Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info
Remote Viewing info page spacer

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.)



begin archive





pjrv : Messages : 3810-3854 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3810?) 2006/07/01 16:16:00
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3810

From: "Glyn" Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:27 am Subject: Liz & Glyn - Recent Experiments glynis5799 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi all, Just to let you know that I am in the process of working on a summary re the informal series of 10 RT experiments that Liz and I recently carried out, and I will be posting it as soon as finished....unfortunately the daily grind of having to earn a living tends to interfere with what I really want to do (Sound familiar folks?) :-) . We will then tell you about our latest 10 experiments (we are on

#8 at

the moment). We will be posting a summary of those when finished too. Basically we wanted to see what would happen if we used randomly selected text rather than sessions, nothing to do with deliberate RT. We call these RW(Random Word). The results from the RW experiments are quite interesting I think (overall indication anyway), but something has reared its head which has turned into a potential major 'bug-bear' ...that may also influence my thinking about RT experiments too. Scoring distortion! When is a perceived congruency far too 'vague' to be included? It is a big problem. Later then, Kind regards, Glyn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#3811

From: "smitty97006" Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:20 pm Subject: Re: Liz & Glyn - Recent Experiments smitty97006 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Wow Glyn, This sounds really interesting. You seem to have a knack for coming up with simple, or at least simple enough that you don't need an entire lab to do, experiments that are of real value. I do hope you'll keep this up as you're able. Best regards, Gene Smith --- In pjrv...ups.com, "Glyn" Just to let you know that I am in the process > of working on a summary re the > informal series of 10 RT experiments that > Liz and I recently carried out, and I > will be posting it as soon as finished... Reply | Forward

#3813

From: "Glyn" Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:51 am Subject: RE: Re: Liz & Glyn - Recent Experiments glynis5799 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Gene (and all), Thanks for that, glad you find them interesting :-). While I'm at it I must mention something that happened to me last night, which demonstrates (IMO) something which is so annoying in RV, and a lot will recognise.........and which is particularly annoying to me.....grrrrr! My sister wants me to try and find something she has lost, so while I was in the bath last night I thought I'd do an ERV-type session and see what I got (a trick learned from Tunde :-), who does a lot of his sessions while in the bath I believe...the warmth gets better relaxation :-)). OK, this was not 'real' RV because I was front-loaded and knew what I was looking for, so expected a load of AOL, but I wasn't doing anything else, so thought I'd give it a shot anyway :-). After a while I got quite a clear impression (it wasn't actually a visual but brought one to mind), of the face of John Lennon. Not in his latter years, but when he young, when they first started. This was in black and white, like an old photograph, and he had his Beatle suit on, and the full fringe Beatle haircut. Then I got a flash of a what looked like a silver photo frame. Not a lot else came to mind, and I nearly fell asleep and could have drowned so called a halt. LOL! I thought that I would ask my sister to look round her flat and see if the missing object was anywhere near something concerning the Beatles, and/or a silver framed photo frame. I know she has old vinyl Beatles albums and also one or more silver photo frames. Worth a try anyway. I spent some more time relaxing in the bath and then got out and wandered into the front room to phone her. Well, you can imagine my face when my eyes fell on the television. There was a programme on called 'Stars In Their Eyes', which is a talent competition where people try to look and sound like celebrities. Well guess what? Yup..John Lennon in his early days.....and then my eyes were drawn to the top of my television where there is a small photo in a frame...yes it's silver . This has happened to me *so* many times now that it's a real major sickener. There is no way that I could have heard anything from the bathroom, even subconsciously, because that act only came on as I walked into the room, and the programme wasn't on at all while I was doing the session. If that had been the target it would have been a dead hit....but it never is is it?! With deliberate RV I never get results anywhere near that good; not one hundredth as good! It was future memory beyond a doubt (well IMO anyway), and I got it because it stood out proud in my memory very near to the time of my session.... cos I love John Lennon, and it was a wonderful act.....and the guy impersonating him won. LOL!! Just thought someone may find that interesting. Ah the importance of focus..;-) Big Grins, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3815

