I skimmed CB’s book today…

[Hi JP,

I consider you a good friend. My friend, you have probably had more training as a remote viewer than Dr. Brown. I have seen you produce darn good data on some very down to earth, verifiable targets. So I am posting this in the interest of the science of remote viewing, not to attack your post!]

As a former student of Dr. Courtney Brown I consider his books entertaining works of science fiction and imagination. When reading these books we should consider a few things:

• TRV and SRV are admittedly not remote "viewing," rather remote perception, where the viewer is not seeing anything other then his desk, paper and pen. The "viewer" is not having any kind of experiential event. The "viewer" is sitting at a desk in an alert state letting "ideas" about the target come to him.

• Did any one other than Courtney Brown work the targets? (Any credible remote viewer will tell you unequivocally that you cannot trust the data of one viewer working alone.)

• Who acted as targeteer?

• Were the sessions blind or double blind? Was there a monitor? Who acted as monitor? (His first book Cosmic Voyage was produced with Ed Dames acting as monitor, with knowledge of the target, prompting Courtney.)

• Who conducted the analysis?

• Is any of the raw data published?

• Courtney Brown’s remote viewing training consisted of a 9 day training course in TRV from Ed Dames. (When Dr. Brown says any clear visuals are imagination, he is repeating what he was told by Ed Dames.)

• HRVG has a stable of viewers with more than two years of training, who are beginning to produce clear visual data. If Dr. Brown could produce clear and congruent data on 7 out of 10 validation targets (see image below) then I would begin to believe his sessions on the Reptillians.

(This image is from a blind session, produced by a student viewer at Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild.)

Dick,

Since you took the time to post the results of one student’s blind session, I thought now might be a good time to ask again regarding stats.

Simple question:

Out of 100 blind sessions like the one you just posted

by Jim K, (or how about a couple of your sessions like the PLO/Israeli Olympic incident etc), how many are that accurate of a hit?

I am working on accumulating statistics on my own results. I am a newbie with virtually no experience, so this will be helpful to folks who are curious about what someone might be able to do. So far I have accumulated approximately 40 sessions, with rather interesting results. I’m having my sessions audited now, and if OK with the BBS, I will post the results here, good or bad.

It would be nice if someone else with lot’s of experience like you or Glenn would take a brief moment to respond to this question.

I assume the lack of response to my earlier post titled

something like "Stats, Theorems, etc" was due to the unfortunate paperwork deadlines experienced by the organization.

Then again, sometimes I get the impression that this is more of a site intended for students, ie some questions won’t be answered.

Am I the only one curious about stats? No student has ever asked this question? Are stats proprietary info?

Looking forward to any response, even a "Sorry I can not comment on that." is better than no response at all.

Sorry for the "tone" of the post. It really is not intended to be taken the wrong way. I like you guys a lot, and appreciate every kind soul who has taken the time to respond or comment on my posts in the past. It’s just that Stats seems like such a basic topic of interest that several people should have responded.

In addition, if the question of stats is one that comes up all the time, hence no response as it has already been answered, well…how about a FAQ. That way folks like me with dumb, pestering questions about stats could be referred there. :)

Anyway, sorry for the longwinded post. Thanks to all of you for making this Forum/Board possible.

Regards,

John

From somewhere close to one of the last Communist strongholds, hoping things remain Calm, in the Land of the Morning Calm.

[Hi JP, I consider you a good friend. My friend, you have probably had more training as a remote viewer than Dr. Brown. I have seen you produce darn good data on some very down to earth, verifiable targets. So I am posting this in the interest of the science of remote viewing, not to attack your post!]

As a former student of Dr. Courtney Brown I consider his books entertaining works of science fiction and imagination. When reading these books we should consider a few things:

• TRV and SRV are admittedly not remote "viewing," rather remote perception, where the viewer is not seeing anything other then his desk, paper and pen. The "viewer" is not having any kind of experiential event. The "viewer" is sitting at a desk in an alert state letting "ideas" about the target come to him.

• Did any one other than Courtney Brown work the targets? (Any credible remote viewer will tell you unequivocally that you cannot trust the data of one viewer working alone.)

• Who acted as targeteer?

• Were the sessions blind or double blind? Was there a monitor? Who acted as monitor? (His first book Cosmic Voyage was produced with Ed Dames acting as monitor, with knowledge of the target, prompting Courtney.)

• Who conducted the analysis?

• Is any of the raw data published?

• Courtney Brown’s remote viewing training consisted of a 9 day training course in TRV from Ed Dames. (When Dr. Brown says any clear visuals are imagination, he is repeating what he was told by Ed Dames.)

• HRVG has a stable of viewers with more than two years of training, who are beginning to produce clear visual data. If Dr. Brown could produce clear and congruent data on 7 out of 10 validation targets (see image below) then I would begin to believe his sessions on the Reptillians.

(This image is from a blind session, produced by a student viewer at Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild.)

