Due to them not adhering to the protocol that THEY THEMSELVES created, they have now been disqualified from this experiment.
HOWEVER I will still publish their prediction, and I will allow you the general forumites to judge how well they did.
The target image was as follows
As you can see it was a photo of a religious crucifix or a cross.
Here is a video of me opening the envelope!
And despite receiving over 20 entries, ALL different which was a surprise, no one got it!
Since Kimbote gave more info in his prediction than anyone else, even though he was disqualified, I will still have a look at what he came up with, and also see if I can make anyone elses guesses fit
Object,synthetic, metallic -Wrong it is wooden
White (with silver areas, black areas) -Hard to see on video, but it is dark brown and white, so wrong again.
Chemical, acrid taste -Wrong
Cylindrical, lengthy -Wrong
Snub nosed -Wrong
Extendable parts, arms etc -Wrong
(mental image of torpedo, shuttle, Tie fighter) -Wrong
fins or blade-like aspects jutting out from side -Wrong
concept of ‘telemetry’ -Wrong
(mental image of white extendable telescope) -Wrong
two silver cylinders silver ring at some point along cylinder -Wrong
curved, rotating pipes and tubes -Wrong
sense of air release, some kind of pressure valve -Wrong
So the professional remote viewer got every aspect completely wrong. Better luck next time. But since he was disqualified, it doesn't really matter.
The following are the submissions from the forumites.
a tortoise on a brown paper bag -Wrong
Lots of flowers a shack and a woman -Wrong
A Horse -Wrong
It's a building with smoke rising from it. Low sun in the sky, clouds. -Wrong
I see a roundish shape filled with people and water, lots of seats and tables. My guess would be a swimming pool, possibly one you have used Jon -Wrong
I think the photo is of Felix Baumgartner, sitting on the edge of the capsule waiting to launch himself towards the ground. -Wrong, however when I first was thinking about doing this, I did consider Felix, but thought that would be too obvious!
Drawing of a light bulb, lit, upright, not in anything. -Wrong
a tree -Wrong, although the cross is wooden, so the material is right.
Derek Acorah -Wrong although he does claim some of the powers of Jesus
I think the photo is of a man sitting at a table, smiling whilst raising a white teacup to his mouth. The matching white saucer is in front of him and there are windows behind him. -Wrong
photograph of a small squashed green pea -Wrong
Man doing the ironing, with countryside in the background. -Wrong
I see a clothbound red book printed in the 19th century with some gold lettering on the cover and spin -Wrong
A tall cylindrical building - white -Wrong
New York came flying into my mind when I saw the envelope. The more I thought about it I also thought of some form of racing but thats all. -Wrong
The o/h said a river in the foreground with a waterfall at some point towards middle of the pic. -Wrong
We also had some submissions from psychics/believers on the Spiritlove forum, here are their entries
A bike -Wrong
Some kind of round ball with criss-cross marks on it and a horizontal line coming out of it. -Wrong HOWEVER this is the ONLY person to say the word Cross, even if out of context, this person is easily the closest person to getting it right, so well done!
A ball of string? -Wrong
Something round--clouds/ balloon. -Wrong
KitKat (Also known on BP forum as Scaramouche)
A pair of shoes with laces, cream/white coloured with some blue and red -Wrong
White pillars -Wrong although white pillars could be entrance to Heaven!
A cup -Wrong - Although a cup could be the Holy Grail!
an orange ( fruit) -Wrong
I LOVE DEREK ACORAH
tin of beans -Wrong
I'm wondering what kind of reasons/excuses/bullshit will be produced by those 'remote viewers' who attempted to view the contents of your envelope and sent in what they saw. It might even be interesting, would they be the same type of excuses as the psychics who get a reading or prediction horribly wrong, the telekinesis user who can't seem to get the particlar spoons in that test to move, or the religious nut who speaks to the media the day after the supposed 'doomsday' that he was ranting about for months before. I wonder.
See the forum! lol
And yes those exact excuses have been used!
I'm a so called 'Remote Viewer' and doing it since seven years. After reading what the participants sent in I can say that what they have done is nowhere the same than what was done in the CIA Stargate program before disclosing it 1995. Looks more like a naive esoteric attempt to 'see' a target.
The user 'kimbote' seems not to be 'professional' and can't call himself such. Because the results looks like a beginner after some early training in Remote Viewing. There are some commonalities in his descriptions but you can only see them if you have seen 300 results of Remote Viewing examples. I know it sounds nuts but doesn't say that you can't expect MUCH more if someone has more experience.
Have a look on the right side in the net and ignore such esoteric attempts in paranormal forums.
Thanks for your opinion.
I would love to create a new Remote Viewing experiment and perhaps have you to be the focus of the experiment which of course would be open to the forum again.
How about this.
Join the forum at http://moh2005.proboards.com and post a protocol you would be happy to use, and we can set up a new experiment.
Weird. Somebody put "arms" and you called it wrong on a target that was a cross? Crosses have arms. That is a hit.
Similarly, white, synthetic - look at the white spacer ring on the cord. Looks white and synthetic to me.
But of course, I would have to see the pre-generated session data before I could offer an unbiased opinion on what the viewers actually reported. But I can say that this marking was incorrect on the two issues I have stated.
A so called 'Remote Viewer' perceives a target in pieces all over the place (like your eyes do when they 'see' a new object). These pieces needs then to be 'stitched' together after the perceiving phase is over. Errors occur in the perceiving phase as also in the 'stitching' phase. The brain will do that for your eyes but in 'Remote Viewing' that phase of automatic stitching is a delayed process and most of the time the 'Viewer' needs to do it manually (depends on experience and talent).
