• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Let's Remote View!

gattino

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
2,517
This may be an interesting little distraction for many on here. A sort of psychic alternative to Wordle...

I found a (free) app for practicing remote viewing. ( There's even a competitive element to it - it keeps your scores and a list of the top scorers over time, like an arcade game). There are several no doubt, but this one is called RV Tournament. I'll attach a pic of its icon in playstore below.

Each day it'll give you a blank screen with a code number representing the target image that will be revealed the following day at 9.30pm (UK time, presumably mid afternoon in the States) You close your eyes, try and "see" what tomorrow's image will be and either on the screen or ( more practically)a piece of paper you write/draw each image that pops into your mind's eye, close your eyes again and repeat until you're satisfied you've got enough. Then you press the button on the screen. It will show you 2 images. One of them is the actual target, the other isn't.

Based on your notes and drawings you choose which one you think is right and how confident you are on a scale of one to ten. You find out if you were right the next night. First go (answer revealed last night) what I saw included an elephant and someone lying on their belly draped over a branch. One of the two images that popped up was a panda lying on its belly draped over a tree trunk. So I chose that. Last night it was confirmed as correct. Second one, yesterday , to be revealed tonight, was a little more tantalising. Among the things I'd seen in my mind's eye was the puppet character Lenny the Lion.. and sure enough one of the two options subsequently presented was a photo of a lion. A clear match. But the other stuff id written/drawn had vague associations with the colour or shapes in the second picture. So I'm a little less confident. Still I chose the lion and will find out tonight. I've just done tomorrow night's. I'm again pretty confident one of the images is clearly relatable to my notes. I won't say what it is/may be in case any of you wish to start doing it too.

If anyone wants to join in this daily dip into the psychic, a few tips.
1) If writing your mental images on a piece of paper, start by copying down the code for the target at the top of the page. Apparently this is standard practice in Remote Viewing and supposedly instructs the unconscious what its aiming to reveal information about.
2) wherever appropriate, and however terribly, sketch the images or shapes that are in your mind's eye rather than only writing words. You rarely see the exact target but frequently a simple line drawing brings out an obvious parallel to the target image
3) the default setting on the app seem to be to only allow you to "play" each new day's game after the answer to the previous one has been confirmed (ie after 9.30pm) but you can change that in the settings so you can just do it any time in the day at your convenience.

And finally of course (assuming, as i am, that its the same target for everyone) don't discuss your "visions" or the options/guesses until the following day when the answer is to be given...otherwise you'll obviously be influencing other people's attempts.

1646415009853.png
 
Last edited:
Tonight's result... i was wrong.

The choices were between a lighthouse picture and a photo of a lion. As you see from my notes before i was presented with the options, there were far more impressions suggestive of the lighthouse than of the lion, but because the lion was a direct match i chose it. I was wrong.

1646430729466.png
1646430828832.png
 
I'm glad you didn't pay for this!
 
They actually pay you! Thats to say the top scorers each month get $10. I think its to provide the mind with motivation.
 
Tonight's result... i was wrong.

The choices were between a lighthouse picture and a photo of a lion. As you see from my notes before i was presented with the options, there were far more impressions suggestive of the lighthouse than of the lion, but because the lion was a direct match i chose it. I was wrong.

View attachment 52736View attachment 52737
Interesting. You have the blue and white foreground and background colours. A ladder (indicating height?), an oil drum (which resembles the shape) and a sundial (which could in a stretch, be associated with light). But I would never guess the actual thing by those images.
 
No you wouldn't..but i think thats why they do it in the form of giving you two options. It's easier (although obviously not in this instance!) to choose which of the two you may have been perceiving than to try and guess blind what you may have been picking up on.

I think the whole idea is to train you by trial and error/experience to distinguish between genuine psychic perceptions of a target and the mind's flotsam and jetsam. Eg i might learn from this that the if multiple things hint at one picture and only one impression points directly to the other picture, then quantity outweighs quality. Its also interesting that i did in fact "see" a lion, which though not the actual target for the following day, was oen of the options a few minutes later...suggesting i was perceiving my immmediate future experience regardless.

