Remote viewing targets

[VisionFromFeeling]

About session and target 1275-1934

Considering feedback against the target image, the main element could be argued to be the large Darth Vader balloon, we also see two or more other hot air balloons, one hot air balloon basket lying on its side against the ground with metal parts, strings from basket to balloon, fire directed toward the balloon on the side, a field of green grass, trees in the background, it is daylight, cars in the background, some people both men and women in casual contemporary clothing, these is also a black-yellow-red small flag. The atmosphere seems calm and relaxed, activities could be described as waiting, standing, looking, possibly even as bored. Hobby, outdoors activities, floating, balloon, fire, people, ropes, grass, trees, cars, are some descriptors.

My report is very off. I did give myself a "false history warning" during the session in the report. A "false history" is when I get carried away and write lengthy text about a historical event, typically Mayans or aliens or ancient Romans, which turns out to be false. Such sessions usually start out with having basic elements that are consistent with the target, but something triggers a fast-paced automatic construction of an elaborate historical story involving people usually in a past historical scene which in hindsight when looking at the feedback appears that the session started out ok with correct elements and then for some reason got carried away. I flagged "false history" for this session and it seems also likely to have happened. False history is one of my huge sources of errors which can ruin a remote viewing session and report, fortunately they are rare and I am able to block most of them by giving myself a "false history warning" which reminds me to not write elaborate historical stories but to go back to exploring the elements I have from the target.

Possibly correct or correlating from my report to this target feedback image, is of course the Darth Vader balloon. I described the round black military helmet, the camouflaged soldier with dark black and dark-green face paint, the pattern over the mouth reminds me of the camouflaged beige and dark-green cover that I described as being one of the hideout walls and also covering an Army tank as well as being over the camouflaged man's helmet as drawn. Cars and people, and the field with trees in the background. I also described a black box element which had people inside it, consistent with the balloon basket however I later labeled it as a jeep car.

Things in my report which are false. The underground system of tunnels with the hideout room, that something on the ground in the hideout would be disgusting and which had at least one dead body lying on it, which a man with blonde hair dragged from there along a tunnel to a drop-down area from which troops were waiting with machine guns in case anyone would be approaching them from the tunnel. I described it to be world war one or world war two, there was a strong emphasis throughout my report on military, Army, infantry, that above the tunnel system was a field of lumpy brown mud. Throughout the mud I described bodies embedded mostly in the mud but with only their heads and part of arms and legs showing above the mud, these bodies had the black round hard military helmet on their heads. I described injured troops being carried on stretchers to a hospital recovery room which is found in a distant location. This is not consistent with the target image which is the preparation of hot air balloons on a green field.

However. The thing about remote viewing is that we distinguish between "remote viewing the target" and "remote viewing the feedback". When I am doing targets that were prepared by skeptics, the responsibility and integrity to ensure no cheating took place lies entirely with the skeptic. A part of my mind is aware that a skeptic might be capable of doing some kind of trick, for example, to not even choose a target image beforehand as they should and to only post one after the remote viewing session as the feedback, or to assign a target image before the remote viewing and then to post a different image as the feedback. This is why I focus on remote viewing the "feedback", more so than the "target".

The way I have seen remote viewing to work, is not that it goes to the target image that has been stored by someone else in a distant location and in the current time, but that I am viewing and accessing the target image from when I am looking at it when it has been posted for me to see as the feedback image in the near future.

When I have done remote viewing protocols where I do a remote viewing session and later there is an assignment where I am to match my report to one of several image options, called self-matching or self-judging, I discovered a phenomenon which in remote viewing is called displacement, and which I call switching or merging. I have several well-documented cases where under such a self-matching protocol, targets have switched places with each other or merged together. This supports the theory that when a remote viewer is remote viewing the "feedback" as opposed to the "target", they are remote viewing the target image that they are seeing in the near future as the feedback.

