Thread: Remote Viewing Experiment

I have a description. I'll spoiler it.
EDIT: WTF!!! No spoiler!!? I'll post it here.
It is green... Silver? Moderately big. LIke a computer tower in size. Wait. WTF? YELLOW?! My mind just told me yellow. Oh well. I think it's made mainly of plastic. Some metal. Smooth, but not incredibly so. Relatively rough.

No spoilers please, anything people can peek at will ruin the whole experiment, no matter if it's accurate or not.

Originally Posted by Ryuinfinity

I have a description. I'll spoiler it.
EDIT: WTF!!! No spoiler!!? I'll post it here.
It is green... Silver? Moderately big. LIke a computer tower in size. Wait. WTF?
YELLOW?! My mind just told me yellow. Oh well. I think it's made mainly of plastic. Some metal. Smooth, but not incredibly so. Relatively rough.

Dammit, now I have to find something else! Seriously, no spoilers PLEASE!!!

But... since I'm changing the object now anyways, it was a yellow measuring tape, smooth plastic that's a little beat up, with some rough patches for gripping. The tape it's self is metal. There is green electrical tape on it to identify it as mine at work, but no silver.

But now there's something else under my bed. MESSAGE ME with your descriptions. And if anyone else posts anymore spoilers, I'm going to start experimenting with psychic ass kickings!

wow so he got it right, amazing, i have something in my head and i was dissapointed when i saw his description, but it still might be right coz u changed it. dont worry i wont ruin it, but i cant message you right now coz my comp is broke (im on my psp the now)

never mind i was able to PM you, i hope you didnt need it to be email

Originally Posted by The Cusp

I'd like to convert a skeptic before the year is up, so I've asked Sandform to select an object and place it somewhere as a Remote Viewing target.

Once he's confirmed, I'd ask anyone willing to attempt this to send him their descriptions of his object and he'll post them here after a certain amount of time to avoid descriptions influencing each other. DO NOT POST YOUR DESCRIPTIONS HERE!!!

The process is very simple. Silence you mind and try to describe your target. It's vital that you resist the urge to outright guess or name your target. Only try to describe things like it's shape, size, color, texture, any detail you can come up with. If there is something you want to draw, please do so.

Practice Trial
While I wait for Sandform to get ready, I've placed something under my bed as a practice trial. It's under my bed right now for anyone who would like to take a crack at it. It doesn't take much time to attempt, and if you have time to waste in the beyond dreaming forum, you owe it to yourself to at least try.

Try to still your mind, as you're trying to pick up very subtly impressions, and resist the urge to outright guess your target. Only describe what is under my bed.

Start with first impressions, color, size, weight, composition, surface, any anything else that comes to mind. Then message me your results and I'll post them all at once. If you have a digital drawing of anything at all I'll take a look at that as well.

I especially want to hear from all you people who claim to have psychic abilities. This is so easy to do, anyone can do it, so impress me.

This is not scientific as it's been described. People must be given exactly one (1) guess and their guess must be concrete. Otherwise, you'll just have people either guessing very vague and common properties like "made of plastic", or guessing over and over until they're correct. You can understand that that would prove nothing, right?

EDIT: I just thought of problem #3: Say you hide an object in a box and line up 1000 people to guess what it is. Chances are, at least one of them will be pretty damn close, just from mere probability. To be scientific, you must use a probabilistic argument to first predict how many people will get it correct just from chance, and then to be proven correct the actual number has to be well above that (there is such thing as variance).

jee wizz man, that doesnt matter, although its a valid point, this isnt to prove to the world that its a real thing, its already been proven, some military units used it in a war (cant remember what one)

Originally Posted by slash112

jee wizz man, that doesnt matter, although its a valid point, this isnt to prove to the world that its a real thing, its already been proven, some military units used it in a war (cant remember what one)

Bullshit. It's never been proven. The fact that the CIA tried to use it in the Stargate project doesn't prove it exists. For example, the Nazis tried voodoo near the end of WW2. Does that mean voodoo is real?

the fact that they actually used it to find where their enemies were and where mines were is enough proof for me.

Originally Posted by slash112

the fact that they actually used it to find where their enemies were and where mines were is enough proof for me.

What fact? Where are you getting this fact?

i dont know where i got it from itr just one of those things some people know, but h supose it could be a myth, but i know that it has been proved under scientific conditions, i saw a documentary on this and AP and OBE

Originally Posted by drewmandan

EDIT: I just thought of problem #3: Say you hide an object in a box and line up 1000 people to guess what it is. Chances are, at least one of them will be pretty damn close, just from mere probability. To be scientific, you must use a probabilistic argument to first predict how many people will get it correct just from chance, and then to be proven correct the actual number has to be well above that (there is such thing as variance).

No, but if I take those who got it right, and see if they are able to do it consistently, then we'll be getting somewhere!

So here are the descriptions I got. I'm a little disappointed so few people tried.

Originally Posted by Delphinus

I think the color is a dark blue or red... Not sure.

Originally Posted by slash112

red, sort of cube or cuboid, wee bumpy bits on it and i think its plastic.

Originally Posted by Licity

I have some results from the remote viewing thread. Im pretty new at this, but I got:
Red, gray, black. Relatively small, soft and smooth, probably made of cloth.

and here is what was hiding under my bed


I was hoping for more descriptions, but that an OK start. As you can see, everyone mentioned the main color red. Licity got all the colors, even the gray of the dust on it. For a first try, I think those guys did pretty good.

Any single description by it's self is kind of useless, but when you several that are saying the same thing, it's a pretty good indication you're on the right track.

Sandform's Target
Anyways, Sandform tells me he's placed something underneath his bed now, so try that as the next target, and send your results to him. I'll get him to post them here in a few days to give to give more people a shot at it.