Looking forward to any response, even a "Sorry I can not comment on that." is better than no response at all.

Well, here’s a response. (I’m an OT student, BTW.)

IMO you’ve asked good questions. I too have wondered why some of them haven’t been answered. I guess Glenn and the others have been busy lately.

Keep trying :)

John- Anyanghaseo…

That is a good question and worthy of a detailed response. I’m just heading out the door to work, so I’ll give a short answer and Glenn and I will come up with a longer post later.

That image I posted of Jim K’s power plant sessions was what we call a "peak moment of clarity." At the time we posted that originally Jim even stated he wished he could do that every time. I think GLenn believes we have it in us to do so, or else why would he spend so much time patiently teaching us … for NOTHING?

I’m getting to the point where I can get about 50 -60 congruent data on most targets. Sometimes I do a session that is a total bomb (that happens.) Sometimes I do one that is stunning.

As for actual percentage tallys… we have some posted on MJ001 and MJ002 sites, on our op targets. I’ll do some computing and get those up.

The point is (in relation to Courtney’s book) is that remote does work. But we have a group of students here with 2 years training vs. Courtney’s 9 days. (I won’t EVEN talk about the quality of the teachers.) You can see our posted sessions, some good work. What kind of sessions do think it would take to be able to say you can understand the Reptillians, and discuss their motivations, etc.?

More later on our own percentages. (Our goal is to make ALL student data available so someone reaching RV could see the progression, from student’s first session to operational remote viewer. It is indeed a long, strange trip.)

I apperciate your synopsis

JEDI The post a short review. See the link.

One thing about RV , It’s not a loners game .To bad for now ,but maby in the future we’ll find out how to be 100% correct individually. What Dreams May come

JEDI

[Hi JP, I consider you a good friend. My friend, you have probably had more training as a remote viewer than Dr. Brown. I have seen you produce darn good data on some very down to earth, verifiable targets. So I am posting this in the interest of the science of remote viewing, not to attack your post!]

As a former student of Dr. Courtney Brown I consider his books entertaining works of science fiction and imagination. When reading these books we should consider a few things:

• TRV and SRV are admittedly not remote "viewing," rather remote perception, where the viewer is not seeing anything other then his desk, paper and pen. The "viewer" is not having any kind of experiential event. The "viewer" is sitting at a desk in an alert state letting "ideas" about the target come to him.

• Did any one other than Courtney Brown work the targets? (Any credible remote viewer will tell you unequivocally that you cannot trust the data of one viewer working alone.)

• Who acted as targeteer?

• Were the sessions blind or double blind? Was there a monitor? Who acted as monitor? (His first book Cosmic Voyage was produced with Ed Dames acting as monitor, with knowledge of the target, prompting Courtney.)

• Who conducted the analysis?

• Is any of the raw data published?

• Courtney Brown’s remote viewing training consisted of a 9 day training course in TRV from Ed Dames. (When Dr. Brown says any clear visuals are imagination, he is repeating what he was told by Ed Dames.)

• HRVG has a stable of viewers with more than two years of training, who are beginning to produce clear visual data. If Dr. Brown could produce clear and congruent data on 7 out of 10 validation targets (see image below) then I would begin to believe his sessions on the Reptillians.

(This image is from a blind session, produced by a student viewer at Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild.)

Dick,

So lack of response wasn’t part of some Reptilian conspiracy! Thank goodness! ;)

Thank you for your response and I will anxiously await the posting of further details. I’ll be patient as things take time.

I’m still awaiting results from a third party on my attempts. I’ve actually posted the 37 trials (each trial being a group of two photos, one to be randomly selected just before feedback date and time)on my web site. I placed them in a private folder which requires a password, the admin password, so I can’t give that out right now. Perhaps I can move them out to the public part of my site and let everyone judge them for themselves, as I’m anxious to continue my experiment.

Regards,

John

John- Anyanghaseo… That is a good question and worthy of a detailed response. I’m just heading out the door to work, so I’ll give a short answer and Glenn and I will come up with a longer post later.

That image I posted of Jim K’s power plant sessions was what we call a "peak moment of clarity." At the time we posted that originally Jim even stated he wished he could do that every time. I think GLenn believes we have it in us to do so, or else why would he spend so much time patiently teaching us … for NOTHING?

I’m getting to the point where I can get about 50 -60 congruent data on most targets. Sometimes I do a session that is a total bomb (that happens.) Sometimes I do one that is stunning.

As for actual percentage tallys… we have some posted on MJ001 and MJ002 sites, on our op targets. I’ll do some computing and get those up.

The point is (in relation to Courtney’s book) is that remote does work. But we have a group of students here with 2 years training vs. Courtney’s 9 days. (I won’t EVEN talk about the quality of the teachers.) You can see our posted sessions, some good work. What kind of sessions do think it would take to be able to say you can understand the Reptillians, and discuss their motivations, etc.?

More later on our own percentages. (Our goal is to make ALL student data available so someone reaching RV could see the progression, from student’s first session to operational remote viewer. It is indeed a long, strange trip.)

John..

we’re just a few people who work regular full time jobs. Sometimes you post a question that would take some work to answer… we go "Hmm that’s interesting. I’ll have get around to answering that…" then other things crop up and it falls by the wayside.

I just the other day sent a whole new "news" page to Glenn to post (hint, hint) and I also scanned two new sessions to post on the wherabouts of a most wanted murder suspect.

There’s just too much to do… the IRS papers, getting Cascade protocols out, many emails, family matters, remote viewing committments that pile up…

So please excuse us..

Gonna have a martini too.

Aloha John, I will try and give you a quantifiable answer.

When a remote viewer "Stands UP" (a term we use to identify a Remote Viewer who has completed training) he/she should be able to produce data at a percentage rate between 60% to 72%. That should be the expectation of the tasker and or client. This means a tasker should only ever expect to get about 2/3’s of the answer from a single remote viewer.

Any answer from a single remote viewer should be integrated with other data for consideration. This data should never stand alone.

The employment of multiple remote viewers against a target will give good saturation and allow for identification of data that corroborates, which carries heavier weight than uncoroborated data from a single viewer.

Each Remote viewer has a cycle of contact. There are peak times as well as low periods, there are ascending periods of increased contact as well as decending levels of contact. Identification of these periods within the cycle for a specific viewer may allow for the percentage of good data to be increased by "Smart Tasking" a viewer.

Each Viewer is different. Analysis is required to really be able to determine the percentage of good data as opposed to bad. It is not something a viewer can determine. You never let the fox count the eggs :)

If I worked 100 targets my baseline percentage of good data would fall around 70% mean for the 100 sessions. If I was only tasked to view during periods where I am in cycle that number would be much higher.

Aloha Glenn

Glenn,

Thanks a million. That is exactly what I was looking for. This confirms my "hunch" that a structured learning program such as yours, would indeed help me with my binary target remote viewing.

Regards,

John

Aloha John, I will try and give you a quantifiable answer.

When a remote viewer "Stands UP" (a term we use to identify a Remote Viewer who has completed training) he/she should be able to produce data at a percentage rate between 60% to 72%. That should be the expectation of the tasker and or client. This means a tasker should only ever expect to get about 2/3’s of the answer from a single remote viewer.

Any answer from a single remote viewer should be integrated with other data for consideration. This data should never stand alone.

The employment of multiple remote viewers against a target will give good saturation and allow for identification of data that corroborates, which carries heavier weight than uncoroborated data from a single viewer.

Each Remote viewer has a cycle of contact. There are peak times as well as low periods, there are ascending periods of increased contact as well as decending levels of contact. Identification of these periods within the cycle for a specific viewer may allow for the percentage of good data to be increased by "Smart Tasking" a viewer.

Each Viewer is different. Analysis is required to really be able to determine the percentage of good data as opposed to bad. It is not something a viewer can determine. You never let the fox count the eggs :)

If I worked 100 targets my baseline percentage of good data would fall around 70% mean for the 100 sessions. If I was only tasked to view during periods where I am in cycle that number would be much higher.

Aloha Glenn

:)

Well, here’s a response. (I’m an OT student, BTW.)

IMO you’ve asked good questions. I too have wondered why some of them haven’t been answered. I guess Glenn and the others have been busy lately.

Keep trying :)

>

Zoltan,

Thanks for your response. You are Dick too, right?

Anyway, Glenn really helped with his post below. It helps me as I look at my own stats.

I hope some others chime in. I’m very curious about all of this. I will be doing another 20 or so trials here over the next few days.

Regards,

John

(Definitely feeling Calm!)

John.. we’re just a few people who work regular full time jobs. Sometimes you post a question that would take some work to answer… we go "Hmm that’s interesting. I’ll have get around to answering that…" then other things crop up and it falls by the wayside.

I just the other day sent a whole new "news" page to Glenn to post (hint, hint) and I also scanned two new sessions to post on the wherabouts of a most wanted murder suspect.

There’s just too much to do… the IRS papers, getting Cascade protocols out, many emails, family matters, remote viewing committments that pile up…

So please excuse us..

Aloha John! Primarily the reason why I didn’t respond is because I have never done an assay of my hits vs misses of all my sessions.. I do know that when I am "ON" my congruency is very high and when I am "OFF" my non-congruency is very high too :)! At least I am consistent LOL! Reviewing and analysing all my sessions over the past two years is a project I am about to undertake..so when I have completed, I will be able to better answer your question. Aloha, Mana

Aloha John! Primarily the reason why I didn’t respond is because I have never done an assay of my hits vs misses of all my sessions.. I do know that when I am "ON" my congruency is very high and when I am "OFF" my non-congruency is very high too :)! At least I am consistent LOL! Reviewing and analysing all my sessions over the past two years is a project I am about to undertake..so when I have completed, I will be able to better answer your question. Aloha, Mana