Remote Viewing targets needed

[Eva Draconis]

Remote viewing targets needed!

Would you be willing to help me by creating remote viewing targets for me? I have already selected 25 target images and you would use a number randomizer to select one of the images. You would then include that target image into an email TO YOURSELF and choose a target number for the target. Then email to me only the target number. 

The full procedure is here: http://www.orionmindproject.com/rvstage3.html#stage3procedure

I have had some success with remote viewing targets and these 25 target images that we will use represent the best ones. 

If remote viewing interests you and you would also like to give it a try then I am happy to create targets for you as well. 

I appreciate any help and thank you. 
Eva Draconis
www.orionmindproject.com
https://www.youtube.com/EvaDraconis

[papageorge1]

13 minutes ago, Eva Draconis said:

 

I have had some success with remote viewing targets 

I'd like to hear more about your successes as one who is interested in all things paranormal.

[Eva Draconis]

From the first 40 RV targets I did here are all the videos of me doing them: 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3N1s-T0AjzpTHMt-dhOnZzhHlNJwy3q2

To help you browse among the 40, this page has a list of what the 40 targets were and what grade I gave for each: 
http://www.orionmindproject.com/rvtesttargets.html

I have also done additional targets which were among the best but I have not posted the drawings or impressions of them yet. 

Target 38 the Mexico UFO is an example of a good one, 
https://youtu.be/uLjxhfMKKhk

Target 7 the Hideout is another good one, 
https://youtu.be/_CsBOl6cxpM

Edited May 7, 2018 by Eva Draconis

[papageorge1]

@Eva Draconis

I see the videos are pretty long. 

A lot of the people here think in more of a scientific way. Are you aware of conducting experiments where odds against chance can be exactly calculated? 

I have seen one remote viewing experiment such as:

Experimenter has 5 targets

Experimenter selects one of five at random.

Remote viewer is asked to view this target and describe what they are viewing

A judge then watches your video describing your view impressions and then judges which of the 5 targets best matches that viewing

The judge should be correct about 20% of the time if no accurate remote viewing is occurring. If the judge is correct more than 20% of the time over a significant number of experiments then an odds against chance calculation can be performed. If you score let's say 10 to 1 against chance that would be interesting.  100 to 1 against chance would be fantastic. 1,000 to 1 against chance would be super-fantastic and highly suggestive something real is occurring.

 

 

[Eva Draconis]

Indeed your suggested procedure is almost identical with the procedure I had outlined and for which I need help from someone who can prepare the targets for me. The only difference between my procedure and the one you outlined, is that in yours, it is a judge who makes the matching, and in mine, I would be making the match. 

My procedure in short, I call it the "Stage 3 procedure" since it is the third kind of procedure I've used so far: 

I have 25 pre-selected images which come from previously made targets in which I was especially successful. 
I have grouped the 25 into five sets of 5 each in which the images are less similar to one another in a set. 
I email the five sets of images to the assistant. 
The assistant uses a random number selector and gets a number between 1 and 5, this determines the set number to use. 
The assistant uses a random number selector again and gets a number between 1 and 5, this determines which image to use in that set. 
The assistant saves that chosen image from the email into their computer. 

The assistant creates an email to himself or herself as follows: 
Image title as I have named the images on top of the message box. 
Insert the image as an attachment into the email. 
Write in your own words a short description text of the image and the target, what it is, what it looks like, what is on the picture, what it means. 
By looking at the image and reflecting on what the target is, intuitively come up with the target number which is four numbers connected by a hyphen to another four numbers. 
Write the target number on top of the text box above the image title. Write the target number as the subject of the email. 
Email this to yourself. 
Send an email to me which has the target number in the subject line and in the message. 
Send a second email which has only the set number in the subject line, this goes to my second email address. 

I remote view the target number and produce a report which is a drawing and a text description of impressions. 
I look at what the set number is and I match my report to one of the five images of that set. 
I send an email to the assistant which includes my report and my choice. 
The assistant forwards to me the email which they had sent to themselves with the image and description etc. of the target. 
We can check if I chose the correct image. 

