Skeptic’s Test discussion on another BB

Posted by Cecil , Apr 27,1999,12:37 Post Reply Forum

——————————————————————————–

I hesitate on posting this here, but after rereading a post on another BB I couldn’t resist myself in making this post. When a group from another Rv’ng forum made a decision to view a target submitted by a supposed skeptic and set forth rigid controls to insure that it was all up and above board by certain chain of command I thought it was gonna be a true test, but now some kinks are allready showing up, the orginal target was placed in an unvelope and they say was notarised and sealed and signed and witnessed, but now we understand that a copy was made and this copy placed in another envolope and this envolope will be placed with four others and a judge will determine which picture in which envelope closely matchs what data is supplied by the remote viewers. This makes very little sense, if the skeptic was a true skeptic why wasn’t the picture with target ID assigned put in a locked box which reguires a dual key,one form the RV’ng group and one from the skeptic,then the RV’rs work the target and state what the target was, this shouldn’t have been much of a problem since many in this group are such experts and have been able to more or less bilocate to the targets worked on many occasions, this way the group could have worked the target and reached a consenses as to what the target was, no need for judges, controllers,and the requirement to pick which target the data resembles, this was all done by another group with mixed results. This little demo seems like its got too many loop holes when it could have been done so simply wonder why?

Re: Skeptic’s Target — Cecil

Posted by Willowing , Apr 27,1999,14:58 Post Reply Forum

——————————————————————————–

Hi Cecil,
I guess I don’t understand what the loop holes are. Seems like the HRVG test has been set up pretty much like I read about in McMoneagle’s book. I remember Farsight having a similar set up, and wasn’t able to identify the target very well.

I know I haven’t studied the process HRVG is using in great detail, but it seemed honest to me.

Just wondering…

Ken

AKA Willowing

Re: Re:Skeptic’s Target — Willowing

Posted by Cecil , Apr 27,1999,22:01 Post Reply Forum

——————————————————————————–

This was explained in so much detail so that it could be said that the target was not known prior to viewing,by having the skeptic the only person seeing, knowing the taget and having it sealed up, now they say a copy was made and that copy will be mixed with the 4 others and the judge will select which picture matchs the data supplied, to me this indicates that someone else had a copy of the orginal, but really none of this makes any difference to me , I have been following all the target postings on HRVG’s BB and if these RV’rs are as good as they say they have been, then why is a judge gonna have to compare the data to 5 targets and select the one it matchs,this doesn’t make sense to me, why not just say what the target is based upon the viewers data and then have the skeptic reveal the target to all. It seems again all we have is another group who wants to try and prove they are the best but have to control the data so that they can make claims,its again like the claim they are the only one to make a prdeiction based upon RV’ng the future and was right , again it wasn’t claimed until after the fact, and all the controls that they said were used could just as easily been faked, just like one piece of their claim which said a copy of the prediction was sent to a Radio Host by registared return receipt requested mail, the only problem was they just showed a stub that something was sent but nothing to show what was sent and if it was received it meant nothing just like the notarized indication,,now if it had the seal on it I would have been more convinced especially if done by someone in postion other than the same work place as the one involved. I could go on and on but just showed these two problem areas before and this new target won’t prove anything either.

I see your issues better now. The only thing that makes me understand and perhaps trust HRVG a little more than you, is that RV data as I understand it is mostly descriptive and not declarative. A drinking glass is not a "drinking glass" but smooth, hard, curved, etc. The data seems to always be mixed with non-data. Very few see vivid pictures. And even those who do don’t see them all the time. For me having a group of pictures to chose from is even more indicative of success because there are so many claims that "this data could also be such and such as well". Hard, curved, smooth is the hood of my car, too. Having to chose really makes one commit (yes judges have to commit to what they think). Just my way of thinking.

As far as proof goes, I believe the skeptic/tasker will know what is proven for himself. The same for you and the same for me.

I’m glad you told me what you can believe and what you don’t trust. I hope you have heard what I believe and what I trust.

And by the way, if you ever want to task an objective for me again. I’ll do it!

Sincerely,

Ken

AKA Willowing

Re: Re:Re:Re:Skeptic’s Target — Willowing

Posted by Cecil , Apr 28,1999,10:03 Post Reply Forum

——————————————————————————–

That is basically my point and why I believe the military found it had no substantial use for gathering reliable information, of course there are many who say otherwise but then they also have to feel this way so as to convince others to join up with them, I always liked PRU’s approach especially since she more or less went out on her own and thats use it to show posibilities without making some wild claims to prove that she is the greatest . We now have a group that is trying to convince itself that they are the ones, but did you notice that the leader of the group is not one who is working the target,wonder why? Its easy ,think about it. I’m still confused as to the reason of why they keep saying that after the judge picks what envelope matchs the data from so many groups and he has a copy of the skeptic’s target the skeptic will open his envelope to reveal the target,this just doesn’t sound right.
I continue to submit targets to differant people and still get interesting results and ones who I give feedback to can vouch that I leave all the reporting up to them and don’t critize them, but none from HRVG will work a target unless I submit it through their channels so that someone in the group knows what the target is and I have questioned this type of controls, this leaves the impression of don’t dare question our honesty,how many times have you ever been burned by someone who says that.

By the way, this discussion is from the "Totally Off Topic Intuitive Streams Board" at the Larger Universe for those who want to go there and respond.

Aloha, Jim

Cecil…

On the list of things we are concerned about, convincing you that we can remote view is not up there near the top.

The protocols of our SKEPTIC TEST are acceptable to the Skeptic and to the members of HRGV. As we have stated before the purpose of this venture is allow HRVG viewers to work a valid target under pressure, and to educate the skeptic about remote viewing. The purpose is not to convince Cecil of anything.

If you really want to verify the validity of remote viewing, I suggest you read the book "The Conscious Universe," by Dean Radin, Ph.D. Or better yet, take a class and try it for yourself.

As for viewing your targets, we have found that mental clarity and intent of the targeteer has quite an effect on the viewing process. At the risk of this sounding like an ad hominem attack, after seeing the way you struggle to spell and construct English sentences, none of us really care to spend and hour and a half of our time trying to synch up with anything you attempted to cue.

One more thing- you wondered why Glenn didn’t just view the skeptic target. Glenn has demonstrated his prowess as a remote viewer to members of guild. We are all quite impressed with his spectacular abilities. But he wants us to stand on our own, and learn to work under pressure. How would it help us remote view to have him work the target? Its like if you had a Karate instructor taking his students into competition. He could step in and kick the hell out of their opponents, but what good would that be for the students?

Aloha

There are two target photos.

One is sealed, signed, and dated in an envelope with the target ID on the outside. The SKEPTIC placed it in the envelope. He is the only one who has seen it. It is now, and has always been, in his possession.

Another copy of the target photo is in a plain envelope, signed, sealed, dated by the Skeptic. The Skeptic is the only person who has seen the photo.

The photo was given to the control so the control could mix the plain envelope in (without seeing it) with 4 other photos in identical envelopes.
The skeptic gave all the photos to the judge.

HRVG has had no access to the envelopes. The Judge will sign an affidavit stating the envelopes he received were sealed, signed and dated by the skeptic.

Cecil.. explain how someone from HRVG could get access to the photo inside one of the envelopes.. you and I will go form a magic act and take it to

Vegas.

Re: Skeptic’s Targets — Cecil

Posted by Pru , Apr 29,1999,13:45 Post Reply Forum

——————————————————————————–

Hi Cecil and Ken,

Cecil – thanks for the kind words. I understand your point, and it is a good one. Something that I’ve come to intuitively understand in the past few years is that there have been too many limitations and conditions set in the remote viewing community. Depending on what school of thought you ascribe to, things have to be tasked a certain way, things have to be written a certain way etc otherwise you end up with contaminated/crossover/bad/whatever data. And I just don’t believe any of that anymore.

I’ve been doing some experimentation over the past year and a half that indicates otherwise. It seems that "intent" really is key. But you can’t have it just one way – if you think that the tasker’s intentions are what matters in tasking, then you need to take into consideration the taskers intentions and beliefs about all aspects of viewing, from crossover to contamination to overlay. And the viewer’s intents and expectations too.

What I am acting on at this point is this premise: There is an objective (target), and the viewer "views" it. And no more. And no less. So I don’t worry about contamination and such, and I don’t get it in my sessions, and I don’t see it in my students unless (and here’s the key) they think it’s going to be a potential problem. I don’t have enough data on this to provide any kind of statistical analysis yet, but hope to at some point.

So, I am happy to view anyone’s tasking, as long as it’s a reasonable person and I trust that they won’t give me something icky like my moment of death or whatever. I’ll view a tasking from you, Cecil, if you like. And yeah, I totally am in agreement that the head honcho at any school or group should be willing to submit themselves to what the students do, like tests and demonstrations and whatever. I always view something for my students – sometimes due to time constraints it’s just a small objective and we do a few scans and a general sketch. Sometimes it’s a full blown session on whatever they like. But I do demonstrate it, and sometimes I am great and sometimes I struggle. For me, the point of learning remote viewing is to actually do it, and not to talk about it and pontificate. (but pontificating can be fun, too! and I’ve done my share! LOL!)

I haven’t been following the HRVG stuff closely, but they are good people, and I am sure they aren’t cheating on their test. Their viewers are commited to practice and getting better. I have basic philosophical differences with their approach and methodology, but hey – there’s room for everyone, and maybe they are right! What I do wish is that they would publish not just the experimental protocol they are using, but the actual persons involved, so that there is a further measure of validity to the whole thing. It would probably answer a lot of questions if they stated who the judge/skeptic was etc. (And maybe they did this and I missed it).

P.

Re: Re:Skeptic’s Targets — Pru

Posted by Jim , Apr 29,1999,15:52 Post Reply Forum

——————————————————————————–

Yes Pru we already posted their names and credentials, and all of the questions that Cecil had, has been answered in one form or another already. But he can always say that we are faking it, there is no way for us to disprove that unless he comes over and visits himself.
Cecil, let me ask you, what do you think motivates us to fake everything we do? It ain’t money, that’s for sure. And if you have ever tried RV you’d know that only a total lunatic would spend way too many hours of his/her life to do something and then fake it without any material gratification. Unless you think that we feed of our own egos? Think again, we all have full time jobs and could do something much more useful with time rather than trying to prove to the world something that isn’t true.

And really, why does Glenn have to RV this target? Has it ever occured to you that, WE (the rest of the guild), may not want him to view the target??? Does the teacher take the final exam for the students?? NO.

Anyway, I hope this discussion could migrate over to where it belonged in the first place, the HRVG BB so that all of us can respond to your questions.

Sincerely, Jim.

How would it help us remote view to have him work the target? Its like if you had a Karate instructor taking his students into competition. He could step in and kick the hell out of their opponents, but what good would that be for the students?

Gotta put in my two cents. :)

If your goal is to present the abilities of the students then there is no arguement.

If your goal is to present the reality and USEFULLNESS

of RV then it may fall short. If any of you are part of the stargate e-mail group then you have seen me argue the fact that the "professionals" are very reluctant to demonstrate their abilities. In any sport, art or teaching situation there arises the time when the instructor must take center stage and say "Here, let me show you how" In some cases where the instructor’s physical abilities no longer let him show by example there are usually available demonstrators equally as capable who can do the demo. If nothing else, the "star" student is called upon.

If the guild is operating this site for its membership only then perhaps it should go private via password. I hope it doesn’t because it has been very helpfull to me in my interest in this subject but hard questions will be asked and divergent views will be presented.

I am sure if you were a money making entity like psi-tech you would be in the wholesale banning mode. :)

One other point that I think is valid is Cecil’s point on the "certified" mail.

"Carry on" :)

Rich

Hi Jim et al,

I confess I have mixed feelings about moving a discussion from one board to another. The LargerUniverse board is public indeed, but it does have a context, which can’t be reproduced here. It’s not a moderated board and the heading actually says, "flames are allowed". I don’t think there’s anything wrong with copying it here….so not sure exactly why it feels odd.

Truth is, though, I love communication and learning to understand each other more, so I’m definately NOT complaining! :-)

Sincerely,

Ken
AKA Willowing

I will copy and paste a discussion between Cecil, AKA Capt. NIMO and Willowing that was initiated by Cecil on the TDS BB. I hope the parties involved do not mind since they published it on a public BB.

I think that these questions that Cecil had he should have asked us instead of lurking around other BBs and posting stuff. Hey Cecil, we can answer for ourselves, face us with your questions (there are some good points in there that we could easily have explained to you).

Jim

Glenn has said it over and over again that HRVG is not about him but about the students…he doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone…he has and is producing some good remote viewers…it is the students’ work that is testimony to the teacher’s ability…our website demonstrates the abilities of his students…

Glenn has demonstrated to the class his abilities..he stood in front of the class and remote viewed a target by working it out on the blackboard a month or so ago…it was a future target and it occurred just a couple of weeks ago…the Colorado school shootings…excellent sked. Aloha, Mana

Hey Willowing, I appreciate your input, I wasn’t sure myself if it was the right thing to do, but since Cecil seemed to have specific questions regarding HRVG and I thought he should have taken them here in the first place.

Anyway, I won’t copy any more posts from that discussion here, perhaps it is better to just post the link like you did.

HRVG has never banned anyone who asks hard questions or criticizes us and we encourage people to ask us questions. It makes us better Remote viewers and teachers and forces us to think hard about what we do.

As Glenn has repeatedly stated, ANYONE is more than welcome to come out and stay with us for a while and learn about how we go about things here in HRVG, and then they can decide for themselves if we are faking stuff or not.

However, we won’t tolerate people who spread false rumours about us or make groundless accusations from a distance without knowing about us first-hand and we will come down hard on them.

All we want to do is to learn how to Remote View and do some good deeds to society with this skill. We are not interested in exploiting people or promoting ourselves as the greatest, just to become good at what we do.

Anyway, thanks for sticking up for us over at TDS and good luck with your RV.

Aloha, Jim

There were some really creepy feelings at the old HRVG the day of the Colorado shootings… when the connection was made between the news event unfolding and the session Glenn demonstrated months back.

If the guild is operating this site for its membership only then perhaps it should go private via password. I hope it doesn’t because it has been very helpfull to me in my interest in this subject but hard questions will be asked and divergent views will be presented.

In my view, the HRVG isn’t "pushing" anything.. Instead they’re publishing for those who are interested, i.e. who come to this site (with an open mind)..

One has the freedom to IGNORE.

Was this similar to the UFO/Hawaii/next event session?

It was cued as Man With A Gun/ Hostage Situation/ Near Future… with a subcue that the event would be significant enough to generate live television coverage.

I have never claimed to be any where near perfect in mastering the English Language or the structures of snetences or even spelling,your attack of my use of the english language and the proper structure of sentences and speeling doen’t surprise me what so ever,its an old trick of person who can’t argue with facts then they have to attack the other side using tactics such as your are trying to use. I have no problem with these methods it just shows your frustration of anyone who would dare question you.I’m sure I could pick many subjects or topics to talk about or problems that I have solved or missle’s circuits that I have designed that you wouldn’t even begin to understand or have any idea of what I would be discussing, so don’t let my poor use of constructing sentences,spelling or typing miss lead you into thinking your IQ is higher than mine,I don’t really care for over 30 years my secretarys typed or rewrote all my letters and papers.

I have all kinds of reasons given to me for not wanting to do a target that I would submit but your excuse of,"At the risk of this sounding like an ad hominem attack, after seeing the way you struggle to spell and construct English sentences, none of us really care to spend and hour and a half of our time trying to synch up with anything you attempted to cue." takes the cake, well so as to make sure that I’m able to say all I want I will just close off with this,in my own personal opinion ,and with no dissrespect to Glenn and the rest of the HRVG I personally believe your (Dick) are a fraud and I can see thru many of your claims,its just too bad that all the others had to sign away their rights with the disclaimers they had to sign or many more would back up what I feel. Don’t expect any response back from me to you on your posts that will follow up on this because I can’t stand arrogant a**holes like you.

It was cued as Man With A Gun/ Hostage Situation/ Near Future… with a subcue that the event would be significant enough to generate live television coverage.

Hhmmmmmm,

This may sound nit-picky and there may be more definative data from the session but…….

Was there anything to indicate the location of the event?

Man with a gun is a daily occurance. As I read the story there were no hostages, only victims.

What is the definition of "near future"? Is it days, weeks or months?

Live TV coverage is also vague in that it could be strictly a local event that does not make the national news.

The event could have indeed taken place but was not the Colorado event. Or it may yet still happen. Was anyone ever declared a hostage in Colorado?

Hhmmmmmm,

This may sound nit-picky and there may be more definative data from the session but…….

Was there anything to indicate the location of the event?

Glenn worked the target in front of the class, very rapidly, with students writing down the data. Glenn only worked it to S3… so he got basic data and a site sketch. He didn’t go far enough to nail the location.

But I can tell you (I just viewed the session two days ago) it is quite chilling. He sketched the school.. showed boys with guns inside, swat teams outside. He described a boy shooting a girl at point blank range.

Man with a gun is a daily occurance. As I read the story there were no hostages, only victims.

Yes. .. there were hostages. I watched the live coverage and heard one boy calling the local news station live. The people were trapped in the building for several hours.

What is the definition of "near future"? Is it days, weeks or months?

The timeline goes like this: near past= recorded history. Near future is a long way ahead. So by using the term "near future" it is a very loose definition. If you want to see a prediction that comes within 8 days, go look at the prediction experiment, posted on this site. Click on Projects button. The temporal locator is "near future." They worked the sessions a couple of months before the event, and called the date to within 8 days.

Live TV coverage is also vague in that it could be strictly a local event that does not make the national news.

This is true. One of our viewers.. Sita did a real bang up session that totally described a hostage situation here in Hawaii that occured AFTER she worked it. It did generate live TV coverage locally. Her data was different from Glenn’s but it was totally congruent with the man in a house in Pearl City. (We need to post that. I’ll see about getting that up soon.) There is a lot of stuff there in the collective. When you say "hostage event/ live TV coverage" your sub can go to different events. Sita went to a hostage situation that occured locally and was covered live here. Glenn went to the big one.

The event could have indeed taken place but was not the Colorado event. Or it may yet still happen. Was anyone ever declared a hostage in Colorado?

Again, when I first tuned in to CNN that morning… it was being called a hostage situation. But looking at Glenn’s data, it really matches the Colorado event. It gave me chills, and I’m pretty much over the "Oh my God, this works" reaction to good remote viewing work.

I’ve been hanging around remote viewing for two years now… personal experience with Farsight, Ed Dames, Pru, Glenn Wheaton.

It is my opinion that Glenn is so good that if he went public and really showed his stuff it would cause such a sensation that it would rock the world. Glenn does not want that kind of attention. He wants to keep a low profile and train some viewers. That’s all for now.

What I would like to do is cue up another prediction (it is not that easy to come up with a cue for a future target- any suggestions would be appreciated) and do a real bang up job of validation. Post the cue, post the session, have it notarzied (again- we did notarize the space junk reentry) and do it all in public.

for the additional info.

Its interesting that "next occurance" provided two different answers. Maybe this cue is too ambiguous even though it sounds specific.

How about "winner of…." or "location of….." where the location is dependent on a future event.