In the morning ill report what i perceived for tomorrow night and why i chose a particular option, before the answer is confirmed so you can judge my reasoning before the outcome.

Anyway im hoping more of you will give it a go and report back.
 
So tonight's target ("viewed" yesterday) is as follows.
Firstly (rewritten for clarity) here are my "notes" before being given the options. I've circled the bits i think are relevant given what one of the two potential targets turned out to be.

1646472119934.png


So what are the the potential targets? I failed to screen capture it at the time, but option B was a key being held aloft in a hand. Option A was a photo, on green grass, of something akin to this...

1646472209819.png


The "visions" ive circled seem to me to be very relevant to this object. Nothing i wrote or drew is relevant to the image of a key. Answer tonight at 9.30
 
Remote Viewing has to be the most monetised Fortean phenomenon ever:

0% Payment Plan Available
£9.99 + 6 monthly payments of £19.50

https://www.centreofexcellence.com/...MInYDb0tmu9gIVjO3tCh2XbQPqEAAYBCAAEgILjPD_BwE

£15.59

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Remote-Vie...4074361/ref=pd_lpo_1?pd_rd_i=1604074361&psc=1

$79.00

https://www.soundstrue.com/products/the-remote-viewing-online-training-course

Yet I have never seen any evidence that it works. True, it has the 'aura' of CIA involvement, but can anyone point to actual evidence it is possible...? I seem to remember a British security services study was declassified and not only were no accurate results obtained but one of the subjects actually fell asleep...
 
et I have never seen any evidence that it works
Where have you been looking? All of my reading over the years has given me the diametrically opposite view, that the evidence is overwhelming.

But you really don't have to take anyone's word for it..uniquely, perhaps, among all alleged abilities you can just prove to yourself by doing it yourself.

I do some version of it ( whether it's clairvoyance or telepathy I'm not sure so we'll lump it in with RV) every time I'm on the phone to my best mate. It's highly unusual for one to not successfully be describing some clear aspect of the photo the other is looking at.

I started another thread on here showing the, I believe, Impressive results of doing it on my own.

Amusingly the last time I did it with my mate the other day someone else entered the room at his side of the conversation. Explaining what we were doing and him being politely cynical he was asked if he wanted to try it.

"Oh I don't think I could do that" he said but gave it a go anyway. I was staring at a randomly generated photo. He, 200 miles away, closed his eyes and immediately volunteered "a lime green top" ( as in an object not clothing) He essentially struggled to come up with anything else at all. He repeated lime green and with prodding for more information said "ridged metal".

Those being the only two things that entered his mind he declared himself a failure. I showed him what id been looking at. A lime green "Dino car"..a Volkswagen beetle with triceratop ridges.

He was taken aback.
 
Where have you been looking? All of my reading over the years has given me the diametrically opposite view, that the evidence is overwhelming.

But you really don't have to take anyone's word for it..uniquely, perhaps, among all alleged abilities you can just prove to yourself by doing it yourself.

I do some version of it ( whether it's clairvoyance or telepathy I'm not sure so we'll lump it in with RV) every time I'm on the phone to my best mate. It's highly unusual for one to not successfully be describing some clear aspect of the photo the other is looking at.

I started another thread on here showing the, I believe, Impressive results of doing it on my own.

Amusingly the last time I did it with my mate the other day someone else entered the room at his side of the conversation. Explaining what we were doing and him being politely cynical he was asked if he wanted to try it.

"Oh I don't think I could do that" he said but gave it a go anyway. I was staring at a randomly generated photo. He, 200 miles away, closed his eyes and immediately volunteered "a lime green top" ( as in an object not clothing) He essentially struggled to come up with anything else at all. He repeated lime green and with prodding for more information said "ridged metal".