After I had ended this remote viewing session, and I had submitted here in this thread my report summary and drawing, I then had to wait several hours before the feedback would be posted by the tasker, as feedback was not immediately available. This means that since I had not yet had feedback, I had not yet had closure. Feedback is the only type of closure I know of, other than to wait a long time. When a remote viewing session has not had closure, it means that remote viewing is still active and has not been closed off. I carried on with my evening, watching some television, playing a video game, and being back in this forum. I saw the post by Matt which linked to the Wikipedia page about the Ganzfeld experiment. I read the entire page about the Ganzfeld experiment, where I saw a link to a skeptic I had not heard about before named David Marks, so I clicked that to see his Wikipedia page, from there I followed a link to his website, scrolled down and saw that the index page was long so I went to the bottom of his webpage and scrolled from down toward up, and came across a photo on the page which I instantly recognized as my target, given here as a print screen.
From https://davidfmarks.com/


So one of the first pictures I saw after the remote viewing session, before I had received feedback, was that image on David Marks' page of the helmets in the mud. Feedback for this target, the Darth Vader and other hot air balloons, I would not see until the following morning. (When I woke up the following morning I came straight to here to see if the feedback had been posted and did not visit any other websites or see any other pictures before the feedback.)

The correlation of my report to just the target image I would grade it as a B or a C. I have described and drawn the Darth Vader head as the head of a military with a black round helmet on the head, the pattern over the mouth distorted to having been described and drawn over the head instead, the face being dark. Large field although grass not brown mud, and a forest of trees in the near background at the field. The black box that has people inside it consistent with the black balloon basket. Cars and people nearby. However this session report against the feedback has a huge problem with a false history which had the setting of world war one or world war two and that detracts from an overall grade.

However, the first picture I saw after the session was not the feedback image but the image from David Marks' webpage of the brown mud field with the round black hard Army helmets in the mud, a forest nearby and possibly an underground shelter on the right, correlates with my report very well and would be graded with an A by me.

Interestingly there is also sufficient correlation, minus the false history of world war one or world war two, to the actual feedback image, perhaps due to coincidence that they both had the element of the dark military helmet. It looks to me as if the feedback image and the image from David Marks' webpage may have merged, since elements from both are found strongly represented in the report together. I consider this session as an important example exemplifying the significance of feedback and closure. I have had this happen before also, that if after I have finished with constructing the report but I have not yet seen the feedback to see the target image, if I look at other pictures before the feedback, then those other pictures can have found their way into the report. This should be considered normal and not an anomaly and I would also not even want to call it a source of error, since feedback is the image we see after the remote viewing session. Instead this is a reminder that it is important that the remote viewer sees the target image as feedback and for closure of the session, before carrying on with their day and seeing other images before feedback. This also means, that if we are to continue with remote viewing targets under this format in the skeptics forum, I am going to have to not browse the internet or look at any pictures on my computer until after I have received feedback for a session. Which is a sacrifice I am willing to make for the sake of advancing with remote viewing.

How incredibly ironic that David Marks who is one of the skeptics having debunked (as a rough term for it) the similar to remote viewing Ganzfeld experiment was the one directly involved though passively and unknowingly in the inclusion of a picture posted by him on his website to having entered its way into an actual and possibly valid remote viewing session report.

Another target has been posted for me to remote view and is waiting for me in the other forum https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31722 and I will do it next. If there is a discussion or comments or questions here I will be here for that and also you are welcome to post a new target here for me also which I will do after I finish the other one.

[chaggle]

Must say Anita - you do put a lot of time and effort into this.

I feel however that the way you are conducting this will probably not convince many skeptics.

The scattergun reporting approach and subjective self-evaluation of the results are particularly questionable techniques.

I note on the other forum that you did not accept the suggestion that a number of photos could be presented after you have reported and you could choose which of those was the original target.

This is the sort of test which would be more acceptable to a skeptic.

Why will you not do that?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Must say Anita - you do put a lot of time and effort into this.
I feel however that the way you are conducting this will probably not convince many skeptics.
The scattergun reporting approach and subjective self-evaluation of the results are particularly questionable techniques.
I note on the other forum that you did not accept the suggestion that a number of photos could be presented after you have reported and you could choose which of those was the original target.
This is the sort of test which would be more acceptable to a skeptic.
Why will you not do that?

That kind of self-matching test is precisely what I would have wanted to do, that I remote view a target, and then am asked to match my report to one of several image options. It is just that this kind of protocol does not work well with remote viewing. Remote viewing often acts as if that which we are remote viewing is ourselves looking at the target feedback at a time in the near future. If we remote view a target, and are not given feedback to see what the target was, and are first presented with image options, then remote viewing in the past when we made the report has looked at those several image options and has remote viewed one or several of the other ones. This phenomenon is in remote viewing called displacement, I distinguish between two kinds of displacement: switching is when the report has described well one of the decoys out of a multiple choice assignment, and merging in which several of the options are described well in the report.