From: Weatherly-Hawaii... Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:58 am Subject: Re: Re: Liz & Glyn - Recent Experiments maliolana Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Aloha Glyn, > cos I love > John Lennon, and it was a wonderful act.....snip...LOL!! > ~snip~ > Just thought someone may find that interesting. > Ah the importance of focus..;-) I love John Lennon too...and he is great in bed btw...along with Paul McCartney that is...hahaha... I had a dream soooo real at around 15-16 of 'doing' them both...and I was a virgin at the time...so I had no way of knowing what it was actually even like...but I did...in that dream..,hahah...Never forgot it......Now that is a good lover/dream...hahah...Dream lover? PS...so did ya find your sisters stuff? Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna Reply | Forward

#3816

From: "Glyn" Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:17 pm Subject: RE: Re: Liz & Glyn - Recent Experiments glynis5799 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Dawna, Oooh, when I read that first paragraph of yours I thought for a minute you meant.....LOL!! Yes I definitely lusted after John when I was a teenager, so I know *just* what you mean. What a dream! ;-) No, I haven't found my sister's stuff darnit.......it's been warped through a space-time interface I think :-). Grins, Glyn ----------------- Wow. Time warps. My dad gave me the first two Beatles albums when I was in second grade (1972). I was really bummed years later to discover they'd broken up before I even heard of them! :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#3818

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:53 am Subject: RE: Re: Liz & Glyn - Judging retrotasking...the real problem with ARV? docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Glyn, We've debated displacement in ARV quite a bit here. But if retrotasking is a reality, then it would become nearly impossible to avoid "retasking" your ARV during judging, whether it was done by yourself or another. In ARV during the judging phase.. someone takes your session and compares it to two or more photographs to see if it matches one of them better than the other (the better will hopefully be the feedback target). But as the JUDGE carefully examines each photo to see if the session matches, he will be hard put to prevent himself from subconciously retrotasking it to match both photos or whatever photo he happens to subconciously look at harder or perhaps react emotionally with better. The fact that ARV fequently works at first with good viewers and then fails further along.. may indicate simply that it takes a several trials for the subconcious of the judge to emotionally link to the viewer and retrotask him. Perhaps if we think about ARV displacement in this context, we can figure a way to avoid it. 1) The judge should show no emotional preference to either picture. 2) the judge should have no emotional link to the viewer or the project ( yea sure!) 3) Both pictures should be compared simultaneously. 4) What else? suggestions invited...! 5) Frequent changing of judges or procedures should help to avoid the sub from linking. 6) the judge needs to forget about the session and not think about it afterwards as that may retrotask the viewer. 6) Maybe the judge needs to be intoxicated as that seems to blocks psi. To avoid liver damage, maybe one could go to a local bar and offer drinks for someone to match sessions to pictures..G OTHER IDEAS..????? Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#3819

