Remote Viewing Proof.

[ChadRichens]

If you don't know which picture is chosen, then you may be able to be a fair judge. But I wouldn't trust a person (regardless of how unbiased they think they are -- and including myself) to judge if they know which picture has been chosen due to the confirmation bias and similar metal flaws common to humans. :)

Yea, but thats the thing.
If the Judge is the person that is testing it, they arn't trying to prove it to the testee. They are trying to prove it to themselves, so whether or not they lie, they will know whether or not the result strongly implies that there is something to remote viewing.

And, yeah I agree, it would take someone or multiple people getting it more than once, but not every time is expected, I would just like to find someone that says they can do it well and test them on it a lot, or a group of people that do it regularly, which i believe there are some groups around for it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, you are wrong. Ivan can confirm it, since I sent him a private message before your attempt.

Yep, not even close.

Note also that even the "remote viewers" don't claim that a person can do this without training. The claim is that remote viewing is highly technique dependent. Unfortunately, this means that many people will pay for this "training", which raises the possibility of a scam.

We had one person allegedly trained in remote viewing who was going to help with a demonstration, but she disappeared. I also invited one of the leaders of this to provide a demo, but apparently that is considered a personal insult.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yea, but thats the thing.
If the Judge is the person that is testing it, they arn't trying to prove it to the testee. They are trying to prove it to themselves, so whether or not they lie, they will know whether or not the result strongly implies that there is something to remote viewing.

Yes, but I wouldn't trust myself to fail to see patterns that aren't there. You shouldn't trust yourself in this respect either. It has nothing to do with intentional deception and everything to do with an overly active pattern-matching facility in our brains.

 

[Savant13]

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.

It's been done before. Ever hear of Houdini?

The real reason no one bothers is because they can't get funding for it and feel it would be a waste of time. The people who get disproven always come up with some excuse or another anyway.

 

[Savant13]

Yea, but thats the thing.
If the Judge is the person that is testing it, they arn't trying to prove it to the testee. They are trying to prove it to themselves, so whether or not they lie, they will know whether or not the result strongly implies that there is something to remote viewing.

And, yeah I agree, it would take someone or multiple people getting it more than once, but not every time is expected, I would just like to find someone that says they can do it well and test them on it a lot, or a group of people that do it regularly, which i believe there are some groups around for it.

Well how often would it be expected? How would we compare this to a person who is just guessing? How do we know that the person who is 'remote viewing' isnt just better at guessing?

 

[ChadRichens]

Well how often would it be expected? How would we compare this to a person who is just guessing? How do we know that the person who is 'remote viewing' isnt just better at guessing?

"we" is the wrong word here, there's no way you're ever going to prove to a mass of people and make it the general concensus that Remote Viewing is real through any amount of experimentation.

I would suggest going to a site like http://www.rvcommunity.net/

Find someone that says they are a highly capable remote viewer, and ask them what information they need to remote view an object or picture for you.

I can't tell you how many accurate experiments it's going to take to turn you into a believer. No one but you can decide that, and these experiments are only capable of doing that, not proving it to anyone but the person that makes the test, anyone else knowing about the object or picture would compromise the experiment.
If I found someone on that site and they were able to describe a picture to me that I had in a sealed envelope and could reproduce it, I would believe that there is something to remote viewing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are making false statements and linking crackpot sites. That is not allowed. If remote viewing could be reliably demonstrated, then it wouldn't be questioned.