I have documented many strong cases of displacement switching and merging to be convinced that it is a real phenomenon. I have also compared my individual grade distribution to see that under a normal protocol when there is no self-matching, the grades are much higher than the individual grades (report to its actual target) in a self-matching protocol where individual grades (which has nothing to do with the matching assignment) are lower. This is evidence or at least strong indication of that the inclusion of a self-matching assignment does give rise to an inhibiting effect which does reduce the performance of remote viewing, as measured by the grades from subjective qualitative correlation between report to its target.

However I am happy to have other people do the assignment of matching my report to one of several images. This enables me to remote view a target, create a report, and have feedback to see what the target was, displacement should not occur. Other people could then try to match my report to one of several options, however I cannot do the self-matching myself due to the displacement effect.

I agree that the sessions I am doing now are not something that would convince skeptics. I am merely compiling another target pool with targets that were created by skeptics as the taskers, and under conditions where I would be assumed to not have been able to cheat which would make these verified remote viewing sessions and not so much anecdotal ones. I have also wanted to test the quality and strength of the target signal in targets that were prepared by skeptics, and so far I am very pleased, as I had expected the target signal is strong and clear.

[Matt]

Thank you for the link to the Ganzfeld experiment. I had not heard about the Ganzfeld experiment before and can now add it to my library of knowledge about paranormal research and skepticism.

However let me remind you that a "paranormal claim" is packaged as a claim of "what can you do and under what circumstances". You cannot simply refer to the Ganzfeld experiment, in that it shows a vague resemblance to the remote viewing I am doing here, and declare my paranormal claim as already falsified,

I didn't say it was falsified.
My criticism, if anything, is that the methods you're using aren't really set up to falsify your claim and that's what makes it an unattractive project to me. In the tests you done so far, my interpretation is that you're unable to recognize your failures when you see them and that your protocol seems almost designed to give you great leeway in that respect. That's a double edged sword, your methods being open only to subjective interpretation allow you to claim success under any circumstances, equally allow the cynical to dismiss them. Your interprettaion is not more or less valid than mine. If only there were some objective measure of success which we could agree beforehand.

The first time I spoke to you appears to be over a decade ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... ost4182008

In all those years of you identifying as a skeptic, little seems to have changed in your approach and I might make much the same comments today as I made in that thread. I pointed to the Ganzfeld experiment not to suggest that you cut a ping pong ball in half or engage in sensory deprivation but to suggest a way of measuring your success or failure by a method that is open to statistical analysis. It's a shame that you missed that.

Maybe if we cross paths in another ten years you'll show a little more appreciation for that sort of thing. It really is quite central to the whole scientific approach.

Matt

[VisionFromFeeling]

I didn't say it was falsified.
My criticism, if anything, is that the methods you're using aren't really set up to falsify your claim and that's what makes it an unattractive project to me. In the tests you done so far, my interpretation is that you're unable to recognize your failures when you see them and that your protocol seems almost designed to give you great leeway in that respect. That's a double edged sword, your methods being open only to subjective interpretation allow you to claim success under any circumstances, equally allow the cynical to dismiss them. Your interprettaion is not more or less valid than mine. If only there were some objective measure of success which we could agree beforehand.

The first time I spoke to you appears to be over a decade ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... ost4182008

In all those years of you identifying as a skeptic, little seems to have changed in your approach and I might make much the same comments today as I made in that thread. I pointed to the Ganzfeld experiment not to suggest that you cut a ping pong ball in half or engage in sensory deprivation but to suggest a way of measuring your success or failure by a method that is open to statistical analysis. It's a shame that you missed that.
Maybe if we cross paths in another ten years you'll show a little more appreciation for that sort of thing. It really is quite central to the whole scientific approach.

Hello Ocelot. In which case I entirely misjudged the point you were making with the Ganzfeld experiment example and I apologise for making the wrong assumptions. It should be evident that the targets we are doing here do not serve in any way to offer a measurement of a remote viewing skill against statistical probability, there is no quantitative way to assess the performance with these examples. I simply jumped here asking for targets but I seem to have forgotten to state my intentions with those targets.

To see if I could claim to remote view targets which had been prepared by skeptics as the taskers. After doing five such sessions (one here, and four in the other forum), I conclude that the target signal has been very strong and clear, as I expected it to be. Many things can be implied from this finding. One is that someone who is not themselves a remote viewer is also capable of constructing functional RV targets. Another is that even a person who does not themselves believe in RV, or who is perhaps even hostile to the idea of RV, can still construct functional RV targets. The format or protocol under which our targets were handled, was a new protocol with new variables for how it was carried out, and in my experience after five targets, the format works in principle, with delivering a strong target signal and with delivering impressions from a target, which means that everything we did under the protocol with these targets, works with remote viewing at least with me as the remote viewer: that the tasker saves a picture on their own computer under the file name of the target number, that I obtain the target number from here, that I submit my report here, that the target feedback is posted here in the form of a picture with the target number, none of these variables have hindered remote viewing.

