pjrv : Messages : 3592-3598 of 4038
#3592 From: "Glyn"
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:42 am
Subject: Post Experiments - A few thoughts glynis5799
>It would be easier to disprove any likely value of "retro-tasking
>in an analysis setting" than it would be to prove it worked or
>didn't. In other words, in all these trials, whether the viewer is
>willing or aware or not, the retrotasker can SEE the info, and
>search for it in the session.
>In the real world, they would not >KNOW the info they were searching
>for--or why search for it?--and hence it'd be impossible to know
>WHICH data in a session was applicable to the retro-tasked target
>and in what way. So even if RT is workable, regardless of the
>details, I don't see that it's usable! PJ
I think a team using this method could perform analysis yes...that
would be interesting.
There are some things left untested, as Bill pointed out in another
mail. We haven't tried to retro-task anyone who doesn't know, or
anyone who is unwilling. Slightly different things, but both a 'no-
no' for me. I said at the outset I wouldn't do that, and I won't. I
won't risk losing the trust of others, because if I lie about that
then people would rightfully wonder what else I am lying about! I
am 'above board' and do not want to what credibility I do have..which
probably isn't a lot ;-). Also, I do not want guilt cluttering up my
future memory. LOL!
However, I have dozens and dozens of my own sessions filed away, and
I can carry on using those to try and follow something that appears
to be happening...to see if it stands up. I also want to keep an eye
on how my old session results may or may not have been affected. What
we are seeing (an apparent affect on a session in the past), is
intriguing, but may not be what it appears to be.
PJ, you mentioned that you didn't think retro-tasking is useable even
if it does work. Well I think I'm gonna disagree, it would be highly
useful for getting round one major bug-bear IMO..but it's too early
to say for sure, so I won't cos I would really be setting myself up
for grade A ridicule (more than I am already) ;-).
However,I'm beginning to think that there may not be any advantage in
using the sessions of others over one's own...unless of course you're
not an RVer, or are a darned lazy one. :-)..or maybe you think the
other person's FM is better than your own (ie they are a better
viewer than you...in which case they may spot you at it anyway). Mmmm
there may be an advantage after all....but you know what I mean; it
doesn't *have* to be someone else's session IMO.
Another thing to test would be..what affect is there if you did
an 'ordinary' session knowing that you were going to RT it in the
future..but tried to focus tightly on the *intended* feedback?
And there is that unsettling BIG question....Are some of my
past 'totally missed' sessions that way because I'm a lousy
viewer...or because I was going to retro-task them (even though at
the time I didn't know it), and during the session I was not focused
enough and therefore accessed the RT 'feedback'? Sounds like a damned
good excuse for missing my past targets eh? LOL! Maybe I should bear
that in mind in future ;-).
I'll let you know what happens with my experiments, but I'm not going
to post them here as I go along, because folk are probably thoroughly
fed up with hearing about FM by now.
That's it for now..all the experiments (apart from
completed and published here, even if they have not appeared yet.
Kind Regards, and A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!!!!
Big Smiles from,
Reply | Forward
#3598 From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:09 am
Subject: Re: Post Experiments - A few thoughts pjgaenir
> I think a team using this method could perform analysis yes...that
> would be interesting.
How, specifically, if you did NOT know the information for the tasked-
target, would you know which data from a session to apply to the
In a session retro-tasked, one can see that some data is correct for
it, some is not, some is but used differently (words that can be both
nouns and verbs for example, or both shapes and motions). It is
intriguing, though I feel this may say more about the english
language than about psychic retrotasking. ;-)
We can match a session to a second target because we are looking at
the target, looking at the session, and looking for points of
correlation. Hell, I'm the allegory queen, I can do this with nearly
any two separate things in the universe.
How would we know what data to choose from that session, and how to
interpret/use it (ref the multiple ways of using words I mentioned
above), about a target where we genuinely did not know the answer?
What method of analysis could you use for this? To make it useable
in the real world for finding out stuff not known?
I am perfectly open to having my mind changed about this, that
happens regularly about everything psi. And about reality, even.
But I can't get over the feeling that the whole question of whether
retro-tasking is possible is just moot for the "real world". As a
theoretical construct with psychically connected people, or a tasker
in common, and most importantly a second target where the info is
already known, it is intellectually interesting. But it doesn't seem
usable as a tool for finding info one doesn't already know.
I'm open to ideas on how this could be done.
It's like this: you or Liz take a session of the other, any session
at any point in time. I have a target. I will tell you it is an
event-result directly involving at least one human and manmade
objects. Great. Now, you tell me, as the analyst, which data out of
that session done on a different target, applies to the target I have
selected for the retrotasking?
Do you see what I mean? Do you find yourself going, "How the hell
would I know, without seeing the target?!" Well that's just my
point. It took me months to understand what Joe was saying about
this. He said, fine but you wouldn't have information that you didn't
already know. I just couldn't grok it. Sort of by accident I finally
figured it out. There is no way to determine WHAT information in a
retrotasked session applies to the second target, or in what way it
And since one cannot separate the psychic "decision the analyst made
on what target to choose and what session to retro-task" from the
equation, there is not even any way to demonstrate that it's the
retrotasking working, rather than simply the second tasker being psi
enough for decisions about which two things to associate. (Same
thing as the random number generator thing you know. You can't prove
micro-PK, as you cannot disprove that the experimenter did not
psychically choose a moment for measuring that was biased toward an
If you can think of a way to analyze this kind of thing, I really
want to talk about it. It's interesting to me. But I'm fresh out of
ideas for how to apply it. :-)