Idea for Group RV Experiment (suggestions and criticism needed)

For a long time I've been trying to think of an experiment which can utilize the power of the world wide web and allow thousands or even millions of people from all around the world to participate. Until now I hadn't been able to think of anything interesting enough to make it worth doing. Then a recent thread about Major Ed Dame's and Remote Viewing got me thinking about a very intriguing idea... an idea which is probably going to sound crazy and absurd to many of you. As you may have guessed this idea involves remote viewing on a mass scale.

Well "remote viewing" probably isn't the best terminology, because I'm talking about looking into the future to predict future events. RV practitioners claim that when they look into the future they are simply remote viewing a distant time as if it were something they can focus on like any other remote location. I think we should use a better term for this experiment but I'm not exactly sure what to use. I will explain the exact details of the experiment in a moment but first I want to give a little bit more background on this and why I think it has the potential to work and produce some amazing results.

Personally I've always believed that RV is nothing but a myth perpetrated by hoaxers who think they can see aliens on far off planets and that sort of stuff. But a few things really make my question how our consciousness is linked to time. Like this study which indicates our brains can sense things moments before they happen. It's like some sort of intuition ability that we have. There are in fact many experiments which appear to show that all of us do have this ability to predict near-future events... but just how far can this ability extend into the future?

Then we have the infamous global consciousness project, which analyzes the numbers generated by quantum random number generators (QRNG's) from all over the world. The results from this experiment seem to indicate that our consciousness has a small effect on these QRNG's during major world events when many of us feel the same emotions and our minds are synchronized for a period of time. The numbers go from being random to structured. The effect is extremely small but overall the probability is less than one in a billion that the effect is due to chance.

Apparently it has something to do with the nature of consciousness and quantum mechanics, like a collapsing of the wave-function or something like that. However more interesting is the fact that when a major event synchronizes the feelings of millions of people, the QRNG's appear to react minutes or even hours before the actual event takes place. This has actually been used to predict when the next major world event is about to happen. But this is rather useless if we can't tell what the event will be. All we see is a tiny blip in the graph which may or may not be something worth paying attention to.

As I said the effect really only becomes statistically considerable when you analyze years worth of data and add up all the probabilities. So at the end of the day it's not a very reliable tool for predicting the future because it doesn't provide us with any specific details about upcoming events and anything it does tell us is not really worth betting on. My idea takes this concept a step further and uses the predictive power of the human mind directly, instead of indirectly through the QRNG's. What really caught my interest in the killshot thread is some of the predictions that Ed Dame's gave which turned out to be right on the money.

He specifically stated that an earthquake near Japan would be big enough to cause fatal damage to a double containment reactor and the resulting meltdown would be at least as big as Chernobyl but it wouldn't do much damage to Tokyo. And he said all this on live radio well before it happened. If RV techniques can truly provide this much insight into future events imagine what we can gain insight into by using the power of thousands of minds all around the world. The internet allows us to easily conduct experiments like this without too much effort or time. This is enough of a reason for me to try it out even though I'm skeptical.

Over the last couple of days I've been reading up on common RV techniques and particularly some of the techniques used by Ed Dame's. The most important aspect to these techniques is providing a good "cue" which tells the person what they should be focusing on. My idea is to create a type of survey which would have people focus on certain time periods on the future and pick up on the largest major event of that period. The time they must focus on will be provided to them randomly so that they have little time to think creatively and imagine events which may take place in that time.

So it's sort of like a semi-blind method. Each year will be broken up into 4 quarters, Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 obviously. So each participant will be asked to focus on a randomly selected quarter of a random year in the future and determine the most prominent event to take place within that period of time, and then provide a list of words which describe the feelings and sensations they get by focusing on this time period. The form they will be required to fill out will be similar to many of the RV "templates" you use when you learn remote viewing in RV workshops. I want suggestions from people who know what I'm talking about.

