From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remote viewing (RV) is a procedure developed by parapsychologists at the Stanford Research Institute to allegedly perform clairvoyance under controlled conditions. Somewhat similar to astral projection, the phenomenon involves a belief in the projection of consciousness to remote locations.
The scientific community in general does not accept the validity of supposedly paranormal phenomena such as remote viewing, though only those scientists in the psychological fields, specifically the quasi-scientific subfield of parapsychology, would be qualified to make such a judgement. No studies demonstrating the phenomenon have been published in reputable scientific journals.
Remote viewing
Moderators: eye_of_tiger, shalimar123
Proponents' claims
Remote viewing allows a viewer to use his or her intuitive best guess abilities to "view", i.e. gather information on a target consisting of an object, place, person, etc., which is hidden from physical view of the viewer and typically separated from the viewer in space by some distance. The "view" is merely a personal impression experienced by the subject viewer, and is sometimes recorded by another person. This is similar to somebody recording another person's dream memories when first awakened. Classic remote viewing is done in real time, although smaller subsets of proponents claim the ability to cross the timeline either forward or backward (future or past) as well. Supporters claim that the existing experimental evidence supports the validity of these techniques.
Proponents argue that remote viewing is distinguished from other forms of clairvoyance in that it follows a specific experimental protocol (or some variant of it). The critical aspect common to these protocols, proponents contend, is that the viewer is blind to the target in the sense of being given no (or negligible) information regarding the target being viewed.
The original research, according to Russell Targ, the originator of this theory, is considered valid under accepted scientific method, and is currently at the level of a working theory, not yet considered fact or law of nature. One weakness of the method is it requires a subjective response from the subjects involved in the test. This is still considered acceptable as only the results are considered as the end product. The results have only reached the level of statistically significant, meaning it is beating the results of random outcome, but not yet a repeatable experiment without exception. Many accepted aspects of science, including such things as much of psychology, are at this level same level of working theory.
If seven objects, specifically selected to be as easily distinguished from each other as possible, are gathered from around a typical household, each associated with a number, and a test subject can draw a picture of one which can be matched to the real object by an objective third party assistant, thus matching a number to a randomly selected number, then this is considered a positive hit. How and why this works is not known or even proposed. While it is true it is very dependent on some subjects having greater ability than others, and the matching of a rough drawing to an object may seem not certain when the drawing and object are placed side by side, out of context of the experiment, the positive hit ratio under controlled and verifiable conditions still exists, according to Russell Targ and other proponents. The drawings need only be unique enough to be capable of making the distinction between objects such as a pencil, an orange, a teddy bear, and a can of soup.
Proponents argue that remote viewing is distinguished from other forms of clairvoyance in that it follows a specific experimental protocol (or some variant of it). The critical aspect common to these protocols, proponents contend, is that the viewer is blind to the target in the sense of being given no (or negligible) information regarding the target being viewed.
The original research, according to Russell Targ, the originator of this theory, is considered valid under accepted scientific method, and is currently at the level of a working theory, not yet considered fact or law of nature. One weakness of the method is it requires a subjective response from the subjects involved in the test. This is still considered acceptable as only the results are considered as the end product. The results have only reached the level of statistically significant, meaning it is beating the results of random outcome, but not yet a repeatable experiment without exception. Many accepted aspects of science, including such things as much of psychology, are at this level same level of working theory.
If seven objects, specifically selected to be as easily distinguished from each other as possible, are gathered from around a typical household, each associated with a number, and a test subject can draw a picture of one which can be matched to the real object by an objective third party assistant, thus matching a number to a randomly selected number, then this is considered a positive hit. How and why this works is not known or even proposed. While it is true it is very dependent on some subjects having greater ability than others, and the matching of a rough drawing to an object may seem not certain when the drawing and object are placed side by side, out of context of the experiment, the positive hit ratio under controlled and verifiable conditions still exists, according to Russell Targ and other proponents. The drawings need only be unique enough to be capable of making the distinction between objects such as a pencil, an orange, a teddy bear, and a can of soup.
Skepticism
Some critics of remote viewing claim that the experimental evidence is inadequate. Some critics liken remote viewing to dowsing, and accord remote viewing just as much validity as that procedure.
While proponents call the remote viewing technique "scientific," it has only a minority acceptance among scientists. Skeptics contend that an incorrect description of an object by a remote viewer is often considered a "hit" due to small similarities, and that visual cues, extraneous evidence and poorly designed testing protocols account for any accurate descriptions. They argue that there has never been a successful properly conducted double-blind remote viewing experimemt.
