Remote Viewing Experiment: Procedure

stevenmu

So I've been thinking it might be fun if we tried more practical experiments on the forum. Remote viewing by it's very nature, lends itself to being tested across the internet, and it's also often considered to be one of the most succesfull and reproducible paranormal phenomenon aswell as being something which can be tried by anyone, not just 'psychics'. I was initially going to just take a picture of somewhere/something, assign it some coordinates and get people to try and RV it. Then I started thinking, if we're going to try it, why not try it properly and have a proper procedure in place, so I've started this thread first to try and decide what procedure can work best for us.

I think the best method we can employ is called rank-order judging. With this method, five images are chosen as the target pool. Out of these five images, one image is selected at random to be the 'target'. The 'selecter' will then assign coordinates to this target and then post the coordinates on the thread. The participants (remote viewers) will then have a set amount of time (48 hours ?) to respond with their descriptions of the target. After the time has elapsed a blind judge who has the five images from the target pool but is unaware of which is the actual target will score each response. Scoring will involve comparing the description to each of the 5 images and assigning each image a rank of 1 to 5, 1 being the image which most matches the description and 5 being the image which least matches the description. After the scoring is complete, a new pool of 5 images shall be selected for the next iteration. Ideally there would be one blind judge for each remote viewer, but hopefully we'll have enough participants to make that impractical.

The method for the remote viewers to use is (roughly) as follows. First the remote viewer should recieve the coordinates from the experiment thread. Then set aside an hour or so to try and view the target. The RVer should begin by taking a few minutes to relax. The next step is to try and remove any preconceptions about the target. This generally involves taking ten or fifteen minutes to think about the target and acknowledge any ideas which come to mind as preconceptions. Many people find it usefull to write these down on a sheet of paper, and then push it to one side when done. When this is done the remote viewing itself begins. To do this the RVer simply needs to think of the target coordinates (some prefer to do so just once, others think of them over and over) and clear their mind. In general the RVer does not try to actually go to the target, they allow impressions from the target to come to them. Some people find it usefull to take notes as this happens, others find it usefull to do small sketches. At the end of their alloted time, the RVer should allow 5 to 10 minutes to write their description of the target. This description should as far as possible be made up of adjectives and descriptions as opposed to nouns or pronouns. If the RVer wishes, they can at the end of this make a guess or guesses as to the location or object being viewed, but this should be seperate to their description.

Now, some of the things I'm unsure of so far are:
Should scoring be presented after every round, or only after all rounds are complete ?
Should descriptions from remote viewers be presented on thread, or PM'd to the blind judge ?
Should participation by remote viewers be open to people to start and finish whenever they choose, or should we decide on a set list of participants here first before the experiment begins ?


Because of the way this experiment will be conducted over boards.ie, we can't guarantee that the selector/judge/remote viewers won't contact each other outside of the thread, and as such we can never claim this experiment can prove anything, but I think it can lead to a good mix of fun and usefullness.

Please post any suggestions, criticisms etc, or even just post if your interested in taking part.

(also, we'll need a volunteer for blind judge, or if someone wants to be the selector I can do the judging instead)

Stoner

I think this sounds decent enough, I hope i have it right, but are you suggesting that you will be marking each suggestion?
You can then do some stats on the frequency of occurances of the reselts. At the end you can check the balance of mark 1s and mark 2s against mark
4s and 5s.
Depending on these results you can at least see what side of the line your on.
I guess you'd have to know the people you are dealing with as the test environment is very much uncontrolled, but you more or less said that yourself.

stevenmu

Stoner wrote:

I think this sounds decent enough, I hope i have it right, but are you suggesting that you will be marking each suggestion?
You can then do some stats on the frequency of occurances of the reselts. At the end you can check the balance of mark 1s and mark 2s against mark
4s and 5s. Depending on these results you can at least see what side of the line your on.