To start with I will limit the time period to the year 2050, no one will be asked to focus on anything past that point in time. But the most important thing that I need help with is the so called "cue"... again I need people who know what I'm talking about. The cue I have in mind would look something like this: MAJOR EVENT / 2015 / Q3 / MOST IMPORTANT EVENT TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THIS PERIOD. So that would be an example for quarter 3 of the year 2015. But the problem is that an "important event" could mean different things to different people, I don't think it's precise enough.

For example many people probably think the rise of the new pope was an extremely important event, where as it's just a tiny blip on the radar for someone like me. I just don't care about that. And is an event really important just because it's widely reported on by the media? What "important" really should mean is that the event has the most wide spread implications for the highest number of people. But how can that be put into a short simple cue? I want to really fine tune these aspects of the experiment before attempting to carry it out, in order to get the best results possible.

Obviously the final results will come by analyzing all the data and comparing the inputs from all the participants to see if we have any common trends. If there are large enough trends which seem to be beyond mere chance I will be quite impressed and shocked. I also want to be sure that something like this hasn't been tried before, and if it has been tried before I want to see how it was done and what the results were because it may still be worth doing the experiment if I can improve on the process. So I'm very open to any suggestions and criticisms (outside of "it wont work idiot").

I'm well aware of the possibility that some shadow organizations out there may not like the idea of this experiment being conducted, and they may try to spoof the system with a barrage of fake participants to obscure the true results. I have some plans and ideas for how that can be circumvented, but it may not be possible to completely weed out the fudged data. But I hope with enough legitimate participants any trends will be easy to spot. I am a web developer and I am fully capable of building this whole thing from the ground up, I just want to run it by the ATS crowd before going any further.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Interesting thread.

I usually stay clear of these sorts of things, mainly because I am unconvinced of their existence. But you do make a compelling case. I am already familiar with the QRNG experiment, and I find the study very interesting.

The frame work of this experiment seems a bit - how do I put this - useless. I find your theory interesting, and I do not want to just dismiss it. But the point of doing an experiment, is to see if the result, can confirm your hypothesis, and when you ask for predictions as far ahead as 2050, it might be a very long time before this experiment shows any results.
So I think you should limit the time frame significantly.

In regards to the example you mention, about this Ed Dame character, his predictions are well within what is statistically possible, without him having any special abilities.
With more than 7 billion people on earth, there is most likely an ocean of correct predictions uttered each and every second of the day. The fact that this guy said it on a radio show, just means that a larger audience heard it than usually.
Just to put it in perspective; if you live to be 80 years old, your life will span approximately 2,5 billion seconds, which is only a third of the collective human thoughts happening each and every second of the day.
Also, I once saw a calculation which showed how many people experienced thinking of a loved one, the exact moment they pass away. I don't remember the precise result, but it was something like 1/300, which would indicate that it happens all the time, even though it seems remarkable and unlikely.

Anyway.. I wish you good luck with your experiment. I think you need to work a bit more on it, but it's not the worst theory I've read on ATS today.

reply to post by Mads1987

But the point of doing an experiment, is to see if the result, can confirm your hypothesis, and when you ask for predictions as far ahead as 2050, it might be a very long time before this experiment shows any results.
So I think you should limit the time frame significantly.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing, 2050 is probably a bit too much. 2020 or 2030 is probably a better limit to go with, and we can try out more distant dates later if the first experiment appears to work.

In regards to the example you mention, about this Ed Dame character, his predictions are well within what is statistically possible, without him having any special abilities.
With more than 7 billion people on earth, there is most likely an ocean of correct predictions uttered each and every second of the day. The fact that this guy said it on a radio show, just means that a larger audience heard it than usually.

Yeah but the fact he said it on a radio show makes it unlike most of the other predictions made by the other 7 billion people. It's not very often any random person gets to be on the radio, and even less often would they make such a prediction on live radio knowing very well it may turn out to be a dud. So I think the statistical aspect of his prediction is still pretty mind blowing. I mean if it was a more general prediction then sure it wouldn't be very amazing... be he specifically mentioned details about the quake damaging a double containment reactor in Japan, it's just a level of precision beyond what I would expect according to chance.

