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

Remote Viewing Proof.

  1. Dec 1, 2008 #1
    I'm honestly not sure whether or not the scientific community see's remote viewing as real or not, but after watching lots of youtube video's, I'm an expert. =]
    Remote Viewing is like a sixth sense that every has and no one realizes. From birth we are hardwired into believing that the thought of such a thing is absurd, so we never give it too much thought, but lots of people with fancy titles and lots of schooling are saying that its real and all you have to do is try it.
    I discovered it through a video on Youtube titled "How Remote Viewing Works: Dr. Simeon Hein Pt. 1." There are 7 parts of that particular explanation, and for a lot of it, he just gives examples of classes that he's been teaching on Remote Viewing and examples of how someone with limited knowledge of the subject could learn to do it in a matter of a couple of hours. Then during the last part he does one for the audience, which you're able to do yourself, and for me, it worked and I got the picture shot on.. which shocked me into belief as i'm highly critical about crackpot theories and i know the length some people will go to try to get you to believe something.

    So I was just thinking, that a good way to prove it to yourself would be to make a Video and post it on youtube, but never in the video would you tell people what they are supposed to be viewing, you would just print off a picture and have it next to you, but never actually show the picture, and leave it to the viewers to comment on the video and tell you what they came up with.

    Wouldn't this be a sure-fire way of proving to yourself that its real?

    Keep in mind that this is just 1 person, proving it to themselves, because anyone that doesn't actually make the video, and know for a fact that no one else could know what the picture is, could be sure whether or not it's real based on this experiment.

    Just a thought.
    Let me know if anyone can prove it doesn't exist. It would help my current fragile hold on what I thought reality was up until yesterday.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 1, 2008 #2


    User Avatar

    Nobody can prove a universal negative! So, nobody can prove that remote viewing, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny don't exist.
  4. Dec 1, 2008 #3
    I apologize for not including "[Sarcasm] [/Sarcasm]" around that text. Thanks for the input though!
  5. Dec 1, 2008 #4


    User Avatar

  6. Dec 1, 2008 #5
    It's always very interesting to me, the lengths a person that is biased in a certain direction before ever doing research will go to trying to disprove something without ever considering the possibility that it could actually be the truth.

    If you're that bent on disproving something why not show yourself that it's fake with a simple test against those that say they it's real?

    I know why. They are afraid of some unknown inert ability being able to do something that shakes up their grasp of reality. So their mind never lets them consider the possibilty of something like this being real, and they instead just flood the opposition with the reasons they don't think its plausable that they could be telling the truth.
  7. Dec 1, 2008 #6


    User Avatar

    I will say it one more time:It is not possible to disprove remote viewing!. Even if someone shows that some remote viewers are cheating or deluded, this does not prove that someone else is not the true thing.
    It is not up to me to prove remote viewing does not exist. It's up to you to prove that it exists. The onus of the proof is to the claimant.
    Show me your proofs. If they are consistent, I may change my mind, but I will not believe it only because you say it. In the same way that you don't have to believe me when I say that there is an invisible little demon hovering above your head while you read this post.
    Prove me there is no such demon!
  8. Dec 1, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Addressing the OP: If remote viewing is possible, and some fraction of the population can display this "talent", James Randi would be a million dollars poorer, right now.
  9. Dec 1, 2008 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm not defending the general claims related to remote viewing, and I have corresponded with one of the "leading" remote viewers who came off like a complete crackpot, but what you say may not be true. I saw a remote viewing demo done for Michael Shermer, and I thought the guy was close to a direct hit, but Shermer simply denied it.

    The problem is that success or failure is often subjective. But what struck me was that Shermer was unwilling to admit that it was even curious. IMO, HE was not being objective. And I have zero trust of Randi. His credibility is certainly not beyond question - being a slight of hand expert and a person trained in deception, with a million bucks to lose.

    The hidden test photo was I think the Hubble Deep Field image, and the description given by the viewer was that he saw a "whirlpool of energy", which to me sounded descriptive of the galaxies seen in the photo. Not a direct hit, but he didn't say it was a Buick either. And given the vagueness of the image, I'm not sure what would have qualified as a direct hit, esp if the person didn't know what he was seeing.

    I think anyone genuinely interested in the truth would have pursued this further.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2008
  10. Dec 1, 2008 #9
    Ah, just a misunderstanding then, I'm saying that the only way for me to prove it to you, is to teach you to prove it to yourself.

    Yes, I agree, anyone not willing to believe it can be biased and until they accept it as a possibility and try it for themself, they wouldn't know for themselves.

    It's the experience of Remote Viewing that's so intriguing, more so than the actual results, and i've found that it's definately worth looking into a least, although I'm not sure how dead on it's possible to get to the target on a consistant basis.

    Let me just reiterate one more time, I'm not trying to prove to you that remote viewing is real by showing you examples and saying, "Oooh, this blob looks similar to that blob so it must be real!", only that you can prove to yourself that remote viewing is possible through other people getting close to the target you know they couldn't possibly have prior knowledge of.
  11. Dec 1, 2008 #10


    User Avatar

    OK! I am willing to be proved wrong. Tell me how!
  12. Dec 1, 2008 #11


    User Avatar

    It is just the opposite! Being a professional magician, Randi can detect trickery, while scientists can not. The few scientists that allowed Randi to establish protocols for testing from ESP to homeopathy, perceived how naive they were.
  13. Dec 1, 2008 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No, not really. So I print out a picture of the Mona Lisa and 50 people comment on my video; one guesses it's the Mona Lisa. Did the person see, or just guess?

    What if someone just says 'it's a famous paining', but not which one... good enough? What if they guess 'a smiling woman'?

    Here's a method of testing that would be able to convince me. First, pick a pool of 'likely psychics' by whatever means you prefer; perhaps running a test like you suggested with a hidden object and a YouTube video. You will need the cooperation of these subjects and some means to stay in contact.

    1. Prepare a collection of a number of objects (perhaps 10) suitable for viewing. These should be very distinctive items, not easily confused with each other or unrelated objects.

    2. Using fair dice, select one of the objects randomly. Place in a location deemed suitable for remote viewing but hidden from plain view. Place all other objects together in a different location. Make the location for the other objects very different from the first location (though also hidden from direct viewing). Describe to the subjects the location of the target object.

    3. Have all subjects report the following privately:
    a. Whether they were able to sense the object or not.
    b. Whether the viewed object was in the location described.
    c. Whether the parameters of the test are, in their view, a fair test of their remote viewing abilities.
    d. What confidence they place in their predictions.
    e. The description of the object.
    At the end of a predetermined deadline (or when all subjects have submitted their reports), announce the end of the round of testing.

    4. Discard all reports that claim to have not sensed the object, that could not locate the object in the location described, or that feel that the parameters of the test are not fair.

    5. Move all objects, used and unused, to a new unhidden location. Give the remaining reports to a preselected judge (not yourself or any of the subjects) who matches reports to objects using his/her best judgment. Record for each subject the result of the round: PASS (did not meet deadline, or discarded in step 4), CORRECT, or INCORRECT.*

    6. Repeat the above steps for the desired number of rounds. The objects may be changed or left the same.

    The subjects may not be notified of the results until the completion of all rounds.

    * Note on step 5: Ideally, a different judge would be used for each round. If a judge is used for two or more rounds, the judge must not see the results of any round until the judge is finished with all rounds.
  14. Dec 2, 2008 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    True, but he made a living by tricking people. Why does he deserve unquestioned credibility; just be cause he is a debunker?

    Also, the last time I checked, Randi was not a valid scientific reference, so why do people wish to treat him like one; just because he is a debunker?
  15. Dec 2, 2008 #14
    My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that.


    You're honestly one step away from saying "Science is a conspiracy!!"
  16. Dec 2, 2008 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Give me a break. Randi is not even a scientist.

    I realize that he contributes to science education. Does that make his motives beyond question? Does that give him unquestioned credibility? If so, then my point is made.

    He has softened over the years, and he has certainly debunked some big-league crackpots [I used to admire him], but my first contact with Randi left me thinking him a complete nut. You can always tell - simple, honest, and reasonable questions provoke hostility. Incidently, I use the same measuring stick for people like our CIA trained "remote viewer". He reacted in much the same way.

    Conversely, most people I contact, and there are many, respond in a very friendly and reasonable manner. As a rule, only the crackpots are hostile.

    Phil Klass and I got along fine, and he was one of the most agressive UFO debunkers of his time.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2008
  17. Dec 2, 2008 #16
    I Do agree that it would be better to have the results submitted privately, but I don't think that in trying to prove this to yourself, you need any other judge than yourself unless you see yourself as biased in one direction or the other.
    I usually try to simplify experiments. I know that nothing I say or do, and no number of test results I show someone, is going to "prove" to them that a subject like this, that the mind is so closed to, is real.
    So the only things I consider are the comfort that I'm the only person in the world that knows what the picture is.(Unless you go double-blind and You don't even know)
    Keep in mind that by picture of something I don't mean work of art, I mean a picture, of any random thing in the universe. Things that someone hasn't experienced anything like before will be harder for amateur remote viewers, so a picture of some random location, thing, craft.

    I would actually suggest Printing out 10 or so pictures of 10 different things locations or crafts, and turning them upside down so you can't tell which one is which, and then randomly selecting one and never looking at it yourself. Just describe where the location of it is, and never let them see it outside of a sealed envelope.

    If you read 8 of the responses, and as you read the descriptions, you saw that it almost directly described the picture that No One knew about, wouldn't that be proof enough?
    It would be for me at least, keeping in mind that I know its futile to try to prove this to anyone else, at least I would know for sure. And others that are skeptics could do the same test and see for themselves.
    Of course there are going to be some crappy answers, some sarcastic answers, from people that don't actually know what they're doing, but if out of those 25 responses even 2 or 3 described something perfectly that you didn't even know.
    The first thing I would do before reading the descriptions after giving them ample time is look at the picture, and describe it yourself as you're seeing it. Look at the surrounding area of the picture, describe that, think of what it would smell or taste like there, or what might be near by, describe that. Then look at the responses and compare them to your description.
  18. Dec 2, 2008 #17


    User Avatar

    Let's test it. I am looking at a picture in front of my desk. What is in it? If Ivan accepts to be the arbiter, I will post it to him in a private message.
    Even if you guess correctly, this is not proof of remote viewing, but is a reasonable evidence. If you guess correctly eight out of ten pictures I choose, this will be a strong evidence.
  19. Dec 2, 2008 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Feel free to pm.
  20. Dec 2, 2008 #19
    See this is what I meant about the third party judge though, If I guessed it spot on, wouldn't the question pop into your head, "Wow.. Ivan must have told him what it was."
    I don't mind if you lie to me and say "No, that wasn't it." or "Wow, I'm amazed, I guess there is something to this." It's not like there is a prize for me guessing it right, or that I have anything to gain, its about the person that makes the test knowing 100% that its not just random guesses that happen to be close, there are actually mind powers out there that we havn't tapped into.

    Keeping that in mind, I've never once tried to remote view anything. I've read up on it, and become very intrigued. I'll give it my best shot, from what I can tell it involves strict subconcious concentration on the location of the target, although i'm not really sure what information is given, I'm just going to go with "Picture in front of your desk" and hope thats enough.

    Confirm for me that the picture is there and not going anywhere, and I'll start trying. and If you want Ivan to know, thats fine, its just that I think that would compromise absolute assuridy that you're the only one that could know what it is, which would be crucial in proving it for me if i made the test.
  21. Dec 2, 2008 #20
    Alright -- Like I said, this is my first time attempting this, and I had this information. "Picture in front of my desk"

    I'm not sure if this is totally off base, or if I actually saw your picture, or something around your desk, but Just going with what popped into my head when I started trying.
    Little Girl
    Dark Brown Hair

    I see her writing or drawing at a desk
    Also saw her on a swing

    spent about 5 minutes on sitting down and thinking with a pen and paper, I would be pretty shocked if this was anywhere close, and really its kind of far fetched to me, I would guess that your picture would be of something or some object or location instead of a person if I was thinking logically, but since im not supposed to, for remote viewing, there's what I came up with.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Remote Viewing Proof.
  1. How to remote view? (Replies: 18)