That's basically it, the judge will assign scores to each picture in the pool based on your description, you then get the score given to the correct picture. For example based on your description the judge might score the pictures A-E as follows
A: 3
B: 4
C: 1
5
E: 2

So if picture E was the actuall target, you would then be given a score of 2. Over enough tests, statistically you should get an average score of 3, an average of 1 or 2 would indicate some remote viewing had taken place. I'm not sure what 4 or 5 would mean ?

If all went well, we'd be able to get out statistics for each individual test and the whole experiment, both for each individual taking part and the group as a whole. It'd be interesting to see if we could spot any trends such as the group's scores improving over time or some people consistently scoring higher than others and so on

I guess you'd have to know the people you are dealing with as the test environment is very much uncontrolled, but you more or less said that yourself.

Yeah, it would have to be done on an 'honour' basis, but once the selecter and judge act honestly then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Stoner

sounds as if it could work, however I have one suggestion, I would keep the numbers 1 to 5 as numbers, ie would not add them and get an average. for example if you took 10 tests for someone and marked them all from 1 to 5. I would not add all these marks up and then divide by 10 to get that persons average mark and then judge which side of mark 3 they were on to see if any remote viewing took place. I think its important to look at the numbers as degrees of sucess/capability and not ordinary numbers to add etc.
We could get more from the results if we represented the results by giving persentages of mark 1, mark 2 , etc all the way to five. This way we could say that someone like you or 6th had say 25% Mark 1s, 50% mark 2s and 25% mark 5s. This would allow us to say stuff like, 25% of the time he was bang on, but 25% of the time he was completly wrong, but 75% of the time he was more right then wrong etc.
I have some excell stuff for this if you dont have it, I understand that you might already have this stuff or I could do it , since I have no such gifts myself and I heard 6th calling me "Sceptic Joe" behind my back in Ross Castle. He can be very hurtful sometimes, sensitive indeed!!

IrishAirCorps

Wasnt that the "Manhattan" Project?

stevenmu

The Manhattan project was the project to build the first atomic bomb, so no

You might be thinking of the Montauk Project, but it wasn't that either (I'll try to find a good link for it later on)

SkepticOne

stevenmu wrote:

Now, some of the things I'm unsure of so far are:
Should scoring be presented after every round, or only after all rounds are complete ?

Ideally after all rounds are complete.

Should descriptions from remote viewers be presented on thread, or PM'd to the blind judge ?

By PM to the blind judge.

Should participation by remote viewers be open to people to start and finish whenever they choose, or should we decide on a set list of participants here first before the experiment begins?

Fixed set of participants preferably.

However, the main problem is that even if you simulated the experiment by randomly assigning the numbers, you would still get plenty of variation in the averages. You would need a large run of tests to reduce this variation.

I'm probably taking this a bit too seriously for a forum in the recreation section though.

IrishAirCorps

Maybe the "Philadelphia" project? The yanks ran some "Project" with that kind of name during the Cold War i think it was in the 60's-80's definately remote viewing. They ( remote viewers ) were asked to describe certain places and give as much info as possible about what they saw even passwords/codes etc that is of course if they were able to see into the USSR and de-classified reports noted that 5 or 6 people always got their "remote viewing" correct all the time.

Zillah

The Philadelphia Experiment involved an attempt to make a battleship invisible. Theres various version of the story depending on how much of a conspiracy nut you are, some involve time travel and teleportation. Both the CIA and KGB experimented extensively with remote viewing during the cold war. Their conclusions were that even if there was something to it, it was far too inconsistent to be trustworthy.

I'll actually read about the experiment later when I'm not falling asleep...

EDIT: Sounds complicated. I call blind judge! You know theres no way in hell I'll contact the experimentees

6th

SkepticOne: just coz its in Rec. doesnt means were not serious, though we do try to keep it casual and loose.

We'll try to do these as best we can given the situation. Would like to be a RVer.

