Remote Viewing Experiment! **RESULTS**

reply to post by bluemooone2


Yeah sure, I put them into different categories etc. (something which I haven't posted but used as a guide)

And some may not agree but i think this is relatively close to what i had, obviously not on all 3 but it may be the closest of any other posts.

Also i do have a shelf very near buy with books etc. like he mentioned and from the first picture I added you can see a speaker like he said also.

Hmmm yeah,
I like the statistical analysis.
Helps to build a probability curve.
Time to do another one.
One a month for twelve months.
Over to you.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Time to do another one.
One a month for twelve months.
Over to you.

Umm Yeah! We'll see.

jk

reply to post by Rising Against


I realize you involved a moderator, but that still doesn't answer my question why you couldn't just post the answer...I guess I'm just dense, cuz I don't get it. Sorry for being dense....

reply to post by goobgirl


Ah I'm sorry then but I didn't realize there was a question to be answered at all and to be perfectly honest I'm not sure what you mean here when you say why couldn’t I just post the answer?

When you say answer I assume you mean what the 3 objects were and if that is the case then this post reveals all.

Sorry if that's not what you mean here but like I said I'm don’t fully understand what you mean here.

Honestly, I think anyone who got a rubik's cube should be taken seriously. I don't recall you asking for exact details. I got a book, which is 33% and since I didn't really try that hard, I'm taking my 33% and running with it, lol. I think we should do more experiments, and more controlled experiments. Your computer had a lot of other things around it, like a speaker, etc. I'm guessing you've had a cup or glass around it at least recently, but maybe not. There are things that get in the way, and as others stated, there are different times involved that might throw people off. I say a month is too long to wait. I'll post my own remote viewing perhaps. I know someone on another board who does this and has been very accurate IMO. His name is George and he is on Bruce Moen's website...www.afterlife-knowledge.com.

reply to post by goobgirl

which is 33% and since I didn't really try that hard, I'm taking my 33% and running with it, lol.

Well yes I did have a speaker that was on my computer desk as well but that would be it, and it was out of the way, I have another small cabinet relatively close by that i place drinks, food etc. on (maybe that's why many people picked up cups, pens etc. who knows)

So I can assure you nothing else should have been on my desk apart from the 3 objects.

And yes I hope more experiments will be made by various other ATS members as well as we really do have the potential to come across some pretty interesting results and let’s face it, it's fun.

Thanks for the link as well.

Really i would like to see ATS handle this with a monthly target list for 12 months, all the hits, all the miss's and all the hilarious.
If nothing else this would provide ATSrs with a database of averages and above probabilities.
Who knows we may discover some people with a talent for it.

I think the rubick's cube should have been the classic style, with the solid colored squares. More people would have picked up on it correctly.

The book was confusing because it led the remote viewer to possibly pick up on the idea of "book" or perhaps pick up on the ideas contained in the book.

The envelope wasn't a distinct idea because it also had writing on it, a name on it, and maybe or maybe not there was a letter or card inside of it? - so the envelope could have been "yellow" "card" "letter" "envelope" "love" "birthday card" "writing" or something like that


I think the targets should have been >objects< ...not objects-slash-ideas.

I would like to see the experiment run again.

Originally posted by 30_seconds
I would like to see the experiment run again.

That's fair enough and feel free to make a much better one than I managed.

We're all looking for some good evidence afterall aren't we?

reply to post by Rising Against


Well i'm not a talented remote viewer but my friends tell me i'm hilarious
If ATS could pick up this particular ball it would be helpfull/constructive.
An opportunity to participate in some statistical research as well as debate.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by Rising Against

 

If ATS could pick up this particular ball it would be helpfull/constructive.
An opportunity to participate in some statistical research as well as debate.

Hey, i think it's a great idea and I'll u2u a moderator if you want about whether it would be possible to have something similar to what you mentioned here.

reply to post by Rising Against


Cool.

Thanks for an entertaining experiment. I think for some people like me who don't actually have remote viewing talent, the problem is that we tend to try to guess what the object is after we sense something.

For the first one I felt paper in a stack, but once I did, I started seeing colour dots and based my guess (a Xmas card) on that.