The procedure is outlined here http://www.orionmindproject.com/rvstage3.html#stage3procedure
That page also has a discussion which explains why this procedure is the way it is. 
For example, to reuse 25 images in the target pool is important because if it is only 5 that are reused each time then the logical part of the mind will start to try to analyze which of the five pictures it is, logic would also think that if one image has already appeared then it is less likely to appear again, and all sorts of calculations which will disturb a free flowing remote viewing. 

[papageorge1]

@Eva Draconis

I am impressed by the seriousness and discipline in your efforts. Let me see what I can come up with as targets.

Now, can you share a little about your statistical performance to date?

[stereologist]

Why do you think the following is true?

Quote

logic would also think that if one image has already appeared then it is less likely to appear again

 

[Eva Draconis]

On 5/8/2018 at 7:26 PM, papageorge1 said:

I am impressed by the seriousness and discipline in your efforts. Let me see what I can come up with as targets.

Now, can you share a little about your statistical performance to date?

Stage 1 RVs were made individually and therefore only qualitatively assessed for correlation against their targets which makes statistical analysis difficult. 

Therefore I devised Stage 2 which was to RV five targets individually, after all five, their reports (drawing and description) were to be matched to their five target images. This presented with a 1 in 5 probability five times in each Stage 2 test. The results were exactly as predicted by statistics, approximately 2 or 3 matchings correct out of 5, I do not have the exact number results here but none of the five Stage 2 tests produced a statistically good results in the matching. The correlation between individual RVs and their targets however was too good to dismiss the possibility of an RV skill altogether, so I identified the problems with the Stage 2 procedure and designed Stage 3. 

Stage 3 is also a matching assignment with a probability of 1 in 5 but I am using pre-approved targets which I have already remote viewed previously and been especially successful with. Also I placed targets into sets of 5 targets in each where they would be less similar to one another. Stage 3 requires the help of an assistant to create the targets for each trial. 

The qualitative assessment of my RV results however is extremely indicative of a remote viewing ability, I can provide examples.  

23 hours ago, stereologist said:

Why do you think the following is true?

"logic would also think that if one image has already appeared then it is less likely to appear again"

I have now done somewhere between about 60-100 targets and seen how logic tries to help but interferes. 

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Eva Draconis said:

I have now done somewhere between about 60-100 targets and seen how logic tries to help but interferes. 

If I understood your description the chance of an image appearing should be independent of it being previously selected.

[Eva Draconis]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

If I understood your description the chance of an image appearing should be independent of it being previously selected.

But of course that is also the case. It is just that logic is the part of the mind that tries to calculate things and to help out but only gets in the way. When I say "logic" I mean the part of my brain which tries to solve the RV assignments by being clever and by doing good guesswork, I have seen how this logic comes to play when I RV. 

[Eva Draconis]

More examples of my RV under what I call the Stage 1 procedure (correct answers accessible and qualitative evaluation), this time using targets from Lyn Buchanan's website http://crviewer.com/targets/targetindex.php

Out of the first three, first one was a complete failure. 
The following two are very interesting and I give them a good (but not perfect) score. 

http://www.orionmindproject.com/rvstage1more.html

[XenoFish]

Are you here to promote a website?

[Eva Draconis]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Are you here to promote a website?

This thread is me asking if someone would be willing to assist me in creating new remote viewing targets for me to use under a more scientific procedure which I call the Stage 3 procedure. This Forum is related to paranormal topics, which remote viewing is, and I am sure that it should be refreshing to include an exercise of making the practice and testing of a paranormal skill more scientific. 

I am showing examples of the results of my previous remote viewings which will help justify the reason and expense behind taking my RV tests to the next level in which I require the assistance of willing participants who can prepare new targets for me. 

I also added a link to the website which is the source of my most recent RV targets. 

So am I here to promote a website, no. 

[XenoFish]

The problem with remote viewing is that anyone can Google map/earth a location with even a small amount of information. 