Zillah for blind judge!

stevenmu

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Maybe the "Philadelphia" project? The yanks ran some "Project" with that kind of name during the Cold War i think it was in the 60's-80's definately remote viewing. They ( remote viewers ) were asked to describe certain places and give as much info as possible about what they saw even passwords/codes etc that is of course if they were able to see into the USSR and de-classified reports noted that 5 or 6 people always got their "remote viewing" correct all the time.

Ah, it was the "Stargate" project, I should have really thought of that earlier. There's a huge amount of stuff around the web on it if anyone's interested in googling it.

SkepticOne wrote:

I'm probably taking this a bit too seriously for a forum in the recreation section though.

Your suggestion are certainly the most "proper" way of doing it which would be the way I'd lean too, but for something that could take a couple of weeks to do, it would be nice to have something along the way to keep people (both those taking part and those who aren't) interested. Would a good compromise be to have fixed participants who PM there descriptions to the judge, and the results are revealed after each round ?

SkepticOne wrote:

However, the main problem is that even if you simulated the experiment by randomly assigning the numbers, you would still get plenty of variation in the averages. You would need a large run of tests to reduce this variation.

Yes, that is an issue. I'd been thinking of having at least 5 participants for 10 rounds, giving 50 results for the group which wouldn't be too bad, but for each indivual 10 results wouldn't really be much. Thinking about it now there's no reason we couldn't run it for longer, altough the longer we run it for the more essential I think it becomes to have some kind of feedback during the process to keep people interested. If we are to allow 2 days per round we could run say 30 rounds over two months. We would then need to allow for the fact that some people may need to miss a round or two during that time.

Zillah wrote:

EDIT: Sounds complicated. I call blind judge! You know theres no way in hell I'll contact the experimentees

I was hoping you'd do it alright, and I *knew* you'd volunteer

Zillah

Noo! I'm but a pawn in his schemes! I feel used.

Should scoring be presented after every round, or only after all rounds are complete ?

I think a total batch of three rounds, with everything presented together would be cool.

Should descriptions from remote viewers be presented on thread, or PM'd to the blind judge ?

Obviously PM so as to not have them influence each other.

Should participation by remote viewers be open to people to start and finish whenever they choose, or should we decide on a set list of participants here first before the experiment begins ?

I'm tempted to say a set panel from the start, but it doesn't really change anything very much if we let other people in. If the person we let in half way is a phenomenal psychic then it'd skew the results towards the final round or two...but personally I'm willing to run that risk

6th

So steven would you be a RVer too? Shame to waste that raw psychic powah.

Zillah

We need a selector as well as the judge. If Ste doesn't do it then who will?

6th

Am sure we can find someone, Stoner maybe?

Zillah

How well do we know Stoner? I'm happy to trust Stevenmu if he's willing.

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

Obviously PM so as to not have them influence each other.

Yeah, I think that's the best way alright.

Zillah wrote:

I'm tempted to say a set panel from the start, but it doesn't really change anything very much if we let other people in. If the person we let in half way is a phenomenal psychic then it'd skew the results towards the final round or two...but personally I'm willing to run that risk

Yep, I don't see any way it should affect things, and if there is a phenomenal psychic out there, it's better to get them in half-way through than not at all. There's also the possibility that some people will want to take part but may have holidays or other commitments that would prevent them doing some rounds.

We need a selector as well as the judge. If Ste doesn't do it then who will?

I'm planning on doing it myself obviously, unless someone else really wants to do it. We can always run the experiment again with someone else selecting and me RVing so I don't mind missing it this time.

6th

We know and trust Stoner, been at 2 investigations with him and he's been out for drinks too. Plus like you he wont **** about - of course he might not want to do it but i'm sure he'll be on later.

Zillah

All good then

stevenmu

Tbh, while stoner is a trustworthy sort, I think I'd prefer to do it myself the first time around anyway, just to make sure it all runs the way I think it should, and if I'm taking part in it then I'd have to step back from all that.

6th

Sure thing boss - its your baby!

Stoner

no probs steve your the man.

stevenmu

So who's interested in taking part ?

