Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Nnicolette

Remote viewing

119 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ChrLzs
4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You see right now I could say that your computer desk is well worn. A few cigarette burns on it and deep scratches that happened from moving. I could also say that you might need to start going for long walks and you need new lenses in your glasses. However all of this is 50/50. I am either right or wrong. 

O. My. God..  That's me - you tuned into me, Xeno!!  All (except the cig burns) apply!!  And while I don't need new glasses, I just got a new pair this last week, I can find a couple of scratches on my desk, and there's some wear near my mouse area... - so that's a 100% hit!!!!!

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

O. My. God..  That's me - you tuned into me, Xeno!!  All (except the cig burns) apply!!  And while I don't need new glasses, I just got a new pair this last week, I can find a couple of scratches on my desk, and there's some wear near my mouse area... - so that's a 100% hit!!!!!

Boom! I'm the real deal with a messed up targeting system. :lol:

Edited by XenoFish
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
12 hours ago, stereologist said:

Here is the report by Courtney Brown and the Farsight Institute.

https://farsight.org/demo/Mysteries/Mysteries_1/Farsight_Press_Courtney_Brown_Base_on_Mars_Article_Early_Research_CLEAN.pdf

The "spray" is an alluvial or aeolian fan. It's hardly anomalous as claimed in the article.

I don't have a handle on Courtney Brown.  His report is not what I was looking at or for, I did see a dome, a very old dome that was still populated and well lit.  It was not near the place the photo Courtney's remote viewers were using. 

I seem to remember Courtney Brown being the one who had remote viewed some historical event, I think something about the pyramids, but I don't remember what he said, just that it sounded off somehow.  (feelings sometimes are easier to remember than the details that evoked them).  I looked at his website and did not see the pyramid item listed.

Here is his website:

http://courtneybrown.com/publications/RemoteViewing.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, TrumanB said:

Nope. My experiences are different. :) And they can't be explained just like that. They are not related to any psychic, they are literally mine. I saw things that sciene can't explain.

If you don't understand science, how do you know it can't explain things you have seen?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Hmmm... interesting - I thought the claim was that the Viewee would somehow 'broadcast' the info, or be connected via their internet forum sharing, somehow..!

If their location is needed to be known, then my comments about allowing a choice from a very wide range of indoor and outdoor scenes or subjects, become much more important..

The protocol is that many locations are chosen, names or photos put in envelopes (may also be map coordinates only), then someone who does not know what is in each envelope labels them, then someone who does not know what is in each envelope chooses one and gives the label on the envelope to the viewers.  They do what ever it is and describe the target.  The person who chose the 10 or 20 locations and the person who chose the envelope are not in contact with each other.  And the person who chose the envelope is not in contact with the viewers, the label is relayed to someone else, who relays that label (maybe it is AB7N3, or TX2, etc. - random, with no meaning related to anything).  So, there is no contamination and the viewers must identify the target either by drawing, written description, or both.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

The protocol is that many locations are chosen, names or photos put in envelopes (may also be map coordinates only), then someone who does not know what is in each envelope labels them, then someone who does not know what is in each envelope chooses one and gives the label on the envelope to the viewers.  They do what ever it is and describe the target.  The person who chose the 10 or 20 locations and the person who chose the envelope are not in contact with each other.  And the person who chose the envelope is not in contact with the viewers, the label is relayed to someone else, who relays that label (maybe it is AB7N3, or TX2, etc. - random, with no meaning related to anything).  So, there is no contamination and the viewers must identify the target either by drawing, written description, or both.

While some of that is good, in regard to randomising the choices, I would have to ask 2 obvious questions:

1. Are they all or mostly landscapes - if so, why?  (and that is a loaded question :) - I'll explain later)

2. How and by whom are the hits or misses judged? (in other words, how has the very obvious potential for biased and subjective judgements been addressed?)

...both those questions concern me, after seeing some of the absolutely horrid work done by Dean Radin, who is often rolled out as an 'expert'...  It's worth having a long hard look at Dean's Wiki.   If anyone wishes to reference him or any other 'experts', feel free to cite a published study and we'll take a look at the methodology..

I'm sorry to be a naysayer, but this is a topic I looked into in great detail a few years back.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

While some of that is good, in regard to randomising the choices, I would have to ask 2 obvious questions:

1. Are they all or mostly landscapes - if so, why?  (and that is a loaded question :) - I'll explain later)

2. How and by whom are the hits or misses judged? (in other words, how has the very obvious potential for biased and subjective judgements been addressed?)

...both those questions concern me, after seeing some of the absolutely horrid work done by Dean Radin, who is often rolled out as an 'expert'...  It's worth having a long hard look at Dean's Wiki.   If anyone wishes to reference him or any other 'experts', feel free to cite a published study and we'll take a look at the methodology..

I'm sorry to be a naysayer, but this is a topic I looked into in great detail a few years back.

Dean Radin is rolled out as an "expert" to keep people from believing the military is still doing this and has been since before 1977.  Ed Dames is another one who is used as a schill to make the whole thing unbelievable.

1. they are not all landscapes, landscapes are used for training in civilian groups.  The targets are often map coordinates, like I said before, or they are names, or what ever else someone wants to investigate.   You could have read all the words in my other post to answer this question.

2. I believe a committee takes the information, but it depends on the organization, whether it is military or civilian.  The data in the envelope and the viewers notes and drawings or what ever are evaluated to determine whether it is a hit or not.  There is no believing someone has a hit without corroboration.

Don't lie about being sorry you are a naysayer.  You can believe or not.

 

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronus

Uh I have heard things about, never done it myself, but yea I believe I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
10 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Dean Radin is rolled out as an "expert" to keep people from believing the military is still doing this and has been since before 1977.  Ed Dames is another one who is used as a schill to make the whole thing unbelievable.

So whose work should we look at? Or is it all super secret?  If it's the latter, that claim is meaningless - it can be made about anything, like they are also hiding their army of invisible Pink Unicorns - the fact we can't see them *proves it*!!  :D 

10 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

1. they are not all landscapes, landscapes are used for training in civilian groups.  The targets are often map coordinates, like I said before, or they are names, or what ever else someone wants to investigate.   You could have read all the words in my other post to answer this question.

The problem there is that if you use landscapes, you have introduced an artificial categorisation.  The vast majority of landscapes have quite a few common characteristics, which naturally increases the chances of a hit...

10 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

2. I believe a committee takes the information, but it depends on the organization, whether it is military or civilian.  The data in the envelope and the viewers notes and drawings or what ever are evaluated to determine whether it is a hit or not.  There is no believing someone has a hit without corroboration.

This is absolutely critical - are the final judges/corroborators the people who have received funding for this test?  Again, I ask the most important question, which you didn't address:

How has the very obvious potential for biased and subjective judgements been addressed?  In any truly scientific test, the methodology is open and ALL the data is available for scrutiny - so we can see ALL the 'hits' and 'misses' and also look at what preventative measures were taken to ensure OBjective judgements.  Feel free to give us an example, or do your own tests and show how you have done what you need to do.  I even offered to help and that stands.  What more can I do?

10 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Don't lie about being sorry you are a naysayer.  You can believe or not.

Don't call me a liar.  I'll believe if I'm shown decent evidence.  And I am sorry if the lack of that (to date) hurts your world view, but sometimes life doesn't give us what we want, and sometimes people like me apply scrutiny in order to get to the truth.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
10 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Dean Radin is rolled out as an "expert" to keep people from believing the military is still doing this and has been since before 1977.  Ed Dames is another one who is used as a schill to make the whole thing unbelievable.

Lies on one side, lies on the other, best thing to do is believe no one. You apparently can't trust anyone anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrumanB

There was no RV demonstration that I hoped for. I guess that this topic will remain open for some better times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 9/11/2020 at 7:09 AM, ChrLzs said:

So whose work should we look at?

This thread seems to have gone quiet...

Anyone?  I'd really love to take a long hard look at any published studies that you think are worthwhile...  If Radin's a pretender, who isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronus

To contribute more to this topic, like I said, I believe in remote viewing/astral projection, and I'm even trying to push myself to do it.

 

So yeah I guess I am a believer.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
1 hour ago, Chronus said:

To contribute more to this topic, like I said, I believe in remote viewing/astral projection, and I'm even trying to push myself to do it.

 

So yeah I guess I am a believer.

Pushing yourself will not accomplish it.  There are online classes if you are interested.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronus
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

Pushing yourself will not accomplish it.  There are online classes if you are interested.

Thanks, I'll need to decide what to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20

Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff are the scientists (yes, scientists and well known ones too) who developed this RV at Stanford Research Institute while doing work on consciousness. They brought in Ingo Swann to use as a test subject for their research and between them he developed a training manual. Hal Puthoff has been on all kinds of military scientific projects and Russel Targ is well-known in the field of consciousness too. RV was used by the military for over 25 years and possibly still used.

It was the project itself which was stopped after a change in command. Over the years there were a number of name changes due to changes in funding sources but after the announcement of project closure many believe that RV was moved to another name and continued. This behaviour is standard procedure for projects which are in the public eye and need to continue in a more secret way.

RV people like Joseph McMoneagle served in the military and in the groups which did this RV at Fort Mead. Unfortunately for those who want 'proof', when tasked by the military you do not get feedback to what you have viewed since most of it is secret, however if your clients keep coming back for more, then something must have worked well enough for them to want more. If it does not produce results, then why would the agencies bother to return to use the service again - for 25 years?

RV was developed by well-respected scientists at a well-respected Institute and has been around long enough to prove its worth (to some people in the military and 3-letter agencies anyway). It does not matter if the small minded folk on this forum like to think they know better than top scientists, so it seems they are just blowing hot air around to inflate their own egos.

The problem with this forum is that we have a little band of members who group up, try to debunk everything controversial and then slap each other on the back for a job well done. You can see this strange and toxic-bunny behaviour in this thread if you read through it. Sad really.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 10/10/2020 at 12:50 PM, ocpaul20 said:

Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff are the scientists (yes, scientists and well known ones too) who developed this RV at Stanford Research Institute while doing work on consciousness. They brought in Ingo Swann to use as a test subject for their research and between them he developed a training manual. Hal Puthoff has been on all kinds of military scientific projects and Russel Targ is well-known in the field of consciousness too. RV was used by the military for over 25 years and possibly still used.

It was the project itself which was stopped after a change in command. Over the years there were a number of name changes due to changes in funding sources but after the announcement of project closure many believe that RV was moved to another name and continued. This behaviour is standard procedure for projects which are in the public eye and need to continue in a more secret way.

RV people like Joseph McMoneagle served in the military and in the groups which did this RV at Fort Mead. Unfortunately for those who want 'proof', when tasked by the military you do not get feedback to what you have viewed since most of it is secret, however if your clients keep coming back for more, then something must have worked well enough for them to want more. If it does not produce results, then why would the agencies bother to return to use the service again - for 25 years?

RV was developed by well-respected scientists at a well-respected Institute and has been around long enough to prove its worth (to some people in the military and 3-letter agencies anyway). It does not matter if the small minded folk on this forum like to think they know better than top scientists, so it seems they are just blowing hot air around to inflate their own egos.

The problem with this forum is that we have a little band of members who group up, try to debunk everything controversial and then slap each other on the back for a job well done. You can see this strange and toxic-bunny behaviour in this thread if you read through it. Sad really.

 

RV was not used by the military, it was experimented with and wasted 20 million on trying to get something useful out of it.

Don't you feel a bit silly dismissing not only all modern scientists, but nearly all of them across time, having to present a couple of opinions from decades ago, that have quite clearly gone nowhere? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20

RV was not used by the military, it was experimented with and wasted 20 million on trying to get something useful out of it.


Don't you feel a bit silly dismissing not only all modern scientists, but nearly all of them across time, having to present a couple of opinions from decades ago, that have quite clearly gone nowhere?

There is no reason for me to feel 'silly' for anything I wrote. You state RV was not used by the military but this is an opinion since you do not know this. According to a number of books I have read, it was. So it looks like you are blowing hot air about.

And, "gone nowhere" is incorrect also since RV was started at a well-respected place (SRI), by a couple of well-respected scientists(Puthoff & Targ), and they were going "somewhere" for 25 years. Now who should be feeling silly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Sorry, ocpaul, but I call..

16 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

You state RV was not used by the military but this is an opinion since you do not know this.

You're making the claim - all you have to do is cite just ONE good example of this.  And until you or anyone does that, the default position is that the military have not successfully used RV ever.

Quote

According to a number of books I have read, it was.

Which book, what page/s?  Give the best example, in your opinion, first.. 

Quote

So it looks like you are blowing hot air about.

You're the one making the claims, and I suspect they are coming from your opposite end.

Quote

And, "gone nowhere" is incorrect also since RV was started at a well-respected place (SRI), by a couple of well-respected scientists(Puthoff & Targ), and they were going "somewhere" for 25 years.   Now who should be feeling silly?

Well respected?  Here's some selected highlights (all verifiable) from Puthoff's wiki (in other words NOT written by Puthoff or his fanbois..)

Quote

Puthoff took an interest in the Church of Scientology in the late 1960s and reached what was then the top OT VII level by 1971. Puthoff wrote up his "wins" for a Scientology publication, claiming to have achieved "remote viewing" abilities.
Puthoff severed all connection with Scientology in the late 1970s.[6]

In the 1970s and '80s Puthoff directed a CIA/DIA-funded program at SRI International to investigate paranormal abilities, collaborating with Russell Targ in a study of the purported psychic abilities of Uri Geller ..  Both Puthoff and Targ became convinced Geller and Swann had genuine psychic powers.

