You be the Judge!

We’ll make it obvious :-)

Hello darkness my old friend…

Dick, It is unfortunate that we are involved in a field of endeavor where everyone is locked up tight in their own castle towers. Until the time comes when people can

venture out into the light to share and exchange critique and data it will be just as it is now.
Just keep on making them lightbulbs :)
Aloha Glenn

Hello darkness my old friend…

I know, the Kahe plant has been in the dark too since it was seen on blackboard :(

Jim

Here are the 5 photos from the Skeptic Test. One was the target photo, 4 were inserted by the control. If you were the judge, which would you pick, based on the remote viewing data attached?

The selected data certainly matches #3. Is this to say that none of the other data matched any of the other photos?

How many viewers were there?

With apetite whetted…..can’t wait to see the sessions in their entirety.

Hi Rich..

the basis of the test was this:
Given 5 photos (one cued by the skeptic) could a 3rd party judge identify the correct photo based on data provided by remote viewers.

In that sense we passed the test. The judge selected photo #3.

Was there data that pointed to other photos? Very little. Hardly any.

Was there a lot of contamination- data that described none of the photos? Yes. There was a lot of … call it contamination, call it garbage.

This is why ANALYSIS is so important to the remote viewing process. You can’t just look at one viewer’s session, or two viewers’ sessions and expect all the data will fit. To tell you the truth the bad data in all the sessions in this case outweighed the good data. But the data that made it through analysis was congruent enough to the target and to the location that the judge was able to select the correct photo.

The skeptic was less than completely impressed. We’re going to review the experiment protocols with the skeptic and the judge and do another.

So has the Russian Revolution! But hey, maybe we just make everyone speechless :)! Mana

This is why ANALYSIS is so important to the remote viewing process. You can’t just look at one viewer’s session, or two viewers’ sessions and expect all the data will fit. To tell you the truth the bad data in all the sessions in this case outweighed the good data. But the data that made it through analysis was congruent enough to the target and to the location that the judge was able to select the correct photo.

Interesting, now this was done with "amateur" students still learning the process, so it would be expected that the data is that much more varied.

Has anyone considered the variety of the picture set? Should they all be substantially different from each other? In this case the target photo did stand out as different from the rest.

Also, the hypothesis here seems to be that the more viewers, the better. Other’s say that multiple viewers does not necessarily provide better accuracy, one right…9 wrong.

The skeptic was less than completely impressed. We’re going to review the experiment protocols with the skeptic and the judge and do another.

It would be interesting to hear his comments on this.

It turns out the skeptic played a little trick on us.
The target ID he selected was not a random set of letters and numbers, it was the military designation of a type of aircraft. He even had a photo of the aircraft standing by.

Something like 6 or 7 viewers drew aircraft in their sessions. And one viewer, Jimmy drew the exact one the skeptic had in his picture.

I will be posting a full presentation on this shortly.

Bottom line.. We didn’t get a clean target. But we viewed BOTH the things the skeptic had in mind.

Now I understand why there’s been so much talk of telepathy vs RV/matrix/whatever.

"The target ID might be encoded somehow, so I’ll rig it this way to stand for something, and if they draw this picture here of this plane, then it’s mindreading, but if they draw the target photo, well…"

This guy is sharp. But if he doesn’t follow the agreed upon TEST PROTOCOL? Next time around the cuing method is strictly tied down, and there are other gray area boudaries pushed a little? Something else added here or there?

Sorry, late night on new PC setup.

There,

Tom

It would be nice to get a fair test.

Hey wouldn’t YOU be nervous if your weren’t on our team or a member of our Guild?

We travel back and forth through time, nab murderers, answer questions regarding catastrophes, predict future events,and accept the challenges of skeptics.
The Sound of Silence is often the sound of respect.
Banshee

Hello darkness my old friend…

Holy Guacamole! No wonder so many of us drew an aircraft! Heelllooo, Dr.Skeptic you tried to set us up! I cry FOUL!. You were supposed to select a RANDOM number. Because we are such a high caliber of student viewers we acheived a successful outcome to our test anyway. No thanks to the targeteer. Just one gals opinion.

Banshee

It would be nice to get a fair test.

The skeptic’s "trick" certainly explains why there was so much airplane contamination…but the truth floats and we still were able to identify the correct target…Hmmm, did this prove anything other than that remote viewing works? Mana

It turns out the skeptic played a little trick on us. The target ID he selected was not a random set of letters and numbers, it was the military designation of a type of aircraft. He even had a photo of the aircraft standing by.

Something like 6 or 7 viewers drew aircraft in their sessions. And one viewer, Jimmy drew the exact one the skeptic had in his picture.

I will be posting a full presentation on this shortly. Bottom line.. We didn’t get a clean target. But we viewed BOTH the things the skeptic had in mind.

>