Those being the only two things that entered his mind he declared himself a failure. I showed him what id been looking at. A lime green "Dino car"..a Volkswagen beetle with triceratop ridges.

He was taken aback.

Here is the counter-argument:

"Because there is no reason to think that [remote viewing] is real.

Anyone who could genuinely demonstrate ‘remote viewing’ under scientific conditions would be immediately adopted by a team of physicists. He or she could live in luxury off generous research grants and never have to work again, while leading the team to worldwide fame and weeks of news headlines all around the globe.

A Nobel Prize would shortly follow; and if the team could find a way to explain and duplicate the viewer’s superpowers, they would all go down in history as the people who broke physics, and provided the people of the world with a wonderful new ability that had never been so much as suspected before.

If you haven’t heard about all that happening, that’s because it never has".

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-still-doubt-that-remote-viewing-is-real

I am not saying I don't believe people have premonitions as I feel there is something to them but the idea you can take a course and learn to remote view needs some supporting evidence.
 
They're not your words, so im not attacking you in saying that that "if it existed this is how things would be" argument is a nonsense. Things have been replicated endlessly and none of the "this would happen"s happened, so there's no basis for claiming that it would. All its basically saying as an argument is that the news channels/my school books haven't reported it as a fact so it must have been declared untrue by the people who decide these things...otherwise "insert fantasy scenario" would have happened.

From the psi encylopedia's entry on the subject:

"A nationally known mathematician and statistician Jessica Utts, chairman and professor of statistics at University of California, Irvine, became interested in remote viewing and examined the SRI database, not once but several times across experiments covering almost two decades. In her first analysis she examined forced choice protocols with free response, summarizing as follows:

In 1988 an analysis was made of all of the experiments conducted at SRI from 1973 until that time (May et al, 1988). The analysis was based on all 154 experiments conducted during that era, consisting of over 26,000 individual trials. Of those, almost 20,000 were of the forced choice type and just over a thousand were laboratory remote viewings. There were a total of 227 subjects in all experiments.
The statistical results were so overwhelming that results that extreme or more so would occur only about once in every 1020 such instances if chance alone is the explanation (i.e., the p-value was less than 10-20). Obviously some explanation other than chance must be found. Psychic functioning may not be the only possibility, especially since some of the earlier work contained methodological problems. However, the fact that the same level of functioning continued to hold in the later experiments, which did not contain those flaws, lends support to the idea that the methodological problems cannot account for the results.
(note where it says 1020 its a copy and paste glitch. The original passage says 10 to the power of 20. Similarly in the next sentence about p value the -20 should be in small font)

In 1995 Utts, along with sceptic Ray Hyman, were commissioned to analyse the evidence for the US congress.
"Utts’s initial statement is remarkable for its clarity. She says:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.
The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability’.12

The above passages aren't meant to convince you or anyone else that its real (as i say you can just test it for yourself today) but rather to counter the mere and flawed suspicion there's an agreed lack of evidence for it in the corridors of science.

You can read the whole entry on RV here https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/remote-viewing
 
They actually pay you! Thats to say the top scorers each month get $10. I think its to provide the mind with motivation.
Are they being funded by a shadowy government organisation?
 
That occured to me! Maybe they're trying to identify top psychics for the mutant war to come.
 
Oh a little side story. I alluded to the popular daily puzzle game Wordle. (for the few remaining people in the world who don't know what it is, its a once a day global online puzzle in which you have 6 chances to guess/deduce the 5 letter word of the day. If one of the letters you use in your guess does not appear in the secret word it will show up in grey, if it appears in the word but you don't have it in the right location it will be highlighted in yellow, and each correct letter in the correct position will be highlighted in green. Guided by each of these pieces of information you make another guess, until you either get the word or run out of opportunities to do so)

So anyway ive been doing it for the last few weeks. In the last 3 days the aforementioned best friend (who has featured many, many times in my accounts on here suggesting psychic functioning between us) has joined the party, so to speak. And frankly his success rate is just silly.