From: "Glyn" Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:21 pm Subject: RE: Re: Liz & Glyn - Judging retrotasking...the real problem with ARV? glynis5799 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Bill, > In ARV during the judging phase.. someone takes your > session and compares it to two or more photographs to > see if it matches one of them better than the other > (the better will hopefully be the feedback target). > But as the JUDGE carefully examines each photo to see > if the session matches, he will be hard put to > prevent himself from subconciously retrotasking it to > match both photos or whatever photo he happens to > subconciously look at harder or perhaps react > emotionally with better. I think it may be lack of focus by the viewer that causes the displacement; sort of like a receiver not tuned properly...so they get a bit of this and a bit of that :-). Especially in ARV when they are aiming to view the feedback. Also if they will be getting to know details of alternative pictures in the future. > The fact that ARV fequently works at first with good > viewers and then fails further along.. may indicate > simply that it takes a several trials for the > subconcious of the judge to emotionally link to the > viewer and retrotask him. Perhaps if we think about > ARV displacement in this context, we can figure a way > to avoid it. It would help if the target photos are sufficiently different in major gestalt I think....but with the best intent in the world, it's hard to maintain the same level of enthusiasm, of heightened awareness (that may help that elusive focus).......time after time after time..... 'Beginner's luck' plays a part too probably. That is a really fascinating thing......maybe due to a special state of mind that a first-timer can have. No nerves because they have nothing to prove, no doubt or interference from the conscious mind. Relaxation yes, but again that heightened awareness that maybe leads to focus at an unconscious level. Let's face it, spiritual life or not, we are organic machines with a brain that can outdo all current computers, so maybe when the sub is allowed to go on 'auto-pilot', then we can perhaps achieve that 'machine' perfection of a Mr Data :-) . We probably all know what happens when we're running fast downstairs and suddenly decide to closely observe what our legs are doing......the conscious mind interferes with unconscious control and...base over apex..whoops, bang, crash...bandages.... LOL!! > > 6) Maybe the judge needs to be intoxicated as that > seems to blocks psi. To avoid liver damage, maybe one > could go to a local bar and offer drinks for someone > to match sessions to pictures..G LOL! That's a good one Bill. I'm not sure what weight I give to what a judge thinks or feels actually, other than that they should be sober enough to make a reasonable choice. I don't think RT works that way. Opinions seem to be varied on this, but I think that the viewer should only be shown the pic that corresponds to the final outcome; nothing more. I think that if the viewer is also his/her own judge then the risk of displacement could be higher, although conversely, constant practice doing just that may improve results...but it could be a long haul.. > OTHER IDEAS..????? Well not at the moment Bill. Liz and I are going to do some RV experiments next though. I'd like to do some ARV and watch for displacement. That is the thing I was looking for in the RT experiments, which is deliberate attempt at displacement after all. To try to spot the conditions under which it occurs may lead to getting some idea how to avoid it. Ah....we can only try. :-). It's fun though. Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3823

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:26 am Subject: RE: Re: ARV replay to Liz docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Dearest Glyn > I think it may be lack of focus by the viewer that > causes the displacement; SIGH! This kind of thinking is what prevents solving the problem..always blaming it on poor viewer techniques..But remember even the guys at SRI could not repeat their initial success.. > but with the best intent in the world, > it's hard to maintain the same > level of enthusiasm, of heightened awareness (that > may help that elusive > focus).......time after time after time..... I agree with this one.. DING! > I'd like to do some ARV and watch for > displacement. That is the thing I > was looking for in the RT experiments, which is > deliberate attempt at > displacement after all. To try to spot the > conditions under which it occurs may > lead to getting some idea how to avoid it. Ah....we > can only try. :-). It's fun > though. I AGREE 100% DING! Lets all think about retrotasking that the judge does...it's his job. Imagine when you deliberately retrotask..you are doing the same thing as a Judge in ARV. Big Hugs, Bill Reply | Forward

#3826

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:38 pm Subject: Re: ARV replay to Liz pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Bill, > Glyn wrote: > > I think it may be lack of focus by the viewer that > > causes the displacement; > Bill wrote: > SIGH! This kind of thinking is what prevents solving > the problem..always blaming it on poor viewer > techniques..But remember even the guys at SRI could > not repeat their initial success.. Funny. That's the kind of thinking Joe McMoneagle uses, and it helped make him into one of the best viewers in the world. (By the way, she said focus, not techniques. Two completely different things in my book.) I would not put off looking for answers anywhere and everywhere, certainly including outside the viewer. I think so-called displacement--in a much larger schema than ARV--is one of the most important questions in the subject today. And historically, in the lab, a whole lot of problems with RV have been resolved, hence the many points of protocol that have been come up with to prevent those issues. But to the extent that for most of us, the viewer is the only variable truly under our control, it seems like focusing on the viewer is the best thing to do. Remote viewing already has a tendency to a number of psychological side effects, including an almost hilarious degree of "not the viewer's fault CYA" behaviors on the part of the psychics involved. Anything that leans the other direction, is something I support, for mental health if nothing else. PJ Reply | Forward