You do know that Uri Geller is a magician and trickster, and all of his sleight of hand tricks have been busted?

Quote

The psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff's remote viewing experiments. In a series of thirty-five studies, they were unable to replicate the results so investigated the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates...  Marks and Kammann wrote to Targ and Puthoff requesting copies. It is almost unheard of for a scientist to refuse to provide his data for independent examination when asked, but Targ and Puthoff consistently refused to allow Marks and Kammann to see copies of the transcripts. Marks and Kammann were, however, able to obtain copies of the transcripts from the judge who used them. The transcripts were found to contain a wealth of cues.
...

Puthoff (and Targ) "imagined they could do research in parapsychology but instead dealt with 'psychics' who were cleverer than they were...

Bwahahahah!!!  'Respected'? :D  These charlatans are at best totally incompetent, but at worst, they are doing fake science to fleece the gullible.  It's pretty easy to do that - it worked on you...

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
35 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

According to a number of books I have read, it was.

Anyone can assert anything in a book. 

You and papageorge1 should team up together and repeat the phrase, "Don't believe everything you read."

If the military has actually exploited remote viewing capabilities then there's no reason why scientists or civilians should not be able to prove it exists. 

It's not a technology. It's supposedly an ability. An ability no one has ever successfully demonstrated.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

There is no reason for me to feel 'silly' for anything I wrote. You state RV was not used by the military but this is an opinion since you do not know this. 

Yes I do know. Try researching project stargate.

20 million spent in remote viewing and all we got out of it was a funny movie. 

4 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

According to a number of books I have read, it was. So it looks like you are blowing hot air about.

You can read all the paperbacks you want. That won't make your false claims true. Paperbacks are not textbooks. You do realise this right? 

4 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

And, "gone nowhere" is incorrect also since RV was started at a well-respected place (SRI), by a couple of well-respected scientists(Puthoff & Targ), and they were going "somewhere" for 25 years. Now who should be feeling silly?

No it's not incorrect. 

You had to dig up two controversial names out of all the scientists in the world up to this point in time. 

What makes them well respected? 

That why you should feel silly. You had to dig around failed projects and people to find an old opinion from decades ago that was never validated in all this time. If you do not feel silly, you certainly look it right now. 

Puthoff is not a scientist. Never was. He was an engineer. 

Stanford University cut all ties with SRI because it's dodgy as heck and doesn't do actual science. 

Targ dabbled in physics. No physicists support him, and those who have commented have said he is not doing science at all. 

You have presented two failed idiots as of they are respected men of knowledge. They are not. You named the institute as if it's heralded for academic development. It's not, it's a collection of para nutters. 

If you do not feel silly, I'm going to go right ahead and laugh at you anyway. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

20 million spent in remote viewing and all we got out of it was a funny movie.

Probably made its budget back in movie and book sales. Tv spots, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 10/8/2020 at 7:34 AM, ChrLzs said:

This thread seems to have gone quiet...

Anyone?  I'd really love to take a long hard look at any published studies that you think are worthwhile...  If Radin's a pretender, who isn't?

Not sure (who isnt) but declassified military documents from both the   US and Soviet Russia during the cold war period   show some interesting results. There is a lot about all this online and i have no idea how accurate or credible some of it is,but you see interesting snippets eg 

referring to project stargate ) a long running remote viewing programme )

One of the project's successes was the location of a lost Soviet spy plane in 1976 by Rosemary Smith, a young administrative assistant recruited by project director Dale Graff.[15]

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/us-military-successfully-used-psychic-locate-lost-plane

 

quote

 

The initial project - called Scanate, meaning "scan by co-ordinate" - required the viewer to describe what they could see at map grid references provided by the CIA. It was deemed successful enough to convince them to expand the project. Undergoing name changes that included Sun Streak, Grill Flame, and, finally, Stargate, the RV programme assisted hundreds of US military and intelligence-gathering operations over its 23 years. It would score some successes, and plenty of failures.

The team is said to have identified spies (in 1980, a KGB agent in South Africa using a pocket calculator to transmit information); located Soviet weapons and technologies, such as a nuclear submarine in 1979; helped find lost Scud missiles in the first Gulf War and plutonium in North Korea in 1994.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/jun/05/research.science1

 It does appear that, due to more primitive technologies and budget restraints, the soviet union persisted longer than the US  Investigations and reports into project stargate    admitted to some successes, but found that, overall, they were not accurate enough to be strategically comparable to Eleint and Humint   

 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toothfairy

How do you do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.