Either way it's still worth trying because a lot of the data out there does indicate we have this ability.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Even though he said it on the radio, and even though it is improbable, it isn't impossible. Statistically I would say that it was bound to happen sooner or later. Radio has always been conspiracy theorist favorite medium, at least until the arrival of the internet, and there are a very large amount of people out there, predicting all sorts of things, on the radio, each and every day.

In regards to the time frame. I would limit it to the next year (2015 perhaps), 2018 tops. This way their is a chance, that it won't just be forgotten about, and you'll properly get both more people participating, and less nutcases predicting that we'll be invaded by mole people, since their predictions will be verified or unconfirmed within a reasonable space in time.

You could also do it this way. Find the 50 most common, random, and realistic predictions.

Example:
War
Volcanic eruption
President assassinated
Huge earthquake
Meteor
Pandemic
etc..

Make a list that allows people to vote on what they think will most likely happen within the next year. See how accurate the predictions are compared to what happens.

This experiment would in fact reflect how our minds could work collectively, as with the QRNG experiment.
Whereas, just asking people to make predictions, will only show you if 1 person alone has this ability.

The data can easily be contaminated if people try to vote more than once, or something like that. So you need either to note down people votes manually, perhaps in an excel document, or find some online thing which allows you to check the voters IP adress.

I just realized another potential problem. The participant data will need to be kept hidden until the end of the experiment because if it is made public before that it will influence the input of the following participants. That will make it hard to prove that the results are actually legitimate and not edited by myself or anyone else. It will probably take some tricky programming to prove the data is not manipulated... this will require some thinking.

reply to post by Mads1987

Make a list that allows people to vote on what they think will most likely happen within the next year. See how accurate the predictions are compared to what happens.

No that's nothing like how the "VR Professionals" say it needs to be done. It needs to be a spontaneous thing where they record the first thoughts that come to their head, as I said there's a common template which I will have participants follow and each part of the "survey" will be limited to a small amount of time to make sure they aren't spending too much time thinking. It needs to be a highly spontaneous process without any creativity or imagination involved. And they can't really know what they are attempting to focus on because it dilutes the result when they have preconceived notions of what the answer should be... this is the best way to tap into the subconscious mind.

The data can easily be contaminated if people try to vote more than once, or something like that. So you need either to note down people votes manually, perhaps in an excel document, or find some online thing which allows you to check the voters IP adress.

As I said I'm a website developer and I've already got ways of making sure this doesn't happen. Obviously I will need to build a website to handle all the participants, it wont be something on ATS. Hopefully I will be allowed to post a link to the website on ATS, the website wont have any advertising or anything, I wont be making any money from it. So I think it should be ok.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Thats true. I thought a bit about that as well.
If you have any hopes of publishing the results, you need to figure this stuff out. But if you just want to see if there is anything there, and you feel that you trust yourself enough not to tamper with the result, you should be able to do it without having to program anything.

Personally, since I don't think there is anything there at all, I would settle for the second option. But in the end, it all comes down to how much effort you want to put into it.

Good luck..

Waste of time.

You have no concept of how RV uses protocols.

Originally posted by MUness
Waste of time.

You have no concept of how RV uses protocols.

lol then why don't you enlighten us genius. I've read and watched enough in the last few days to know the basics. What's the point of even posting 2 useless lines if you have nothing constructive to add?

reply to post by Mads1987

If you have any hopes of publishing the results, you need to figure this stuff out.

I don't wish to publish the results or anything, I wouldn't even bother... as long as it can be proven that the results are legitimate that's all I care about. But if I can't come up with any method of proving the data is legit I may have to just forget about it and hope people believe me (assuming I get any interesting results). Others could always reproduce the experiment with controlled conditions and publish the results properly.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by MUness
Waste of time.

You have no concept of how RV uses protocols.

lol then why don't you enlighten us genius. I've read and watched enough in the last few days to know the basics. What's the point of even posting 2 useless lines if you have nothing constructive to add?

Why don't you go do you're own homework, Junior. Do I look like a Jackass Whisperer?

ITMT, continue making a phool out of yourself.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
But if I can't come up with any method of proving the data is legit...

Then?

Get ready for this event, it's coming.

I thought this was going to be about an RV road trip.

reply to post by MUness


Hey buddy, why are you being such a sourpuss?
If you disagree, say why. But whats with the attitude?
Never heard the phrase - "you catch more flies with honey"?

Originally posted by rickymouse
I thought this was going to be about an RV road trip.

Hahaha. Sorry to let you down. Although you can still participate in our little trip down the rabbit hole.

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by MUness

 

Hey buddy, why are you being such a sourpuss?
If you disagree, say why. But whats with the attitude?
Never heard the phrase - "you catch more flies with honey"?

Ehhh I knew I would have some detractors so it doesn't phase me. Although I wasn't expecting someone so rude so soon. I guess that means I'm onto something.

Originally posted by MUness

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
But if I can't come up with any method of proving the data is legit...

Then?

Get ready for this event, it's coming.

Mwahaha! With my great genius I have thought up a way!

My plan was to save each participant session as a separate row in a database. I can hash each row and make the hashes public along with a hash of their IP and the time of their submission. That way each participant can verify their submission and there will be a way to keep track of each row and the time it appeared. Although not entirely fool proof it's good enough because it should be easy enough to statistically analyze the data from any trend which may pop up and see whether or not false entries have been squeezed into the mix.

Although now that I think about it that same statical analysis could be applied to the final data whether or not it was made public in a hashed form before hand. But providing some of the hashed data does still make it more reliable.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Are you going to use trained RVers or people off the street/www? That could skew your statistical data.

Also what RV model do you plan to use? There are many. The protocol post was tacky but relevant.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Are you going to use trained RVers or people off the street/www? That could skew your statistical data.

Also what RV model do you plan to use? There are many. The protocol post was tacky but relevant.

As I said, it will be free to anyone with internet access to participate. And the point of this thread is to develop a good protocol before actually implementing the idea.

But the general protocol I plan to use will be similar to that taught by Ed Dame's and as described in The Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual. I have found that nearly all the protocols (which were supposedly first developed by the military) are based on the same basic system and concepts.

The idea I have so far is to replicate the basic template containing first the simple ideogram and then all the sensory words etc. This data will be input into a timed form which keeps the participant on their toes to ensure the data they input is spontaneous. So upon starting they will receive the cue string with the designated time period and then they must complete the form in a given time.

I've modified the basic categories of data a little bit and so far I have this (examples after dash character):

Textures - smooth, bumpy, gritty, slimy
Colors - blue, white, orange, grey
Smells - smoke, sewerage, grass, pungent
Tastes - sour, sweet, ice-cream, banana
Temps - cold, humid, warm, freezing
Sounds - humming, echo, buzzing, piano
Shapes - right angle, sharp point, tall, round
Motions - spinning, accelerating, plummeting
Emotions - horror, affection, sadness, anger
Concepts - freedom, justice, education

So each of those sections would have an allocated time slot, something like 20 or 30 seconds to provide a maximum of 4 words for each section. And that would basically be it, the process wouldn't go any further than that. The participants would not be constrained to a pre-determined list of words. The result of the analysis would simply be compiled comparing all the words as I explained in the OP.

The initial ideogram will be discarded because it's essentially useless and storing all those images will require too much space. The only reason it is used to begin with is to help the participant lock onto the target time period. But as I've said multiple times I need people who are familiar with these protocols and know what I'm talking about to help fine tune it.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

My plan was to save each participant session a...blah yada BS...

Like I said. you haven't the first clue about RV protocols. Enjoy making a complete putz out of yourself.