In example the perceived 'fins' or 'arms' could(!) be parts of the cross; the 'Cylindrical, lengthy' perceipt could(!) describe the main feature of the cross (up/down). This all can only be understood by seeing hundreds of results to understand the nature of depiction in perception - it isn't wise to judge by only one example. In this example you would also need someone who is willing to 'view' for a longer period to get more details (which enhance accuracy) and to be sure the perceipts like 'fins', 'arms' and the 'Cylindrical' are the cross and not an artifact of wrong perceptions. The 'Viewer' could then filter out all basic percepts and only give you the 'stitched' result with some description. He will never be able to name the target but that isn't the proposed goal of 'Remote Viewing'; it should be used in conjunction as a tool and never solely alone to solve problems.
The '(mental image [...])' perceipts are always wrong; I would never sent them to a judge who didn't know or how to handle it (not your fault).
I'm not up for a private challenge and only here to say: If your are really interested to judge 'Remote Viewing' or something related then have an in-depth look at special forums and websites. There are more experienced people out willing for such a challenge. Hopefully some with more experience...
Hey, Kimbote here - sorry Jon but no such excuses were used - check the forum posts. I said straight away that this was just a bad performance from myself, a bad remote viewing session on my part. No excuses. Never made any. The fault for this poor show was all mine...not the weather, not the colour shoes I had on, not the misalignment of my great auntie's curtains - SIMPLY MY BAD SHOW. Go read my posts.
Kimbote here again! Again Jon, putting words into my mouth...I NEVER said I was a 'professional' remote viewer, just merely been doing it a while.
And go for it Karsten...have a go...I'll be rooting for you. Perhaps you can succeed where I failed (though be wary - someone called Destiny correctly identified the 'criss-cross' pattern and the 'string' (see above) yet this was deemed a total miss so be prepared to actually NAME the target point blank or not at all...)
Anyway, thanks again for setting that all up Jon - it was fun and your forum members were on the whole pretty pleasant. : )
PS: The cross could(!) be one of the harder targets for a 'Viewer' because the lack of entropy. In experiments it showed the same effect as in other sensors such as eyes or ears: The perception seems to react on the change in the perceived signal. So a simple-looking cross with no movement and nothing special at a target location could(!) be harder to describe than the Hindenburg disaster. Something to think about for continued experiments.
There is no such thing as a professional remote viewer, due to the fact remote viewing has yet to be proven.
However if I used the term professional remote viewer, I meant it in that you claimed you could do it.
I accept that the use of the word professional here was incorrect by me and I apologise for that.
I shall endeavour to use amateur remote viewer any time I mention you again
Thanks for your opinions, and this is the big problem with remote viewing.
It only works AFTER you know what the target is, and you desperately look for ways to make it fit.
Kimbote the main person in the test actually said "Extendable parts, arms etc"
Now what you are doing is conveniently ignoring the Extenable parts, and looking at the arms.
Crosses do not have arms, nor are they extendable.
As for the cross itself, it is NOT synthetic, it is wooden, the white spacer is a natural bead.
Again can you see why such reaching or retrofitting is so laughable. It makes things seem desperate.
I deliberately chose a very simple but powerful image for this test, something that would be easy to "view" if the person had any genuine ability.
I didn't want to chose a vague landscape, or something with too much detail, because of the way people will try to make things fit.
As Kimbote as already admitted they got it wrong.
Some kind of desperate need to make things fit only go to prove everything that skeptics say about remote viewers.
Again the reason why a cross would be harder to view is not because of the reasons you say, but because it is a simple shape, and very hard to retrofit the guesses too. You either get it right or wrong, not much wriggle room
NO ONE got even vaguely close, not even the amateur remote viewer.
In fact having so many people take part, I actually expected someone to get it right purely by chance.
But the fact this never happened, just goes to show that remote viewing works best on images with a lot of detail, so that AFTER the test things can be made to fit
Jon, it isn't your fault. The test was prepared fine.
I know, and there is nothing for me to be at fault for.
I made a test to fulfil the request of someone who approached me.
I did the test, no one succeeded, end of discussion.
The only thing of note is that some people are now trying to make various things fit AFTER the event, which is the common tactic of psychics and remote viewers!
The big pitfall that most so called remote viewers have, is the lack of a structured protocol to obtain information. That is the main reason of inconclusive data, besides there is no summary. After doing a session, the viewer has to write a summary in blind conditions, I mean, without knowing what is the target, and later, proceed to reveal the question (what experienced remote viewers call "cue"). After the Stargate Program, it has been A LOT of evolution, specifically on the protocol and the "tools". I am a remote viewer, but I could not be a voluntary because I see that the targeting method is not the exact one. When you have a photo, you must drag a line from there to outside the picture when you reach the white part of the sheet. At this point, you have to give it a TRN (I mean, an identification number with this format [XASD/DERT] using only numbers, for example [5816/8889]), later, you should put that photo into an envelope, writing the TRN again outside of the envelope.
You are not a remote viewer, you have never proven it.
I can call myself anything I like, but unless I prove it, it is a worthless claim.
Much like how I gave the remote viewer a chance to prove himself, I will offer you the same chance.
YOU design a protocol that YOU believe you can pass, you show it to me, I will do the test and we see if your claim is real or fanciful.
EVERYTHING is done in your favour, are you up for the challenge?
If yes go to my forum, register and contact me on there (admin account), and we will sort something out
Post a Comment