#3845

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Re: ARV replay to Liz docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hello Palyne, First I think you're wonderful! But you seem to bring out the contrarian in me.. you menion doing better in your RV because you were much tougher and rutheless on yourself in your practice. Well my RV improved this year also, and I attribute it to : .... being much gentler and kinder with myself, and I whole-heartedly endorse Prus concept below..G LOL. Maybe this is a liberal / conservative dyad thing..G Love, Bill > including an almost > hilarious degree of "not the viewer's fault CYA" > behaviors on the > part of the psychics involved. Anything that leans > the other > direction, is something I support, for mental health > if nothing else. ------------------- Bill, if you don't quit putting words in my mouth I am gonna hex you -- you do it all the time! I did not say that I was much tougher and ruthless on myself in practice. You see what I said above. Those words are not there. As a matter of fact, it is RELAXING my caring about 'wrong vs. right' and appreciating myself, much more gentle, that has probably done the most good for my RV in some respects. But that should NOT be mixed or confused with 'got more willing to waffle/stretch wildly to assume accuracy', or 'got more willing to blame inaccuracy on (check one); etc. On one hand I've gotten more totally convinced I am 100% responsible for myself--no excuses. No overlaid displaced retrotasked masked stuff to excuse myself. On the other hand, within that self-defined framework, I think it's more important to understand myself than it is to 'cast blame' on myself, and the 'right/wrong' polarities invoke that. So I have moved away from that approach and begun to focus on the experience and understanding in retrospect, more than anything. Hmmmmph. I hate being misunderstood. If you misunderstand me again I shall be forced to write a REALLY long post. lol. ;-) PJ Reply | Forward

#3854

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:54 am Subject: Re: Re: Ed Dames on Art again docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Dr Doom was up to it again predicting massive crop failures , followed by nuclear war with Korea, followed by a close pass bye of Nimburu that would kill most everyone that still survived. He also mentioned giant squids were the most intelligent non humans species..( actually for all I know the latter could be true). Anyway what really got me was Art saying.. " you know Ed a large part of your listening audience hates your guts..but never fails to listen to every word you say on this program". That stopped me because it was true..here I am gobbling up every word.even though I believe not a word...G. But then it occurred to me.. I just can't believe what he is saying.. and I have to listen again...and again...just to be continually amazed....G Bill --------------------------- Personally, it makes me wonder about you Bill. The list of things I would rather do than listen to Dames on the radio approaches infinity. PJ PS. I see he is 'recycling' old predictions that didn't happen. That's a novel new twist. Kinda like playing the same lotto numbers every week. Eventually at least a few oughtta be right. ;-) Reply | Forward

#3837

From: "Glyn" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:44 am Subject: Viewer Focus glynis5799 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hiya Bill :-), > I wrote: > I think it may be lack of focus by the viewer that > causes the displacement; > You wrote: > SIGH! This kind of thinking is what prevents solving > the problem..always blaming it on poor viewer > techniques..But remember even the guys at SRI could > not repeat their initial success.. I understand where you're coming from, but I think viewer focus could be the key. Only because of the way I think psi may work however, and that is an unanswerable at the moment so if we have different ideas about that then we will disagree about the importance of the viewer. :-). I agree that the viewer could be open to outside influence in ARV, without a doubt, but by my way of thinking, so-called retro tasking is just an example of one of the hazards of working with precognition....the viewer scanning too widely either side of their intended target and picking up rubbish or other people's 'baggage', whether deliberately intended or not. Let's face it, the intended target in an ARV session is the photo that the viewer will eventually see with their physical eyes.... that will be, as far as they will ever be aware (and that is important), associated directly with the final event they tried to forecast in their session. This must be so, no matter how many other photos they may see along the way or afterwards, or whatever anyone else's intent is, was, or is to be. Final feedback should be the focus. Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3820