6th I presume you're in, and Kenneth, I'm putting your name down too.

Stoner, SkepticOne, IrishAirCorp, are ye interested ?

6th

Yeah am definately up for it.

Nevyn

/reads all of the above and wonders why they are making it so complicated.

stevenmu

Well the blind judging process is the best one I know of to see if it is working or not. Plus it'll give us lots of data for statistics and some nice fancy graphs and bar charts. The other bits and pieces are to some degree little more than window dressing since we can't guarantee the integrity of the whole process, but we might aswell stick fairly close to it as long as it doesn't sacrifice all the fun of it.


/Wonders what Thaed would do instead ?

Stoner

As a Chartered non Crazy (to use someone elses wording) I dont know if I would be any use in the experiment, but I am willing to join in etc if needed/thank you for the offer, and I understand that I would be left out if a more gifted individual arrived.

Unless I can get my hands on an infrasound gun
http://members.aol.com/alanyu5/part1a1.htm

Nevyn

I think it is all the more reason to have you take part a null is a good idea to have if you are looking for data.

How I would do it:

Have one boardcaster and 6 viewers.
Have an agreed upon time window where the person would boardcaster and the other receive/view.
Have one indepant person who recieve and collate emails reports from the 6 viewers.
When all the emails have been recieved the boardcaster sends the email with the data that they sending and the resulsts are posted up.

Example:

I could place an object on my desk at my pc and form and image of that object currenty a large blue mug.
This would be done for 20 mins at a set time.
Those wanting to recieve or remote view would gear themsleves up get into the zone or waht ever in the run up to the 20 mins.
When the 20 mins have ended they record thier impression and findings of the object all off them no matter how odd or vauge and send them off in email.
When the emails are in I get and email and then send an account of what I sent and felt and a pic of the object on the desk and the results can be posted up and compared.

that is just how I would go about it , I find objects work better then images.

Zillah

But we're testing remote viewing, not telepathy between people, so having a broadcaster changes the experiment.

Nevyn

ok then no boardcaster just an object placed in a certain place for a certain ammount of time.

stevenmu

Zillah is absolutely correct, what you are describing is more of a telepathic sending/receiving experiment. What we are trying is Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV) whereby a set of coordinates is assigned to a location/object and knowing only the coordinates a remote viewer attempts to determine some information about the location/object. The photo (or possibly photos I suppose) itself is only to compare the location/object with the descriptions given.

<edit>

Thaedydal wrote:

ok then no boardcaster just an object placed in a certain place for a certain ammount of time.

Yes, that would work, altough given that 5 targets are need for each round (to allow scoring), times 30 rounds, that's going to be 150 objects, so what I'm actually going to do is just nab 150 photos off the net.
</edit>

Stoner wrote:

As a Chartered non Crazy (to use someone elses wording) I dont know if I would be any use in the experiment, but I am willing to join in etc if needed/thank you for the offer, and I understand that I would be left out if a more gifted individual arrived.

Part of the appeal of Remote Viewing is that it should work for anyone who follows the process. It would also be interesting to see if the crazies score any better than the non-crazies

Zillah

Thaedydal wrote:

ok then no boardcaster just an object placed in a certain place for a certain ammount of time.

"*Wooo wooo* Spelling police! *checks dyslexia papers* Ok, she's clean, move along, move along..."


I agree that an object seems like a better idea than simple pictures. After all, the actual physical dimensions may be relevant, a two dimensional image of a blue cup might only provide a two dimensional sensation.

faceman

Sounds interesting. Im game ball if you need more volunteers.

Zillah

stevenmu wrote:

Part of the appeal of Remote Viewing is that it should work for anyone who follows the process. It would also be interesting to see if the crazies score any better than the non-crazies

Hehehe. And so my secret plan has been completed. No longer is it "sceptic and believer", it is "crazies and non-crazies"...hehehe

SkepticOne

I vote Zillah as the selector.

