PsiOnline.org

by Stony1205

Science is constantly evolving, growing, and gaining perspective on many various areas. However, there seems to be a significant lack of actual research in the area of Extra Sensory Perception. What we end up with instead are perpetuated myths and lies about abilities that are known to exist. Sure, there are some organizations (Stanford Research University, The Rhine Research Institute) that have tried to include ESP into the areas of scientific study, but most researchers refuse to even bat an eye at the subject. What we are left with instead, is a large group of well educated, critical individuals against hobbyists and “Weekend Warriors” who aren’t concerned with providing proper evidence (it simply isn’t their interest or their job). Experimentation on various areas of ESP can and have been done, though they are usually discredited or not included in scientific journals. In an attempt to show that ESP can be tested with legitimacy and with logical methods, I conducted a Coordinate Remote Viewing session with the Challenges to Orthodoxy class at Albion College.

The idea for this experiment came about as a reaction to some YouTube videos that were created by Michael Shermer (those videos can be viewed in the sources at the end of this work). These videos showed a typical remote viewing class where students (most who are well over the hill) took a three hour session with a “trained” remote viewer. The class does uses a standard remote viewing system and does not use any strict protocol. The videos however seem to mention that the person giving instructions was trained in “the same remote viewing techniques that the government used”. However, it was my observation that no Coordinate Remote Viewing protocols (the actual system used by STARGATE/SCANNATE and the CIA) were employed by this instructor. It may have been a mistake on Shermer’s part, or some kind of miscommunication, either way the content the students were learning was not CRV but just simply RV. After providing this and many other arguments about the legitimacy and results of those videos, Professor Kirby and I decided that a true CRV experiment was needed.

The experiment itself is quite simple even while testing multiple variables. I cannot begin to explain every detail of a true CRV session, the document is much too long to paraphrase; there are general guidelines that can be followed in a non-military setting. All CRV experiments and session are executed on a “double-blind” basis. This simply means that neither the tester nor the viewers know the correct answer (the object/place being “viewed”). Most experiments are held on a single-blind level and are thus not truly strict enough for research where mind reading and other such ideas could be possible points of contamination. Because of the nature of the experiment, materials must be collected and organized ahead of time by a third party who will not be participating in any other way. For our experiment, I had a friend select the viewing image from an online database.

The coordinate idea from CRV comes from the fact that the viewer and the object are “linked” together by a eight digit number. This number normally random and has no other significance than to give the viewer a point to focus on. Each number is in the following form ####-####. The objects are somehow connected to this number, via writing it on the object or associating it with the location of that object. For our simple experiment, the number was written on the back of the image. With any CRV experiment, the targets are then sealed away or hidden from everyone who will be participating in the exam. In our case, the images were sealed into an envelope.

On exam day, basic rules are given, and every person is given final instructions. Each person is assigned a coordinate number and is given sheets of paper. The paper is used to jot down ideas, images, analytical overlays, and anything that the viewer needs to take note of. These items are collected by the moderator after the examination and are interpreted separately. In a normal CRV session, each subject is placed in his or her own room away from any other influences, and they do not get to hear the interpretation of their readings (most of the time). However, because of the nature of our experiment, results were reviewed immediately.

The experiment conducted here at Albion was meant mostly for education purposes; I did not expect anyone to actually view the correct answer, nor did I intend for the results to be accurate. The experiment was set up to test many variables, more so than normal experiments, but I wanted to show the group what kinds of items can be scientifically determined from the results. Besides the normal things tested in a CRV session (general accuracy, general precision) I added the following variables:

1. Does coordinate number have an effect on results?

2. Does a Black and White photo seem to produce a black and white mental image?

3. Does a coordinate number in relation to the moderator give a false link to the moderator instead of the target item?

4. Does group attitude have any effect on the progress of the group?

5. Can a person who is just guessing, get a good result?

I gave the group general instructions and let them begin. I immediately noticed who was interested in actually trying the skill, and who couldn’t care in the least. To protect the names of the innocent, I will only use a person’s coordinate number in place of their real name. From the start, three people refused to participate, but everyone else at least seemed to try it. After about 15 minutes, the entire group seem to be wrapping up, with only two people still viewing. At twenty minutes, I decided to call time, so that I could analyze the results with the class.

Every paper was collected from the group, even from those who obviously refused to participate. I asked each person before analysis if they had any comments on the experiment as a whole, how confident they felt about their results, and if they had any difficulties during the session. I found that many people felt unfocused and that their own personal thoughts were stopping them from receiving. Others said that they got frustrated when new ideas didn’t just pop into their heads. The results seemed to reflect these ideas, as many people wrote down “background noise” as information about the target. Background noise is a term that is used in RV sessions to describe items a viewer writes down that are somehow related to his or her experiences while in the session. For example, target number 5109-2764 recorded the following as his first few descriptive words: “chilled weather, somewhat quiet, background noise, warm feeling, smooth feeling…fast paced”. If we look at the environment of the experiment that day, we can rule these words out as any kind of hits. The day of the experiment was a very chilly November morning. The room was mostly quiet except for an annoying ventilation fan in the ceiling. There are very comfortable chairs in the room, and the room was well heated. The things 5109-2764 described were nothing more than descriptions about the room. This was the most blatant case of background noise that came out of the experiment.

One of the tested variables involves relating the target numbers to the moderator of the experiment. In this case, I placed the last four digits of my phone number and the four digits of my address as the coordinate number. By creating numbers that were related to me, I was hoping to be able to poison the results, and that the viewer would begin to find information about my current state in space. When I retrieved the results from this person, I found his page to be entirely void of words. He simply drew a stick figure in the middle with the letters “efg” by it, and some trees off in the corner. Upon analysis, it seems that this specific person was not actively participating in the session (though he assured me he was). If I give him the full benefit of the doubt, I could call his result a “hit” in the sense that the coordinate numbers did as I intended them, and he drew me by myself at the front of the room. However, I feel that this is much too generous, and that this “viewer” was not actually participating at all. This variable has remained unanswered.

Our control in this experiment was a young man who did not get a chance to read the preclass material, and thus did not know how to use the CRV technique. I assigned him to just make an intelligent guess at what the object might be. As expected this person wrote down random verbs and ultimately drew a conclusion. He ended up drawing a very nice picture of a spaceship, though I wish he had been a big more vague so that I could point out how guesses can be interpreted as a hit. Nevertheless, I think he did a good job as a control.

For simplicity in looking at variable number two (the effects of a black and white image), each person’s target was the same image. This allowed me to compare everyone’s results without violating the protocol of CRV (different targets for each viewer when there is more than one viewer working in the same area). When I polled the group of participants, they said that they received images in full color, and had absolutely no indication that the actual image was black and white. Assuming the group was actually remote viewing, this should signify that images are not seen in a literal sense. Instead, data is interpreted through the viewer’s own past experiences with that place, object, or things that are similar to that place or object. Though an actual study would do numerous trials, it seems that the black and white nature of the photos had no bearing on the images received by the viewers.

It seems the only variable that actually effected results was the complexity of the “random” number generated for the images. Not even group attitude affected the performance of others (most likely because the ones actually concentrating were oblivious to the things around them). While I found no direct hits (correct answers about the target) in the group, I did find some very close approximations. In fact, the only viewers who had any close results were those who had simple coordinate numbers. Two viewers; 0101-0101 and 0011-1100, both female were the closest what the image actually was (trash and a trash can, an example is amended at the end of this document). Viewer 0011-1100 seemed to view the areas around the trash and the actual shape of the picture itself, while viewer 0101-0101 actually seemed to hit the main targets in the picture. The following are 0101-0101’s word choices: “dark, cluttered, big objects at the bottom, square, tall, big/vast, still, beverages/liquid, red, relationship/bond, friendly yet superior, unsanitary”. If we week out what looks to be background noise or internal thoughts (red, friendly yet superior), we seem to be left with a pretty good description of the trash. With “unsanitary” being the last word she viewed, it seems like 0101-0101 was on target. However, because she included a picture that was not of the object, I could not call this item a direct hit. Her drawing of a house with a car parked in front of it seem to be a misinterpretation of some personal thought or background noise, and not a summary of her descriptive words. It should seem then that creating memorable numbers help to create good results. However, viewer 5915-5915 did not seem to attain any correct information from his viewing, and he had a very memorable number. As a continuation on this theme, during another CRV experiment I would use binary numbers to see if the results continued the way they did.

Out of the 13 people who participated (including those who gave up almost immediately), there was only one near hit, and no direct hits. If we were to take this experiment alone as a standard for remote viewing, we could reasonably say that these results are worse than chance, and that remote viewing does not exist. We know that from the scientific method that this is not a suitable number of trials to draw any kind of final conclusion, yet many skeptics like Shermer seem to ignore this principal. In his videos, he presses the audience with a very “matter of fact” tonality, especially when his experiment “proved” that remote viewing was not real. Yet, it seems he arrived at this conclusion from only one experiment, and from only two viewers. These viewers were not professionals, and did not seem to be properly trained. It should be illogical then to take his argument as truth. Shouldn’t a man of such high scientific standards want to perform more experiments with a wider range of trained professionals?

Remote Viewing classes are not designed to produce experimental data or even correct results. They’re designed to make money for those who are running it. Many people will pay over 150 dollars to take remote viewing classes or seminars if they think they can achieve results. That large sum of money is a great incentive to give these people what they want. Nobody would pay good money to show up and be told that they’re completely wrong. Thus, these RV classes must coddle the results of the new viewers in order for them to be pleased with the course, and to continue to take it. The experiment conducted here was obviously one of a different fashion. It showed that psychic phenomena can be experimentally tested in a controlled way and that results can still be obtained without influence from the instructor. I would urge Shermer and other skeptics to hold actual experiments, not demonstrations of ignorance and lack of skill. Find professional remote viewers, find STARGATE retirees, and find psychics who have build online communities. Test these experienced people on multiple trials using strict CRV protocol. Then and only then can any true answers to the validity of remote viewing be found.