Day one - he got the correct word in his first guess. HE refused to acknowledge this was in any way remarkable. I looked it up...There are apparently 12000 five letter words, with 2500 of them in the game's database. Choosing the right one by chance is not impossible, not unheard of by any means, but it is still remarkable. Even more so on your first ever attempt to play the game.

Day two - he got it right in his second guess. Not as remarkable as a first guess, but surely a multiplying improbability.

Day three , today - he got it right in his second guess AGAIN, having got 4 letters in the correct order in his first guess (because of a typo on his part incidentally!). At this point suggestions there's something psychic going on feel considerably less like a joke.

Then it dawned on me. I do the game very early in the morning when still in bed...and he's been sending me his results shortly after (unsolicited). Could he be getting them right or near as damn it straight away each time precisely BECAUSE I've already solved the puzzle? The answer in other words is being picked up from me?

I want credit.
 
Confirmed.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220305-213021_c24b06f0d54d147481f4965babe5f28d.jpg
    Screenshot_20220305-213021_c24b06f0d54d147481f4965babe5f28d.jpg
    741.4 KB · Views: 11
Tonight's target ( done yesterday) is very low confidence because half of the things I scribbled seem to allude to picture A and the other half to picture B.

So instead of telling you which I chose I'll let you decide which I should have chosen.

My doodles followed by the actual options...
Screenshot_20220306-105701.jpg
Screenshot_20220305-145754_c24b06f0d54d147481f4965babe5f28d.jpg
 
I’m leaning towards dino. Herbivore (flowers; leaves, green,corn), cow’s head, cane tip and eagle head all similar shapes, and Adam (as I take it) kind of means old/ancient and makes a funny allusion to Creationist ideas that Dino’s are fake (it’s a statue). Those are your impressions that I find pretty cohesive to the pics.

Stretching it a little further, the building does have some features that could resemble beading when you can’t see it clearly, but that doesn’t really signify anything to me.

Your gong/drum, you’ve had earlier, so again I question it’s relevance to anything. Sometimes we tend to repeat images when we’ve had success with them before (my thought) or your mind may now be using the gong/drum to signal a change into working with the remote viewing subject. I am assuming that you are placing the images in the order they come to you. Otherwise if you just doodle them randomly on the page, then my idea of the drum being used as a focus point to clear your mind is not correct.
 
Oh a little side story. I alluded to the popular daily puzzle game Wordle. (for the few remaining people in the world who don't know what it is, its a once a day global online puzzle in which you have 6 chances to guess/deduce the 5 letter word of the day. If one of the letters you use in your guess does not appear in the secret word it will show up in grey, if it appears in the word but you don't have it in the right location it will be highlighted in yellow, and each correct letter in the correct position will be highlighted in green. Guided by each of these pieces of information you make another guess, until you either get the word or run out of opportunities to do so)

So anyway ive been doing it for the last few weeks. In the last 3 days the aforementioned best friend (who has featured many, many times in my accounts on here suggesting psychic functioning between us) has joined the party, so to speak. And frankly his success rate is just silly.

Day one - he got the correct word in his first guess. HE refused to acknowledge this was in any way remarkable. I looked it up...There are apparently 12000 five letter words, with 2500 of them in the game's database. Choosing the right one by chance is not impossible, not unheard of by any means, but it is still remarkable. Even more so on your first ever attempt to play the game.

Day two - he got it right in his second guess. Not as remarkable as a first guess, but surely a multiplying improbability.

Day three , today - he got it right in his second guess AGAIN, having got 4 letters in the correct order in his first guess (because of a typo on his part incidentally!). At this point suggestions there's something psychic going on feel considerably less like a joke.

Then it dawned on me. I do the game very early in the morning when still in bed...and he's been sending me his results shortly after (unsolicited). Could he be getting them right or near as damn it straight away each time precisely BECAUSE I've already solved the puzzle? The answer in other words is being picked up from me?

I want credit.
You get credit - for thinking of alternate explanations which may be true!

Please keep posting as this is riviting, as most of your posts are.
 
I’m leaning towards dino. Herbivore (flowers; leaves, green,corn), cow’s head, cane tip and eagle head all similar shapes, and Adam (as I take it) kind of means old/ancient and makes a funny allusion to Creationist ideas that Dino’s are fake (it’s a statue). Those are your impressions that I find pretty cohesive to the pics.

Stretching it a little further, the building does have some features that could resemble beading when you can’t see it clearly, but that doesn’t really signify anything to me.

Your gong/drum, you’ve had earlier, so again I question it’s relevance to anything. Sometimes we tend to repeat images when we’ve had success with them before (my thought) or your mind may now be using the gong/drum to signal a change into working with the remote viewing subject. I am assuming that you are placing the images in the order they come to you. Otherwise if you just doodle them randomly on the page, then my idea of the drum being used as a focus point to clear your mind is not correct.
Well before the official answer appears at 9.30 I'll reveal that im totally convinced you're right and it is the dinosaur, but that i - with regret - chose the watches/jewellery pic as my answer on the app (albeit with a very low confidence rating).

After i chose it (for reasons i'll explain in a moment) i realised how bleeding obvious it was that the my notes/doodles pointed to the dinosaur instead. The eagle head/cane tip pointing in the same direction, Adam looking back over his shoulder again to the right of the pic, the elongated form thrusting from greenery, the little black beads incidentally where the first thing that suggested it because i think when i wrote the words i was thinking beady little black eyes. The creation/dawn of time/prehistoric associations with Adam only occurred to me today. In addition i finally got someone else to start using teh app too, and his very brief impressions led him to choose the dinosaur. And i showed my notes to my brother with the two options and he too said dinosaur.

So why, oh why, oh why did i opt for the watches in my official guess? Simply because my first two drawings, whatever they represented at the time, were multiple circles on the end of straight lines...the visual reflection of the watches in the first pic and the fact they were the first and earliest mental impressions made me think they must be the more reliable. I think i made the same mistake as with the lion/lighthouse one....ignoring quantity in favour of (relative) quality.

So i said watches on the app, but believe in reality it will be the dinosaur. Confirmation or otherwise in 3 hours.
 
Oh ffs...this is definitely creepy! The friend had done the wordle thing again for the 4th day in a row. Got it right in his second guess having been just the first letter out with his first guess.
 
So getting back to RV Tournament:

I see on their website that of the two pictures, half the users get one as a target, and half get the other. This is supposedly to remove any bias that may exist because one picture is more "attractive" than the other. To me this makes it a rather poor test, since the very existence of two targets might confuse the person being tested. If we are to accept remote viewing as a real possibility, this may be why @gattino seems to be getting hits on both pictures.

It would be better if, out of a large database of pictures - maybe 100,000 or so - two were picked at random, and one of these was selected, again at random, as the target. Ideally it would be printed out and put in a sealed envelope by machine, and placed in a publicized location. (This needn't be precise, just a "direction" we could focus on.) There would be nothing in the web/app server that allowed it to "know" which picture is the true target, and both images would be treated equally until a human opened the envelope and indicated which was the target. If the choices were random, the attractiveness bias would be balanced out over time.

What I do like is that there is a choice between only two images, meaning (ignoring the confidence factor) a history that deviated significantly - higher or lower* - from a 50% success rate would be very good evidence of psychic ability. If the overall results of all participants deviated significantly from 50%, that would be amazingly good evidence.

*Missing the target a statistically significant number of times is relevant, as it is still deviating from mathematical expectation, and may indicate the viewer is for some reason avoiding the correct answer. This effect is less impressive with, say, Zener card ESP experiments, as the expectation there is only 20%.
 
So potential lesson: if different impressions seem to point to different photos, the first impressions/images should take precedence, even if they're outnumbered?
 
What I do like is that there is a choice between only two images, meaning (ignoring the confidence factor) a history that deviated significantly - higher or lower* - from a 50% success rate would be very good evidence of psychic ability. If the overall results of all participants deviated significantly from 50%, that would be amazingly good evidence.

*Missing the target a statistically significant number of times is relevant, as it is still deviating from mathematical expectation, and may indicate the viewer is for some reason avoiding the correct answer. This effect is less impressive with, say, Zener card ESP experiments, as the expectation there is only 20%.
you've caused a memory to surface.
When I was 15 or so I did a slew of zener card trials (on my own; again, I was 15) for fun. They mean nothing scientifically, of course, but I found that my experimental probability, was 20-25% at random, about 30% with guessing, and 15% or so trying to get them wrong.

I should do this sometime again, with reasonable methodology...

heck, maybe it's worth giving this site a try. With a fresh e-mail and all that. Data selling etc etc
also a thought: so the goal is to RV the image that you, yourself, will see, tomorrow? Like, your future experience is your target? Is the image selected before you're given the fifty-fifty choice, or are the options only then selected, and the final only selected upon display to the user at the reveal? Or is the real image (and alternate option) selected at the time you're told to try to view it? Who's doing the selecting?
 
also a thought: so the goal is to RV the image that you, yourself, will see, tomorrow? Like, your future experience is your target?
I don't know the answers to your other questions, but if the future experience is your target, it's precognition, not remote viewing. That's why I suggested a different way of doing things.

I once attended a very small talk (less than 30-40 people) by Bob Brier (yes, the pyramid and mummy guy) about reverse causality. When he was working with J.B. Rhine, they did an experiment to see if a sender could affect someone who had already recorded their impressions. The problem was finding a set of "blinds" and other conditions that could confirm it was reverse causality, and not precognition, general clairvoyance, or something else that was being measured.
 
I don't know the answers to your other questions, but if the future experience is your target, it's precognition, not remote viewing. That's why I suggested a different way of doing things.

I once attended a very small talk (less than 30-40 people) by Bob Brier (yes, the pyramid and mummy guy) about reverse causality. When he was working with J.B. Rhine, they did an experiment to see if a sender could affect someone who had already recorded their impressions. The problem was finding a set of "blinds" and other conditions that could confirm it was reverse causality, and not precognition, general clairvoyance, or something else that was being measured.
Yeah, that's why I'm curious about how the images are selected and if there is a known "right image" to view at the time you are asked to do so. although, I don't know if it has to be a different mechanism than whatever 'remote viewing' is supposed to be anyway (I mean, if space is not a barrier, does time have to be?).
 
To answer the above there is no distinction between precognition and remote viewing in the claims , studies and protocols of it by those who developed or practice it. From the beginning it was recognized that neither time nor space appeared to be an obstacle to the perception of information about a target. Similarly they used to assume having another person in the target location to hone in on was necessary ( telepathy in effect) til they found it wasn't.

Obviously having a conscious witness at the target in real time makes it a lot easier and quicker to verify success or otherwise, but it appears not to be necessary for the anomalous accessing of "information about".
Screenshot_20220307-075556~2.jpg
Screenshot_20220307-080018~3.jpg
Screenshot_20220307-075457~3.jpg
 
Back to the friend, Wordle, and my theory of telepathic influence.

Today to test the idea I insisted he do the puzzle first. Without influence from me knowing the answer he should struggle for the first time.

Sure enough it took him 5 goes.

Obvious objection: if he just had a remarkable streak of luck it was bound to run out.

Easy to to test which of the two it is - tomorrow I go first again and he should ace it once more if my hypothesis is correct

An intriguing supporting detail: he having gone first today, when I did it I got it really quickly! I was just one letter out with my second guess.
 
Back
Top