Were You Entrained in Monday’s Class?

Thank you very much for having this class.

Perhaps the entrainment exercise had a stronger impact on myself because I was the person that picked the chips that was *designed* to be picked in the exercise.

Besides Glenn, four of us participated in the exercise. The four of us knew nothing about what we going to do, except for one thing Glenn said. "We’re gonna do a little exercise". Ahhh, an exercise, and it’s little.

Each of the four people were given a blue poker chip and a white poker chip with their first initial written on both chips. All eight chips were placed in the center of the table with the initialled side faced down. The four of us stuck our hands to the center of the table and began mixing the chips up. We pushed chips to the left, chips to the right, this chip that way and that chip this way, mixing them around until no one knew where their chips lay. Then the first person picked a blue chip and a white chip, and only Glenn and that person were shown which initials were written on the chips they had chosen. Those two chips were placed back into the center and the mixing process was repeated. The second person did the same, picked a blue and white chip, and only Glenn and that person were shown which initials were on those chips, then the chips went back into the mix. Then the third person, that’s me, I picked a blue chip and a white chip. Glenn and I looked at the initials that were written on the chips. Glenn placed the two chips on the table with the initials facing up. The blue chip had a "D" written on it and the white chip had a "P" on it. Then Glenn said to me while pointing towards the right side of the room, "Lift up the carpet and look for a piece of paper". So I walked over and lifted up the area carpet and there lay a piece of paper folded in half. I unfolded the paper, and the writing on the paper read:

3rd game

Blue – D
White – P

Hmmm, so as I stood there with this big grin on my face, the first thing I thought was, How did he do this. The second thing I thought, What was this exercise about.

This was not precognition. This was not remote influencing. This was… entrainment.

The piece of paper had been placed under the carpet at least an hour before any of us had shown up at the house. The entrainment exercise had been designed so that on the third "game", the third participant would pick a specific pair of poker chips.

So how did this happen? As best as I understand it, and in simple lay terms, Glenn had constructed an architecture of the third "game". The four of us came in and participated in the "game", in the architecture, and played it out as Glenn had designed it to be played out. We were part of the architecture of the third "game". We had become entrained in the game, with the game, by the game. The third game. Which only lasted a minute or so.

Entrainment was briefly discussed in the Masking/Overlay classes we had last year. Hearing about in class was interesting and exciting. But actually seeing it implemented, as with the exercise on Monday, is quite an experience.

Entrainment may be difficult for some people to grasp. You’ll have to stretch your thinking a bit. I spoke to Glenn about entrainment for quite a while after Monday’s class. I also talked to him the following day about it. It still boggles my mind.

We haven’t been taught the mechanism behind entrainment, yet. Hey Glenn, maybe after Las Vegas we can have a few in-depth classes on this. And we’ll probably need to see it implemented a few more times to fully understand it *hint*hint*

Those of you that were at class on Monday, have you sat down and thought about what actually happened in the exercise. Or maybe you’re still thinking about it like myself.

Heres a few definitions of the word entrain. I pulled these from dictionary.com. They seem to fit, in a certain way:

1. To pull or draw along after itself.

2. Chemistry. To carry (suspended particles, for example) along in a current.

To draw along as a current does; as, water entrained by steam.

Aloha,

Jason

Heres a re-post from last year regarding entrainment.

Subject: At the Well of Entrainment…

Poster: Glenn B. Wheaton
Date: 2003-08-27 20:07 HST
Message ID: 18674
Has Replies:

[End message header]

[Start message content]

At the Well of Entrainment

I remember as a small boy growing up in Louisiana the train tracks that circumvented our bayou in St. Landry Parish. Each day there were several trains that roared along the tracks heading East or West to who knows where. When we were out running the paths along the swamps and heard the trains we would always race to the tracks nearby to watch the big cars rush by and be enveloped in the circadian wash of something so large moving so fast. On a hot summers eve just before dusk we would stand perhaps 3 feet from the tracks as the big cars rushed by and watch for the lightning leaping from the ground to the moving cars. The heat and dust with so much steel and iron moving so fast made for quiet a light show when the conditions were right. As the last few cars would pass is when you could feel it the most. A sense that you too were moving, that you too were racing down the tracks. A sense of power and speed that gradually faded as the train moved off and away down the tracks. After the last car passed we would leap onto the tracks and stand very still facing the direction the train was moving. In those moments you could feel the air vortexes still rushing and the last of the earthy rumbles as you stood on the steel track or the wooden ties and you could ride the train just a bit longer in the sensories playing out in your mind. Sometimes late at night you could hear the rumble of the trains in the distance and the mournful whistle before it passed beyond the bayou. You could close your eyes and relax and experience the rush of the train moving through the night almost as if you were there. It was a sense of entrainment. While it really had nothing to do with trains it had everything to do with observation and circumstance.

