Prove Remote Viewing Exists: YouTube Video Experiment

  • Thread starter ChadRichens
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary: I will concede that remote viewing could very well be a real phenomenon. However, until then, I remain unconvinced.
  • #1
ChadRichens
12
0
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
ChadRichens said:
I
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.
Nobody can prove a universal negative! So, nobody can prove that remote viewing, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny don't exist.
 
  • #3
CEL said:
Nobody can prove a universal negative! So, nobody can prove that remote viewing, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny don't exist.

I apologize for not including "[Sarcasm] [/Sarcasm]" around that text. Thanks for the input though!
 
  • #5
CEL said:
If you are interested in a good criticism of remote viewing, read this:
http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

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 let's them consider the possibility 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.
 
  • #6
ChadRichens said:
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 let's them consider the possibility 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.

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!
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
turbo-1 said:
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.

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:
  • #9
CEL said:
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!

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.


Ivan Seeking said:
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.

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 definitely 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.
 
  • #10
ChadRichens said:
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.
OK! I am willing to be proved wrong. Tell me how!
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
IAnd 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.

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.
 
  • #12
ChadRichens said:
Wouldn't this be a sure-fire way of proving to yourself that its real?

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.
 
  • #13
CEL said:
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.

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?
 
  • #14
Ivan Seeking said:
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.

My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation

You're honestly one step away from saying "Science is a conspiracy!"
 
  • #15
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 aggressive UFO debunkers of his time.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
CRGreathouse said:
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.

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.
 
  • #17
ChadRichens said:
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.

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.
 
  • #18
Feel free to pm.
 
  • #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 subconscious 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 that's 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, that's 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.
 
  • #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 I am not supposed to, for remote viewing, there's what I came up with.
 
  • #21
ChadRichens said:
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 I am not supposed to, for remote viewing, there's what I came up with.

Well, you are wrong. Ivan can confirm it, since I sent him a private message before your attempt.
Of course it occurred me that Ivan could tell you what was in my message.But Ivan seems sincerely interested in the investigation of psy phenomena and it is unlikely that he would cheat in order to make a point.
I chose him, instead of a hard skeptic, in order to assure you that I and the arbiter are not cheating you.
 
  • #22
yeah, weird though, not sure what made me think of a little brown haired girl.. I kept trying though, and she kept popping up.. lol
 
  • #23
"Also, very vivid images are probably imagination, not remote viewing, because remote viewed images are blurred and indistinct, especially at first. If you can identify the image, then it likely is not from remote viewing the target. In remote viewing, you will see indistinct profiles, shapes, and colors, but they will not look like something identifiable. Relax and empty your mind if something clearly identifiable comes into it."

I should have read that before writing down the clear image of a girl drawing at a desk or swinging.. lol

http://www.greaterreality.com/rv/instruct.htm
^ At this site, there is a detailed explanation of remote viewing, and an automated test that they have set up. going to try it out.
 
  • #24
ChadRichens said:
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.

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. :)

ChadRichens said:
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?

That depends on how close 'almost directly' is, how many people responded, and how well you chose the objects. But what I really want to see is repeatability. If I tested a single person 10 times, and of those 10 times she described the chosen picture precisely and correctly 7 times, wrongly once, and twice said that she couldn't picture it, that would be strong evidence for remote viewing (if proper precautions have been taken, as above -- no spy cameras or the like!). If I test 100 people once and one of them gives a description that's rather close to my picture... that's nothing more than I'd expect through random chance.
 
  • #25
yeah, i agree
 
  • #26
CRGreathouse said:
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 that's 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.
 
  • #27
CEL said:
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. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #28
ChadRichens said:
Yea, but that's 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.
 
  • #29
ChadRichens said:
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 let's them consider the possibility 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.
 
  • #30
ChadRichens said:
Yea, but that's 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' isn't just better at guessing?
 
  • #31
Savant13 said:
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' isn't 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 consensus 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.
 
  • #32
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.
 

1. What is remote viewing?

Remote viewing is the ability to perceive and gather information about a distant or unseen target using extrasensory perception (ESP). It is believed to be a form of psychic ability.

2. How is remote viewing different from other forms of ESP?

Remote viewing specifically involves gathering information about a distant or unseen target, while other forms of ESP may involve telepathy, clairvoyance, or precognition.

3. What is the YouTube video experiment for proving remote viewing?

The YouTube video experiment involves a video being posted online that contains a hidden target. Participants are asked to use their remote viewing abilities to identify the target and submit their responses. The results are then analyzed to determine if there is evidence of remote viewing.

4. How is the success of the YouTube video experiment measured?

The success of the YouTube video experiment is measured by comparing the participants' responses to the actual target. If there is a significant number of accurate responses, it can be considered evidence of remote viewing.

5. What are the implications of proving remote viewing exists?

If remote viewing is proven to exist, it could have significant implications for our understanding of consciousness and the limitations of human perception. It could also have practical applications in fields such as intelligence gathering and remote sensing.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
978
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
301
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
105
Views
4K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
5
Views
815
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Chemistry
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top