• 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?

BillyJoe said:
And if he declined this test, because he can see inside rooms, but not what is drawn on cards....
Click to expand...

have X diffrent pairs of objects. (umbrella, ball, bottle etc)

and place one of the objects in a room.

then the testee are allowed to focus on the room, after he "sees inside the room' he is presented with the X duplicate objects, and are allowed to pick one of them. Repeat 5 (?) times?
 
Curnir said:
have X diffrent pairs of objects. (umbrella, ball, bottle etc) etc etc
Click to expand...
This would be better, yes.

(Of course, if his claim is that his gift is random, you would have to go check out that room in Moscow that he remote-viewed for you just now. Goddamn!)
 
BillyJoe said:
But, you still have to test them on what they claim they can do.
Click to expand...

Then, as Paul said, put a huge Zener card in the room.

What, they can see "an oblong object" (which, naturally could be a Greek column, or a pencil), but not a totally dominating Zener card?

Rrrrrrright..... :rolleyes:

The point is, by not just accommodating them, but by going all the way, you reveal the inherently vague nature of their claims, thereby making it clear that they know that they really can't do what they claim, but have to rely on interpretation.
 
CFLarsen said:
The point is, by not just accommodating them, but by going all the way, you reveal the inherently vague nature of their claims, thereby making it clear that they know that they really can't do what they claim, but have to rely on interpretation.
Click to expand...
I know I sound like a broken record, but you must still test them on what they claim they can do, and if their claims are so vague that it's impossible to design a test, then at least you have demonstrated how vague their presumed powers actually are.
 
Okay, so we can just ask them whether they can see anything in the room that we could verify. If they say yes, then ask them what that thing is and run the experiments with it. If they say no, then ask them how it is they know they are remote viewing the room and watch their heads explode.

Seems to me that we must test them on what they claim they can do, but we can also test them on things that a reasonable person agrees would logically follow from what they can do. For example, if they say they can see color, then put a huge colored rectangle on the wall and ask what color it is.

~~ Paul
 
Zener cards are useless for remote viewing.

Come on you paranormal experts you, you spend enough time debating about it to be able to come up with a decent test.
 
You couldn't even put a big green poster on a wall of a remote room and ask the viewer what color it is. In the RV procedures, the viewer scribbles crap on a piece of paper, then someone else evaluates the scribbles and finds reasons why the scribbles match what was viewed. The scribbler doesn't claim to know what he saw, in the times I've read their convoluted, obfuscated procedures.

To properly test them on what they claim they can do, you'd need to test both the viewer and the interpreter. Have eight rooms set up with a distinct object in each. The interpreter could know what's in these eight, and even help in their setup.

Then eight viewers would be assigned one room each, and the interpreter would evaluate each, without knowing who did it or which room that person was assigned, and match each drawing to a specific room. You would also need to scramble the assignments, so that if a viewer would not be able to put the letter A on the paper to refer to the room the interpreter knows as room A. The viewer and interpreter would have to be blinded from the scrambling process. For example, the viewer might be assigned room A, but the interpreter would know it as room 4. This mapping that A=4 has to be hidden from them both.

Getting all eight right would be a chance result of 1/40320, sufficient for a reliable test if everything is controlled for cheating.
 
In such a set-up you should have an additional eight people who sit in empty rooms and scribble whatever crap they feel like onto the page. These are mixed in with the actual eight RV papers. You have to have some "duds" in there, otherwise some of the "matches" can be done by a process of elimination rather than being evaluated on their own merits.
 
1338845c9ecad937a2.jpg


I received the above "course" info a couple of days ago and thought I'd share so as to amuse/depress you all. It's worth noting the "therapeautic" direction RV seems to be sliming towards.

I recently got into one on a hypnotherapy forum with the course teacher after he posted a claim that he considered Uri Geller's idiocy about Sadam Hussein being captured courtesy of a Remote Viewer to be likely! He's pretty much fallen for all woo nonsense hook, line and sinker and completely believes no matter what the authenticity of his RV guesses oops experiences.

What's scary is that alongside "teaching" he also has a flourishing therapy practice!
 
I should add that a minor test was done about 6 months ago with someone who'd been on a earlier RV course of his:

A picture was secretly drawn and placed in an envelope. The viewer then did her thing and wrote a whole A4 page of what she "saw". When the picture - a noughts & crosses game - was then compared to the "viewing" results, out of an entire sheet of notes only one thing matched (a circle).
The viewer then happily exclaimed "well, at least I got that right!".
 
JonWhite said:
It's worth noting the "therapeautic" direction RV seems to be sliming towards.
Click to expand...

"Think of all the billions of things, people and events in this world that could be remote viewed for positive benefits, such as medical and psychological diagnosis."

What?

Is it just me, or does that make no sense whatsoever? Unless they mean a doctor or psychologist could remotely view a patient to diagnose them ... no, that still doesn't make any sense.
 
I wouldn't say it was perfectly safe, if your a mentally healthy person yes, able to establish reality from fantasy and look at things objectively, but for someone who blindly believes everything they view is fact and will has/is/was happen(ing) (*cought* ed dames) I would think perhaps would cause then problems. So some people shouldn't do it in the first place, as they can't accept that they totally missed.

I think he does mean medical diags.
 
JonWhite said:
When the picture - a noughts & crosses game - was then compared to the "viewing" results, out of an entire sheet of notes only one thing matched (a circle).
The viewer then happily exclaimed "well, at least I got that right!".
Click to expand...

For my fellow 'merkins, noughts & crosses translates to tic-tac-toe.
 
Steven Howard said:
"Think of all the billions of things, people and events in this world that could be remote viewed for positive benefits, such as medical and psychological diagnosis."

What?

Is it just me, or does that make no sense whatsoever? Unless they mean a doctor or psychologist could remotely view a patient to diagnose them ... no, that still doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

I don't know what that means either, at least the psychological part, but it would be need if a good pathologist could remote view into a human body. Now, that would be useful. Alas, not to be.

One thing: if the military believes that this crap works, why do they even bother with guards? If this stuff worked, every government buidling would look like effin Versaille on the inside with mirrors and blind hallways everywhere.
 
Slimething said:
One thing: if the military believes that this crap works, why do they even bother with guards? If this stuff worked, every government buidling would look like effin Versaille on the inside with mirrors and blind hallways everywhere.
Click to expand...
It might not work well enough to dispense with the guards. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom