New session published

Excellent work John M !!

VSW

I think it’s a great session of data that’s congruent to the target. It’s good to see another published target come out of HRVG. Merry Christmas to all of you, and keep on viewing!

Rich

I sent John M’s session on HAARP for publication because it contains some very interesting and specific data congruent to the target.

If you look at his session you will see his second Visual Ideogram depicts identical vertical structures grouped together.

His Sponid Probes yield a target that is Complex, Manmade, and Dynamic.

In S-4 Cascade (Land 1) John describes the target as "metallic high tech structure" "Industrial gear" "active" (active is part of the name of the target) and he describes "group structures."

In S-4 Cascade (Human 1) his data indicates "energy above around" "Exotic" "management devices" "structures contributing to power."

And his Air 1 Blackboard Sketch shows charged air.

All in the theme of the session is a metallic manmade dynamic structure relating to energy, which is a good low level descripition of HAARP.

Aloha,

Dick

I think it’s a great session of data that’s congruent to the target. It’s good to see another published target come out of HRVG. Merry Christmas to all of you, and keep on viewing!

Rich

Hi Rich,

People like to see sessions- the real, actual RV data produced by a viewer working blind. It is instructional and interesting. I always wonder why more RV groups don’t publish more sessions.

Aloha,

Dick

Dick,

If you look at his session you will see his second Visual Ideogram depicts identical vertical structures grouped together.

It is this kind of blatant data-fitting that turns outsiders away from serious discussion/examination of RV. Quite simply, that second Visual Ideogram could have been fit to virtually anything.

His Sponid Probes yield a target that is Complex, Manmade, and Dynamic.

If he said Simple, Manmade, and Dynamic, that would probably look about right, too. In fact, the structure appears to be quite simple in appearance, to me. And it doesn’t look that dynamic, either.

Forgive me if this is a mistake, but does he not also say "Complex semi-hard *natural* dynamic" (emphasis mine) right below that?

In S-4 Cascade (Land 1) John describes the target as "metallic high tech structure" "Industrial gear" "active" (active is part of the name of the target) and he describes "group structures."

Sure, but what about the 100 other things he said, even on the *same page?* No offense, but this looks like an exercise in generating close-to-random data with hope that some of it fits–which it obviously must.

In S-4 Cascade (Human 1) his data indicates "energy above around" "Exotic" "management devices" "structures contributing to power."

Why is "exotic" relevant? What about "Flames", or the word that you omitted, "Interior"?

And his Air 1 Blackboard Sketch shows charged air.

How do you know that is supposed to be charged air?

All in the theme of the session is a metallic manmade dynamic structure relating to energy, which is a good low level descripition of HAARP.

Or, perhaps, a natural, burning, large circular place with semi-soft structures and flames, which is a good low level description of a volcano, or something.

I doubt anybody here will take this criticism seriously, but it is just so obvious that this is data fitting/fishing. I have serious doubts that you would be able to come up with that summary if you didn’t know what you were looking for. Why can’t you guys generate some of those awesome sessions that I used to see ’round here (particularly some of yours, Dick) and simply admit that sessions like these are, unfortunately, misses?

Regards,

Eric

Hi Eric,

If you gave an impartial judge (who didn’t know what the target was) 4 photographs- an iceberg floating in the ocean, the Battaan Death March, HAARP array, and President Bush giving a speech to congress- and if the judge honestly evaluated the data and compared the data to the 4 possible target photos, I feel a judge would be able to select the correct target based on John’s remote viewing data.

I know I could, because I know how to look at and evaluate remote viewing sessions.

John’s session is by no means pristine, and it not does it "call target." But there is data contained in there that demonstrates without a doubt he exhibited non-local awareness.

All sessions are a combination of good data, contamination, and imagination. We know from the work we have done and the projects we have published that no one single remote viewing session is really worth much. As a stand alone session this one is limited. But if you had two other viewers who also provided sessions John’s data might very well be crucial in corroborating important elements.

I’m working on a couple of new presentations that will show how a viewer can even be "mostly off" yet provide important data that filters through analysis and enables the analyst to state very specific and important things about the target.

By the way, is the Eric T? Jim’s student?

Aloha

Dick

By the way, is the Eric T? Jim’s student?

Nope.

This is me. Note the email, mystic_rhythms, thats my RV email. This is another Eric, he used to post as TheErk.

Aloha

Dick

Dick,

Good response. I think I asked this earlier, but don’t recall getting an answer:

At one point, someone said you couldn’t do the 4-pool-target experiment (something that would quickly generate hard statistical proof) because of some reason or another. Recently, someone said that you can do it, and your post here sounds like you’re implying it is possible after all. So, what’s the verdict? :)

Any chance you could set something up of that nature?

Sincerely,

Eric

At one point, someone said you couldn’t do the 4-pool-target experiment (something that would quickly generate hard statistical proof) because of some reason or another. Recently, someone said that you can do it, and your post here sounds like you’re implying it is possible after all. So, what’s the verdict? :)

Hi Eric,

Remote viewing works best when there is ONE target of interest with some need for the data. For judging purposes it might be possible to give a viewer one target, and then later select dissimilar photos to determine if the "judge" could pick the correct target photo based on the data. The example I used is something being done by Skip Atwater at The Monroe Institute’s RV training. Teaching people to "judge" RV data assessing the data produced by the viewer and comparing it to 4 photos- one is the target photo, and 3 others are photos with different gestalts. I still don’t like the idea of "pool" targets.

Back to why that session was posted. As an instructor and mentor I believe in positive reinforcement. Remote viewing is damn difficult. If it were easy you would see a lot of sessions posted about the internet. I think it is better to highlight someone’s good moments rather than point out their bad data. I’ve turned in some of the most absurd, totally off target sessions you could imagine, and never got a bit of criticism from Glenn. To learn to remote view you have to have the guts to turn in anything.

If you look at the SESSIONS page -advanced class- FLIGHT 800 / RECONSTRUCTION EVENT session that I did in class about 5 years ago. The data is mostly off target. But at one point I drew the reassembled fuselage. For that moment I demonstrated something beyond the capability of most humans. Likewise John demonstrated similar clarity for the moments I highlighted in his session. Glenn published my Flight 800 session and I published John’s HAARP session to show the public what remote viewing sessions really look like- the good, the bad, the ugly. Some make claims about remote viewing without showing the raw data, and this leads to misconceptions that damage the field.

And finally I would say to you Eric- what have you done? Do you have any work or credentials we can look at? If you could produce a session as good as John’s I am sure you would be overjoyed to have your good data pointed out.

Aloha

Dick

Dick,

And finally I would say to you Eric- what have you done? Do you have any work or credentials we can look at? If you could produce a session as good as John’s I am sure you would be overjoyed to have your good data pointed out.

This question is misleading–you should know that I am not saying I can do better. Rather, you should know that I am skeptical of RV as a whole, so obviously, this is not an example of "Your sessions are off, mine are better", rather, "Your sessions are off, are you so sure this actually works at all?"

Regards,

Eric

Eric,

What I am about to say is an observation I made that was highlighted by your comments. I am not singling you out here, it may even not apply to you.

I am amazed at the number of people who spend years bickering with various groups regarding the validity of RV data, when a week of dedication to learning the skill would probably yield more answers. As for me, I was a little more stubborn than most, but I’d say that after 6 months of practise, I remote viewed the pants off myself in a double-blind environment enough times to convince only one person, Me.

When Galileo tried to show the moons of Jupiter through his telescope, he supposedly got the answer:

"We refuse to look through your scope, until you prove to us first, that there’s something out there to see"

That approach didn’t work then, I don’t think it works very well in this case either.

Jim K.

Dick,

This question is misleading–you should know that I am not saying I can do better. Rather, you should know that I am skeptical of RV as a whole, so obviously, this is not an example of "Your sessions are off, mine are better", rather, "Your sessions are off, are you so sure this actually works at all?"

Regards, Eric

Jim,

I am amazed at the number of people who spend years bickering with various groups regarding the validity of RV data, when a week of dedication to learning the skill would probably yield more answers.

I’m pretty sure the amount of time I spend posting here is far less than the amount of time it would take to learn to RV. This happens to be the only RV community I pay attention to; it’s not like I post similarly on all sorts of other message boards.

"We refuse to look through your scope, until you prove to us first, that there’s something out there to see"

This is, unfortunately, a terrible analogy. In this case, looking through the telescope is *not* learning to RV–it is simply looking at the data, which I do.

Sorry, but you can’t simply tell people to learn it themselves. If RV really works, then the proof should be in the data–there is absolutely no excuse which allows you to demand that others spend six months just to examine yet another claim of the paranormal. Science doesn’t work like that. Archaelologists don’t come back from an excavation saying "We found some great stuff out there–revolutionary new information about Egyptian culture. Don’t believe us? Go dig for yourself." Rather, they simply show what they found. You are effectively telling me to spend an amount of time that is absurdly longer than it should be; you’re telling me to go dig, rather than showing me what *you* found.

That kind of attitude only makes me more skeptical that there’s nothing to be found.

Regards,

Eric

Jim,

I’m pretty sure the amount of time I spend posting here is far less than the amount of time it would take to learn to RV. This happens to be the only RV community I pay attention to; it’s not like I post similarly on all sorts of other message boards.

This is, unfortunately, a terrible analogy. In this case, looking through the telescope is *not* learning to RV–it is simply looking at the data, which I do.

Sorry, but you can’t simply tell people to learn it themselves. If RV really works, then the proof should be in the data–there is absolutely no excuse which allows you to demand that others spend six months just to examine yet another claim of the paranormal. Science doesn’t work like that. Archaelologists don’t come back from an excavation saying "We found some great stuff out there–revolutionary new information about Egyptian culture. Don’t believe us? Go dig for yourself." Rather, they simply show what they found. You are effectively telling me to spend an amount of time that is absurdly longer than it should be; you’re telling me to go dig, rather than showing me what *you* found.

That kind of attitude only makes me more skeptical that there’s nothing to be found.

Regards, Eric

Aloha Eric-

I appreciate your criticism of the work I submitted

to the Guild for analysis. I admit it probably is not
dazzling compared to other viewers or targets. I have
done other work which Dick has done analysis on which wasn’t worth the amount of professional time he spends
and have accomplished target contact of merit on other projects. I consider myself fortunate to have been exposed to HRVG’s methodology, instructors and community. RVing is a difficult skill to acquire and
keep perfecting. You are challenging your last piece of work to do better. Currently I do at least one target blind up through Playfair a day and sometimes two a day. The benefits are many. My average is better, my efficiency of protocol utilizattion has improved and the world is filled with unique cooincidences I can’t begin to talk about.

There are those cycles when I’m not getting anything

or less of what I expected. My enthusiasm wanes and then it’s drill time to get me through. This target and feedback helped alot. The work does pay off.
Out of those four photographs Dick was using as examples, I hope, an impartial judge without fishingpole would have chosen the HAARP pic.

Again, if you’re interested in the reality of proof in

RVing, task yourself with instruction.

All the best,

Johnm

The HRVG website and board was never created to make believers out of skeptics, but rather to promote research and development of a skill. The proof is out there in scientific publications from PEAR, Rhine and SRI etc., you won’t find it here.

Jim K.

That kind of attitude only makes me more skeptical that there’s nothing to be found.

I’m pretty sure the amount of time I spend posting here is far less than the amount of time it would take to learn to RV. This happens to be the only RV community I pay attention to; it’s not like I post similarly on all sorts of other message boards.

That’s why I prefaced my post specifically stating that I was not talking about you specifically, just my general observation that most people are lazy asses who want everything served up to them with minimal work done themselves.

This is especially true with people I deal with in this field. Some argue for years over scientific protocol and how the system can be fooled by crafty test subjects, if they instead do the test themselves, they’ll see that the effect is not due to fraud, but is instead caused by some other unknown mean.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but having looked at our website and all the sessions published here, you surely must be convinced that we are a bunch of hoaxers. If not, how do you explain what you see here?

Jim K.

>>>This is, unfortunately, a terrible analogy. In this case, looking through the telescope is *not* learning to RV–it is simply looking at the data, which I do.

I disagree. Are you familiar with the old adage "seeing is believing"? You won’t believe what you read in the data reported by someone else who has "seen" the target through the telescope, i.e., who has remotely viewed the target. You will believe when YOU have remotely viewed the target.

If all you’re interested in is proof that RV works (a rather limited goal) that doesn’t require 6 months of training, Eric. I had my proof the very first time I probed my very first ideogram — the initial "doodle" the RVer draws in CRV. I felt like an idiot going through the motions, as I didn’t see how one could possibly determine whether the target was solid, gas, or liquid by poking their pen at some nondescript doodle scrawled on a sheet of paper. But, as I brought my pen down on the doodle, _I felt it SPLASH_! There I was, pen in hand, dry paper on dry table, no puddles in sight. And my pen SPLASHED when I poked the doodle! That’s impossible, isn’t it?

The target was, in fact, a body of water.

>>> Archaelologists don’t come back from an excavation saying "We found some great stuff out there–revolutionary new information about Egyptian culture. Don’t believe us? Go dig for yourself." Rather, they simply show what they found.

This is, unfortunately, a terrible analogy, Eric. ;-)

First, no archaeologist wants you or anyone else encroaching on their dig or making off with their finds. Second, there is such a thing as archaeological fraud where the scientist/scholar plants his/her own find; such a fraudster surely doesn’t want to risk your discovering the fraud. Third, in order to properly evaluate the legitimacy of the find, you would need to know something about archaeology and Egyptology. Finally, the expense of travel to Egypt is prohibitive. Hence, for numerous practical reasons, it is highly unlikely that the archaeologist would suggest that you travel to Egypt and dig for yourself. Rather, you will meekly accept what the archaeologist tells you because it is a conventional science with which you are personally comfortable.

>>You are effectively telling me to spend an amount of time that is absurdly longer than it should be; you’re telling me to go dig, rather than showing me what *you* found.

No, Eric. HRVG IS showing you what they have found. You refuse to believe it — just as I refuse to believe the labels on many foods/beverages.

How many times have you heard news reports about designer water — supposedly gushing forth from a pristine mountain spring in some equally pristine environment — that turned out to be tap water from the City of Chicago? I’ll believe the label when I personally see the mountain water transitioning, unadulterated, from bubbling spring to plastic bottle. Frankly, I don’t care all that much, so it’s unlikely I’ll be making the trip anytime soon.

You’ll believe that RV is real, not when you read the data, but when you try it yourself and see first-hand that it works. It may require 6 months to develop some basic level of PROFICIENCY at RV, but you will know that RV works within a couple of days — when, e.g., you feel your pen splash as it touches a doodle scrawled on a dry piece of paper. The question is: how important is it to YOU? Is it important enough that YOU will actually take the time to try it yourself? Or is it easier to engage BBS participants in endless debate on a question that can be definitively answered only through some type of personal experience?

You’re taking the easy way out, Eric. And short-changing yourself of a potentially life-changing experience in the process.

Best,

Susan

If Eric argues that John’s session contains data that is inconclusive, then is he admitting that the data is in fact legitimately obtained?

If so, then how does he discount pristine, undeniable evidence similarly obtained in other sessions? (See MOMENTS OF CLARITY button on the bottom right of homepage.)

He argues that all RV is somehow a hoax, but points to this session as being not good enough- yet at the same time tacitly admitting its legitimacy. If this session was done under honest blind conditions but is simply not good enough for him, what about other sessions done under identical conditions that leave no room for doubt?

Aloha

Dick

Jim,

The HRVG website and board was never created to make believers out of skeptics,

…fair enough.

but rather to promote research and development of a skill. The proof is out there in scientific publications from PEAR, Rhine and SRI etc., you won’t find it here.

Those studies by those three are highly flawed, with special emphasis on Rhine, who, if I recall correctly, fudged some results.

Eric

Dick,

I really don’t mean to insinuate hoax, so don’t take this the wrong way. But what you’re saying is, basically, that just because one session is legit, all of them are. It is entirely possible that some sessions are done honestly, and some are hoaxes.

Eric

>>I felt like an idiot going through the motions, as I didn’t see how one could possibly determine whether the target was solid, gas, or liquid by poking their pen at some nondescript doodle scrawled on a sheet of paper. But, as I brought my pen down on the doodle, _I felt it SPLASH_! There I was, pen in hand, dry paper on dry table, no puddles in sight. And my pen SPLASHED when I poked the doodle! That’s impossible, isn’t it?

Hi Susan,

first coordinate I tried, I summarised a fair ground helper skelter, it turn out to be a Ferris wheel

second, I took 3 session on one coordinate, got white disc structures on black background, turned out to be 3 satellite dishes.

another fairly early one was 2 parallel lines with some horizontal white and a vertical dot or 2, it was 2 Indian surfers at the sea shore. LOL!

But what you’re saying is, basically, that just because one session is legit, all of them are. It is entirely possible that some sessions are done honestly, and some are hoaxes.

Eric

Eric (Erk),

No that is not what he means (imo). Sessions are done honestly always…(let’s hope) – but just like most honest things in life, you get yer good data, you get yer bad data and you get yer idunno data. But just because one’s data is incorrect for the target certainly doesn’t mean it’s a hoax!!! I ask rhetorically: Do you understand the difference? well I hope so! tee hee

If you are looking for data presented honestly, I encourage reading Upton Sinclair’s Mental Radio…it’s EXCELLENT (imo)! Albert Einstein wrote the forward – I respect his opinion. He says something to the effect that the book is not one that should be passed up. Sinclair presents data from "RV-telepathy-type" experiments that he and his wife did. Fascinating stuff!

Cheerio and a Toast to More RV for You in the Happy New Year!

Joanie

Eric,

I disagree. Are you familiar with the old adage "seeing is believing"?

Humans can be deceived. Seeing may be believing, but believing isn’t truth.

You won’t believe what you read in the data reported by someone else who has "seen" the target through the telescope, i.e., who has remotely viewed the target. You will believe when YOU have remotely viewed the target.

Oh, really? I guess RV just happens to differ from the rest of the entire body of science, where solid evidence is good enough. If RV was real, the data itself–and not the action of RVing–should be enough to make me believe. Although I’ve looked through a telescope before, I don’t need it to understand the planetary motions.

This is, unfortunately, a terrible analogy, Eric. ;-) First, no archaeologist wants you or anyone else encroaching on their dig or making off with their finds.

Not only did you miss the hypothetical point I was making, you act as if I said an archaelogist *would* actually say that, when I clearly said the opposite.

>Second, there is such a thing as archaeological fraud where the scientist/scholar plants his/her own find; such a fraudster surely doesn’t want to risk your discovering the fraud. Third, in order to properly evaluate the legitimacy of the find, you would need to know something about archaeology and Egyptology. Finally, the expense of travel to Egypt is prohibitive. Hence, for numerous practical reasons, it is highly unlikely that the archaeologist would suggest that you travel to Egypt and dig for yourself.

Yes, because it is absurd. Similarly, so is your assertion that RV must be done by any person who wishes to believe it to be true.

No, Eric. HRVG IS showing you what they have found. You refuse to believe it — just as I refuse to believe the labels on many foods/beverages.

There’s nothing to ‘refuse’. Although the "moments of clarity" are impressive, they are the equivalent anecdotes. I see no official experiment protocol set up with the intention of producing the hard, statistical evidence that is required.

You’ll believe that RV is real, not when you read the data, but when you try it yourself and see first-hand that it works.

This is the major point that is being discussed. Simply making this assertion does not contribute at all, nor does it make the assertion true.

It may require 6 months to develop some basic level of PROFICIENCY at RV, but you will know that RV works within a couple of days — when, e.g., you feel your pen splash as it touches a doodle scrawled on a dry piece of paper. The question is: how important is it to YOU? Is it important enough that YOU will actually take the time to try it yourself? Or is it easier to engage BBS participants in endless debate on a question that can be definitively answered only through some type of personal experience?

This debate isn’t endless. How many messages have I posted in this thread? Four or five?

Heck, it’s not really a debate anyway.

You’re taking the easy way out, Eric. And short-changing yourself of a potentially life-changing experience in the process.

I dunno about that. I think the data should speak for itself. Your entire post seems to suggest that it doesn’t–you *must* have the personal experience. If so, once again, why is that? Why is it that remote viewing just happens to be the only field in science that requires adherents to actually do it, rather than practically all other fields, where the evidence speaks for itself?

Regards,

Eric

Beating a dead horse again, huh? I think Glenn put it quite nicely (see the link).

HRVG as well as other remote viewers are operating under the assumption that ESP is real (and some do not believe much more than that, myself included). For most people it is simply a matter of common sense (the published work here should be convincing enough IMO, but obviously the amount of "proof" required depends on the person), and they could care less about the science. One can’t really understand RV, or believe in RV, without doing it. It is not about beating the odds, unless that is what you are pursuing.

Lucid,

One can’t really understand RV, or believe in RV, without doing it. It is not about beating the odds, unless that is what you are pursuing.

Are you actually reading the discussion, or just kind of skimming it over? I don’t mean to be rude, but what you just said is basically the entire topic. You contribute nothing by simply saying "You have to do it" without offering any particular reasoning to support your claim.

Sincerely,

Eric

ERK,

Lucid is correct…and I add, RV is like sex. You cannot understand it until you actually DO IT and even then you still cannot understand it, but you _DO_ believe in it.

In the Spirit,

Joanie

Hehe, I agree whole heartedly, I don’t give a rats about whether people believe in RV right now or not, I am having a blast doing it, and when the collective evidence is sufficient to turn the opinion of the masses around, well, I guess we’ll have an orgy on our hands :-)

Jim K.

ERK,

Lucid is correct…and I add, RV is like sex. You cannot understand it until you actually DO IT and even then you still cannot understand it, but you _DO_ believe in it.

In the Spirit, Joanie

Jim,

Hehe, I agree whole heartedly, I don’t give a rats about whether people believe in RV right now or not, I am having a blast doing it, and when the collective evidence is sufficient to turn the opinion of the masses around, well, I guess we’ll have an orgy on our hands :-)

If that is your position, so be it. I maintain that it’s a rather selfish one. It’s kind of like having the cure for cancer, but only applying the knowledge to your immediate family.

Eric

Joanie,

Lucid is correct…and I add, RV is like sex. You cannot understand it until you actually DO IT and even then you still cannot understand it, but you _DO_ believe in it.

Oh, of course Lucid is correct; nobody here is ever wrong, right? Rarely do I see dissent amongst you. But I digress…

This discussion is not about ‘understanding’ RV. It’s about establishing whether or not it works. True understanding can come after that. The fact is, most people know what sex is, and that it really does happen (!), way before they ever understand what it’s all about.

If you step back for a second and read what you’re actually writing, hopefully you’ll see how absurd the position is: you’re saying that there’s no way to even know that it works unless you actually do it. No external evidence. No way to generate hard statistical data. Either that, or you are claiming that skeptics won’t believe the data when it is presented, which is generally false.

If there is really no way to generate hard data, then either RV is useless, or it’s a delusion.

Eric

If that is your position, so be it. I maintain that it’s a rather selfish one. It’s kind of like having the cure for cancer, but only applying the knowledge to your immediate family.

Come on, gimme a break, don’t try to make me feel bad for being sick and tired trying to prove this thing to everyone who is too lazy or uninterested to try it themselves.

***

If there is really no way to generate hard data, then either RV is useless, or it’s a delusion.
***

The U.S. government spent millions of dollars evaluating and using Remote Viewing for operational intelligence, and it culminated in 2 reports regarding the validity of the program by Dr. Jessica Utts and Dr. Ray Hyman.

They came to different conclusions, I suggest you read both and pick your side.

If you agree with Dr. Utts, please feel free to come back and discuss substance.

(anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/air2.html)

If you agree with Dr. Hyman, I suggest you find another field to dabble in since this is all delusion anyway.

(www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html)

That is all I have to say on this topic.

Sincerely,

Jim Karlsson

Jim,

Come on, gimme a break, don’t try to make me feel bad for being sick and tired trying to prove this thing to everyone who is too lazy or uninterested to try it themselves.

The point is, I shouldn’t have to do it myself. The external evidence should speak for itself. Nobody has yet responded to this incredibly obvious point, instead just telling me to "do it myself."

What is the difference between you telling me to RV, and a cryptzoologist telling me to go out and find the Loch Ness Monster myself? A stool sample would suffice. I don’t really need to go out and see it for myself to believe it.

*** If there is really no way to generate hard data, then either RV is useless, or it’s a delusion. ***

The U.S. government spent millions of dollars evaluating and using Remote Viewing for operational intelligence, and it culminated in 2 reports regarding the validity of the program by Dr. Jessica Utts and Dr. Ray Hyman. They came to different conclusions, I suggest you read both and pick your side.

Yes, I’m well aware of the entire SAIC experiments and the written follow-ups. I happen to agree with Hyman.

If you agree with Dr. Utts, please feel free to come back and discuss substance. (anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/air2.html)

And if I don’t? Am I no longer welcome in the discussion? :(

If you agree with Dr. Hyman, I suggest you find another field to dabble in since this is all delusion anyway. (www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html)

Right, the failure of one experiment to generate conclusive results means the entire field is delusion? Don’t put words into my mouth.

Regards,

Eric

Mr. Other Eric -this is EricT people. Get it straight. ;)

Umm… youve seen the data. And have complained about it. Soo… what? You complain about us not giving you data that, for whatever odd reason I dont get, we seem to owe you? Theres plenty on the site. Here:

www.hrvg.org/cgi-bin/specialsessionthumbnail.pl

Theres one o mine. Yay for me.

Now, I can only tell you it was done double blind. Call me a liar, dont believe me… I dont care. But I say it was. In fact, that was tasked from the island. Which I dont live on. Hard to get more double blind than having the Pacific Ocean as your blind. I mean, sheesh.

Is it good? It’s alright. But what does it prove? You seem to waffle between wanting proof that RV can work well enough to be truly useful, which is one thing, and proving it works AT ALL. Which is another.

Well, I think this proves the latter quite well. As far as this being ops worthy, well heck no. But OPS worthy RVers take years of hard practice. Years. Its like comparing white belts with 4 stripe black belts in a karate class. Yeah, you can learn to do a shaky roundhouse within a month or two, its the best feeling in the world. You feel like Bruce lee. Now, you look like a very drunk Jackie Chan, and you couldnt land that kcik on an airstrip. But thats how learning goes.

Now, if all you need is a kick to believe, than there is plenty of evidence here that should do it. But I dont feel that you want to believe. In my opinion, there is a part of you that could get buried up to your neck in sand, yet refuse to believe the sand is there because you cant see it while you look straight up.

So dont believe. I didnt. Jim K showed me a great session, I still didnt believe. But I was damn curious. I had to do it. Now, I hear your wacky if you had good enough evidence done up just the way I like it argument coming, and heres the deal- I dont care. Were different. I HAD TO DO IT TO BELIEVE IT. No matter how much evidence I saw. Its… so internal to a person. And, it kicks the crap out of your belief systems. It needs to be experienced. I woudnt be here otherwise. Thats my opinion mind you. Others may feel different. Whoopty-doo.

Again, you make the argument that all you need is some hard evidence, but you put up too much of a fight on this for me to buy it. I respect your skeptisism. That is healthy. But I mean… I havent spent any time reading those reports. It was faster for me to just try it. You dont need training to just try out some basic gestalts.

So be true to yourself. Decide what you want out of life. Is passing up a life changing experience worth the risk of a few hours training, and feeling a bit foolish? That was my query when I started. I am glad I took the risk.

All I am asking is, drop the evidence BS, and try it. If you are too scared of the ramifications, then dont. But stop acting like anyone here owes you any fancy tests, specially done sessions, whatever. That data is out there. Some tests were done with bad scientific protocol. So what? Some werent. People used to have wooden teeth back in the day. We know that aint a good idea. Gonna stop going to your dentist?

Enough outlandish analogies from me.

Eric, look- just try it. Its so much easier than the route you are taking. Wait for the general public to see some perfect bulletproof experiment and well… youll be waiting.

Best regards, THE OTHER ERIC.

PS – No flames intended here. While I respected your argument at one point… its just gone on a bit long for my patience. No disrespect intended, just a little genuine frustration. People that act like they are owed something for nothing is a pet peeve of mine. Go figure.

Joanie,

Oh, of course Lucid is correct; nobody here is ever wrong, right? Rarely do I see dissent amongst you. But I digress…

This discussion is not about ‘understanding’ RV. It’s about establishing whether or not it works. True understanding can come after that. The fact is, most people know what sex is, and that it really does happen (!), way before they ever understand what it’s all about.

If you step back for a second and read what you’re actually writing, hopefully you’ll see how absurd the position is: you’re saying that there’s no way to even know that it works unless you actually do it. No external evidence. No way to generate hard statistical data. Either that, or you are claiming that skeptics won’t believe the data when it is presented, which is generally false.

If there is really no way to generate hard data, then either RV is useless, or it’s a delusion.

Eric

Erk,

It should have been clear by now from our misson statement (www.hrvg.org/philosophy.html) what the aim of HRVG is.

If you want us to help you find or design research that proves remote viewing, you sure as heck went about it the wrong way and pissed a bunch of people off instead.

One of the most important aspects of learning to Remote Viewing is to provide subjective feedback to the students, while your feedback is important as well, I found your first comment the most egregiously worded:

"It is this kind of blatant data-fitting that turns outsiders away from serious discussion/examination of RV."

Now how the heck can you call that constructive? Our students are our number one priority, and I am not going to sit back and watch people interfere with the learning process in such a way that you just demonstrated.

If you had approached the subject a bit more sensibly, instead of igniting flamebait, I am sure we all would have been more than happy to discuss it with you.

Sincerely,

Jim Karlsson

Hehe, I agree whole heartedly, I don’t give a rats about whether people believe in RV right now or not, I am having a blast doing it, and when the collective evidence is sufficient to turn the opinion of the masses around, well, I guess we’ll have an orgy on our hands :-)

Jim K.

Glad you got a chuckle Jim…I was going to use the analogy of riding a bicycle…but then the other analogy came to mind and somehow seemed more appropriate for all its nuances. :-)

Joanie

Jim,

The point is, I shouldn’t have to do it myself. The external evidence should speak for itself. Nobody has yet responded to this incredibly obvious point, instead just telling me to "do it myself."

I agree with you completely. However, I think our difference of opinion exists as to whether the external evidence that is out there (studies mostly, but certainly HRVG too) does speak for itself. I have seen HRVG operate firsthand as a newbie in the residential class. I nitpicked and attacked every possible flaw whenever anyone (especially myself) had good data. My most grevious issue when I started with HRVG while I was taking classes there was that I never felt comfortable if ANYONE (even people not doing the target) in the room had any clue as to the target. This may seem like a ridiculously minor point considering the evidentiary ramifications of hitting good data even with this setup, but it is just in my nature to critically analyze everything.

However, I think what they are doing is pretty tight in terms of science. They have a good chain of custody, target selection, analysis, and take great care to avoid pitfalls. I can tell you that they are honest, but I can’t really (nor should I) try to persuade you on this issue.

Don’t sell short the idea of trying to RV yourself. It really is the best way to ensure a completely airtight experiment. Plus, there is a big difference between analyzing scientific data and being convinced and actually experiencing remote viewing. It is SO worth it to do it yourself. I don’t know if you have seen these sessions, but consider looking at a few like The Great Blue Hole, the Korean National Assembly Building, The Lighthouse, the Moonville Tunnel, and many others I can’t recall off the top of my head. Heck, just look at about 10 of Dick’s best sessions. He’s probably got the best public published sessions on the entire Web. ..and if he doesn’t, please point me in that direction.. :) He is (at least in my opinion) one of the best remote viewers in the field right now. He’s certainly publishing the best sessions.

I’m not going to say much more on this issue. A lot of evidence exists, and there may be an honest difference of opinion as to the validity of what’s out there. RV is the kind of thing that will take time for a new paradigm to develop in science. One can only hope that HRVG can continue to do their part in helping build a stronger foundation of scientific evidence.

Rich

What is the difference between you telling me to RV, and a cryptzoologist telling me to go out and find the Loch Ness Monster myself? A stool sample would suffice. I don’t really need to go out and see it for myself to believe it.

Yes, I’m well aware of the entire SAIC experiments and the written follow-ups. I happen to agree with Hyman.

And if I don’t? Am I no longer welcome in the discussion? :(

Right, the failure of one experiment to generate conclusive results means the entire field is delusion? Don’t put words into my mouth.

Regards, Eric

>>>Not only did you miss the hypothetical point I was making, you act as if I said an archaelogist *would* actually say that, when I clearly said the opposite.

No, I did not miss your point. To the contrary, you missed MY point.

I said your ANALOGY is terrible. And the reason why is because it is superficial — you did not address the REASONS why an archaeologist would not say "go dig for yourself." These reasons (which I enumerated at length) have nothing to do with the reasons why we think you should try RV for yourself. There is no comparison. It is a false analogy.

Your unwillingness to utilize readily-available primary resources (i.e., data you yourself retrieve through RV) in lieu of secondary resources (data recorded by other RVers) is — to be blunt — irrational.

Susan

Susan,

I said your ANALOGY is terrible. And the reason why is because it is superficial — you did not address the REASONS why an archaeologist would not say "go dig for yourself." These reasons (which I enumerated at length) have nothing to do with the reasons why we think you should try RV for yourself. There is no comparison. It is a false analogy.

Well, your reasons why I should do it myself are not valid. The analogy wasn’t meant to be a perfect mirror of the situation; just an example of the absurdity of demanding that somebody go out and do the task themselves, when simple external evidence would do just fine. It should have been obvious that the analogy wasn’t meant to convey any other point. It is a false analogy in other respects, which you pointed out. However, if you try hard enough, you can find flaws with virtually any analogy.

Your unwillingness to utilize readily-available primary resources (i.e., data you yourself retrieve through RV) in lieu of secondary resources (data recorded by other RVers) is — to be blunt — irrational.

How ironic, this is possibly the most irrational thing you’ve said yet. To assume that the time for the training and hard work required ‘readily-available’ is pretty irrational. Sorry, but science–or, more accurately, the scientific community–just doesn’t work like that. Why don’t you go ahead and call anybody who reads "Scientific American" irrational, since they’re utilizing "secondary resources" rather than going out and doing every reported experiment themselves?

If everybody had time for "primary resources", the process of distribution of knowledge among the scientific community would be radically different.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric-

Upon further reflection, I have concluded that you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. Thanks for setting me straight.

Now that I understand the wisdom of deferring to uninformed tertiary resources, I guess I’ll pick up a copy of Reader’s Digest and sit back in my armchair with a Salisbury Steak TV dinner accompanied by Cheez Whiz on enriched white bread. After that, I’ll flick on the TV with my remote control and watch "Fear Factor" — so I can learn about fear without having to personally experience it.

Thanks again for showing me the error of my ways.

-Susan

Susan,

Now that I understand the wisdom of deferring to uninformed tertiary resources, I guess I’ll pick up a copy of Reader’s Digest and sit back in my armchair with a Salisbury Steak TV dinner accompanied by Cheez Whiz on enriched white bread.

Funny, but incredibly immature. I’m trying to make a point, and an *entire* post of sarcasm is all you can reply with? Oh well–atleast it isn’t the least bit reasonable.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you don’t often depend on secondary resources for information? Everything you know about science–did you go out and do the experiments yourself? I seriously doubt it. When you learned about relativity, did you build your own particle accelerator and ultra-precise clocks to test it, or did you read about it in a respectable journal or textbook? When you learned about the psychoactive effects of cocaine, did you read about it somewhere, or hear about it from someone? Or did someone obnoxiously tell you that you can’t know anything about it until you try it yourself? Even if you were simply trying to establish that cocaine had *any* effects on the brain at all?

Same with remote viewing. Sure, I don’t fully understand cocaine because I’ve never done it–but atleast I’m pretty sure that it does something to the brain because of external evidence. Similarly, solid statistical evidence that RV works, but I wouldn’t fully understand it until I did it for myself. But I’m not talking about fully understanding it. I’m talking about establishing that there is a real phenomenon.

Regards (and hoping for a more mature reply),

Eric

Edit: That should read "Solid statistical evidence that RV works would make me a believer, but…"

Eric,

I generally prefer to rely on primary sources of information — unless a cost-benefit analysis dictates otherwise. Secondary sources tend to contain too many errors for my tastes.

I have no interest in cocaine and so, no, I haven’t tried it. When I was interested in Egyptology, I traveled to the Giza Plateau to examine the Great Pyramid and Sphinx first-hand. When I was interested in the Chandra Levy murder, I tossed aside my Washington Post and climbed down to the site where her body was found. When I wanted to learn about civil unrest in Northern Ireland, I went to Belfast. When I wanted to learn about aviation, I took a couple of flying lessons. When I wanted to learn about energy healing, I received instruction in it. And when I wanted to learn about RV, I took a beginners class from a reputable instructor. There is no substitute for this kind of research/training if it can be justified after a cost-benefit analysis.

Perhaps your interest in RV is superficial and that’s why you want us to do the work of persuading you. If this is so, perhaps it would be more productive for all of us if you turned your attention to those issues that are of genuine interest to you.

I’m sorry that you found my humor "immature." It was my way of announcing that I see no point in continuing this discussion with you; you’ve already made up your mind and nothing I say will change it.

Best

Susan

Susan,

You are right, primary sources are preferable, and you’re lucky that you have time to do all of those things. Some of us do not.

Perhaps your interest in RV is superficial and that’s why you want us to do the work of persuading you.

Superficial isn’t the right word to use. The point is, I’m not going to waste my time learning something that even the experts cannot demonstrate properly.

If this is so, perhaps it would be more productive for all of us if you turned your attention to those issues that are of genuine interest to you.

RV is of ‘genuine interest’ to me. I am sure that if I were convinced by the ‘evidence’, it would be one of the things at the very top of my list to persue.

I’m sorry that you found my humor "immature."

It wasn’t the humor, it was the fact that the entire post was sarcastic and without content. Words of substance interlaced with humor is preferable.

It was my way of announcing that I see no point in continuing this discussion with you; you’ve already made up your mind and nothing I say will change it.

Wrong, and right. Nothing to *say* is going to convince me, but I have not made up my mind–something you (or anybody else here) *do* (namely, produce some decent evidence) could very well convince me.

It is so typical for believers to claim "you are closed minded", when usually, it’s quite the other way around.

Regards,

Eric