9 to 1

Project Home Page

RVwebForum

TKR @the Dojo Psi

Help make it possible for everyone.

RV CHAT

Monday Nights
9:30-11:30pm Eastern
6:30-8:30pm Pacific
dojopsi.com/chat/

Weekly RV Chat

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

The Home Made Viewer

P.I.A.

TKR Blog

Noetic Vision

Serious Kilowatt

Red Cairo

Cosmic Spoon

Psychic Journey

Psyforce

Remote Review

MindBlogging

BadMoJoe

Dojo Blog

Firedocs RV Blog

the McMoneagles

LFR/CSL

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[wizopeva]

I've often heard it said by the CRV camp that if you compare the sessions of 10 viewers and 9 of them say for instance that a car is red and 1 of them says a car is black, then there is actually an EQUAL chance (if just based on that info) that the car is red or black.  In other words, congruence among sessions means nothing.  Apparently, the track record of the viewer on color skill would be the only impt thing.  

THis brings up a load of questions for me.  First of all, it seems like a stretch that 9 viewers would say the same thing just by chance.  So assuming the example is not an exageration for effect, why would 9 viewers say the same thing?  

Could it be some kind of telepathic overlay that they are talking about?  If so, can't TO be avoided with proper protocols?  I'd love for some CRV expert to explain this to me, cuz to be heretically honest, all the times I've seen a bunch of viewers agree on something, they did in fact turn out to be correct on it.  :-)
-E

[Fire]

I'm not an expert, but I'll put in my two cents.

The data example is too simplistic I think.  

If the RV sessions actually provide data like 'red car' as opposed to 'vehicle' and 'red' -- which may not be affiliated with each other -- and numerous viewers provide that, I would take it fairly seriously.  

That doesn't mean it's sure to be accurate but it's likely there is *something* causing the viewers to all say that.  Now it might turn out there are other influences (some subtle or psychological) that really caused the correlation, but the fact is that there IS a correlation--it may not be accurate but there is a REASON.  Usually, if the data is specific, and there are no other obvious interrelationship, psychological type issues that might affect the situation, it's worthy of being taken seriously.

When the 9 vs. 1 data example really comes into play is usually not something like, "one person got BLACK car and 9 people got RED car."  

It's usually more like, "One person got a human standing hidden off to the side watching 'through' something (binoculars? camera?) and the other 9 didn't get that".  The one is as likely to be right.

Or, "the 10 describe something mechanical in motion, and 9 think it's probably a vehicle and the 10th *specifically thinks it is not*."  The one is as likely to be right.

This example plays the 'subtle aol' issue up, because we're all humans and likely to have some of the same aol's. I don't just use that term to mean a specific data point which is affected of course, but rather, subtle psychological 'thinking patterns' that may not even be recognized and hence may change how and what we perceive (even in subtle ways)--this would be an example of one of the "other influences" causing multiple viewers to have the same inaccurate data.

Usually when data is something specific, the issue isn't viewers disagreeing, it's just that some get it and some don't.  When they specifically disagree on what seems to be the same point or context, that is when the 9 vs. 1 comes into play.

The independent nature of most really good viewers, the creative thinking that seems to be related as well, both suggest that even outside RV, that person may be someone who sees things others don't. (No I don't mean aliens LOL, I mean, is aware of situational issues and details most others aren't.)  Or, who sees things differently than others tend to.  It is this sort of wildcard mental profile common in good viewers that is part of the reason the lab (which uses kickass viewers) found this result, far as I know.  

I was just talking about this in an email earlier... even in a session, all the stuff that seems to fit together may be accurate, but it if you get a totally offbeat term in quotation marks, at least for me, that usually really nails something, and something outside the 'pattern' that my mind was otherwise moving in.  That is spontaneous, who knows when it will happen.  

The viewer out of 10 that happens to get data which either isn't in the other sessions or seems to contradict the others may, like the others, have had the same general mental pattern brought about by other data, but then had a spontaneous insight that acquired that one piece that doesn't seem to fit.  Sometimes it is the things that don't seem to fit or make sense when everything else does that are the most important.

PJ

[waterway]

There is still this nagging notion in the back o' my noggin that RV data doesn't have as much to do with viewing the tasked event as it has to do with interpersonal meaning for the viewers.  

The 9 viewers got the same data because the need to connect through their shared experience was more vital to the organ providing the RV data...whatever that is... if it exists... than correct RV data about the actual tasked event.  

The RV moment, the experience of RVing, is about meaning and significance.... and if viewing the correct aspects of the tasked event provides the significant meaning during the session, that is what will happen.  If other , more personally meaningful experience OTHER than correct RV data is to had, that is what will come out of it.  

I am not saying TOL and masking and all that don't exist.

I am saying that perhaps, the subconscious is more interested in the interpersonal, meaningful aspects of the RV session than identifying correctly the tasked event.  

So there is how "intent" fits in, it labels the outcome with more significance.

Or I could be completely misguided here.... just let me know.

[PJ]

That's what I call the 'validation as feedback' issue. If we're all viewing for what we (even subconsciously) most want/need, then there are many things besides objective accuracy that are going to drive our viewing.  It's also what I meant in the above post about "interrelationship, psychological type issues".

Perhaps this is a serious consideration and it's part of why McMoneagle has always been so insistent about RV being a way of getting to know yourself and becoming more 'aware' of yourself.  Maybe part of that ... personal development is getting to know one's tendencies in these areas and working to either change oneself or arrange circumstance so issues that would support anything beyond objective accuracy are minimized.