For the second object I first saw a mass of murky yellow. Then my mind began to try to figure out what that could be, and my first thought was an action figure. But your envelop was the same colour.

I need to stop basing it on what I "see". Apparently my external and internal eyesight are equally bad. lol!

However I don't think it would've been good if my answer was "something papery/something yellow".

Look forward to the next experiment, whoever creates it.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by ATSdelurker]

double

[edit on 14-5-2010 by -Thom-]

Originally posted by ATSdelurker
Thanks for an entertaining experiment. I think for some people like me who don't actually have remote viewing talent, the problem is that we tend to try to guess what the object is after we sense something.

For the first one I felt paper in a stack, but once I did, I started seeing colour dots and based my guess (a Xmas card) on that.

For the second object I first saw a mass of murky yellow. Then my mind began to try to figure out what that could be, and my first thought was an action figure. But your envelop was the same colour.

I need to stop basing it on what I "see". Apparently my external and internal eyesight are equally bad. lol!

However I don't think it would've been good if my answer was "something papery/something yellow".

Look forward to the next experiment, whoever creates it.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by ATSdelurker]

Yeah, you mean the analytical overlay. That's a bitch indeed, vey irritating. I really look forward to another RV expriment. Hopefully, the next one will be done with co-ordinates, that's the RV method I 'learned' (yeah I suck, hence the brackets :p )

Interesting thread! Sorry I missed out on it.

Although most were way off, a few were sort of close...book, Rubik's cube. I suggest doing another experiment and invite those that were "close" to make another attempt to see if they are close again or if it was simply a fluke guess. Also, if you do another one, then I can join in.

Well, it's a different style, and open to OOB and AP as well as RV enthusiasts, but here's another target, ready and waiting for your viewing pleasure:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Rising Against


I did this on an old post, 06 I think. He gave coordinates to his house.
I saw a mountain- then a missile- then a tree. I t had large squares on either side of it.
I tried again and saw a tree in a house, window with curtains on either side of it.
The third try showed the tree that was cut off 2/3 height.
Very dark like an incomplete mini pyramid at night.
After scanning 8 pages of the thread, I found out he had put a waste basket upside down on a desk.
So with the laps of time I felt my drawing was close enough.

I of course did your test. I gave it 10 seconds.
I saw dice- 3 dice- more? Then I decided on one die = the cube?
I saw an empty tube- maybe 3 of 4? But you said 3 items, so I decided on one tube. The cover of the books arches in a line?
The third object I could not "see" ;0(

Thanks Rising Against.

I do indeed practice sometimes Remote Viewing.
I do know that often, if we do it correctly and calm enough, we can accurately pick most details, and even the whole target.

I think most people were not doing RV at all, they were just imaginating. Or just making guesses.
But others, like Qween, joesomebody,AnAbsoluteCreation, YouCanCallMeKM, ATSdelurker were doing RV, because they were describing details and sensations before guessing an object, and probably on a blank mind (one of the most important requirements) Some of their details were also strikingly accurate!

Another common mistake, and we all tend to do it, is interpretating what we see, into objects. The rational mind is not very good with this. So, it's better to just describe first as most details, colors and surface, as you can, and leave the identification aside, or only after repeated attempts.

I will write now a simplified protocol for RV:

1. Close your eyes, relax and wait, relax further (it's like meditation)
   
2. Try to blank your mind (if nothing happens for a while then it's good)
   
3. Set the intention for details to appear for the object
   
4. Describe what you see: colors, shape, surface sensation, additional sensations
   
5. do not interpret anything, try to continue keep midn blank!
   
6. quickly write down the details and shapes, with a pencil on a notebook
   
7. go back again to see further things, remember to relax first, wait a bit, and then have blank mind
   
8. at the end, when you have enough data, attempt to guess what it might be, sometimes you will need to go back and RV again
   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by bluemooone2

 

Yeah sure, I put them into different categories etc. (something which I haven't posted but used as a guide)

And some may not agree but i think this is relatively close to what i had, obviously not on all 3 but it may be the closest of any other posts.

Also i do have a shelf very near buy with books etc. like he mentioned and from the first picture I added you can see a speaker like he said also.