Topic [182] 9 to 1 TKR Remote Viewing Forum September 2003

It is the intent of the Dojo Psi that the living-history of remote viewing's development in the public sector not be erased, revised, or otherwise lost to the vagaries of time. In this spirit, the dojo encourages, promotes, hosts and develops archives of online Remote Viewing activity. [Caveats] For current discussion on remote viewing, click the logo at the top of the page to visit TKR's big Remote Viewing Discussion Forum directly.

wizopeva, somewhere around September 24, 2003

I've often heard it said by the CRV camp that if you compare the sessions of 10 viewers and 9 of them say for instance that a car is red and 1 of them says a car is black, then there is actually an EQUAL chance (if just based on that info) that the car is red or black.  In other words, congruence among sessions means nothing.  Apparently, the track record of the viewer on color skill would be the only impt thing.  

THis brings up a load of questions for me.  First of all, it seems like a stretch that 9 viewers would say the same thing just by chance.  So assuming the example is not an exageration for effect, why would 9 viewers say the same thing?  

Could it be some kind of telepathic overlay that they are talking about?  If so, can't TO be avoided with proper protocols?  I'd love for some CRV expert to explain this to me, cuz to be heretically honest, all the times I've seen a bunch of viewers agree on something, they did in fact turn out to be correct on it.  :-)
-E

Fire, somewhere around September 25, 2003

I'm not an expert, but I'll put in my two cents.

The data example is too simplistic I think.  

If the RV sessions actually provide data like 'red car' as opposed to 'vehicle' and 'red' -- which may not be affiliated with each other -- and numerous viewers provide that, I would take it fairly seriously.  

That doesn't mean it's sure to be accurate but it's likely there is *something* causing the viewers to all say that.  Now it might turn out there are other influences (some subtle or psychological) that really caused the correlation, but the fact is that there IS a correlation--it may not be accurate but there is a REASON.  Usually, if the data is specific, and there are no other obvious interrelationship, psychological type issues that might affect the situation, it's worthy of being taken seriously.

When the 9 vs. 1 data example really comes into play is usually not something like, "one person got BLACK car and 9 people got RED car."  

It's usually more like, "One person got a human standing hidden off to the side watching 'through' something (binoculars? camera?) and the other 9 didn't get that".  The one is as likely to be right.

Or, "the 10 describe something mechanical in motion, and 9 think it's probably a vehicle and the 10th *specifically thinks it is not*."  The one is as likely to be right.

This example plays the 'subtle aol' issue up, because we're all humans and likely to have some of the same aol's. I don't just use that term to mean a specific data point which is affected of course, but rather, subtle psychological 'thinking patterns' that may not even be recognized and hence may change how and what we perceive (even in subtle ways)--this would be an example of one of the "other influences" causing multiple viewers to have the same inaccurate data.

Usually when data is something specific, the issue isn't viewers disagreeing, it's just that some get it and some don't.  When they specifically disagree on what seems to be the same point or context, that is when the 9 vs. 1 comes into play.

The independent nature of most really good viewers, the creative thinking that seems to be related as well, both suggest that even outside RV, that person may be someone who sees things others don't. (No I don't mean aliens LOL, I mean, is aware of situational issues and details most others aren't.)  Or, who sees things differently than others tend to.  It is this sort of wildcard mental profile common in good viewers that is part of the reason the lab (which uses kickass viewers) found this result, far as I know.  

I was just talking about this in an email earlier... even in a session, all the stuff that seems to fit together may be accurate, but it if you get a totally offbeat term in quotation marks, at least for me, that usually really nails something, and something outside the 'pattern' that my mind was otherwise moving in.  That is spontaneous, who knows when it will happen.  

The viewer out of 10 that happens to get data which either isn't in the other sessions or seems to contradict the others may, like the others, have had the same general mental pattern brought about by other data, but then had a spontaneous insight that acquired that one piece that doesn't seem to fit.  Sometimes it is the things that don't seem to fit or make sense when everything else does that are the most important.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around September 25, 2003

There is still this nagging notion in the back o' my noggin that RV data doesn't have as much to do with viewing the tasked event as it has to do with interpersonal meaning for the viewers.  

