A fair and open challenge to remote viewers, psychics or anyone who is up for this test.

THE IMAGE - click to view

What you see is a blue carabiner, used primarily as a keychain .. it's made of aluminum

If you have issues with the passwords below ( if ATS is removing characters ) try this link

The passwords

container.zip: ( extract first - url is in first post )

OwTJyUMwx-BIwc!OuUKQxCT_TFv=8Zu?FFX0BaZB2Oji7Of*hm%QctWOdX*twT+TNGDrFSNT?Ikiq7MFw5iVgeoj!

container2.zip: ( extract second )

uMzOu6__hcPA09KjMm_iBy?WjHVgJlLp4rL@Wn*Hg%BoaVkBW%+JW8XFSd1nkm+7

image.zip: ( extract third )

wqu+#uFHQ%Aq;%=+i_MBCt2Ni#.9-#L-@5UK#ll68B=%C/2j@d*j?qWN-hcAvSTU

I was most impressed with the guess of TheCusp personally, what are your opinions?

-Hard - CORRECT
-Not smooth like glass, but not rough either - partially correct
-about the size of a baby's fist - not sure how to judge that one, probably a no
-Curved, Kind of like a half doughnut, but not exactly. One side is curved in more, sort of like a snail's shell.- this was correct in my opinion, and the most impressive part
-Pinkish, with some darker gray or brown. - very incorrect

Overall this was the response I was most intrigued by .. but many got the color right, so I'm going to have to say that the test was overall pretty impressive.. but CERTAINLY inconclusive of course.

What do you think was good about this test?

What could be done better?

Was the amount of time allotted sufficient? too much? too little?

reply to post by miniatus


If this can be said to come out in favor of Remote Viewing at all, then it comes out in favor of Remote Viewing as something that should be done by committee; several people got near on the shape, and nearly everyone hit upon the color.

Perhaps the correct answer would have been reached if these answers had been filtered together, or at least one nearer the correct answer. I think you - or someone -- should re-run the test with a committee or several of Remote Viewers, coming up with their best answers.

But I remain more inclined to think that this is just a version of Cold Reading that needs to be fictionalized in more movies.

And of course, this test is nowhere near conclusive in any regard; it's not rigorous, it only had a control group by accident -- people randomly guessing and throwing jokes out there. I would like to see this repeated on a grander scale, and more rigorous. I'd be glad to be in the control group

reply to post by Solasis


Hello,

i am actually quite impressed by the result and what i saw, what i described as a "cone" earlier.
I (and some others) definitely had the colors right (they are actually spot on when i remember that "mental image") plus the impression of gold/metal, overall impression of a blue, metallic object with "some" parts of it gold/metal. Size is also about right.

This now seriously impressed me seeing that carabiner, especially the colors and the material.

(Of course, obviously the "unicorn" and the "pencil sharpener" deduced from it were nonsense - but i knew that already kind of beforehand .

I really don't know a lot about RV except some casual experiments we did YEARS ago for fun, but i know the most important part of it is not to let the "conscious" interfere and simply go with the feelings/impressions.

Nice, liked it!

Edit: Time about right i think.

I do think this second round went much smoother than round one, and I do like the suggestion above that perhaps a committee of sorts might be the right approach to this phenomena ..

However, I also agree that I still view it more like cold reading at this point .. if there's merit to it, then I think we can refine this further for a third round .. I'm very curious for opinions on how to improve this test.. I do like the idea of introducing a control group, though that would need to be worked out.

I did give it an honest effort. I don't disbelieve in RV or AT. Look forward to round 3.

Originally posted by Balkan
I did give it an honest effort. I don't disbelieve in RV or AT. Look forward to round 3.

I appreciated your participation definitely looking forward to round three myself but I've not formulated an idea yet ..

Definitely excited for constructive feedback, which I seem to get at the conclusion .. I can't express how pleased I am with the participation .. most provide useful comments and don't make a mockery of what is going on, which is quite respectful ..

Crud, I knew I should have drawn a picture! It's about 2 quarters long, which is about the size of a baby's fist. In retrospect, I could have included more details about the shape. Live and learn. I think with more practice I could do better, like I said, been a long time since I tried anything like this.

Only real improvement I would make is to give no details about it all. That image of a white box really threw me off, and it took several tries on my part to try and ignore that detail. That and participants could include sketches they make. Also, if we could recruit some experienced RVers from outside the site, I'm sure the results would be much more impressive.

Ed Dames has some forms for remote viewing, I'll see if I can find them on the weekend, along with his free instructional DVD. I have a copy of his 4 DVD one, which he was selling for 400 dollars. Thank you bit torrent
Apparently he was getting good enough to find gold so he could afford to give it away.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by miniatus

 

Perhaps the correct answer would have been reached if these answers had been filtered together, or at least one nearer the correct answer. I think you - or someone -- should re-run the test with a committee or several of Remote Viewers, coming up with their best answers.

Not a bad idea at all. That's how the pros do it. Only problem is you'd have to only include answers from people who are not bad at RVing. The people who just tossed out random guesses would pollute the pool of info.