While proponents call the remote viewing technique "scientific," it has only a minority acceptance among scientists. Skeptics contend that an incorrect description of an object by a remote viewer is often considered a "hit" due to small similarities, and that visual cues, extraneous evidence and poorly designed testing protocols account for any accurate descriptions. They argue that there has never been a successful properly conducted double-blind remote viewing experimemt.
Protocol
Under the remote viewing family of protocols, the viewer is blind to the target, i.e. is not explicitly told what the target is; rather it is specified in one of several ways. One common method is that the target is described either in writing or by a photograph or by some set of coordinates (e.g. latitude & longitude), the latter of which may be encrypted.
The description is then placed in a double-set of opaque envelopes which may be shown to the viewer or its location described to the viewer, but which the viewer is not allowed to touch or open during the viewing session. The viewer then writes down whatever information he can gather about the target, typically including drawings and gestalt impressions as well as visual details (and sometimes auditory or kinesthetic details as well). The viewing session is often administered or facilitated by a second person called the monitor.
The output of the viewing session is evaluated by a third person, the analyst or evaluator, who matches or ranks the output against a pool consisting of the actual target with some number of decoy or dummy targets. In research scenarios (experiments) the monitor and analyst are also blind to the target along with the viewer until the evaluation is complete. The viewer is typically given the information about the target after the evaluation is complete, providing a feedback that seems to increase the positive hit ratio.
In the opinion of most of its proponents, remote viewing is a skill that typically improves with training, and certain variations of the protocol are used during training.
Some variations on the remote viewing protocol include:
Outbounder Remote Viewing, in which a person (the outbounder) physically present at the target site acts as a "beacon" to identify the target site. This was one of the earliest protocols used in the SRI program.
Coordinate (or Controlled) Remote Viewing (CRV) in which target sites were originally described in terms of geographical coordinates, and later any (non-descriptive) identifying code used to identify a target to the viewer.
Technical Remote Viewing (TRV), a term trademarked by a company called PSI TECH, based upon CRV.
Associative Remote Viewing (ARV), a variant which adds a level of indirection, specifically proxy targets associated with events in order to answer binary (yes/no) questions. Often applied to predicting future events.
Predictive Remote Viewing (PRV), developed by researchers Simon Turnbull and Charles Scarf, originally for use in predicting stock market fluctuations.
The description is then placed in a double-set of opaque envelopes which may be shown to the viewer or its location described to the viewer, but which the viewer is not allowed to touch or open during the viewing session. The viewer then writes down whatever information he can gather about the target, typically including drawings and gestalt impressions as well as visual details (and sometimes auditory or kinesthetic details as well). The viewing session is often administered or facilitated by a second person called the monitor.
The output of the viewing session is evaluated by a third person, the analyst or evaluator, who matches or ranks the output against a pool consisting of the actual target with some number of decoy or dummy targets. In research scenarios (experiments) the monitor and analyst are also blind to the target along with the viewer until the evaluation is complete. The viewer is typically given the information about the target after the evaluation is complete, providing a feedback that seems to increase the positive hit ratio.
In the opinion of most of its proponents, remote viewing is a skill that typically improves with training, and certain variations of the protocol are used during training.
Some variations on the remote viewing protocol include:
Outbounder Remote Viewing, in which a person (the outbounder) physically present at the target site acts as a "beacon" to identify the target site. This was one of the earliest protocols used in the SRI program.
Coordinate (or Controlled) Remote Viewing (CRV) in which target sites were originally described in terms of geographical coordinates, and later any (non-descriptive) identifying code used to identify a target to the viewer.
Technical Remote Viewing (TRV), a term trademarked by a company called PSI TECH, based upon CRV.
Associative Remote Viewing (ARV), a variant which adds a level of indirection, specifically proxy targets associated with events in order to answer binary (yes/no) questions. Often applied to predicting future events.
Predictive Remote Viewing (PRV), developed by researchers Simon Turnbull and Charles Scarf, originally for use in predicting stock market fluctuations.
History
The process of remote viewing was first developed by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute at the behest of the CIA in 1972. The program -- initially codenamed Scanate -- apparently came as a response to Soviet research into psychic phenomena, on which the USSR was believed to have spent 60 million rubles in 1970. Initially, the project focused on a small number of individuals who appeared to show potential, most famously New York artist Ingo Swann.
