(2017-09-27, 11:21 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks very much for that. So what do you see as different from that, compared to say the Sony telepathy experiments, or ganzfeld, Ouija board, or Stage hypnotism etc...?
That is quite a wide question and I can't claim that I understand it.
RV is supposed to be a form of controlled and deliberate clairvoyance. There is of course a chance of telepathic influences getting mixed into it.
I don't know what Sony have done. But a common Ganzfield test does in fact appears similar to RV, in that you have a sender/tasker and a receiver/viewer.
Ouija boards and hypnotism is outside of my knowledge frame. I don't know anything about it.
(2017-09-28, 01:27 AM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with part of that, but don’t see how you’re saying the tasker’s or monitor’s opinions are actually the target of the RVer when all are (or should be) blind to the target?
I am having a debate about the term RV-blind elsewhere. The thing is no one knows what it means, there are various opinions of what it means, and people do not want to agree on anything.
I'm driving the thesis, and others with me, that the term "blind" means you do not know the target; That is, you are not informed of anything; The sealed envelope kind of thing; All you get is a sealed envelope, that's all. Blind has got nothing to do with that you don't know how a bat is perceiving the world. The bat has got nothing to do with it. The bat did not task your, nor will it offer you any feedback to verify your session.
If you task something where there is no feedback available then the whole thing will be left hanging.
(2017-09-28, 02:19 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]But the tasker has written the target on a piece of paper, and the RVer is trying to get a hit on the target? So I'd like to understand why slorri feels it's different.
Maybe I'm conflating the term "tasker" with "monitor". The monitor is the person who sits in the room with the RVer and asks questions. That person should not know anything about the target.
The "tasker" - the person who puts something in a sealed envelope - I guess would know something unless the task is chosen at random from a pool and placed in the sealed envelope without anyone seeing it. ...but then I guess someone had to create the pool of possible targets... unless you take any human interaction out and get some kind of AI to pick targets without human input.
(2017-09-28, 09:31 AM)Slorri Wrote: [ -> ]I am having a debate about the term RV-blind elsewhere. The thing is no one knows what it means, there are various opinions of what it means, and people do not want to agree on anything.
I'm driving the thesis, and others with me, that the term "blind" means you do not know the target; That is, you are not informed of anything; The sealed envelope kind of thing; All you get is a sealed envelope, that's all. Blind has got nothing to do with that you don't know how a bat is perceiving the world. The bat has got nothing to do with it. The bat did not task your, nor will it offer you any feedback to verify your session.
If you task something where there is no feedback available then the whole thing will be left hanging.
The reason I ask about non-human perceptions is that animals would certainly assign significance differently or have different sense impressions at a location.
Ask a human to remote view the South Congress Bridge over Lady Bird Lake in Austin TX and the person might describe the ordinary things a human would find significant: cars, arches, tall buildings, people engaged in water sports on the river/lake, etc. But ask someone to RV the same spot from a bat's perspective and maybe the RVer would not even pick up the strong visuals like tall buildings or water sports, and instead describe things upside down and have the impression that this feels like a home surrounded by friends and family, maybe auditory impressions would be much more significant than visual impressions, or at dusk perhaps a strong hunger for mosquitos?
(2017-09-28, 01:49 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]The reason I ask about non-human perceptions is that animals would certainly assign significance differently or have different sense impressions at a location.
Ask a human to remote view the South Congress Bridge over Lady Bird Lake in Austin TX and the person might describe the ordinary things a human would find significant: cars, arches, tall buildings, people engaged in water sports on the river/lake, etc. But ask someone to RV the same spot from a bat's perspective and maybe the RVer would not even pick up the strong visuals like tall buildings or water sports, and instead describe things upside down and have the impression that this feels like a home surrounded by friends and family, maybe auditory impressions would be much more significant than visual impressions, or at dusk perhaps a strong hunger for mosquitos?
I understand. And yes, it could be experimented with, and possibly has. I don't know.
A parallel to my line of argument here is the many attempts to RV the location of "Jesus". All the attempts are different, as far as I know, because there exist no feedback for the task.They are not hitting any real "location of Jesus", they are hitting ideas of the location of Jesus.
(2017-09-28, 09:19 AM)Slorri Wrote: [ -> ]That is quite a wide question and I can't claim that I understand it.
RV is supposed to be a form of controlled and deliberate clairvoyance. There is of course a chance of telepathic influences getting mixed into it. det
I don't know what Sony have done. But a common Ganzfield test does in fact appears similar to RV, in that you have a sender/tasker and a receiver/viewer.
Ouija boards and hypnotism is outside of my knowledge frame. I don't know anything about it.
I'm not well-read on RV, but maybe one possible difference is that whilst the tasker may know the target itself, s/he may not know
all details of it which are picked up by the viewer - which would rule out telepathy. e.g., the tasker might know that the target is the Arc de Triomphe, but not that there's a bird's nest in a certain spot in that structure, which the receiver/viewer might pick up.
(2017-09-28, 02:37 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not well-read on RV, but maybe one possible difference is that whilst the tasker may know the target itself, s/he may not know all details of it which are picked up by the viewer - which would rule out telepathy. e.g., the tasker might know that the target is the Arc de Triomphe, but not that there's a bird's nest in a certain spot in that structure, which the receiver/viewer might pick up.
Yes, there is definitely more to RV than just telepathy and ideas from the tasker.
Farsight did a project some time back that targeted the weather 5 years ahead in time. In normal terms one can believe they all were "blind" to the target because no one can know what the weather will be like in the future. But that is not true. Anyone can guess what it will be like. And those that believe in global warming can forecast sea levels rising and things like that. As I remember it not much verifiable came through, except one thing that lay outside of the scope of the target. A swarm of meteorites was reported by a couple of the viewers. (Or something of that nature). Everyone was surprised because no one had expected that.
(2017-09-28, 06:47 PM)Slorri Wrote: [ -> ]Farsight did a project some time back that targeted the weather 5 years ahead in time. In normal terms one can believe they all were "blind" to the target because no one can know what the weather will be like in the future. But that is not true. Anyone can guess what it will be like. And those that believe in global warming can forecast sea levels rising and things like that. As I remember it not much verifiable came through, except one thing that lay outside of the scope of the target. A swarm of meteorites was reported by a couple of the viewers. (Or something of that nature). Everyone was surprised because no one had expected that.
On an RV forum, I had the opportunity to question Daz Smith extensively about sessions that he had seen or had recorded for the viewing public that had ET content. Not wanting to buy a gazillion $$$$ worth of Brown's vids, I submitted to Smith what we are told were the actual happenings at Roswell '47, Phoenix Lights '97, Atlantis (location, demolition....), Face On Mars at Cydonia, Iapetus inhabitants...and asked if there was any, or enough, corroboration with the info received from the communicating ET community...or not.
He responded and I bought them all.
(2017-09-28, 02:32 PM)Slorri Wrote: [ -> ]I understand. And yes, it could be experimented with, and possibly has. I don't know.
A parallel to my line of argument here is the many attempts to RV the location of "Jesus". All the attempts are different, as far as I know, because there exist no feedback for the task.They are not hitting any real "location of Jesus", they are hitting ideas of the location of Jesus.
Right... without feedback, results might be interesting but could be way off. I remember some of McMoneagle’s future predictions were way off. Even though we have no way to get feedback on something like Jesus, I still think it is amazing that RVers can describe what sounds like the stereotypical Jesus without knowing what the target is.
(2017-09-29, 01:18 AM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]... I still think it is amazing that RVers can describe what sounds like the stereotypical Jesus without knowing what the target is.
There are two opposite lines of thought there: Either one can think that the descriptions are actually true, just because the viewer was not told anything, and had no possibility to make things up; Or the descriptions in a case like that comes from the taskers and / or the viewers own mind.
We can not make the viewer metaphysically unaware of the target, we can only make him physically unaware by not telling him about it beforehand.