Scientific Remote Viewing

Discussion in 'Remote Viewing' started by Ciganka, Jan 21, 2015.

  1. Ciganka

    Ciganka Self Styled Comedian

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Retail & Entertainment
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
    [​IMG]
    What is Scientific Remote Viewing?

    The Farsight Institute defines it thusly:

    "Scientific Remote Viewing (SRV®) is a trainable mental procedure that can assist a person in obtaining accurate and detailed information from distant locations and across time. Simply, SRV is a controlled shifting of awareness that is performed in the normal waking state of consciousness. SRV uses the human nervous system in a way analogous to the way an astronomer uses a radio telescope. Using SRV, the human nervous system acts as a tuning device that connects us to an underlying field of nature through which knowledge of all things is possible."

    [​IMG]

    What SRV is NOT:

      • SRV does NOT involve an out-of-body experience.
      • SRV does NOT use hypnosis.
      • SRV does NOT involve an altered state of consciousness.
      • SRV is NOT channeling.

    You can find out more information about The Farsight Institute, projects they have done and see abbreviated videos of some of their remote viewing sessions online at URL: http://www.farsight.org

    My Personal Opinions:
    I enjoyed the book & movie versions of "The Men who Stare at Goats".
    However, the idea of remote viewing may not reach the levels of popularity it truly deserves due to efforts to discredit projects, studies and scientific data collected.

    When a project is properly committed to and follows procedural accountability guidelines it can be an outstanding experience. We play a little with the concept in our "What's in the Box?" thread.



    Some may choose to reject the idea out of hand, or remain skeptical of any number of variables with regard to Remote Viewing.

    I look forward to a healthy debate and discussion.
     
    • Creative Creative x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  2. jjl

    jjl hhotah hhotah

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    81
    The "What's in the Box?" thread has been enlightening, although I have yet to figure how to apply what I have observed.
    Ashy describes a web, which I try to conceive in my mind, but to date, ends in a tangle :( (ah my messy mind).
    I am not sure what I observed can even be articulated by me, but I will try.
    Every time I have made a psychic observation, it has always been without my conscious knowledge. When I play those psychic RV games, I would call my abilities "reverse". Indeed I am so consistently wrong that it exceeds the law of averages. I am guessing that this is a problem of self esteem. Ponder that.
    Through out my life, this "reverse esp" has plagued me. Interestingly, my husband reports the same problem.
    But once, on vacation with a man I didn't really respect but was entangled with, we played a psychic game at A.R.E..
    http://www.edgarcayce.org/
    There was a machine with two screens that face each other. One participant looks at an image, and the other chooses an image on the screen they face, to try and match. The images were those psychic cards, you know, the ones with a circle, star, wave, etc. [​IMG]
    Harry and I got in a groove that I have never seen since. Our consecutive correct guesses went on and on. It finally attracted the attention to others in the lobby, and Harry felt uncomfortable and ended the game. I wonder if we kept on playing if my guesses would still be accurate. I think probably not.
    And it worked both ways. This is the only time it happened to me. I am trying to remember how this made me feel. I am sure I was delighted. But I do not remember dreading being wrong. And that is perhaps the point I am trying to make.

    Does the system not do everything in it's power to beat our self esteem out of us? It is my belief that this is not done just to make us more obedient, but to block our natural abilities and "disarm" us.
    The reason I rely on cards to read I think is because it removes the responsibility of being wrong or right. It removes the curtain of judgement from the subject.
    When I was trying to read what was in Wango's box, (the earlier "tap it, unwrap it", lost now :( ), someone suggested, (I think it was Ivan) that I use less effort. This is hard for someone that wants to please.
    But when I put up my own box, I noticed that sometimes people got things right by accident. Like Wango was talking swirl, but she put up the image of a lollypop. Same shape as magnifying glass.
    I call this a "sideway guess" but it doesn't really describe the process. I wonder if anyone understands what I am trying to convey?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2015
  3. Ashy

    Ashy Gatecrasher

    I understand. It's a very imperfect science because there is no real way of measuring anything other than pointing at some individuals as being 'more likely to guess right' than others.

    Then you can reverse look at the answers and try and make them fit.

