Comments on: Skeptic agrees Remote Viewing is proven

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:37:00 +0000

Laura: A few questions. Were these drawings you produced accurate, or an approximation that you could then (after finding out what was in the box) link to the items you were supposed to be viewing? I.e., say one of the objects was a toy ball with Disney princesses on it, would the drawing then be a vaguely circular thing, or look like a ball with humanoid figures on it?
If the former, I’d put that down to chance. If the latter, I suggest you do a few more trials to see whether you can produce these results consistently, call the local paper or tv station to get a ‘media presence’, and apply for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. Because if you CAN produce these results consistently and at the percentage you claim (much higher than chance), you WOULD win the prize.

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 02:53:45 +0000

I and a friend set up a blind-box experiment one time following Ingo Swann’s description of the process and got, not exaggerating, 85-95% accuracy. Object size, shape, position and orientation on multiple objects, and even some characteristics unique to that object. Again, only did it one time, but would love to try it again.

Have someone select random objects, number undetermined, and secure in a closed cardboard box. Hang from ceiling. Have someone else try to “see” and draw the objects — WITHOUT NAMING THEM TO THEMSELVES. (Not naming or describing is the only hard part.) You just might be as surprised as we were.

BTW, Carr is a fraud. Could tell as soon as he started describing what he was seeing. Can’t do that without adding so much distortion as to make the exercise futile.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:16:59 +0000

> never pay attention to western science in such matters … completely useless … ask a yogi

I did ask Yogi and he said “Scientists are cleverer than the average bear boo-boo…”

By: Marv

Marv — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:39:01 +0000

@JayKay

Ok mate, happy to oblige. Traditional ‘psychic’ readings occur with the ‘psychic’ (god I hate that word) knowing something about the info they are delving for…eg the name of your dead relative, the location of the murder, etc etc.

The term ‘Remote Viewing’ refers instead to a strict protocol in which the viewer knows NOTHING about the target. Ideally they won’t even know who the person who picked the target IS. All they will get are some co-ordinate numbers (eg 1234 5679) and be told to describe the target. That’s it.

The information they supply (usually employing a methodological approach designed to repress the ‘guessing’ conscious mind and access the subconscious instead) is then checked against the target to ascertain the degree of match or accuracy

Now as entertaining and fun as Derren’s experiment may be you see why the protocol has been breached and why it is thus not really ‘remote viewing’ per se. We know that the target is a 2D image (devilishly hard to remote view btw) on a large board covered in newspaper in a building somewhere. We have also most probably been subjected to various visual cues which will influence our sketch when we come to draw it. We have also discussed on these boards, with others, what it MIGHT be and what we think it may be.

In other words the RV protocol here is shot to the proverbial. Doesn’t stop it being a ggod crack, but there we go. Whatever floats yer boat.

Check out my site at http://www.thehomemadeviewer.com for more info if I haven’t already bored you to tears. : )

Best,

Marv

By: JayKay

JayKay — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:59:47 +0000

@thecolinrocks – Going back to your post, can you explain why the speed of light wouldn’t be relative here?

By: JayKay

JayKay — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:26:30 +0000

@ Marv – Can you explain the scientific protocol thing to me? I’m really in 2 minds about this and think it would be easy to discount it, yet having read up on a few mind blowing theories, I can also see how thee inexplicable things could possibly be explained. And I don’t mean explained by merely showing that false positives occur – I mean by theories posed by Bohm etc. And I’m sure Derren will absolutely leave us dangling and in 2 minds after Friday’s show – because it is currently impossible to totally discount. Unless he has found a way to. The postings are deliberately provocative and they encourage us initially to draw hasty conclusions. But then the clever folks at Brown Towers post others which force us to rethink and to go and read up more. If you have experience of it, post it up

By: Marv

Marv — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:48:54 +0000

ffs Remote Viewing is a SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOL. It is not synonymous with ‘being psychic’. If the protocol is not adhered to (as in Derren’s experiment) then it is NOT remote viewing. Period. It’s exasperating reading all these posts when 99% of people’s knowledge of the subject is half-arsed at best.

What makes this entire discussion/thread ever so slightly laughable is that you are all approx a couple of hours’ personal experimentation away from realising that remote viewing is utterly possible.

Get a friend to place a photograph of a place, object or thing in an envelope. Make sure they give you ZERO clues about what it is. Sit down somewhere quiet with pen and paper, clear your mind, focus on task, record impressions. Check photo when done. Practice.

Or just keep mocking….

By: cody

cody — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:51:04 +0000

@Dan – yes I think the above is missing a key bit from the source article where Richard Wiseman gives a (qualified) acknowledgement that it has been proven:

–
He says: “I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.
–

So he sort of agrees, but sort of doesn’t. Presumably this is similar to the dead fish that responds to pictures of humans under an MRI? Test enough crazy things and you’ll eventually get some crazy correlations?

By: Lab Rat

Lab Rat — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:58:09 +0000

Hang on – one person who knows a bit about statistics (hired by the US govt presumably hunting for something to show for its $20 million) believes in it, so therefore the legions of other equally-qualified people are all truth-deniers?! And you’ve taken this from someone’s blog which spouts nonsense about the paranormal, which in turn is quoting an article in the DAILY MAIL for goodness sake??!! Have you gone mad or has someone hacked into your website?!!!

- Calm down Tanya – it’s just a bit of fun petal. We love poking fun at that clever git RW, he made a right monkey out of me! – Phillis

By: Greetje

Greetje — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:26:49 +0000

What if it is about the hyperstatic (very up system without the normal brain structure/pattern that forms normally the bases ..), a bit as being in love .. shinier world (literally as your brain (not all) gets triggered differently and your senses work different as well and you will see people way different .. brown eyes become blue and vice versa etc. What if you start to connect from this state from a distance to people’s selfes … not the ones in the back .. but their normal selfes … Can we see them then ? And the location etc.?
And can it be that it is for everybody different .. that we all need to find, if we want that, our own capacities, which might not be in the same system, as we are all different.

Yes, interesting it remains ..