When we stood as kids near the tracks we would be washed by an enormous electromagnetic field moving very quickly. Elements within our own living biogenic field would fluctuate and begin to modulate under the influence of the greater field while parts of our own self-generated fields were ripped away to race along with the train. A coalescence of radically different fields occurred as the overwhelming ingress of the greater field began to entrain the lesser field into rhythmic synchronization towards a temporary harmony of fields. The concept of entrainment is just this simple.

Entrainment in Remote Viewing is far more Elegant, but just as interesting and rewarding. I have almost finished my outline for the Monday’s Class in which we will build a masking model and entrain it. The results of the Previous 2 week’s targets on masking will also be published back to the class then.

Aloha Glenn

[End message content]

That is one of the most interesting exercises I have read about on this board. Certainly a subject worth further exploration.

Hope to see as many of you in Vegas as possible!

Rich

Thank you very much for having this class.

Perhaps the entrainment exercise had a stronger impact on myself because I was the person that picked the chips that was *designed* to be picked in the exercise.

Besides Glenn, four of us participated in the exercise. The four of us knew nothing about what we going to do, except for one thing Glenn said. "We’re gonna do a little exercise". Ahhh, an exercise, and it’s little.

Each of the four people were given a blue poker chip and a white poker chip with their first initial written on both chips. All eight chips were placed in the center of the table with the initialled side faced down. The four of us stuck our hands to the center of the table and began mixing the chips up. We pushed chips to the left, chips to the right, this chip that way and that chip this way, mixing them around until no one knew where their chips lay. Then the first person picked a blue chip and a white chip, and only Glenn and that person were shown which initials were written on the chips they had chosen. Those two chips were placed back into the center and the mixing process was repeated. The second person did the same, picked a blue and white chip, and only Glenn and that person were shown which initials were on those chips, then the chips went back into the mix. Then the third person, that’s me, I picked a blue chip and a white chip. Glenn and I looked at the initials that were written on the chips. Glenn placed the two chips on the table with the initials facing up. The blue chip had a "D" written on it and the white chip had a "P" on it. Then Glenn said to me while pointing towards the right side of the room, "Lift up the carpet and look for a piece of paper". So I walked over and lifted up the area carpet and there lay a piece of paper folded in half. I unfolded the paper, and the writing on the paper read:

3rd game Blue – D White – P

Hmmm, so as I stood there with this big grin on my face, the first thing I thought was, How did he do this. The second thing I thought, What was this exercise about.

This was not precognition. This was not remote influencing. This was… entrainment.

The piece of paper had been placed under the carpet at least an hour before any of us had shown up at the house. The entrainment exercise had been designed so that on the third "game", the third participant would pick a specific pair of poker chips.

So how did this happen? As best as I understand it, and in simple lay terms, Glenn had constructed an architecture of the third "game". The four of us came in and participated in the "game", in the architecture, and played it out as Glenn had designed it to be played out. We were part of the architecture of the third "game". We had become entrained in the game, with the game, by the game. The third game. Which only lasted a minute or so.

Entrainment was briefly discussed in the Masking/Overlay classes we had last year. Hearing about in class was interesting and exciting. But actually seeing it implemented, as with the exercise on Monday, is quite an experience.

Entrainment may be difficult for some people to grasp. You’ll have to stretch your thinking a bit. I spoke to Glenn about entrainment for quite a while after Monday’s class. I also talked to him the following day about it. It still boggles my mind.

We haven’t been taught the mechanism behind entrainment, yet. Hey Glenn, maybe after Las Vegas we can have a few in-depth classes on this. And we’ll probably need to see it implemented a few more times to fully understand it *hint*hint*

Those of you that were at class on Monday, have you sat down and thought about what actually happened in the exercise. Or maybe you’re still thinking about it like myself.

Heres a few definitions of the word entrain. I pulled these from dictionary.com. They seem to fit, in a certain way:

1. To pull or draw along after itself.

2. Chemistry. To carry (suspended particles, for example) along in a current.

To draw along as a current does; as, water entrained by steam.

Aloha, Jason

Just wondering how you are useing the word "entrainment," with regards to RV. My understand if the word:

The Entrainment Transformation Principle

A physics phenomenon of resonance, first observed in the 17th century, has an effect on all of us. Entrainment is defined as the tendency for two oscillating bodies to lock into phase so that they vibrate in harmony. It is also defined as a synchronization of two or more rhythmic cycles. The principle of entrainment is universal, appearing in chemistry, pharmacology, biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, astronomy, architecture and more. The classic example shows individual pulsing heart muscle cells. When they are brought close together, they begin pulsing in synchrony. Another example of the entrainment effect is women who live in the same household often find that their menstrual cycles will coincide.