The 9 viewers got the same data because the need to connect through their shared experience was more vital to the [color=Blue]organ providing the RV data[/color][size=1]...whatever that is... if it exists... [/size] than correct RV data about the actual tasked event.  

The RV moment, the experience of RVing, is about meaning and significance.... and if viewing the correct aspects of the tasked event provides the significant meaning during the session, that is what will happen.  If other , more personally meaningful experience OTHER than correct RV data is to had, that is what will come out of it.  

I am not saying TOL and masking and all that don't exist.

I am saying that perhaps, the subconscious is more interested in the interpersonal, meaningful aspects of the RV session than identifying correctly the tasked event.  

So there is how "intent" fits in, it labels the outcome with more significance.

Or I could be completely misguided here.... just let me know.

admin, somewhere around September 25, 2003

That's what I call the 'validation as feedback' issue. If we're all viewing for what we (even subconsciously) most want/need, then there are many things besides objective accuracy that are going to drive our viewing.  It's also what I meant in the above post about "interrelationship, psychological type issues".

Perhaps this is a serious consideration and it's part of why McMoneagle has always been so insistent about RV being a way of getting to know yourself and becoming more 'aware' of yourself.  Maybe part of that ... personal development is getting to know one's tendencies in these areas and working to either change oneself or arrange circumstance so issues that would support anything beyond objective accuracy are minimized.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Jeez Louise.... so what you are saying is that people whoze brains are not overwrought with distracting agenda items... are better RVers?  So unusually healthy, self-actualized people can get better RV info without it being tainted by whatever "issues" the viewer might otherwise have.

Hmmm..... this certainly would explain why Patanjali warned of psychic distractions during one's spiritual evolution, and why spiritually enlightened people throughout history have also been more "psychic".  It actually explains a lot.  

And you are not just talking about Swamis and Gurus, you are talking about average joes who have taken the time to clean our their closets of mental clutter....  things you and I can do.

You can read through the books by some of big hitters and see that their RV journey is a spiritual evolution journey, so I see your point as a very good one.

wizopeva, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Well one reason I posted that is because the tenent generally is expressed in JUST that simplistic a format, without explanation.  So I'd like an explanation according to CRV lore.  Sure, I've got some theories.  But if it's TO, then shouldn't there be feedback and protocol techniques to follow that would solve the prob and invalidate the theory?  If it has to do with the viewer wanting to match up, why not match up with the correct answer?  And why would the conscious mind care if the viewer never knows what the other viewer's got?  Because keeping viewers blind to other viewers in ops targets is in my understanding a standard practice.  

So what exactly ARE they talking about when they throw around this tenent?  And as I've said, I have yet to see any case where a number of viewers clearly agree on something and then it comes out totally wrong.  Is this a situation that only occurs in ops targets and not in practice targets?  If so, why is that?  IF not, why have I never ever seen it if it's a basic tenent.  Has anyone else ever seen this occur either within one viewer's sessions or across diff viewers?  If so, how common is it?  
-E

Tigr50, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Hi Eva, and all:

I work for a company that deals with randomness vs. non-randomness daily, because we are trying to develop a means to see if consciousness affects randomness (using true random number generators).  Now I asked the "numbers" Guru about this 9 to 1 topic, and he first of all said that 10 RVers is not statistically significant--try 100 at least.  Also, red is a preferential color for cars in general for most people, and also associated with certain kinds of behavior.  But oddly enough, if you live in Roswell, NM like we do, the preference for cars is white--i.e. there are regional preferences.  It wouldn't surprise me that 9 out of 10 people off the street here would randomly say a car in question is white.   It's very possible that you need to compare say, a police or witness report with RV infomation, to get a "blind" confirmation.  But if you are in the same room with the cop that took the report, you may pick up what he or she knows telepathically and just feed it back.  It happens.  I know.
--Deb

jimk, somewhere around September 26, 2003

I guess this is kinda along the same lines with what I posted on HRVG's site a couple of days ago.  I'll just repost here and see if anyone has some info I am looking for.

I've been trying to find examples of analytical reports online from other schools of RV but all I found so far was from the CRV manual, so I'll take it from there.

