posts which in the end say nothing other than "just because we haven't seen it happen yet doesn't mean its not possible"? My reference is the Penn/Teller show "BS", feel free to investigate further and keep us posted.



Thank you captain obvious!

and just for some more negative evidence, SRI, or Stanford Research Institute investigated RV for years, spent $20mil in US taxpayer money, and found nothing.

What makes them the premier research body?



Where do they state this precisely?



We're talking specifically about RV here aren't we? You're not trying to be dishonest and trying to taint the rest of their research of anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation??

OK, so decades ago. But this can only be 25 years ago since, according to you, this is when they started. So you claim that from the very start they were getting results consistent with chance. I trust you can provide the appropriate reference?



What are all these different types of research into RV? You're claiming every single one of them shows negative results?



You know what you need to do. Provide the references



These are very strong and confident assertions you're making here Zep. I hope you can justify your position.



Until a person like me is absolutely convinced there's nothing there. If there's a possibility of it existing, then it's too damn important *not* to carry out the research.




There must be a lot of negative evidence out there then! Let's see it all.