Originally posted by aleon1018
If the best Remote viewers are only 50% right, then what exactly are they right about and not?
It doesn't work that way, to answer that; it contains a sort of hidden belief system. People aren't generally right about one kind of target and
wrong about others.
There are two facets of accuracy that can be measured and claimed in remote viewing.
The first is a very generic but critical measure that basically says: you are 'on' or 'off' target on-the-whole. In other words, if someone says,
"The target is 1029-1833. Describe the target." and your data is a silver manmade machine, but the target is really a donkey, it's considered you
missed that target.
How this is evaluated is by the session data overall, since mere chance, the english language, and the quantity/ quality(specificity) of data will
often see SOME data be or seem accurate even when the viewer is offtarget so it's not really relevent. (There are limited forms and dynamics in our
reality, with great variation, and if the session data isn't super specific or there's just too much of it, most anything will look like a hit.) The
measure in a science setting of this is very different than laymen. Laymen are usually willing to consider much 'on target' that would be called
'off' in the lab solely because the data wasn't good enough by those standards.
As trivia, this particular element of accuracy -- the base, initial 'target contact' -- is considered unchangeable, much as I hate that idea.
Science has tracked some of the best viewers in the world for upwards of 30+ years and their 'on target' % is the same as when they walked in the
door. That doesn't mean they didn't improve in other ways. But this primal element doesn't change.
This is also the most frustrating element of accuracy. There is no way to tell. In fact, the irony is that in my view, one IS making contact and doing
what might be a brilliant remote viewing--it's merely that it's not the target you wanted. If your job is to go knock on a door and have a talk with
the person living there, sometimes you might get the address wrong, but that doesn't mean you didn't have a legitimate talk with a legitimate
person--just wasn't the right 'address' (target in this analogy). Viewers can't judge this; off-target sessions can feel and appear like excellent
sessions. So far there is no clear understanding in any sector of the field of why this happens. In the science lab they dealt with it by not dealing
with it sorta: they simply arranged for subjects who had the highest % of it.
The second kind of accuracy relates to the data in detail. Let's say you have 100 points of data (to be simplistic) in your session. Maybe 42 are
provably right with feedback; another 20 'probably fair to assume based on feedback'; another 20 outright wrong; and the last 18 'no feedback' so
it's unknown. Most viewers would count that as 62% accuracy. (The science lab would probably count it as 42%.)
So when lab viewers give accuracy numbers it's usually something like, "I'm average ___% accurate at target contact, and WHEN I'm on target, my
average is ___% accuracy in the data."
The real problem is that the field is massively miseducated with people learning a psychic method but nothing about RV really, so most viewers don't
understand all the official ways of evaluating RV and so on. So to them, their version of 'on-target' might have wildly different standards, and
they're all convinced that they're 100% accurate LOL. And many of them don't work in a doubleblind so it doesn't even have validity as RV/psi to
begin with -- but they seldom provide their accuracy% for cold-reading alas. So usually, most "accuracy numbers" people give in the field, unless
they are pretty hardline RV Science Protocol people, are somewhere between subjective and fictional.
A person who remote views specific targets such as world news and classified sources, may be better able at altering future events if these are
clear and not staged.
Remote Viewing is data collection; you seem to be talking about reality change or 'remote influence' there. Not that they cannot be mixed, just that
RV isn't by its nature a projective art.
I've mentioned in one group about remote viewing remote viewers as targets. I didn't get any feedback on it though.
There was an X-Files comic book, a 2 or 3 part series, that had a story about viewers. It was actually hilarious! (Not on purpose.) They were targets
in the story. Viewers probably view each other, I assume; I've become aware of others at times, and I've deliberately made good rapport with other
The movie Suspect Zero had some interesting messages and comments on remote viewing also.
Yes, unfortunately including some misinformation based stuff as well, since Ed's public relations expert wife of the time (former wife of actor Brad
Dourif, of LotR) helped work out him being the consultant for that film. (The later paid interviews with others on DVD were after the fact and
unrelated.) The director actually had to pull some content from the film when he realized some of it was a problem and they hadn't realized what Ed
was doing there, which I imagine wasn't too appreciated. But I love Ben Kingsley and generally I adore any movie that involves psi -- although that
one was kind of retroactively stupidified to feature RV and the original story (which didn't have it) was much better -- so I like such things
(sorry about the edits, my stupid keyboard keeps eating letters!)
[edit on 26-2-2009 by RedCairo]