Discovery of Entrainment.

The history of entrainment is linked to Dutch scientist, Christian Huygens in 1665. While working on the design of the pendulum clock, Huygens found that when he placed two of them on a wall near each other and swung the pendulums at different rates, they would eventually end up swinging in at the same rate. This is due to their mutual influence on one another.

Musical Entrainment.

The entrainment process is quite evident in music. It is possible to have rhythmic entrainment, melodic entrainment and dynamic entrainment. Entrainment music has the potential to (1) resonate with the listener’s feelings, (2) transform negativity into positivity, and (3) promote a state of liveliness or serenity. Certain sounds, in specific sequence can help bring the listener from one place to another.

The special music from Sound Feelings has been developed with the entrainment transformation principle in mind. It creates a type of sound “mirror” that first reflects the current stress or turmoil of the listener, and later reflects the desired mood and feeling. As the music gradually transforms, its resolution may be experienced in the listener, physically or emotionally.

Aloha,

For those of you in class tonight who took part in the Entrainment Exercise thank you very much for participating. Entrainment is such a subtle skill but with not so subtle effects. The test was done in such a way as to make you see what the individual can in fact design and implement. Please do not confuse the results of tonight with influencing. It was simple entrainment, nothing else.

I would like to discuss this exercise again prior to our trip to the RV conference. Aloha Glenn

Aloha RG,

Entrainment is normally associated within the Guild with the terms "Masking" and "Overlay". Entrainment is the active emulation of an arbitrary target Mask Overlay with a real target of interest. The Targeteer will create a mask, or mask overlay, for a target of interest, and then task the remote viewers against the arbitrary mask overlay. This has been discussed over the years here as well as entrainment. Another process employed by the Targeteer entrains the target to the mask overlay making it a sort of mirror where ripples from the real target become observable as reflections in the mask.

It is a difficult process to understand at best. The class on Monday was a demonstration of entrainment. It is sort of like looking between the real target and the mask for the active element. Before training Guild members to construct reliable mask overlays they must get some time working with practical concepts of entrainment. Without entrainment a target mask is only good for that one picture in time.

It is not the policy of the Guild to advocate the use of entrainment without very careful thought and consideration to all aspects of privacy, free will, and other ethical concerns.

I think Debra in her post hinted at how one feels when they seem to not have been in control when they thought they were. There will be some that say entrainment is remote influencing but it certainly is not that. What it is, is more of an anomaly of like fields buffing each other up.

Check some of the previous threads on this bbs for more info.

Aloha Glenn

I know things like this are possible. Yet, this could be entrainment or just a clever "magic" trick. How many places in the room could Glenn have hidden pieces of paper? Aren’t there four sides to the carpet? Lots of possible hiding places in the room would make this "entrainment" of no mathematical significance.

Thank you very much for having this class.

Perhaps the entrainment exercise had a stronger impact on myself because I was the person that picked the chips that was *designed* to be picked in the exercise.

Besides Glenn, four of us participated in the exercise. The four of us knew nothing about what we going to do, except for one thing Glenn said. "We’re gonna do a little exercise". Ahhh, an exercise, and it’s little.

Each of the four people were given a blue poker chip and a white poker chip with their first initial written on both chips. All eight chips were placed in the center of the table with the initialled side faced down. The four of us stuck our hands to the center of the table and began mixing the chips up. We pushed chips to the left, chips to the right, this chip that way and that chip this way, mixing them around until no one knew where their chips lay. Then the first person picked a blue chip and a white chip, and only Glenn and that person were shown which initials were written on the chips they had chosen. Those two chips were placed back into the center and the mixing process was repeated. The second person did the same, picked a blue and white chip, and only Glenn and that person were shown which initials were on those chips, then the chips went back into the mix. Then the third person, that’s me, I picked a blue chip and a white chip. Glenn and I looked at the initials that were written on the chips. Glenn placed the two chips on the table with the initials facing up. The blue chip had a "D" written on it and the white chip had a "P" on it. Then Glenn said to me while pointing towards the right side of the room, "Lift up the carpet and look for a piece of paper". So I walked over and lifted up the area carpet and there lay a piece of paper folded in half. I unfolded the paper, and the writing on the paper read:

3rd game Blue – D White – P

Hmmm, so as I stood there with this big grin on my face, the first thing I thought was, How did he do this. The second thing I thought, What was this exercise about.

This was not precognition. This was not remote influencing. This was… entrainment.

The piece of paper had been placed under the carpet at least an hour before any of us had shown up at the house. The entrainment exercise had been designed so that on the third "game", the third participant would pick a specific pair of poker chips.

So how did this happen? As best as I understand it, and in simple lay terms, Glenn had constructed an architecture of the third "game". The four of us came in and participated in the "game", in the architecture, and played it out as Glenn had designed it to be played out. We were part of the architecture of the third "game". We had become entrained in the game, with the game, by the game. The third game. Which only lasted a minute or so.

Entrainment was briefly discussed in the Masking/Overlay classes we had last year. Hearing about in class was interesting and exciting. But actually seeing it implemented, as with the exercise on Monday, is quite an experience.

Entrainment may be difficult for some people to grasp. You’ll have to stretch your thinking a bit. I spoke to Glenn about entrainment for quite a while after Monday’s class. I also talked to him the following day about it. It still boggles my mind.

We haven’t been taught the mechanism behind entrainment, yet. Hey Glenn, maybe after Las Vegas we can have a few in-depth classes on this. And we’ll probably need to see it implemented a few more times to fully understand it *hint*hint*

Those of you that were at class on Monday, have you sat down and thought about what actually happened in the exercise. Or maybe you’re still thinking about it like myself.

Heres a few definitions of the word entrain. I pulled these from dictionary.com. They seem to fit, in a certain way:

1. To pull or draw along after itself.

2. Chemistry. To carry (suspended particles, for example) along in a current.

To draw along as a current does; as, water entrained by steam.

Aloha, Jason

George,

It would seem you and I share the same insight on this issue. In fact I brought this very topic up at the time of the demonstration. The participants were informed and invited to reconcile any concerns they had by conducting whatever inspections they felt necessary.

To not inform and allow for scrutiny would be improper.

There are a million ways to "what if" anything, any topic, any event, to accuse, alledge, or cast dispersion. When "what if" is presented in a search for truth we all understand the questions pondered. When it is to just discredit someone that is a different story. Reading your post I find your commentary to be the latter, despite our agreement about Honesty.

This board has been functioning in relative quiet for some time now. This board will not digress from the purpose for which it exists. There is zero tolerance here for smears of any sort.

In Hawaii Aloha means both Hello and Goodbye. In your case it means Goodbye. Until you adhere to basic rules concerning simple respect of not only the organization but myself as it’s head.

Aloha!

Hold on there. My post was not meant to discredit you or anyone at HRVG, NOT AT ALL. I was simply pointing out that from the info posted on this board there was a big hole in the signifcance of the event. I suspected that what you did was genuine and still do. I’m not sure how you got the impression that I was trying to discredit you or HRVG.

George,

It would seem you and I share the same insight on this issue. In fact I brought this very topic up at the time of the demonstration. The participants were informed and invited to reconcile any concerns they had by conducting whatever inspections they felt necessary. To not inform and allow for scrutiny would be improper.

There are a million ways to "what if" anything, any topic, any event, to accuse, alledge, or cast dispersion. When "what if" is presented in a search for truth we all understand the questions pondered. When it is to just discredit someone that is a different story. Reading your post I find your commentary to be the latter, despite our agreement about Honesty.

This board has been functioning in relative quiet for some time now. This board will not digress from the purpose for which it exists. There is zero tolerance here for smears of any sort.

In Hawaii Aloha means both Hello and Goodbye. In your case it means Goodbye. Until you adhere to basic rules concerning simple respect of not only the organization but myself as it’s head.

Aloha!

>

Hi RF,

Just from George’s post, it does not seem to me that he defied basic rules of good behaviour.

Communication in email, mailing-lists or BBs is always prone to misunderstanding on the emotional level. You don’t see the other participant’s faces and don’t hear the sound of their voice. You need to get pretty verbose to make up for this missing information.

Short statements like George’s can easily be interpreted as being a blunt insult. You got to be careful even with the slightest criticism when you do it in this medium. George sure failed to do that. But his post does not look to me like he meant to be insulting.

I don’t know if there has been trouble with George behind the scenes, but just from this post I’d say you are overreacting.

George was actually being nice when he pointed to the possibility of a "clever" trick: It’s described in "Magic for Dummies".

If anything else fails "skeptics" like to point out that a magician could have produced the same effect with trickery. Usually they state that they are not allowed to disclose how this could be done, since it is kept a secret within the magic circles. The way you presented this demonstration is a "skeptic’s" dream come through.

I think it really was not a very good idea to come up with the feedback the way you did. Giving the sealed envelope to one of the participants right before the demonstration would have clearly been a better choice.

And while you adressed this issue during the demonstration you sure failed to do so when you described it here on the BB. Your credibility is good within the guild and within major parts of the RV community. I got no reason to believe you faked this. But when you go public you can’t rely on integrity or honor being taken into account. You just can’t put up a presentation that got "potential cheap magic trick" written all over it and expect to get through with it.

That way you are practically begging to question your integrity. And once this question is raised (and George’s post did raise this question only indirectly – you were the one who explicitly brought this up), the discussion is doomed to degrade.

Communication has a hard time dealing with the question of integrity and truthfullness. Technically speaking that’s because you get a "re-entry" of the problem, that causes a loop. "I am not lying" is a tautology – that’s what both a constant liar and someone who’s always telling the truth would tell you (while "I am lying" is paradox). When you get a re-entry logic fails to be able to make a decision and that usually means that communication gets really complicated (e.g. in the philosophy of science when you ask if our concept of truth is true) or it quickly gets ugly – like in this case.

The way you responded to George is quite understandable – but it’s not helpful at all. It’s like an allergy where the particles one is allergic against are harmless but the immunity system starts running amok. I noticed you are quite prone to this type of reaction and it seems to have been one of the major causes of trouble on this BB.

George’s post does imply that you COULD have cheated or that someone who does not trust you could easily interpret it that way. But he did not state that you DID cheat. He made no statements at all about what he thought about your motivs. In his reply he told you that he did not mean to question your integrity. Can we tell if he is telling the truth? Nope, only George knows what he meant to imply and if we question his truthfullness about that we get another re-entry and therefore it’s quite understandable that Georges reply seemed rather defensive and almost aggressive. So we got another logical loop and if we keep playing we get one big loop connection several smaller ones. If this system is getting complicated enough it can go on for ever without anybody noticing that we are just dealing with elaborated loops. In face2face interaction misunderstandings on the emotional level are usually solved before the trouble starts or the system overheats quickly and blows, but on the internet this kind of crap can steadily build up and keep growing.

This is just so typical for a kind of conflict that may be called parasitical communication. It’s communication that eats up all the resources (awareness of the participants, time to sit down and discuss something useful).

It’s a good thing George came up with this criticism. I rather have it discussed here than on Randi.org. There you would sure get some serious smearing and no way to respond to it. Randi would certainly and quite explicitly imply that you did cheat.

I had noticed the problem George pointed out immediately when I read your first post in this thread. But unlike George I knew this would require an extra carefully worded post. But I was lazy and I figured this was so obvious, somebody else would probably come up with it. I wonder why it took so long (5 days). Did no one besides George and me notice? Or were there more people like me, who noticed but decided to let someone else play the bad guy?

Anyway, that makes (at least) 3 of us who screwed up. And George certainly wasn’t the worst screw up. He was just being a stereotypical guy, not caring enough about emotional side-effects of communication.

You and I screwed up far worse. You should have known in the first place that your post was likely to raise this question and I should have known that this would get messy if the question was not raised carefully (or by the wrong person or whatever) and that I should have better spend the time to adress this issue myself instead of now having to spend even more time to mend wounds.

To get back to the point:

We need to be extra-careful how we present our case. There are hords of pseudo-skeptics who just wait for flaws like this to use them as proof that the whole field of RV is just built on trickery. We may be inclined to give a damn about "sceptics", but we still need to deal with them at least indirectly. And we should definitely not feed them like this.

George’s post pointed this out to us. Everything else he might have wanted or not wanted to imply is irrelevant. He did not explicitly state that he meant to question your integrity but replied that he meant not to imply this. Your feelings got unnecessarily hurt as well as George’s, but that happens sometimes. Get over it and let’s all watch out so this happens again. Let’s all be careful about our wording when we criticize someone, make sure they don’t feel we disrespect them and not overreact by reading something personal into it when we are criticised. Let’s keep the hurting to people who really ask for it ;-)

BTW: what bothered me about George’s post was his talk about "mathematical significance". Statistical significance got nothing to do with it. This type of problem is covered by the concept of validity. But that’s just nitpicking ;-)

Bye,

Jan.

Thanx Jan,

I have to agree that the subject was one that needed to be addressed. I also thought about it but was unsure how to bring it up safely. I like the idea of using a sealed envelope put in a location that is declared beforehand. One can always invite one’s students to investigate, but IMO, students would feel hesitant to initiate any kind of serious inspection that would most likely come off as being extremely rude in front of one’s own teacher and in fact they would in most instances probably also be too busy at the time thinking about misc interesting ramifications of the theory that was being taught to question what would at the time seem to be minor details. However, the danger is that the exercise does in fact look quite similar to various magic tricks that are out there and quite dissimilar to remote viewing as it is commonly portrayed. Therefore, I was not surprised that this type of question came up. It is always painful to have methodological flaws pointed out, but in this case, I think since the issue could be solved in the future with an absolutely minor amount of effort, then it’s a good thing it came up.

-E

Hi RF,

Just from George’s post, it does not seem to me that he defied basic rules of good behaviour.

Communication in email, mailing-lists or BBs is always prone to misunderstanding on the emotional level. You don’t see the other participant’s faces and don’t hear the sound of their voice. You need to get pretty verbose to make up for this missing information.

Short statements like George’s can easily be interpreted as being a blunt insult. You got to be careful even with the slightest criticism when you do it in this medium. George sure failed to do that. But his post does not look to me like he meant to be insulting.

I don’t know if there has been trouble with George behind the scenes, but just from this post I’d say you are overreacting.

George was actually being nice when he pointed to the possibility of a "clever" trick: It’s described in "Magic for Dummies".

If anything else fails "skeptics" like to point out that a magician could have produced the same effect with trickery. Usually they state that they are not allowed to disclose how this could be done, since it is kept a secret within the magic circles. The way you presented this demonstration is a "skeptic’s" dream come through.

I think it really was not a very good idea to come up with the feedback the way you did. Giving the sealed envelope to one of the participants right before the demonstration would have clearly been a better choice.

And while you adressed this issue during the demonstration you sure failed to do so when you described it here on the BB. Your credibility is good within the guild and within major parts of the RV community. I got no reason to believe you faked this. But when you go public you can’t rely on integrity or honor being taken into account. You just can’t put up a presentation that got "potential cheap magic trick" written all over it and expect to get through with it.

That way you are practically begging to question your integrity. And once this question is raised (and George’s post did raise this question only indirectly – you were the one who explicitly brought this up), the discussion is doomed to degrade.

Communication has a hard time dealing with the question of integrity and truthfullness. Technically speaking that’s because you get a "re-entry" of the problem, that causes a loop. "I am not lying" is a tautology – that’s what both a constant liar and someone who’s always telling the truth would tell you (while "I am lying" is paradox). When you get a re-entry logic fails to be able to make a decision and that usually means that communication gets really complicated (e.g. in the philosophy of science when you ask if our concept of truth is true) or it quickly gets ugly – like in this case.

The way you responded to George is quite understandable – but it’s not helpful at all. It’s like an allergy where the particles one is allergic against are harmless but the immunity system starts running amok. I noticed you are quite prone to this type of reaction and it seems to have been one of the major causes of trouble on this BB.

George’s post does imply that you COULD have cheated or that someone who does not trust you could easily interpret it that way. But he did not state that you DID cheat. He made no statements at all about what he thought about your motivs. In his reply he told you that he did not mean to question your integrity. Can we tell if he is telling the truth? Nope, only George knows what he meant to imply and if we question his truthfullness about that we get another re-entry and therefore it’s quite understandable that Georges reply seemed rather defensive and almost aggressive. So we got another logical loop and if we keep playing we get one big loop connection several smaller ones. If this system is getting complicated enough it can go on for ever without anybody noticing that we are just dealing with elaborated loops. In face2face interaction misunderstandings on the emotional level are usually solved before the trouble starts or the system overheats quickly and blows, but on the internet this kind of crap can steadily build up and keep growing.

This is just so typical for a kind of conflict that may be called parasitical communication. It’s communication that eats up all the resources (awareness of the participants, time to sit down and discuss something useful).

It’s a good thing George came up with this criticism. I rather have it discussed here than on Randi.org. There you would sure get some serious smearing and no way to respond to it. Randi would certainly and quite explicitly imply that you did cheat.

I had noticed the problem George pointed out immediately when I read your first post in this thread. But unlike George I knew this would require an extra carefully worded post. But I was lazy and I figured this was so obvious, somebody else would probably come up with it. I wonder why it took so long (5 days). Did no one besides George and me notice? Or were there more people like me, who noticed but decided to let someone else play the bad guy?

Anyway, that makes (at least) 3 of us who screwed up. And George certainly wasn’t the worst screw up. He was just being a stereotypical guy, not caring enough about emotional side-effects of communication.

You and I screwed up far worse. You should have known in the first place that your post was likely to raise this question and I should have known that this would get messy if the question was not raised carefully (or by the wrong person or whatever) and that I should have better spend the time to adress this issue myself instead of now having to spend even more time to mend wounds.

To get back to the point:

We need to be extra-careful how we present our case. There are hords of pseudo-skeptics who just wait for flaws like this to use them as proof that the whole field of RV is just built on trickery. We may be inclined to give a damn about "sceptics", but we still need to deal with them at least indirectly. And we should definitely not feed them like this.

George’s post pointed this out to us. Everything else he might have wanted or not wanted to imply is irrelevant. He did not explicitly state that he meant to question your integrity but replied that he meant not to imply this. Your feelings got unnecessarily hurt as well as George’s, but that happens sometimes. Get over it and let’s all watch out so this happens again. Let’s all be careful about our wording when we criticize someone, make sure they don’t feel we disrespect them and not overreact by reading something personal into it when we are criticised. Let’s keep the hurting to people who really ask for it ;-)

BTW: what bothered me about George’s post was his talk about "mathematical significance". Statistical significance got nothing to do with it. This type of problem is covered by the concept of validity. But that’s just nitpicking ;-)

Bye,

Jan.

This entrainment demonstration is nothing new, and really not that out of the ordinary here in the guild. It’s unfortunate, but unless you have sat in class and watched Glenn instruct for the past 7 years you’re not really going to be able to comprehend something like the “entrainment’ demonstration he pulled off last Monday.

If you are new to RV and have read a few websites, or if you have taken a basic class, you cannot fully grasp and understand what Glenn is about. I’ve heard him ask many times over the years, “In all the targets we’ve done, have I EVER told you anything about the target in advance?” (He has not.) He constantly harps on chain of custody procedures, and constantly reminds us that just one small “Whoops”- one case where the demonstration of a skill was less than true and valid- would call into question all of our work.

I’ve watched Glenn pull out of his back pocket a sketch of a target I cued in private- without his knowledge- not meant for him to work- an exact sketch of a photograph I had selected as a target for students. That was back in the early days and it made my knees buckle. (Account of this is published in the library.)

I personally had a certified notary public notarize a prediction Glenn made in 1998 that came true exactly as his session outlined. The prediction was notarized 2 weeks prior to the event. (This is also published under Projects- Prediction Experiment.)

One class watched Glenn work a target (because he felt the need to do so) at a white board “live” in front of the class. He drew a school and a boy shooting a girl at point blank range. Several weeks later Columbine High School shootings made headlines.

Upon arriving in Mesquite, Nevada for an IRVA conference – Glenn’s first trip outside of Hawaii in several years- I heard with my own ears Glenn say “I need to find a slot machine with a picture of a bow tie on it.” He admitted that he had remote viewed the graphic scheme of a winning slot machine. I walked through the casino and found a machine called “Black Tie” with bow ties as the winning combination. I looked over my shoulder, started pumping money and quickly won a few hundred bucks. THEN I told Glenn and watched and photographed as he cleaned trays and trays of $5 gold coins out of that machine. (Photos published in Library)

I overhead someone explain Keno to Glenn at a dinner table and then witnessed Glenn pick 8 out of 10 numbers correctly in the next game.

During a class on tagging Glenn produced a bag of poker chips. Several hundred red, white, and blue chips. He had the class write down predictions- first chip blue, second chip white, third chip blue, fourth red, etc. etc. I watched Pat call 10 in a row without a miss. Figure the odds of that one, if your calculator has that many numbers on it.

Then there was the time the class worked a target to take on the University of Texas RV skeptic website. Our submitted data clearly and without a doubt described the target, and the skeptic site closed shop for good. Oh, did we tell you “The Rest Of The Story?” Two days BEFORE THE FEEDBACK WAS REVEALED on that site, Glenn gave us a class target. The target that night was The Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Then the feedback was revealed for the skeptic test we had just sent in. It was The Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Do you think THAT was a coincidence?

The Guild Lore is full of tales like this. I could go on and on, and will some day in book.

But I’m sorry, but if you haven’t been along for the ride then you just aren’t going to understand. I just want to stress that Glenn conducts guild RV with integrity, and that he is the most amazing person I’ve even had the privilege to be associated with.

It can be very difficult bringing an empowering technology to the public without fully knowing what one is up against. The "blows" can seem to come out of nowhere. If Glenn has received even 25% of the “blows” that I’ve seen delivered to David Oates, Glenn has a right to be edgy. Remote Viewing and Reverse Speech can be extremely empowering and this is not welcome everywhere.

Also Glenn was right, I was questioning, not his integrity, but I was questioning the apparent naivety of class. I stress the word apparent, as I was not there and don’t fully know the situation. Glenn partially explained this by telling how he invited the class to check out the room.

I suspect that Glenn could have stood above that piece of paper at the beginning of the entrainment demo and said, “This place in the room is significant.” without ruining the demo. That would have quashed most of the questions about the demonstration.

It can be very difficult bringing an empowering technology to the public without fully knowing what one is up against. The "blows" can seem to come out of nowhere. If Glenn has received even 25% of the “blows” that I’ve seen delivered to David Oates, Glenn has a right to be edgy. Remote Viewing and Reverse Speech can be extremely empowering and this is not welcome everywhere.

Yeah, but as I tried to explain: getting edgy over the question of integrity or truthfullness does not help at all. It does not help a bit when some people really give you crap and when you are overreacting it just gets everybody edgy over nothing. Glenn got the right to get edgy, it is quite understandable that he does but it is still no good.

When you look at scientific discussions you will notice that scientists are always really careful not to question the integrity of their opponents. Because that would just be the end of science. NO scientist could ever prove that he did not cheat on an experiment.

That’s why the "sceptics" can still play their game (but it’s not good science since they make statements that are not falsifiable – besides they hardly do any empirical research and if they do it’s mostly crappy.

Dick’s recent post in this thread could be easily discarded just the same way. One would just have to question Dick’s integrity. That would not even be hard since Dick is a friend of Glenn and he’s the VP of HRVG. The game would continue just the same. There is NOTHING we could do about that.

The same thing happened in parapsychology. Bem was a trusted mainstream psychologist who was invited to evaluate Parapsychology and do some independent research. He got some positive results and now he is one of them psi-believers who are either cheating or fooling themselves…

So we should really try to stay out of this game whenever possible and not start it ourselves unnecessarily because we are being edgy.

And the best way to do that is to be hard on ourselves. And I think Glenn is the last who would disagree on that ;-)

Bye,

Jan.

Dick’s recent post in this thread could be easily discarded just the same way. One would just have to question Dick’s integrity. That would not even be hard since Dick is a friend of Glenn and he’s the VP of HRVG. The game would continue just the same. There is NOTHING we could do about that.

Hi Jan,

It is one of the reasons I’ve been trying over the years to somehow get you out here to Hawaii. You have done some good work via the interent and you are in fact a valuable member of the guild. (Jan is on the Board of Directors.)

But those of us who have had the good luck to be here in Hawaii to witness the progress of the guild in person with our own eyes have been able to see some amazing things. Glenn never set out to convince skeptics, to prove anything to the world, or make this a big show. He just asked "Who wants to be here and learn this?" And he taught us.

There is a long list of people who witnessed the things I listed, and a lot of other things I didn’t mention. On two occasions TV cameras came to the class and recorded viewers producing "hits" on blind targets (KBS Korean TV and Hawaiian Moving Company.) But we have done better work a thousand times when no one was paying attention.

I’m still hopefull that some open minded scientists will catch wind of what we are doing here and invite members of the guild into a lab under scientific scrutiny. Glenn of course could step in and peg the meters, but his situation and non disclosure agreement prohibit that. But his students would be interesting to study in a lab somewhere.

Aloha

Dick

It is one of the reasons I’ve been trying over the years to somehow get you out here to Hawaii. You have done some good work via the interent and you are in fact a valuable member of the guild. (Jan is on the Board of Directors.)

Hi Dick,

you are not getting the point I am trying to make. I am not the one who is questioning anyone’s integrity here. I have done blind sessions with some success and now we did not cheat on those and I have seen some great sessions by you guys where I knew no one was cheating because I was the targeteer and the only one who knew the feedback.

So you don’t need to get me to Hawaii to convince me of anything. You need to get me to Hawaii to give me some advanced training, to give me a good time in paradise and to let me visit some old friends ;-)

The point is: Anyone could question Glenn’s integrity (like it has already been done e.g. by Joni Dourif) and there’s is nothing you could tell them, that could prevent them from doing so, because they could then question your integrity (or mine, since I have just defended HRVG’s integrity) just the same. There really is no way to defend against attacks on integrity. So it’s better not to raise this question.

Bye,

Jan.

I’m still hopefull that some open minded scientists will catch wind of what we are doing here and invite members of the guild into a lab under scientific scrutiny. Glenn of course could step in and peg the meters, but his situation and non disclosure agreement prohibit that. But his students would be interesting to study in a lab somewhere.

If you are interested, I could probably arrange something with the GfA (Gesellschaft für Anomalistik) or the IGPP (the world’s largest parapsychology research center – they got around 30 full-time employees which is 10 times the average lab).

When I visited the IGPP a month ago to lecture on RV they found the highly structured data processing of our method quite interesting (Ganzfeld-Experiments are done with free-style responses). So they would likely come up with some interesting research that goes beyond merely proof-of-Psi oriented testing. They would probably not ship you guys over for testing though but rather do it via the internet.

You can find these two organisations on the internet at:

www.anomalistik.de (GfA, site in German only)

www.igpp.de (site also in English)

Bye,

Jan.