From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:19 pm Subject: What causes displacement in ARV and Viewer Testing scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Bill, Glyn and All, This is a topic near and dear to my heart and one I've had much discussion about so I'll share some of my current thinking. I don't want to be discouraging, but I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, we know that displacement occurs even with computer judging. There are several problems in trying to determine what contributes to displacement. The first is designing an experiment that will hopefully isolate a single parameter against a control. This is not easy. For example, did the remote viewer view the wrong target or did the experimenter select the wrong target association via a self-sabotaging DAT contribution? Did the viewer get the wrong target because a probabilistic future yielded an unexpected result? And we haven't even gotten into the psychology of the viewer! I'm sure there are people with greater insight that will argue the validity of these particular parameters, but you get the idea (and if they know they must be very wealthy). But the biggest problem in trying to research these issues is probably getting enough calibrated viewers in order to do enough sessions. If you don't have enough sessions you can't measure a statistical difference between the test case and the control. And you must have a control! After all, sometimes a miss might be just a miss and not displacement. If you don't design your experiment in such a way as to narrow the number of parameters as fine as possible, then you don't know what's contributing. Also, the more parameters you try to deal with at one time, the MANY more sessions you need for analysis. And don't forget, displacement doesn't happen all the time. So measuring an improvement requires a lot more sessions than simply showing that RV works statistically. I've actually designed an experimental protocol that appears to meet these criteria. The good side of it is that I've thought through some ways to minimize DAT contributions and will publish about that soon. But I'm saddened to say that I'm not optimistic about being able to get enough viewers to do enough sessions. So what can be done? Well, in order to test these things like ARV displacement, a good number of viewers need to be willing to devote the time to do enough sessions to be calibrated and then participate in experiments. This is off the cuff, but I could easily imagine a single displacement experiment requiring 500 sessions and probably at least 20 sessions per viewer up front just to get some very rough calibration data unless you can get the very few Joe M's of the world who are already calibrated. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to raise enough research money to be able to pay the viewers for that many sessions not to mention the experimenters. And, of the people who are somewhat competent viewers, how many of them put this sort of use of their time at a high enough priority to participate? One way to approach it is to survey and see how many viewers there are, their availability to do sessions, and for what price. And then see what experiments you can design within those constraints. Scott Reply | Forward

#3822

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:17 am Subject: Re: ARV reply to Scott docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Scott, I agree with you, but I might add that severe boredome in doing 500 sessions might escalate the problem considerably..although Greg K. might sign up...G. He is indefatigable SEriously, I think the sessions need to be greatly abreviated..perhaps just ideograms only. Dowsing has the same sort of problem.as displacement...although it's just called getting the wrong answer. But however one dowses, penudlumn, hands, ruler, whatever.. one will occasionally start just reversing the signals.. similiar to a string of displacements in ARV. The first issue I would tackle with enough resiliance would be doing precog targets vs doing real time targets with decoys. That would be a very interesting result..G Bill Reply | Forward

#3827

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:32 pm Subject: Re: ARV reply to Scott pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Bill, > I think the > sessions need to be greatly abreviated..perhaps just > ideograms only. Hmmn. Though ideograms with practice are often accurate, not everybody uses them -- and they represent the point of a session with usually the least target contact. I'd prefer to take a stage 4.5 of sessions and drop out the rest given a choice. Of course that would require the viewers were good enough to get there in the first place, and this might actually exclude the majority of people willing to volunteer or at least in my case the majority of sessions I never have time to get that far on lol! Ideograms over time come to say more than 10 options or so one may begin with unless the viewers have been taught to keep and enforce that limit, and it is difficult to find a lot of "one or two gestalt only" photos (mostly a thousand variations on the same pics). > The first issue I would tackle with enough resiliance > would be doing precog targets vs doing real time > targets with decoys. That would be a very interesting > result..G Well in rank order judging they are doing that already of course, although now they usually do those precog instead of real time because statistically, it apparently didn't matter much, so because it's such a huge boost in the quality of the protocol to do it precog (not much 'info leakage' complaining that can be done then!) they do it that way. I'll have to ask specifically about this, but that is my understanding--that viewing, with a comparative matching against multiple options, was tested both with realtime viewing (target already chosen) and precog viewing (target hasn't been chosen) and the results didn't really differ. Of course, that was with lab viewers. It may be different for the rest of us mere mortals. PJ Reply | Forward