[PRF96]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 7:23 PM, Eva Draconis said:

More examples of my RV under what I call the Stage 1 procedure (correct answers accessible and qualitative evaluation), this time using targets from Lyn Buchanan's website http://crviewer.com/targets/targetindex.php

Out of the first three, first one was a complete failure. 
The following two are very interesting and I give them a good (but not perfect) score. 

http://www.orionmindproject.com/rvstage1more.html

 

If you need very well vetted targets, I can send you some, but I would ask for certain conditions:  You send your results back BEFORE I send you any target information back.  I can send the exact random/letters for targets and that is the only information I will give you -- a random target ID such as for example TYX87-XS877.  You can practice them yourself without feedback just fine too, but I won't send anything back showing what the target is unless I can see beforehand your performance.  I have designed about 5000 targets over the years, so I think honestly I can send you very good practice targets.  

I am familiar with Lyn Buchanan, he was a military remote viewer for a project called many different names, it is most well known as Stargate.  I don't think he worked with SRI (Stanford Research Institute) like some other RVers like Joe McMoneagle and a few others not known publicly but that CRV methodology should work for you if you are diligent and make sure you are double blind and following strict protocols.  I won't recommend any other protocols/teachers other than to say be careful as this area has a lot of nut jobs frankly.  In my opinion from years of dealing with this both in and out of private life, 99% of psychics are frauds, cheats, mentally ill, or performing incredible feats of confirmation bias to connect easily explainable dots/events/etc.  

Having said that, I think the only way to ever be convinced of the reality of what one might call "psi functioning" is to actually learn a very specific scientific protocol that can be analyzed well and performed the exact same way every time, practice and perform it yourself, and actually do it yourself and with a methodology to document for yourself that the conditions are clearly beating chance due to the strict protocols and measures used for your targets.  BOTTOM LINE: There is no sense reading studies and whatnot that will ever really, really convince you better than your own performance because you know deep down if you could have created specific information, cheated, or gotten lucky by chance given the conditions that occurred, etc.  What you are doing is possibly one of the only ways to potentially discover this fact so I would say to practice hard to make sure you always follow the same procedures, structure, and protocols and ensure you are always! always! always! double blind so there is no doubt in your mind if you have success that something interesting happened.      Also don't set yourself for unrealistic expectations -- in my opinion and experience even the best remote viewer I have ever seen in my life sometimes misses targets completely, but sometimes s/he gives enough information on another that you have to sit down and just shake your head.  Anyone in any psychic area saying they have 90,100 percent accuracy are bull****ting you.  But, if you meet a very normal and grounded person that was a clear skeptic but also open minded enough to accept evidence after a certain point (no New Age, no "psychic" mumbo jumbo, but a normal person that likes say football, a few video games, and maybe a few interesting hobbies) and that can show you documented performance and it shows they sometimes miss completely but other times they really show some interesting data that might be something/someone at least considering learning from etc.  It's a limited (in terms of being able to be 100% accurate and that type of bull****) skill but very real with very specific and measurable tweaks beyond chance that is consistent over time with a very few people.  I won't even bother to ever try and convince anyone (including you) of this fact because as I said, the only way in my opinion to rightfully believe something this crazy (and it is crazy to me in that it's a big paradigm shift for many people) is only by doing it yourself and seeing with your own performance that it's almost impossible to produce data from your own mind that can be explained away by luck, chance, or cheating/fraud, etc.  You'll never be 100% sure with anyone else in my opinion no matter how well intentioned or how much you believe them so you may as well do it yourself.    Good luck!

Edited January 31, 2019 by PRF96

[+Desertrat56]

@Eva Draconis The remote viewer is not supposed to know anything about any of the targets.  Since you choose the targets that you already know, you are not really testing yourself as a remote viewer.  You need someone to choose 5 targets, another person to number them and a third to choose the number without knowing what that number represents.

[toast]

20 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

@Eva Draconis The remote viewer is not supposed to know anything about any of the targets.  Since you choose the targets that you already know, you are not really testing yourself as a remote viewer.  You need someone to choose 5 targets, another person to number them and a third to choose the number without knowing what that number represents.

Trainer, is responding to a poster who vanished 1 year ago subject to advanced remote viewing?