EDIT: Found the Ed Dames RV templates.
www.learnrv.com...
Haven't looked them over to see if the are self explanatory yet, but I'm sure they will come in handy.

reply to post by The Cusp


A large complaint I had last time was lack of certain details, it seems the crowd is mixed on what kind of details are necessary.. but from this and the previous test I think what I've gleaned is this..

1. The google mapping data of the location is a plus, the participants seemed to think the need to know the geological location helps.

2. The box was a distraction, so ..

The next test so far, I will leave a geographical location, I will ALWAYS maintain the encrypted zip file portion because I think that's critical .. I don't expect anyone to trust me, nor should they in such a test.. so that element won't go away.. but I think it will be limited next time to just a google satellite image of the area in question with ZERO details .. sadly I expect the results to be farther off .. I hope not ..

But if we implement the committee idea, this could get interesting... how best to proceed with this? .. I'm obviously not concerned about cheating because only I will know the "thing" in question.. .. so I'm quite open to ideas

EDIT:

My thoughts on the box .. I added the box aspect in because I wanted it to help, but I chose an object I thought would not be something someone guessed easily with the size/shape of the box alone.. so I thought this would be helpful in location aspects... people would know both the map location and the box the object was in.. so it was trying to narrow it down while remaining fair .. if I am hearing correctly, the box itself is a problem.. so it sounds like I need to ONLY provide a google map location.

reply to post by miniatus


Dunno about the co-ords. All you really need is to assign your target a random number. According to Ed Dames, the less an RVer knows about his target the better the results. But I only made it through half of his first DVD. I'll burn the whole thing this weekend and try to get through all 4 of them.

From what I know, it's the association between the assigned number and your object that is important. A set of co-ords could be associated with anything in the area, while a random number is only associated with that specific target.

Wish I could send everyone those instructional DVDs I have.

reply to post by miniatus


I personally learned alot about RVing from reading everyone's techniques and suggestions. I would hope #3 will be similar to see if such a feat is a learned skill. The idea of a committee doesn't impress me as there will always be Alphas and Betas. I would think it to be a much more pure experiment if done autonomously.

Enjoyed participating and looking forward to #3.

Timidgal

It looks like a small hairbrush to me, maybe a child's, maybe silver!

I'm not sure how to control for the difference in skills in a by-committee test. Maybe a few more tests like this, and those who got the most individual details right are put into an "Alpha" group?

Another thing that would need to be controlled for is the viewers influencing each other's visions; in that case, I would say that the members of a committee have to send their results to one person who's unskilled in RV'ing, who combines all their visions. There'd have to be a method developed for that, too.

But maybe that Ed Dames guy has all this down already -- I'm just throwing ideas around.

I followed this thread and the first, and I just wanted to say I was very impressed with the results on this one! When I looked at the picture my mouth went

Can't wait for a third! This was so interesting! I have a friend I'd love to show this thread to, since he's always so skeptical.

So, we going to try this again? I'm only just starting to get warmed up, and would hate to stop now.

Originally posted by Universer
OK, I guess it's open?

I'm not a remote viewer, I just get impressions. When I read the original post I saw what I think is a child's toy. It looks like a rocket shape to me. The colors I get are blue (main part) and red (wing things), but to be honest, I am usually way off on colors.

Confidence: low. But I thought I would record it just for the hell of it. Thanks!

I'm actually shocked now that I've seen the pic. Though the object is flat, it is definitely a rocket shape, it definitely is blue, and it definitely has one "wing" so to speak, of a different color

Like I said, I'm not a remote viewer but I get impressions.

Originally posted by Universer

Originally posted by Universer
OK, I guess it's open?

I'm not a remote viewer, I just get impressions. When I read the original post I saw what I think is a child's toy. It looks like a rocket shape to me. The colors I get are blue (main part) and red (wing things), but to be honest, I am usually way off on colors.

Confidence: low. But I thought I would record it just for the hell of it. Thanks!

I'm actually shocked now that I've seen the pic. Though the object is flat, it is definitely a rocket shape, it definitely is blue, and it definitely has one "wing" so to speak, of a different color

Like I said, I'm not a remote viewer but I get impressions.

I wouldn't say that it's "definitely" a rocket shape, but I do agree that there's at least enough similarity to be remarkable; it's kind of conicalish. And from what I understand about remote-viewing, "rocket-shaped" would be a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the vague image one would get.

I was definitely impressed with you, and some of the others, when the pic was revealed.

reply to post by Solasis


I guess I should look into remote viewing. It seems like I get an "idea" about something (in this case, each time it was when I read the OP) then details get filled in that aren't quite right. I seem to do well with shapes.

originally posted by: Universer
reply to post by Solasis

 

I guess I should look into remote viewing. It seems like I get an "idea" about something (in this case, each time it was when I read the OP) then details get filled in that aren't quite right. I seem to do well with shapes.

This is such a slippery slope.. take part in www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't try to be a remote viewer... be honest and specific.. a lot of the "physic" stuff you see is too vague .. even on this thread you see it going from one extreme to the other as the guess ... that covers many likely scenarios ...

My goal is to have people be as specific as they can and to pick the best of those