#3841

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:48 am Subject: Re: Re: ARV reply to Scott docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ, I sure would like to have some data on this I could see..Everyone was of the opinion that this worked..but I never see the data. Also since JOe does this successfully..can you get any pointers he has on doing sessions with multiple decoys? Bill ....> multiple options, was tested both with realtime > viewing (target > already chosen) and precog viewing (target hasn't > been chosen) and > the results didn't really differ. > Of course, that was with lab viewers. It may be > different for the > rest of us mere mortals. Reply | Forward

#3843

From: "Scott" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 2:05 pm Subject: Re: ARV reply to Scott - multiple responses scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Glyn wrote: > That is really interesting. Yes, if you want to do an experiment which is more > formal and that will stand up with the psi-scientists, then it is an entirely > different ball-game to the sort of thing that Liz and I are doing. I think what you and Liz are doing is certainly worthwhile on more than one level. My personal goal isn't necessarily to withstand scientific scrutiny so much as it is to know that I'm not fooling myself. The two have the same criteria for me as it has turned out. Bill wrote: > I agree with you, but I might add that severe > boredome in doing 500 sessions might escalate the > problem considerably Yes, but they don't all have to be done by one viewer. Also, that number could be high. Without having calibrated viewers there's no way to know. Bill wrote: > Not so fast on this one. I only know Greg K's study. I did an unpublished experiment. My N was too low to conclude anything statistically, but there were enough descriptions of wrong targets that reached the highest score for my purposes at that time. PJ wrote: > And I am not sure it helps to try and > calibrate someone who is not of > a sufficient skill to begin with. Yes, but without some sort of up front testing you also don't know who has sufficient skill. I won't be holding my breath. -- My whole point in this is that if the field is going to move forward in the public domain, then it's almost required that there will have to be some sort of formal organizing of participating viewers in support of that goal. Scott ---------------- We're trying. Trying to create an ability to centralize and organize, while also trying to prevent the exclusionism and cultism the field is already rife with, while trying to allow totally opposing points of view all to operate within the same framework, while trying to make it so it has the potential, if tasked that way, to be scientific, yet is designed primarily for personal development (requiring unscientific 'trust' in the viewers), all at the same time, isn't too easy a task. I've done nothing but work my butt off on my day job since early Jan, so I've done zip toward finishing off the Galleries for final tests. Now I say Feb. Drives me crazy how my deadlines migrate... PJ Reply | Forward

#3825

From: "Glyn" Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:24 pm Subject: RE: What causes displacement in ARV and Viewer Testing glynis5799 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Scott, That is really interesting. Yes, if you want to do an experiment which is more formal and that will stand up with the psi-scientists, then it is an entirely different ball-game to the sort of thing that Liz and I are doing. Our little experiments, although we are serious about them, and they are an amazing learning experience, just won't rate any higher than 'anecdotal' to others; least of all the professionals...but then they were never intended to. However, that does not mean that our results, and any observations we may, or may not make, are invalid of course. ;-) You are talking about the complications of setting up a 'lab-style' experiment. Well PJ's galleries may be a place to do experiments. Can something of that scale be done there PJ? Also, if done over a longer period of time, and not rushed, then you may get lots of willing helpers :-). The idea of a survey is a good one. Yes I understand what you mean by 'calibrated' viewers, but perhaps those who are fairly consistent in picking up major gestalts may be a good place to start.....because you are probably right in that there are few of Joe M's calibre about, but many who may be good enough. :-). Good luck with it Scott..the more experimenting the better :-) Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3828

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 12:04 am Subject: Re: What causes displacement in ARV and Viewer Testing pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hiya Glyn, > Well PJ's galleries may be a place to do > experiments. Can something of that > scale be done there PJ? Also, if done over > a longer period of time, and not > rushed, then you may get lots of willing > helpers :-). The idea of a survey is a > good one. Not my Galleries, TKR's. I'm just the programmer. As it turns out, I may be mostly uninvolved with the overall project once it's live, other than gradual backend devel of other aspects planned to increase its usefulness, so I hope the RV field can supply enough interested and responsible people willing to staff it free to keep it alive for those interested. If it can't, it'll die, and that'll be that; fields at large tend to get what they deserve, be it good or bad. There is one small research project already planned that'll be up to the Wizop Council to vote on accepting when the time comes; the TKR project is equally open to any that want to utilize the combined tools for such a purpose. There is a caveat that the project not be so demanding that it takes so much viewer resources they don't have time to do anything else. The field has too few people already, let alone people willing to share what they're doing with others. Even one small project requiring more than one session a week could wipe out the entire gallery resources for people to be doing anything session wise with the community. PJ Reply | Forward

#3847

From: "Glyn" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:00 pm Subject: RE: Re: What causes displacement in ARV and Viewer Testing glynis5799 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ, > Not my Galleries, TKR's. I'm just the programmer. Just!??? Hah, I have enough trouble with VBA. Now I know you don't like people gushing all over you so I won't, but come on, it wouldn't exist without you :-)). Don't go too far away. > I hope the RV field can supply > enough interested and responsible people willing to staff it free to > keep it alive for those interested. If it can't, it'll die, and > that'll be that; fields at large tend to get what they deserve, be it > good or bad. Unfortunately that can be the case, but following a bit of stagnation there seems always to be the revival, the fresh enthusiasm. And there will be new blood, young viewers eager to learn, and older ones with a lot of experience wanting to look at things afresh and help the new ones. And scientists with different ideas and viewpoints about where parapsychology fits with what we are learning all the time about our universe, whether singular or multiple..:-). All ready to carry on the good fight . The military guys (God bless 'em :-)), have spawned something that won't go away now :-). > The field has too few people already, let > alone people willing to share what they're doing with others. Even > one small project requiring more than one session a week could wipe > out the entire gallery resources for people to be doing anything > session wise with the community. I agree PJ, and with the best will in the world that sort of time is often not available because of other commitments, and lack of energy (Something which you don't seem to suffer from. LOL). But as we all know, time flies.. and in three years 6 months (and counting ;-)), if I make it that far.......I shall be retiring from work. Yippee! Wow!! Great!! Way-Heh! YES!!!! If TKR is still around then, and I still have the inclination, and I think I always will....then I will have loads more time to try to improve my RV and do experiments with others..... until I fall off my perch or get too old to care that is. Meanwhile, I will do my best. LOL! Big Grins, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3829

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:22 pm Subject: Re: What causes displacement in ARV and Viewer Testing pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Scott, > Unfortunately, we know that displacement occurs even with computer > judging. And as I mentioned previously, there also seem to be several 'types' of 'displacement', which means it might be a much more fundamental issue than merely ARV's multiple 'options'. > But the biggest problem in trying to > research these issues is probably > getting enough calibrated viewers in > order to do enough sessions. And I am not sure it helps to try and calibrate someone who is not of a sufficient skill to begin with. If someone was fairly accurate 30% of the time for example, even a real displacement effect could help them be accurate instead of wrong (sort of like a double negative? lol!) enough to still muddy the numbers. > But I'm saddened to say that I'm not > optimistic about being able to > get enough viewers to do enough sessions. Good luck. > money to be able to pay the viewers for that > many sessions not to mention the experimenters. I am really not sure how many decent viewers there are even if you could pay. Maybe time will 'displace' my cynicism. PJ Reply | Forward

#3840

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:43 am Subject: Re: Re: What causes displacement in ARV --scott docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > > > Unfortunately, we know that displacement occurs > even with computer > > judging. > Hello Scott., Not so fast on this one. I only know Greg K's study. Although, hhis was a real effort to test whether a computer judge could avoid displacement, he did not set it up with retrotasking in mind. And the results were not solid enough statistically to prove the case either way. Furthermore, Greg at the end looked over all the results for displacement evidence..which in itself could have CAUSED retrotasking. Greg was not aware of the retrotasking POSSIBILITY AT THAT TIME..so did not set the experiment up to rule out that situation, Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#3812

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:37 pm Subject: Re: Butterfly Effect...interesting movie on alternate realities. docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 I just saw Butterfly Effect. Pretty dramatic and grabbing interpretation of someone who learns to jump from one reality to another..and the attendant situations he faces.. Good flick! Bill

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info