I have also made a huge discovery about remote viewing from just these five targets. I learned that since in our protocol feedback is delayed instead of immediate, the risk of encountering the displacement effect is significant: in 2 out of 4 sessions (5th one does not yet at the time of writing this have feedback posted) which is 50% of the sessions, displacement was seen to occur. This also supports the theory that the mechanism of remote viewing functions by viewing into the near future when the remote viewer will be viewing the feedback. It implies that the information is sent from the future from the time of feedback and into the past into the time when the report is made.

I await the results of the fifth session and after that I will most likely end this exercise where skeptics in these forums have created targets for me, unless we can find a way to either a) lock me up in a dark basement where there is no risk that I accidentally see any pictures or videos before feedback, or b) find a way to enable feedback to be posted very soon after I have completed a session.

Almost every single remote viewing session I had done up until our targets, were done under a protocol where I remote view a target number and complete a report and then receive feedback immediately after. Feedback means that I get to see what the target and target image was. Here with our targets, feedback is delayed since it takes often many hours before the tasker returns to post the feedback. What I have seen evidence of in these sessions, is that in the time period which starts from when I see the target number and begin working on a report, and until the time of feedback, I am vulnerable to displacement and if I see pictures or videos in that time span then it is likely that impressions from those were remote viewed by me in the past when I made the report, they travel from the future into the past and enter into the report. It suggests on one hand that remote viewing works by looking for pictures in my near future, and on the other hand it suggests that remote viewing might not know that images seen on the internet, newspaper, or television, do not count as the feedback.

I saw that here with session 1275-1934 where after I had submitted the report here I then went on to browse on the internet and ended up on the website of skeptic David Marks, where I saw a picture of the world war helmets in the mud field which is exactly what I had in my report which I made in the past. An even stronger example happened in the other forum with session 6059-1286 where I experienced a red pink elephant slide during the remote viewing, then took a break and went to watch television and saw that exact red pink elephant slide on television.

I know that time travel of information is probably even more frustrating to skeptics than remote viewing by itself so I will not make too big of a deal out of it. I just state that I have learned a lot in these five sessions and these have been valuable sessions. If we are to make targets together again, then we first need to devise a method through which I can be given feedback very soon after finishing the remote viewing session, so that we can avoid the displacement effect.

I'm sorry I know this is all frustrating, but to me this is exciting.

Of course these sessions were not designed to be able to offer a measure or verification of a remote viewing skill. Further reasons why I came here was to produce a remote viewing portfolio of completed sessions where it could be assumed that I could not have cheated, since nearly all of my previous RV sessions were done under conditions where feedback was available one click away and where I could have cheated had I wanted to (but I did not cheat on any of my sessions). Another reason was to allow skeptics to experience being part of a remote viewing exercise, at least as a tasker, like a practical exercise in which you could participate directly yourselves.

To move beyond the subjective validation as it is called and beyond subjective qualitative assessment of remote viewing performance, especially when it is done by the remote viewer themselves, I envision two different ways to try to measure remote viewing performance in a quantitative objective way.

1) One target is remote viewed, a report is submitted. An independent third party, ideally consisting of several persons, each on their own independently matches the report to one of several image options, where one image is the target and the other images are decoys. Will other people acting as judges match the reports to their correct target images to an extent which is statistically significant? One potential problem is that all image options need to be strongly distinct from one another, dissimilar, which might also benefit from having a smaller number of image options, which then requires a larger number of such trials in order to get to bigger numbers for statistical analysis. But it would be based entirely on a pure yes or no basis, matched either right or wrong.

2) One target is remote viewed, a report is submitted. The summary text report is divided into individual statements about the target. An independent third party, preferably done by several persons independently and their answers averaged together, makes an assessment of each individual statement by comparing it to the target and writes yes, no, or ? depending on if it matches, does not match, or it is not known if it matches or not. The ? ones are ignored. The number of yes from the total of yes and no produces a percentage score which is the accuracy %. If a report is given an accuracy % to its own target and also to other decoy targets, will the accuracy % be higher for their own targets than for other decoy targets?