    When I look I tend to see the whole environment, just before, just after (Ask Wango). I'm not great at focussing. Also in terms of avoiding prejudice, I sometimes double-prejudice. 'Oh she won't have picked that, it's too obvious.' Or 'I was just thinking about a wireless for another reason, so it won't be a wireless.'

    Symbols on card are, in my view, very difficult to read, and success rates will be just luck, probability. For me, I need to be in a place in 3D, in an environment.

    The practice I believe is mostly about knowing where our 'edges' are and how far they can be extended. An awareness of time and space as a singularity that has been organised on some level into the measurable is useful too.

    I love the movie, 'Men who Stare at Goats.'
     
    • Creative Creative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  4. jjl

    jjl hhotah hhotah

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    81
    This is true I know. You "saw" the fabric that HAD BEEN in my box, before I took it out and placed other items in.
     
  5. Ashy

    Ashy Gatecrasher

    and the collander that almost went in, apparently! Lol.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Wango

    Wango Q

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Floating
    "the human nervous system acts as a tuning device that connects us to an underlying field of nature through which knowledge of all things is possible"

    I'd go along with the tuning aspect, I am dubious about 'knowledge' of all things, that being spectrum-mutable...
    my own experiences show me that the act of 'trying' is a-harmonic dis-tortion and a chord-breaker.
    Two tuning forks fashioned to vibrate at the same frequency...when one is hit and starts vibrating the other will do likewise without any initial strike input...being the latter is a start.

    I tend to vibrate in sympathy with harmonic comedy.... one of the lost Galenic humours :)

    good thread Cig!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Creative Creative x 1
  7. Ashy

    Ashy Gatecrasher

    just a little vid of a guy summing up Ingo Swann. I like the guy in this video. He seems alright and knew Ingo. I also like short videos.



    and a long one from .v.



     
    • Creative Creative x 2
  8. Ciganka

    Ciganka Self Styled Comedian

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Retail & Entertainment
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
    'Remote viewing is a kind of psychic dowsing. Instead of a twig or other device, one uses psychic power alone to dowse the entire galaxy, if need be, for whatever one wants: oil, mountains on Jupiter, a lost child, a buried body, a hostage site thousands of miles away, a secret meeting inside the Pentagon or the Kremlin, etc.' ~ The Skeptic's Dictionary.

    If one were to consider only a side of a thing, are they not now missing at least three other perspectives? If we are to discuss a concept as Ambiguous as Remote Viewing, surely it would behoove us to allow for space for skepticism?

    [​IMG]

    Through the post-Stargate work of Targ and Puthoff, as well as other individuals involved with the project, such as Stephan A. Schwartz, Major Ed Dames, and Ingo Swann, information about remote viewing is readily available to those who seek it out. Jon Ronson’s 2004 book, The Men Who Stare at Goats, and its follow-up film adaptation from 2006, examine the U.S. Army’s exploration of New Age concepts and their potential military applications, and helped bring the concept of remote viewing into the pop culture mainstream.' ~ Michael J. Hobart [Disinformation, October 2012 Article]



    [​IMG]

    'Project Stargate continued on throughout the 1980’s, fine-tuning remote viewing techniques and protocols and developing the skills of its cast of remote viewers. Pat Price and Joseph McMoneagle, who received a Legion of Merit award in 1984 for his remote viewing work, were some of the more notable subjects of the Project.

    In the early 1990’s, Army Colonel William Johnson was appointed by the DIA to manage the remote viewing unit and determine its objective usefulness in obtaining actionable intelligence. Funding for the Project dissipated in late 1994, and was transferred back to the C.I.A. in 1995.' ~ Michael J. Hobart [Disinformation, October 2012 Article]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Ciganka

    Ciganka Self Styled Comedian

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Retail & Entertainment
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
  10. Wango

    Wango Q

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Floating
    so, back to our personal dippings and sniffings it is. No?
    I mean, any dis-concussion on this topic only really has one valid point of reference doesn't it?
    I don't get the function of skepticism. After all, it is only another face of surrendering yet another position to the experience of others.
    It either is or it isn't...suck it and see. If we want to be scientific then be the scientista.

    Experimental phase followed by noting the outcome.

    Coming soon.
     
    • Creative Creative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1