Source:http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/answers/docs/term-man.html#analysis

What we call low-level analysis in HRVG is basically consensus reporting, where similar data items reported by 2 or more viewers are considered more pertinent to target than a single viewer's data.

I never understood why this method was particularly error prone, until I read the following:

"While consensus reporting makes for a well-organized and well-written report, it has proven time and again to be extremely error prone. It is not unusual for ten viewers to perceive one thing, with an eleventh perceiving something which contradicts them, and to find out later that the one was correct and the ten were wrong. The "reason" (excuse) which is usually given is that the ten were "picking up on each other's thoughts (neighbor's CAT)" Consensus reporting is so error prone because the analyst or report writer, unlike the viewers, usually knows many of the facts of the case, and tends to pick through the viewers' information, pulling out and reporting only that which fits his predetermined beliefs (STRAY CATS) about the case. If something reinforces what the analyst has already decided, it gets reported. If it goes against what the analyst has already decided, it gets dropped out of the report. In effect, when consensus reporting is used, it negates the use of the viewers, completely. Whatever the reason or excuse, the fact remains that consensus reporting just does not work"

***

Did you catch it? The conclusion is basically that it won't work because the analyst or report writer is not blind to target. Why on Earth is the analyst NOT kept blind to target?

I beg to differ with the conclusion of what was said. I believe that as a low-level analytical tool, consensus analysis is a very good way of extracting congruent data from multiple sessions. But the analyst MUST be blind to target.

I have personally analyzed a number of large projects and very rarely, if ever, have I seen 5 or more viewers all report the same 'bad' data. But even if they do, the primary responsibility of data collection always goes back to the individual viewer and his/her ability to remote view. I don't want to elevate analysis or other unsubstantiated phenomena to the level where it stands as an excuse for bad data. But some people seem to have a compulsive need to blame their bad data on everything but themselves.

I would be more than greatful if someone could either PEM me (mj001jk@email.com) or post here some examples of statistical analysis and reporting ("Analytic Filtering") as it was used on a real project. I am really trying to figure out some things about analysis and this is one big piece of the puzzle that is missing.

So to all of you that have done analysis on any projects out there, please let me know how you went about doing it, the more details the better.

Thanks.

Jim K.

jimk, somewhere around September 26, 2003

It was just pointed out to me that what I quoted was not from the CRV manual, my mistake, I thought it was, or rather I didn't look around enough to figure out that it wasn't :-)

Jim K.

admin, somewhere around September 27, 2003

I'm impressed you found that actually.  I don't think it's linked to anything right now.  That's from the old version of firedocs RV, which still exists but is usually only found through search engines or really old links.  That particular page is from the P>S>I Terminology Manual by Lyn Buchanan.  Although Lyn teaches CRV, his manuals are his own.  The official CRV manual (fwiw) is a totally diff doc. -- PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around October 1, 2003

Jim K. quoted, "If something reinforces what the analyst has already decided, it gets reported. If it goes against what the analyst has already decided, it gets dropped out of the report. In effect, when consensus reporting is used, it negates the use of the viewers, completely. Whatever the reason or excuse, the fact remains that consensus reporting just does not work"

My prob with this quote is that it kinda assumes the analyst in question is living in some kind of fantasy land that is so extreme that he/she would be completely blinded to actual data in a session and instead only find the fantasy induced info.  That's a bit harsh I think for the average intelligent self actualized analyst.  Sure, prior knowledge will most assuredly effect how the analyst sees the session.  The question in evidence is if that influence will be more disadvantageous then the advantage of actually knowing what the hell you are supposed to be looking at and what info you want to know.  I think I do like the idea of having the analyst look it over blind and make a general outline and then look it over again informed.  That could help balance biased info.  

Then there is the HRVG method of keeping the analyst blind which has the advantage of screening out analyst bias but also tends to screen out some of the useful info too, especially on some of the more unusual targets in which viewers may be more likely to use symbology in their session.  

I find this subject fascinating.  On the one hand, HRVG uses blind analysis, but just from what I've seen, they do tend to have a more specifc type of target pool.  For instance, I've never seen them run any sessions on causes of diseases, microcircuitry, etc.  Maybe they do that, but I haven't seen that kind more strange yet still feedbackable tasking.  It maybe more useful to do blind analysis if the target pool is not too wacky and varied.  