PJ

[waterway]

Jeez Louise.... so what you are saying is that people whoze brains are not overwrought with distracting agenda items... are better RVers?  So unusually healthy, self-actualized people can get better RV info without it being tainted by whatever "issues" the viewer might otherwise have.

Hmmm..... this certainly would explain why Patanjali warned of psychic distractions during one's spiritual evolution, and why spiritually enlightened people throughout history have also been more "psychic".  It actually explains a lot.  

And you are not just talking about Swamis and Gurus, you are talking about average joes who have taken the time to clean our their closets of mental clutter....  things you and I can do.

You can read through the books by some of big hitters and see that their RV journey is a spiritual evolution journey, so I see your point as a very good one.

[wizopeva]

Well one reason I posted that is because the tenent generally is expressed in JUST that simplistic a format, without explanation.  So I'd like an explanation according to CRV lore.  Sure, I've got some theories.  But if it's TO, then shouldn't there be feedback and protocol techniques to follow that would solve the prob and invalidate the theory?  If it has to do with the viewer wanting to match up, why not match up with the correct answer?  And why would the conscious mind care if the viewer never knows what the other viewer's got?  Because keeping viewers blind to other viewers in ops targets is in my understanding a standard practice.  

So what exactly ARE they talking about when they throw around this tenent?  And as I've said, I have yet to see any case where a number of viewers clearly agree on something and then it comes out totally wrong.  Is this a situation that only occurs in ops targets and not in practice targets?  If so, why is that?  IF not, why have I never ever seen it if it's a basic tenent.  Has anyone else ever seen this occur either within one viewer's sessions or across diff viewers?  If so, how common is it?  
-E

[Tigr50]

Hi Eva, and all:

I work for a company that deals with randomness vs. non-randomness daily, because we are trying to develop a means to see if consciousness affects randomness (using true random number generators).  Now I asked the "numbers" Guru about this 9 to 1 topic, and he first of all said that 10 RVers is not statistically significant--try 100 at least.  Also, red is a preferential color for cars in general for most people, and also associated with certain kinds of behavior.  But oddly enough, if you live in Roswell, NM like we do, the preference for cars is white--i.e. there are regional preferences.  It wouldn't surprise me that 9 out of 10 people off the street here would randomly say a car in question is white.   It's very possible that you need to compare say, a police or witness report with RV infomation, to get a "blind" confirmation.  But if you are in the same room with the cop that took the report, you may pick up what he or she knows telepathically and just feed it back.  It happens.  I know.
--Deb

[jimk]

I guess this is kinda along the same lines with what I posted on HRVG's site a couple of days ago.  I'll just repost here and see if anyone has some info I am looking for.

I've been trying to find examples of analytical reports online from other schools of RV but all I found so far was from the CRV manual, so I'll take it from there.

Source:http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/answers/docs/term-man.html#analysis

What we call low-level analysis in HRVG is basically consensus reporting, where similar data items reported by 2 or more viewers are considered more pertinent to target than a single viewer's data.

I never understood why this method was particularly error prone, until I read the following:

"While consensus reporting makes for a well-organized and well-written report, it has proven time and again to be extremely error prone. It is not unusual for ten viewers to perceive one thing, with an eleventh perceiving something which contradicts them, and to find out later that the one was correct and the ten were wrong. The "reason" (excuse) which is usually given is that the ten were "picking up on each other's thoughts (neighbor's CAT)" Consensus reporting is so error prone because the analyst or report writer, unlike the viewers, usually knows many of the facts of the case, and tends to pick through the viewers' information, pulling out and reporting only that which fits his predetermined beliefs (STRAY CATS) about the case. If something reinforces what the analyst has already decided, it gets reported. If it goes against what the analyst has already decided, it gets dropped out of the report. In effect, when consensus reporting is used, it negates the use of the viewers, completely. Whatever the reason or excuse, the fact remains that consensus reporting just does not work"

***

Did you catch it? The conclusion is basically that it won't work because the analyst or report writer is not blind to target. Why on Earth is the analyst NOT kept blind to target?

I beg to differ with the conclusion of what was said. I believe that as a low-level analytical tool, consensus analysis is a very good way of extracting congruent data from multiple sessions. But the analyst MUST be blind to target.

I have personally analyzed a number of large projects and very rarely, if ever, have I seen 5 or more viewers all report the same 'bad' data. But even if they do, the primary responsibility of data collection always goes back to the individual viewer and his/her ability to remote view. I don't want to elevate analysis or other unsubstantiated phenomena to the level where it stands as an excuse for bad data. But some people seem to have a compulsive need to blame their bad data on everything but themselves.

I would be more than greatful if someone could either PEM me (mj001jk@email.com) or post here some examples of statistical analysis and reporting ("Analytic Filtering") as it was used on a real project. I am really trying to figure out some things about analysis and this is one big piece of the puzzle that is missing.

So to all of you that have done analysis on any projects out there, please let me know how you went about doing it, the more details the better.

Thanks.

Jim K.

[jimk]

It was just pointed out to me that what I quoted was not from the CRV manual, my mistake, I thought it was, or rather I didn't look around enough to figure out that it wasn't :-)

Jim K.

[PJ]

I'm impressed you found that actually.  I don't think it's linked to anything right now.  That's from the old version of firedocs RV, which still exists but is usually only found through search engines or really old links.  That particular page is from the P>S>I Terminology Manual by Lyn Buchanan.  Although Lyn teaches CRV, his manuals are his own.  The official CRV manual (fwiw) is a totally diff doc. -- PJ