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

Hehehe. And so my secret plan has been completed. No longer is it "sceptic and believer", it is "crazies and non-crazies"...hehehe

...respectively

Zillah

SkepticOne wrote:

I vote Zillah as the selector.

No no, el presidente Stevenmus is selector, I do blind judging. Thats right, blind. See how zen-monk I am? You cannot truly see until you have closed your eyes.

SkepticOne

Zillah wrote:

No no, el presidente Stevenmus is selector, I do blind judging. Thats right, blind. See how zen-monk I am? You cannot truly see until you have closed your eyes.

Don't really care who the blind judge is. Selector is the important job. It is important that that person is isolated from the rest of the experiment and not part of the organising effort.

The selector is the job most in need of isolation. Communication between, say, the participants and blind judge is not nearly as damaging as communication between the selector and either the blind judge or the viewers.

Less chance of (unintentional) cheating if Zillah is the selector, imo.

If it is just a bit of fun and not intended to produce interesting results then this should be disregarded.

6th

Its impossible to have this as controlled as we'd ideally want it so taking it at this stage as an interesting experiment between people who know each other and have a similar interest is good enough for me.

I know that i will have contact with steven on other issues over the course of the experiment but i dont think that will call into question any results that we get.

SkepticOne

6th wrote:

I know that i will have contact with steven on other issues over the course of the experiment.

This is why I suggested it. Cut down on the possibility of accidental communication.

Stoner

so we are looking for a Billy-no-mates person for this then!
when are we doing it anyway, the sooner the better, if it does not work out then correct it and try again.

6th

Christ i'm in touch with a fair few here so a good few of us will need to be cut out if this is the case. Other events and trips will be set up as this experiment goes on.

stevenmu

SkepticOne wrote:

Less chance of (unintentional) cheating if Zillah is the selector, imo.

I think the selection process I had in mind would reduce the chances of this a good bit. Basically I intend on getting 150 pictures of locations/objects and splitting them up into 30 groups of 5, with the 5 in each group being as distinct from each other as possible. Then for each round I would select one of the 5 images at random (maybe throwing a dice), assign it the coordinates and post it up. I suppose I could write a quick little program to select 1 target out of 5 at random so that I wouldn't know the target either, only the 5 possibles. I could also do one to pick the 5 locations for the round at random from the pool of 150 but that would mean that there could be two or more similar locations/objects in the round.

If it is just a bit of fun and not intended to produce interesting results then this should be disregarded.

Ideally, it'd be both

Nevyn

define in touch with ?
I have never meet any of ye and can put those doing it on ignore.

6th

Well i mean interaction on here, pms, general emails and social meetings including nights out and the (hopefully) upcoming Development Circle.

I'm not sure when this is planned for but there are also trips planned for Glenart castle (hopefully end of september) and Ross Castle on November 4th.

GuanYin

I can help, no one here knows me.

so long as I don't have to be there in person.

stevenmu

Ok, so here's where we stand. For the selecter we can either

1: I'll remain selector and do it as outlined above

2: Someone else can be a selecter and do it as outlined above (either Stoner, Thaedydal or Psi)

3: I could write a program that given a pool of all targets for the experiment would randomly select 5 for each round, randomly select 1 of those 5 to be the actual target and randomly assign it some coordinates. This would then allow Zillah to be the selecter aswell as the blind judge as he would not be aware of the actuall target, or know which 5 targets were selected for the round, untill the judging for that round began.


We'll decide on one of these methods by 10pm tomorrow (friday), at which point we'll begin a trial round just to make sure everyone know what's happening.

6th

I say keep you as selector and see how it goes.

Aoide

Did I miss something? Have you already tried this or did you just put the idea on hold?

Stoner

just reading up on research carried out in 1996 by AASAP in the UK, interesting methods and results, I'll photocopy same and bring to Ross, they had key elements that ranged from rivers to street lamps, apparently the first controlled RV experiment was carried out in 550BC conducted by King Croesus who wanted to know what the Persian Forces around him were up to

Zillah

We appear to have procrastinated.