Also, the blind analyst issue can cause trouble for viewers who tend to get vastly diff kinds of data on the same target.  Because if the analyst is blind and must rely solely on concensus, what do you do if you have one viewer who focuses on the people aspects, another who focuses on the building, and another who focuses on the landscape.  There could be no concensus but an informed analyst may realize all the viewer were detailing diff aspects of the same target.  Maybe the argument is that a good viewer will always describe the desired info only.  But if so, then there aren't many good viewers out there and meanwhile a lot of almost as good sessions will be going into the trash, LOL!

So then you have the issue of an informed viewer and concensus data being not accurate because according to LYn, no analyst would ever be capable of reigning in his/her biases to any extent at all.  

Or according to other vague whispered rumours in CRV land, there is apparently some kind of danger of telepathic overlay, an idea which IMO is as of yet not very well defined nor has it's mechanisms and methods of control been very well hashed out.  

All this is why I am asking.  I hear a lot of stuff this way and that way, all diff according to who you are talking to at the time.  If this stuff is so obvious, then why can't anyone agree?  As far as I'm concerned, this is another area that needs some serious fleshing out.  I've seen successful results by all of the methods.  Maybe it depends on the situation and type of target too.    
-E




 

admin, somewhere around October 1, 2003

Hmmn. FWIW, in traditional RV analysis, the analyst is always blind.  If they aren't blind it doesn't even get the term 'analysis' assigned to it.

The project manager isn't blind, and second stages of interpretation might not be, but the primary analysis is.

The analysis is not based on info IN the session but info ABOUT the session (which sometimes does relate to the former of course) within context of the viewer.

So in other words, as a fundamental part of analysis, the analysis knows that the viewer tends to get one type of data over another, or other viewer quirks.  That is not ignored; it's part of building an analytical framework for that viewer.

Analysts don't 'drop' data. Rather, they 'weight' data, and then hand it back to the project manager to do with what the PM chooses.  

If the PM chooses, they might then have a level of "interpretation" which, using the weighted results of the blind analysis, attempts to put the information into context with what is known about the target's situation etc.  Some might call that a form of analysis.

But that isn't considered analysis in the true form, only interpretation of analyzed data after the fact.

Most projects I've heard about provide all information--often original sessions, or at least a full listing of data irregardless of analytic weight assigned--with the report. Leaving information gathered completely out because someone decided it must be wrong isn't proper form as far as I know; though it might be buried in the details at the back as an attachment, rather than in the main report.

There are quite a few issues that aren't very clearly defined in RV land--or in some cases are, but science/ops viewers disagree with the methodology/ops viewers which leaves it a muddle for the public who doesn't know who to believe or why--but analysis is probably the biggest no-man's land of all the topics.  This is partly because at least according to the Firedocs interview with McMoneagle, intell data analysis for RV is a classified process, period.

I've been wanting to learn more about the analysis subject since day1, but the problem is, it would really take a ton of sessions by several viewers and a ton of time to go through them to begin to get even the smallest handle on correlations that might indicate how to successfully weight the data in their session.  The sessions and viewers I could probably come by, but the time to figure it all out is out of the question in my personal life.  Someday I might have to haphazardly go-figure on it out of desperation, but until then it's going to have to remain an armchair interest.

I appreciate national security and all that, but it's kinda tragic that laymen have to reinvent all these wheels. ::)

PJ

Glyn, somewhere around October 2, 2003

Hi,

[quote]I've been wanting to learn more about the analysis subject since day1, but the problem is, it would really take a ton of sessions by several viewers and a ton of time to go through them to begin to get even the smallest handle on correlations that might indicate how to successfully weight the data in their session.  The sessions and viewers I could probably come by, but the time to figure it all out is out of the question in my personal life.  Someday I might have to haphazardly go-figure on it out of desperation, but until then it's going to have to remain an armchair interest.[/quote]

Yes, it's all time isn't it? I am intrigued by analysis, and did some over on Eva's site for a while. I only looked for obvious correlations and brought them out, but even doing that took ages, and the design and re-design of the template to group the impressions for doing that took ages too...and it didn't help that most people used different methods, and some would produce long lists of data which could correlate just because of the sheer variety of it, while others only a small amount but with a record of accuracy, etc etc. It was great fun though, and taught me a hell of a lot. :-).

Phew..not easy though.....not one bit. The 'hidden' correlations that I sometimes found in AOL were many and intriguing...whether to include or not include (?)....it could get very subjective at that level so for the purpose in hand at the time I tried to remain purely objective....but I could see where it could lead.

I was mostly blind but experimented once or twice with not being blind and even including my own session. Too short a time to come to any firm conclusions.....other than to observe a group of viewers 'home' in on the target in so many varying ways is simply amazing :-).

I did notice often that a session which on its own would not amount to much, in a group setting would contribute much. Also, that groups of viewers consisting of about 5 to 7 in number seem to be optimal...less than that the correlations may not be clear enough, and more than that it was just too time-consuming.. for me anyway. An additional difficulty is that with large numbers, say 12, do you up the ratio for high/low? I don't think so...I would say split into two groups of six and use two analysts and perhaps a final analysis of those two. Just my opinion.

Yes, to throw data out just on the opinion of one analyst (in a serious project anyway) would be a mistake IMO. Even when trying to be totally objective we are not machines, and can see things in different ways...so going over results by another would not hurt. I think intuition may enter analysis too at later stages....whether that is a good or bad thing is debatable.

I would dearly love to do more with a team of viewers, as analysis interests me as much as doing RV myself; if not moreso....but I just do not have the time. Hanging on until retirement ;-)

Regards,
Glyn

wizopeva, somewhere around October 2, 2003

Another issue to consider might be the analyst's attachment to the project at hand.  For instance, it's easier to remain mosty objective in situations when one doesn't have an emotional investment.  But if you really really want to see something, well you probably will no matter what.  I think there have been a lot of examples of that happening in the history of rv.  Blind analysis can certainly help give a reality check, but in the end, if there is a client or some media at hand, generally the info will have to be put in some kind of context with the original tasking and even if the whole process has been pristine up until that point, this final interpretation can potentially derail the whole deal.  That's one reason why I think that no matter how perfect the method, there is no substitute for having well grounded and mentally stable analysts who do not have agendas.  
-E
 

Glyn, somewhere around October 3, 2003

[Quote] That's one reason why I think that no matter how perfect the method, there is no substitute for having well grounded and mentally stable analysts who do not have agendas. [/quote]

I absolutely agree Eva.

Often when reading the different sessions while transferring the data into the analysis template, linkages would leap in and out of my mind, and opinions would start to form, and there wasn't a lot I could do about it, as it's a human thing.  When the template was complete, I then had to push all that to one side, in order to concentrate on finding the correlations.

After the matching was done and I began listing the major and minor correlations, then the first real danger area came.  I had to almost force myself to stay objective sometimes. Didn't this deserve a little more weight? Or maybe I should bring this out too because it seems so right, and it all looks like elephants to me anyway...;-). At that stage  If I had been biased for or against anything for any reason whatsoever.. then that is where the influence would probably creep in.  

Summaries I found most difficult, and I needed far more experience. I mostly kept them short or only listed the correlations in order of importance. IMO the audit trail could be impeccable....but the way things are worded and phrased  in a narrative summary can make one heck of a difference to the 'colour' of the analysis IMO; maybe more than would be desirable. That is another danger area IMO. In project work this would probably be vital of course, with other actions possibly pivoting on it. How do you deal with summaries Eva?

Separate from the analysis, but based on those previously suppressed subjective opinions, I used to enjoy a bit of guesswork as to what the target was though, and I used to look forward to the feedback as much as the viewers  :).

My guesswork was invariably wrong of course. ::).. but there was often a heck of a lot of the target in the analysis....and that is down to the Viewers. It was their data, I only pulled it out; and there were some promising RVers in that little bunch of stalwarts who contributed time after time weren't there Eva?

Cheers for now,
Glyn

end of messages

[END Topic 182] 9 to 1 TKR Remote Viewing Forum September 2003