The program went through a number of changes over the years, both in structure and in name. Later code names include Gondola Wish, Grill Flame, and in 1991, Star Gate. Over the course of twenty years, the United States spent $20 million on Star Gate and related projects. Over the course of its existence more than forty personnel worked on the project, including more than twenty remote viewers. Though the program was classified throughout its existence, columnist Jack Anderson wrote about it in the mid-1980s. Since 2003, documentation relating to the Scanate, Grill Flame, Gondola Wish and Centrelane programs has been mostly declassified (1% or less remains classified) and is available to the general public under the FOIA.
Concerns about the program's effectiveness led the CIA to contract the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to provide an evaluation. Their final report included an endorsement from statistician Jessica Utts, who found the government psychics' 15% success rate statistically significant; and a rebuttal from noted skeptic Ray Hyman, who pointed to flaws in the ways the experiments were conducted and results were tabulated. AIR's final recommendation to the CIA was to terminate the program, which it did in 1995. According to the CIA, ESP has never provided data used to guide intelligence operations.
Since the end of the government's involvement with Project Star Gate, remote viewing has entered the private sector. Companies such as PSI TECH claim to teach remote viewing procedures, and hundreds of books that detail remote viewing history and methods exist by various authors.
The program went through a number of changes over the years, both in structure and in name. Later code names include Gondola Wish, Grill Flame, and in 1991, Star Gate. Over the course of twenty years, the United States spent $20 million on Star Gate and related projects. Over the course of its existence more than forty personnel worked on the project, including more than twenty remote viewers. Though the program was classified throughout its existence, columnist Jack Anderson wrote about it in the mid-1980s. Since 2003, documentation relating to the Scanate, Grill Flame, Gondola Wish and Centrelane programs has been mostly declassified (1% or less remains classified) and is available to the general public under the FOIA.
Concerns about the program's effectiveness led the CIA to contract the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to provide an evaluation. Their final report included an endorsement from statistician Jessica Utts, who found the government psychics' 15% success rate statistically significant; and a rebuttal from noted skeptic Ray Hyman, who pointed to flaws in the ways the experiments were conducted and results were tabulated. AIR's final recommendation to the CIA was to terminate the program, which it did in 1995. According to the CIA, ESP has never provided data used to guide intelligence operations.
Since the end of the government's involvement with Project Star Gate, remote viewing has entered the private sector. Companies such as PSI TECH claim to teach remote viewing procedures, and hundreds of books that detail remote viewing history and methods exist by various authors.
Remote Viewers
Ed Dames, remote viewer, associated with PSI TECH, Inc.
Courtney Brown, remote viewer and founder of the Farsight Institute.
David Morehouse, remote viewer during Stargate program
Joseph McMoneagle, one of the early remote viewers.
Lyn Buchanan, remote viewer.
Pat Price one of the early remote viewers
Paul Smith, remote viewer credited with authoring/editing the original CRV training manual.
Ingo Swann, one of the founders of remote viewing
Russel Targ, cofounder of the Stanford Research Institute's investigation into psychic abilities in the 1970s and 1980s.
Courtney Brown, remote viewer and founder of the Farsight Institute.
David Morehouse, remote viewer during Stargate program
Joseph McMoneagle, one of the early remote viewers.
Lyn Buchanan, remote viewer.
Pat Price one of the early remote viewers
Paul Smith, remote viewer credited with authoring/editing the original CRV training manual.
Ingo Swann, one of the founders of remote viewing
Russel Targ, cofounder of the Stanford Research Institute's investigation into psychic abilities in the 1970s and 1980s.
I found this remote viewing website very informative:
http://www.probablefuture.com/
http://www.probablefuture.com/
Let's see...Dont we all wish a lot of times we get things without having to pay for them. What's interesting we dont expect dinner in the restaurant or groceries to be free. What makes spiritual services any different? Few day's ago Lee Carroll channalled Kryon, here in Toronto. The price was $100 for 5h seminar. I gladly payed this money, recognazing the time end effort people put to give us this information. Same goes for going to asrologist, reader, remote viewing course ex.
The value
you put on information, is the value it will contain.
As to remote viewing, it is a part of the unfolding and opening of the psychic mediumship centres we all can use and learn more about. There is a charge for seminars, time, workshops because people need to make a living and also because they put a lot of their time and effort into these skills as opposed to going into a more material marketplace.
As to remote viewing, it is a part of the unfolding and opening of the psychic mediumship centres we all can use and learn more about. There is a charge for seminars, time, workshops because people need to make a living and also because they put a lot of their time and effort into these skills as opposed to going into a more material marketplace.
God bless, J
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests