• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Remote Viewing

Schadenfreudism aside, I'd like nothing more than to see someone succeed.

It's important to know that in a universe this big that it not be so completely mundane, as to limit our ability to perceive the world we live in, through only the 5 senses we were born with. I for one would like to know that the possibility of being more than this is possible.

My problem is that I simply cannot abide by those who make claims, and then cannot do what they say they can do. If I were to say that I were a remote viewer, and could only view Teddy Bears, then my scope is pretty limited. In fact, it's a skill that is pretty useless, because it becomes completely useless if someone is asked to remote view a stuffed animal factory.
Im not sure who Daz quoted there, but the question "what good is it if you cant do thos things?" ... well the most obvious one would be enemy bases/installations.

I would think THAT would be one of the main reasons for the Govt program too.

He quoted Derek. Derek made the remark after stating that they couldn't view people, locations, numbers, words etc. If you go back and read it in context it makes better sense.
The integrity of the proposed demonstration relies wholly on trusting that the person that encrypts the files will use a strong key and not consciously or unconsciously divulge the key or contents prematurely.
Maybe don't even post the encrypted files online until all the remote viewers data is in then post both the target/feedback and the remote viewers work at the same time?

All I need to know is that the playing field is level and fair, that someone has chosen an appropriate target - then all we need is a random number to work with. If someone wants to PEM me we can work all this out.

It doenst matter where the images come form or if theyev ever been seen online, in the press or anything before as these are only used to feedback as a comparison. The actual target would and should be the actual locations or whatever that is in the photos.

My problem is that I simply cannot abide by those who make claims, and then cannot do what they say they can do. If I were to say that I were a remote viewer, and could only view Teddy Bears, then my scope is pretty limited. In fact, it's a skill that is pretty useless, because it becomes completely useless if someone is asked to remote view a stuffed animal factory.
LOl I feel like a hamster going round in circles.

We or I have not stated we cant do anything. But that words and number are really hard and some think impossible. How much clearer do I need to say this?
Thats all. We didn't back track and tick off a long list of things leaving only one possible thing that can be remote viewed.

As for making claims - And again I will say it take a look at the near 200 blind remote viewing examples on my website to see the proof you think you will only get from yet another performed experiment. Or again read the FOIA released documentation over 20 years detailing year after year time after time en effect in place in the experiments from multiple labs.

As a really basic intro into the militray program for example have a look at this document - it even has very basic info on how rv was used before the 1st gulf war: http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/stargate/12.8.05/DIA%20stargate%20slideshow%20with%20gulf%20war%20session%20data.pdf

In fact as a baseline why don't some of you guys also join in and do the remote viewing experiment and see what you get?

Personally, no amount of people claiming they were psychic ever made the slightest dent in my BS-meter, especially since that whole new age world is the grapenut contingent (fruits, nuts and flakes) much of the time.

Just DO it. Pretend it's science fiction, suspend disbelief, learn something about it, and do it yourself. That is in my experience the ONLY thing that truly makes someone believe there is something to it.

How "much" there is, and how "much" you personally can do for it, those are separate topics. When I look at what people submit for RV (and I've been working with people on this for a dozen years), once in awhile it's staggeringly obvious, sometimes it's good but imperfect, most the time with practiced viewers it varies between that and so-so with the occasional 'missed target', and a good chunk of time with the general public it's lost-in-space. But only statistics looks at the big picture for a decision; when you feel and see something inside you, and then get feedback and it's EXACTLY that -- even if you communicated it horribly on paper, which is not uncommon LOL (it's as much a 'translation' and 'communication' art as anything) -- that is the convincing part.

It's the kind of thing that can really only be grasped (grokked, as Heinlein might have said) directly. For indirect, 'official' demonstrations or proof of concept, the science lab under controlled conditions is the only legit source. Any attempt to make other sources stand-in as legitimacy tests is mostly IMO just a subconscious effort to "look where it is not" in the hopes of not having evidence for it truly challenge belief systems.

Re: sock puppets: yes, of course, online discussions always go better when someone starts calling others names. Oh wait, they don't?

Maybe don't even post the encrypted files online until all the remote viewers data is in then post both the target/feedback and the remote viewers work at the same time?

Posting something online prior to the demonstration would be good as it permits the observers to verify that the target images weren't swapped for others after the RVer's data is submitted. A GPG or PGP signature would be ideal as this would prove they came from the agreed source. Once the encrypted files are posted any interested party can verify them against the previously posted signature or hash. If the posted hash or signature does not match the posted encrypted images then it would show that the posted images are not the same ones that were RVd.
OK, Stillborn had sent me the target image for the test with Gulliver.

Here it is:


Here's the text of Gulliver's reading:


Summary of raw data for 3248

from ‘Gulliver’ for ‘Stillborn’ 31 / 4 / 09

Chiming, rustle, click
Sense of occasion
Person to person
Someone being ‘helped up’

White, blue
Straggly sensation like hair, may be type of fabric

Concern, sympathy
Person lying down, being helped up

Outwards display
Kneeling, supplication
Clasping, grasping
‘dazzle’...seeking to display

Pushing, shoving
Flashing lights


White, rising, tall, stacked
Busy, modern
Ringed, circular
Domed roof
Sign writing / words on front

Appears to be ‘stuff’ floating in the air (reminds me of tickertape)

Sense of big occasion again


Pushing, a tumble, making a ‘move’
Physical activity
...person has been ‘warned’ about something
crowds, a throng
‘one down, one to go’
seems like slow motion
tilted to one side, moving down at an angle
real nervous
‘man down!’
‘let me through!’
‘flying visit’
trilby hat
something erupting away from central figure
hand held high
someone kneeling to check condition
close to release
hanging on a thread...
object being carried by many people overhead

man disrobes, throws off a jacket/coat



And the accompanying image he drew:


  • 3248_summary.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 19
The reading doesn't contain any meaningful information about the target. No mention of NasDaq, an exploding blimp, an oil rig (or whatever that is), nada. In my opinion, the reading was a miss, though I'm sure that others will disagree, pointing to the fact that Gulliver said something was floating in the air. But what, specifically, is floating in the air? If the viewer cannot be more specific, then how can one be sure that his reading wasn't anything other than coincidence? "Something floating in the air" vs. "zeppelin blimp." They're both hits but the second one contains useful and highly accurate info, whereas the first one is so vague as to be applicable to a great number of objects (he could claim to have been seeing birds, clouds, fire, etc.).

I'm sure that few will disagree about the drawing: a complete miss. This experiment does not prove or even evince the claims of remote viewers.

Moreover, I'd like to agree with one point made by Mr. Derekcbart: why focus so much on alleged past success with such experiments? Simply demonstrate that the activity is real now, here, without reference to alleged past demonstrations. Do it now. If it can be done, that should be sufficient.
I see that was worth the effort (...probably not).

Remote Viewing is descriptive. 'Labels' - specific nouns, names, etc. - are actually avoided on purpose [mostly because they are often wrong, since the brain has no context whatever on data for that level of decision; it would be up to the analyst to know the 'tasking context' to put description into]. It's done right.

But, people can make of it whatever they will.

You mean to tell me that in remote viewing, you intentionally avoid nouns? I find that remarkable. This seems to me to indicate that remote viewers intentionally obfuscate, make vague, so as to bring to the activity apparent, rather than actual, accuracy.

Your explanation as to why nouns are avoided?

"The brain has no context whatever on data for that level of decision; it would be up to the analyst to know the 'tasking context' to put description into."

Just what does all of this mean, anyway? Pretend you're talking to someone who doesn't know the terminology. As a matter of fact, don't pretend. What does it mean for a brain to have no context on data for that level of decision? Why is it up to an analyst to know the "tasking context" to put description into? What is "tasking context?" Who is the "analyst" and what defines his or her role?

The psuedo-scientific jargon doesn't help your case.
There is nothing pseudo-scientific about the words I use. I avoid 'jargon' more than just about anybody I know. If the standardized terminology used in the field is confusing to you, educate yourself. The last thing I ever do is attempt to obfuscate things -- in this field the worst people do that and I make it a point of honor to attempt to explain, IF I have time, IF it appears worth the effort.

I'm not sure either of those qualify here. But I will say something briefly. For the rest, feel welcome to look up scientific papers, a lot of books, or dozens of websites, to learn more about RV.

[Please see my additional note in the post below. I apologize that my initial annoyance at your comment made me forget most your questions lol.]

I say this as explanation because you asked. It is not justification for any specific session or data. If you cannot think of a way to make descriptive information useful, or if you do not find what remote viewing does worthwhile then it is a view you are welcome to, and I have nothing invested in making anybody feel better about it. It may be that RV is just genuinely not of interest to you and that's just fine. I'm not an evangelist; I don't need agreement or joining.

Regarding information, as I mentioned previously, remote viewing is not 'remote camera'. (If anybody made half an effort to DO it, you would find this out.) It is a translation of very subtle senses most of which are usually not even providing information up to the verbal level. [There are theories related to this, that it's like a sense we are totally unadapted to, much like babies are the more gross/obvious senses, and that this may relate to why the few people who tend to get specifics, which indicate neural mapping to those senses, are usually those incredibly few people with really long term (decades) experience.]

Getting data of something flying, something floating, apparently hurt or injury, etc. when the target could have been anything -- a goldfish pond, a little girl at an ice cream truck, a barn in kansas, or 8 zillion other things -- indicates target contact on the viewer's part. Additional tasking on specific details ('provide more info about 'the flying thing'') could be done if the tasker did not have the context to know how to put the descriptive data into play. This is not a great session but it's not terrible either--at least the viewer showed contact. (And, no matter how dissed they get, are probably sitting back going 'whew! - could have been worse'.)

There are RV sessions that are more or less specific, of course. A long list of factors can play into this but one can't share a dozen years of study in a forum post. There is no predicting the exact results of any session and that is why tasking specifically and then re-tasking as needed is common.

Anybody genuinely interested in remote viewing is welcome to investigate more, and most people in the field are willing to answer questions. On rare occasion some of us will go to other internet places, in case there are people there who are genuinely interested, as it prevents the big mass-media disinformation BS from being the only story people hear. And because most of us are interested in psi-related topic anyway, personally, I hang out at abovetopsecret.com as well for example; I think some RV folks were already here.

This session is one example of one viewer on one target on one session time. If you choose to review a larger collection of sessions by a larger collection of viewers, there is work all over the internet of laymen. (Tip: if the session says "a blimp hitting a tower and blowing up" it is probably not legit--it COULD be, sometimes that specific happens, but it is not the norm.) And of course... as mentioned ad-nauseum, though mysteriously the most allegedly skeptical have no interest in the truly controlled replicated work... decades of study in the science lab with some of the best viewers with carefully controlled protocol, tasking, targets, judging, etc.

What does it mean for a brain to have no context on data for that level of decision? Why is it up to an analyst to know the "tasking context" to put description into?

This was something that was not discussed on the show, somewhat to my surprise as it runs exactly counter to what my assumptions were about the process when I first heard of it.

There is probably a better analogy for this as it is so tempting to use the idea of a camera but compare the RVer to a dumb spy satellite and the tasker to a photo analyst. The spy satellite is just feeding back raw binary image data. Say it gets one image per orbit. It sends back two images of the same spot but they are a bit different. It's up to the photo analyst(tasker) to use his experience, human spies on the ground, technical skills etc. to interpret what has changed. The spy satellite can't tell you that those dots on the ground are missiles, it just reports 4 white pixels in a line.

The RVer's brain is constantly fighting to make a conclusion about the impressions they get. RV theory says this is a pitfall, just record the impressions such as hot, hard, big, intricate, brown, quiet, etc. The RVer gets an impression of a hard, metallic, round, spinning thing. Is it a tractor wheel or a ferris wheel or an electrical generator? The RVer is trained to "catch" themselves making these premature mental conclusions, record them but also to ignore them.

The RV'ers job is to feed back the raw bits and the tasker's job is to take the data and try to make sense of it and see where, if at all, it fits in with what is already known for sure and ideally to compare it against other RVer's data.

Someone else can correct me if I have gotten any of the above wrong.

Here is an excerpt from the DIA manual[pdf] prepared by SRI:

"RV theory relies on a rather Freudian model of human consciousness levels. The lowest level of consciousness is paradoxically named the “unconscious”. All this label really means is that that part of our mental processes we know as physical “awareness” or “consciousness” does not have access to what goes on there. It is apparently this part of the individuals psyche that first detects and receives the signal line. From here it is passed to the autonomic nervous system. When the signal line impinges on the ANS, the information is converted into a reflexive nervous response conducted through muscular channels controlled by the ANS. If so allowed, this response will manifest itself as an ideogram. At the same time, the signal is passed up through the subconscious, across the limen, and into the lower fringes of the consciousness. This is the highest state of consciousness from the standpoint of human material awareness. However, the normal waking consciousness poses certain problems for remote viewing, occasioned largely because of the linear, analytic thought processes which are societally enhanced and ingrained from our earliest stages of cognitive development. While extremely useful in a society relying heavily on quantitative data and technological development, such analytic thinking hampers remote viewing by the manufacture of what is known as “analytic overlay”, or AOL.

As the signal line surges up across the limen and into the threshold areas of consciousness, the mind’s conscious analytic process feels duty bound to assign coherence to what at first blush seems virtually incomprehensible data coming from an unaccustomed source. It must in other words make a “logical” assessment based on the impressions being received. Essentially, the mind jumps to one or a number of instantaneous conclusions about the incoming information without waiting for sufficient information to make an accurate judgment. This process is completely reflexive, and happens even when not desired, by the individual involved. Instead of allowing holistic “right brain” processes (through which the signal line apparently manifests itself) to assemble a complete and accurate concept, untrained “left brain” based analytic processes seize upon whatever bit of information seems most familiar and forms an AOL construct based on it.

For example, a viewer has been given the coordinates to a large, steel girder bridge. A flash of a complex, metal, manmade structure may impinge on the liminary regions of the viewer’s mind, but so briefly that no coherent response can be made to it. The conscious mind, working at a much greater speed than the viewer expects, perceives bits and pieces such as angles, riveted girders, and a sense of being “roofed over” and paved, whereupon it suggests to the physical awareness of the viewer that the site is the outside of a large sports stadium. The “image” is of course wrong, but is at least composed of factual elements, though these have been combined by the viewer’s overeager analytical processes to form an erroneous conclusion."

The RVer is not literally visualizing a bridge, rather they are getting a .001 second "flash" of "metal", a .001 second flash of "hard" and so on. They sit there and try to record these without letting their brains conclude that metal + hard = barbell or whatever.
I apologize. I see I actually did not answer your specific questions. I hate it when people do that, so let me correct that.

I have to go feed my kid who for some reason thinks she is supposed to eat least every day. Kids. Sheesh. I will return later.

I see no reason to believe that the so-called viewer "made contact" with the target, particularly since the blimp is not floating but rather has caught fire and is falling.

In fact, that's the whole point of the photograph. It's a falling Nasdaq blimp. There's nothing floating in the picture. The viewer's description didn't capture anything about the meaning of the photograph as a political cartoon about economic catastrophe. I don't see how, based on his inclusion of the word "floating," anyone could claim that he made contact with the target.
It's also the very first image in a google image search for "hindenburg". Is there some reason the actual, and plentiful copies of the real photo were not used?

While I will readily admit that the results here are far from being dead-on, eerily accurate, a critique that they did not capture the message of a political cartoon seems indistinguishable from a troll.