Under my bed
And I also placed something new under my bed as well for anyone who wants to try that one as well. Message me with those descriptions.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

No, but if I take those who got it right, and see if they are able to do it consistently, then we'll be getting somewhere!

Six of one. That's like flipping ten coins or flipping one coin ten times. This means we agree that the correct answers must surpass chance.

And now I will show how the descriptions, if seen in a biased way, might be promising, but are actually incredibly vague.

I think the color is a dark blue or red... Not sure.

The colour was red, but to be correct this description only needed some part of it to be either blue OR red. That's almost every object you can imagine.

red, sort of cube or cuboid, wee bumpy bits on it and i think its plastic.

Red rules out only about half of the conceivable objects. The cube bit was completely and entirely wrong, no room for apologetics here. Bumpy could mean anything, and chances are you would choose to put a topologically interesting item under your bed, so it's a very good educated guess to say that it's bumpy. Plastic, well, a lot of things are plastic. Another gimme there.

I have some results from the remote viewing thread. Im pretty new at this, but I got:
Red, gray, black. Relatively small, soft and smooth, probably made of cloth.

By saying red, gray, and black, that covers almost every conceivable object if you require only one of the colours to be correct.

Relatively small: no shit, it's under your bed...

Soft: Nope, from the picture it's hard. Completely wrong.
Smooth: That's a 50/50, so being correct isn't exactly a miracle. Also, there's some room for interpretation here, as I can make a case for either, given the object in question.

Cloth: WRONG.

So, these results appear to actually be worse than random chance.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Blah blah blah blah blah...

(Sorry!)

That was just the first attempt, just wait till we get some more participation. Not everyone is going to be good at it, I'm not at all. Just wait until we find a couple of people who are.

It's not supposed to be 100% accurate either, but some people give tons of accurate detail that makes chance seem very unlikely.

Hope nobody can guess whats under my bed!!! lol

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Relatively small: no shit, it's under your bed...

Yeah, it would have to be small. When I said "relatively", I meant it to mean that it was small for something that could fit under a bed. I don't know how high Cusp's bed is off the ground, so the picture won't tell us much in that department.

There has to be a way to get this to conform to the scientific method, just give it time, the first trial was more of a warm-up than anything else.

I think knowing the person's interests could hinder the experiment, as the object might relate to their interests. For example, The Cusp's object was a red dragon, and his avatar is a reptile.

oh my gosh i was so close with the details, but the cube thing was way off, and when i said plastic, i really wasnt sure but when i mean i wasnt sure, i meant that even if it was right in front of me i wouldnt know what to call it so i just said that. and when i said bumpy bits, the the thing which was pictured in my head was pretty much what the dragons scales were, it was the texture of it when you touch it that i was thinking of, these small details which i got right were probably by chance, but if it really worked for it, then i need to improve in the shape

Originally Posted by The Cusp

(Sorry!)

That was just the first attempt, just wait till we get some more participation. Not everyone is going to be good at it, I'm not at all. Just wait until we find a couple of people who are.

It's not supposed to be 100% accurate either, but some people give tons of accurate detail that makes chance seem very unlikely.

You don't seem to understand -- the way this experiment is set up is fundamentally unscientific. So go ahead and preach to the choir, but you're not going to convince anyone with a brain of this stuff.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

You don't seem to understand -- the way this experiment is set up is fundamentally unscientific. So go ahead and preach to the choir, but you're not going to convince anyone with a brain of this stuff.

lighten up man, its just a bit of fun.

Originally Posted by thedogsmeow

I think knowing the person's interests could hinder the experiment, as the object might relate to their interests. For example, The Cusp's object was a red dragon, and his avatar is a reptile.

yes but he asked for details and descriptions, not what it is, he wasnt particularly looking for, "it was a dragon"

Originally Posted by drewmandan

You don't seem to understand -- the way this experiment is set up is fundamentally unscientific. So go ahead and preach to the choir, but you're not going to convince anyone with a brain of this stuff.

I never intended this to be scientific, and why should I? These types of experiments have been done under far more stringent conditions than the internet will allow, by far more qualified people. The results of those tests indicate there is something going on, but they didn't settle anything. I'm not fooling myself into thinking these experiments will change the way anyone thinks, I'm just doing this to satisfy my own personal curiosity.

I am hoping to refine the methods and controls as this progresses, but imposing strict controls on an internet experiment is pointless. It would always be too easy to cheat, and could never be considerrd conclusive, so it's just not worth the effort.

Originally Posted by slash112

oh my gosh i was so close with the details, but the cube thing was way off, and when i said plastic, i really wasnt sure but when i mean i wasnt sure, i meant that even if it was right in front of me i wouldnt know what to call it so i just said that. and when i said bumpy bits, the the thing which was pictured in my head was pretty much what the dragons scales were, it was the texture of it when you touch it that i was thinking of, these small details which i got right were probably by chance, but if it really worked for it, then i need to improve in the shape

Actually, your "plastic" description wasn't that far off. While the dragon is a heavy stone, it's painted and does look very much like plastic. I actually had to scratch the bottom just now to make sure it wasn't some sort of heavy plastic.

The RV pros actually reccomend using terms like "Plastic like" when giving descriptions. For instance if you get the impression of a pumpkin, you would say pumpkin-like instead of pumpkin. THat way you target can still be round and orange, and it doesn't make you sound so wrong. While that may sound like cheating, the extra detail or leeway afforded in those types of descriptions can go a long way to identifying an unknown object.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

I never intended this to be scientific, and why should I? These types of experiments have been done under far more stringent conditions than the internet will allow, by far more qualified people. The results of those tests indicate there is something going on, but they didn't settle anything.

Please provide a link to one peer-reviewed paper that says there's something going on.