Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

PF Remote Viewing Test: Object Revealed Any Winner? P. 7

  1. Box

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
  2. Ellipsoidal / Spherical

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  3. Cylindrical / tubular

    3 vote(s)
    21.4%
  4. Segmented

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
  5. Disk / Planar

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  6. Opaque

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  7. Clear

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
  8. Bright colors

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  9. Dark colors

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  10. White

    3 vote(s)
    21.4%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Oct 26, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    PF Remote Viewing Test: Win a prize!

    Zero had a great idea: Let's do our own "psi" experiments.

    For starters, how about if we try some remote viewing?

    I live right in the middle of Oregon. I have a large black bag with lime-green and white shipping peanuts inside [some are white, some are green]. Also inside is a mystery object. Focus on the bag and the peanuts; now what do you see in the bag sitting on the peanuts? I have left this sitting exactly as shown.

    Please see the attached pic to see the black bag. The attachment should come up shortly.

    I will give a PF T-shirt to the first person who can describe the object in the bag to my satisfaction. Here is a link to see the shirt and other PF favorites.

    http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/store.aspx?s=physicsforum [Broken]

    EDIT: Oh yes, just in case, only one psychic viewing and answer per person. :wink: Also, please refrain from looking around my office.


    I have sent a picture of this object to Greg who can later validate the results. Obviously Greg and anyone who sees the picture of this object can’t participate. I will announce the date of disclosure at a later time.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 27, 2003 #2
    If I guess what's in the bag, I don't want a T-shirt. I want James Randi's million dollar prize.
     
  4. Oct 27, 2003 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you get it dead on, by name, in an effort to match Randi's challenge, I will up the prize to a PF sweatshirt.
     
  5. Oct 27, 2003 #4
    Its a DVD of Matrix Relaoded, we all know it is...
     
  6. Oct 27, 2003 #5
    Did I win?
     
  7. Oct 27, 2003 #6

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's a duck.

    - Warren
     
  8. Oct 27, 2003 #7

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is one of a pair of Motorola T5820 2-Way Radios in Sunstreak yellow.

    Njorl
     
  9. Oct 27, 2003 #8
    Geez, give us a hard one! It's a Captain Zoom decoder ring from the 1950's in pristine condition.
     
  10. Oct 27, 2003 #9
    a Barbie doll (from your Sister A.)
     
  11. Oct 27, 2003 #10

    megashawn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is a small box containing answers to all mans mysterys:

    A piece of memory metal from Roswell.
    DNA samples of Bigfoot and Flying Rods
    Astrological evidence of Planet X
    A photo of John Titor and his time traveling machine entering the time vortex
    Exclusive proof (Via VHS cassete recording) of Hercules and Jesus duking it out to determine who the strongest half-god is.
    A map to Atlantis

    And I also sense a copy of the matrix. However, I sense this is a pirated copy, and have alerted the RIAA via pyschic communication.
     
  12. Oct 27, 2003 #11

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Ah... I am having some very... strong... vibrations...

    The spirits are talking to me now... Hark! I sense it is small, yet not too small, and it has hidden meaning... spiritual meaning... I sense it is pink, but pink in the essence, perhaps it is wreathed in some other form... maybe... blue... no wait.. brown... or some other colour containing a vowel... I sense... a long history in front and behind it.... Some faces... strange faces...

    Is it a brown teddy bear?

    then... again... my abilities allow me to see only the spiritual essence of the object, what it wants to be... ah... I am drained, I must have spiritual recuperation with the dollars of my ancestors... forgive me.

    Just give me the money!
     
  13. Oct 27, 2003 #12
    Mega,

    you forget to mention the crashed harddisk with the Bush-files.
     
  14. Oct 27, 2003 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Question:
    Does a remote viewer collapse the wave function of the object in my black bag?
     
  15. Oct 27, 2003 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is the shape?

    The answers must include a description if it is not obvious and conclusive.
     
  16. Oct 27, 2003 #15
    Ivan, you put an object into the bag. It's there. Greg knows. If nobody guesses it's still there. If someone guessed correctly it's still there. Nothing changes. It's a 3D-reality object with 3D coordinates. The only real thing you can say IMO is that it has a specific vibration: a proper resonance. The poster that can capture that specific resonance get's the T-shirt. No QM magic. Just capturing. What superposition? None. The object didn't get an extra feature by putting it inside the bag.
    The only difference is YOUR knowledge and OUR ignorance. Superposition is only an artificial expression of un-understanding. A complicated way to say: I don't know. Is that scientific? No. In fact it's even stupid.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2003
  17. Oct 27, 2003 #16
    This smells like a clue. He demands specificity because...someone's close, but not close enough.
     
  18. Oct 27, 2003 #17

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It's a PF T-shirt! Is it a PF T-shirt?!
     
  19. Oct 28, 2003 #18
    This is a scam...because I KNOW my psychic powers are strong!
     
  20. Oct 28, 2003 #19
    And it is a star or sun shape with a hole in it.
     
  21. Oct 29, 2003 #20
    Could it be a cat???

    or Lurch could be right.... A bunch of Physics Forum Sweatshirts...ahhhh from what I can see (its a little foggy.....)maybe grey or white in color...

    Sizes would range from small to XL....

    Now my recepters my be off cuz it is raining here in OR and that tends to throw my powers a little off
     
  22. Oct 29, 2003 #21

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yep, raining in Oregon. You guys all can see that, can't you?
     
  23. Oct 29, 2003 #22

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Update

    I just sent the following email to the top ten Remote Viewing sites that emerged from a Google search. Included were some of the better known, ex-military, ex-CIA remote viewers. My real name and personal email was included in the original letter.

    It will be interesting to see if we get a response.

     
  24. Oct 30, 2003 #23

    PJ

    User Avatar

    Well, OK, but no namecalling till I leave!

    These answers are great!

    For a useful debunking essay, visit the website of Brian Josephson (a Nobel winner in physics, out of Cambridge) for Drasin's: How To Debunk Just About Anything

    Anybody here bodybuild? Ever met someone who hears you work out and goes, "Flex for me!" or "How much do you lift?" "Well gee. On which muscle set? Flex what?" And aside from hoisting their Miata to impress them, do they know what constitutes measure in your world? (A girl who can lift 16lbs on the tibia is tough... But that wouldn't impress outsiders.)

    Given this is a physics forum (man am I impressed with any forum that has greek symbols in their smiley-box) I'll go out on a limb here and 'assume' y'all are monsterbrain science nuts. I'm not here to jump any case about clearly not being real educated about RV prior to creating a 'test' for it (and I can't buck your car up either) but Ivan Seeking was cordial, so I'll give a few pointers from my studies (such as they are--I claim no omniscience!), and anybody interested can put together something more practical.

    At that point, I'd be happy to see if I can recruit you some viewers to make fun of at your leisure. We reserve the right to make fun of you in forums you don't read either, if that's alright.

    Off the top of my pointy little head, here are a few of the major things worth knowing about RV:

    1. In practice it's an art, and the variation in personal skill is drastic. Laymen debate this, but research concluded only 1/2 of 1% of the population seems to be normally capable of something most skeptics would recognize as psi. (Hint: best way to avoid breaking your reality-model by recognizing anything as psi, is to take Ray Hyman's infamous way out by muttering something like, "There is clearly an effect here, but I would prefer not to call it psi." This will happily leave the door open, despite no actual evidence for doing so, for the next several centuries of official denial.)

    Now any intelligent measure of something a bit more abstract than chemistry will see there are 'degrees' of performance in anything, and every session varies, just to make it complicated to guarantee anything. (Then again, basketball is easy, visible and measurable, but even the pros don't always make it in.)

    This is a case where you can't judge the field by an individual. You really need to find an individual who has some legitimate scientific history of testing out as qualified, and then maybe you can consider them "an example". "Claimants" are seldom more than hype. The 'real deal' folks are usually pretty quiet. Obviously this complicates things for demos...

    Having jumped hoops for (in McMoneagle's case) about 20 years in the lab, and in-person demos, and live-camera demos, under a science protocol often managed by an Official Skeptic (a job which like bartending, anybody breathing can qualify for), those people most qualified might not give a rip about doing a session *outside scientific protocol* for someone on the internet who wants you to take time to 'prove' RV to them by remote viewing what's in their bag, under their pillow, in their mind, the lotto numbers, or other common requests.

    (Well those aren't the MOST common requests I get through my RV website. Usually they are things that inspire me to respond, "Remote viewing is, er, probably not for you. You might consider seeking professional help." In RV, like law, it's the 99% that give the other 1% a bad name.)

    2. Remote viewing is FREE RESPONSE psi. Better targets are generally--with photo feedback so the FB/target is real specific--a location, an event or situation, or some other fairly definitive snapshot in time/space. There are other issues related to target pool bandwidth and such but never mind. (See physics lab http://www.lfr.org/csl/ [Broken] for info.)

    3. It helps to know what RV is good at, and what it is not. The data that comes from RV is, with exceptions, a sampling of what is part of, in close proximity to, or fundamentally related to, the target. Yeah this sounds like serious waffling, but that's the way it is; you work with the tools you have.

    Say I do a practice session and I get there are these poles, made of metal, long skinny tubular, with some kind of pattern, multiples of them. The target feedback has several poles prominent in it just like that. Old telegraph poles I guess. I also got data that suggested multiple people had died, that bodies had been punctured, perhaps by bullets. Alas I had damn little info about the whole point of the target in the feedback: a parade of 21 coffins of miners shot by state militia during a strike in the late 1800's.

    So if that were a test, I really suck at viewing, because the target was "the parade of coffins" in the photo--I'd have been happy to describe the coffins, wagons, people, or concept of parade, or even public gathering to be awfully easy on myself, but Nooooo... I am not good at RV. Still, when you do enough, you consider empirically that the odds of describing some things so specifically which are either IN or directly related to (such as the 'cause' of) the target, over time, calling it coincidence really stretches it a bit.

    Now much of the time I suck even much worse than that example, I'm not a good candidate for proof. I'm just an interested layman who's been studying the research, intell-history, psi methodologies and the social field of RV for some years. (As you might imagine, it's much more fun from the closet-sociologist point of view than the others!)

    4. Remote Viewing when utilized in the real world is usually done in a team. All data is taken together and analyzed. (Analysis is the most important, yet most difficult part of this topic, since science that did ops holds it proprietary, intell that did ops won't share analysis methods, and most viewers/psychics are not... well, analysts by personality. With some exceptions.) Of course, the process of analysis might seriously muck it all up worse than any individual session was to begin with, esp. as this is self-trained mostly-layman-efforts to reinvent the wheel in this area.

    When one person does RV it isn't always expected to HAVE the answers--it is usually expected to provide info that *leads to* or *contributes to* answers. In combination with other intelligence sources (usually more mundane types), a real 'answer' can often be gleaned. That doesn't mean it isn't valuable; but for most targets, a radio-satellite is a helluva lot more useful. RV is useful for target where *there is no other way to find info* and so even an increase in your odds is worth it.

    5. RV is often done in multiple sessions. E.g, several viewers do a session on X, then a tasker considers what is most interesting (such as likely applicability to the question), and tasks more sessions based on that previous data. Obviously this requires your viewers be pretty decent from the start or you're doomed.

    If you ask most remote viewers--even those relatively decent by some standards--to describe what is in your bag, analytical interference is going to render the task unlikely to be done well. Too much frontloading. All RV should be doubleblind. Say nothing but 'describe the target'.

    It appears one can't do anything with the mind where both analysis and imagination do not play a part. Both are sort of tools, or ways of thinking, and both sort of simultaneously enable RV to be done, yet profoundly affect results, usually in the negative. For this reason all 'real' RV is done physically double-blind, and the practice viewers do constantly is in learning to let go of the mind's need to analyze and label everything.

    If you ask viewers double-blind to "describe the target" (which is what is in your bag), many will get around to something about it eventually (RV tends to do a general flitting about the target, and gradually as session lengthens, gets more specific to the 'point' of it), but on a first session, most will be describing parts of the bag, of you, of the creation/concept of what's in there, etc. As viewers are taught and trained to 'describe, not label/analyze', it is rare a viewer will just come out and name the target.

    So to summarize, if you're going to construct an experiment to look at remote viewing results, you will want to have:

    1. Totally free-response, something 'real' and not a simple little object (maybe to you it's the same, but even in a physics sense of energy and entropy, a location is not the same as a little plastic icon for example), pref with photo feedback, so the photo 'defines' what is targeted. {In fact, if you're going to bother challenging people in a given field, get some edu about it (I realize that was part of the email request), so you are actually testing for what they are claiming to do, not what you think they are claiming to do.} Choose something which is specific and set-apart a bit from other things. There is still a nearly infinite pool to choose from after all.
    2. At least several viewers.
    3. An understanding going in that you are more likely to get 'pieces of' things in the target, and impressions all over the target, than a clear description or name of "what it is." (It isn't a viewer's job to label things. Figuring out how the data applies to the question is the job of analysts, not viewers. It is their job to describe things. How well they do that depends on--well who knows, sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's laughable, you just never know!)
      [/list=1]
      As a last note: never believe anything you hear in the media. Well this probably goes for any topic, but especially RV!

      PJ
      http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  25. Oct 30, 2003 #24
    Re: Update

    Its a Breakfast Cereal Bowl.
     
  26. Oct 30, 2003 #25
    Re: Update

    I could be interesting to set-up an internet network of people claiming to have RV, and for example try to find out where Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri (number two in the former Iraqi regime) or Saddam Hussein are hiding. Apply on a large (closed) network some serious statistics and ponderation, scores, etc. That might give higher results than local intelligence.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook