Back to the Future ?

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
ohh and marv - i looked here and couldnt find your name
I was manifesting from the astral plane at the time; you won't find me on any roster. My impression also pops up in the shine on one of the shackled Leia's metal brassiers in Return of the Jedi but it's hard to spot. Naturally I'm grinning.

Malexeev...they are claiming to have left a mark on the actual photographic plate or whatever, not the actual dude's forehead.

Marv :)
 

malexeev

New Member
Marv, even better. Forget about the past or the future: "just" go by psychic means to some photo studio TODAY and alter the emulsion, while someone is being photographed. See what happens.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Dick from HRVG answered some of my questions on their forum thread here:

http://www.hrvg.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=428

daz
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
I've looked at those Daz; thanks. I must commend you on your diplomacy. The whole thing is still ludicrous as far as I'm concerned however, even more so with the knowledge that Glenn has previously attempted to go back in time and chip a petroglyph into a rock wall.

Malexeev makes a great point. I'd like to see Glenn 'willing' his initials or something into a photographic plate or whatever in the PRESENT before I'll buy any of this time travelling nonsense.

The fact that one needs to alter the compression of the image in order to make out what must be barely discernible letters doesn't help their case either. Betcha anyone can find all sorts of words/letters etc in a myriad of online pictures given a decent zoom function and some recompression settings.

Regardless of all this, the fact remains that no-one can ever prove or disprove Glenn's claims to causality. The letters were always there or they weren't.

I am dead keen on seeing this super-session of Glenn's though; sounds a good 'un. I am always up for seeing great RV sessions. Please let me know as and when it is available for er...lol...'viewing'.

Marv :)
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
I have a brief break at work here...

I may be a little woo-woo (or a lot), but I actually have no personal problem with the idea that someone can go back in time and cause a physical effect. I don't consider time-traveling nonsense personally.

I've experienced time and reality distortions that would put most people in a straightjacket, conscious telepathy, physical PK, TP contact with previous-self, all kinds of crazy-sounding stuff. I don't make a big production of that because I can't prove it to others the way I can demonstrate RV, so why even start, why bother, this is something I occasionally blog and my friends and I talk about into the night, but not something I'd ever go making big claims about, simply because there's no way to support it to others.

But in terms of 'theory'--and what is possible--I like the ideas of both time-offsets and PK, in general, and I don't dismiss that someone might accomplish such a thing, by accident or design.

'willing' his initials or something into a photographic plate or whatever in the PRESENT before I'll buy any of this time travelling
This particular event bears the same burdens that all PK-based attempts/claims do, even in science, and it isn't really the fault of the experience, it's just the nature of the thing. That is, that you must be able to demonstrate that something has changed, and while this might sound straightforward, it isn't always so.

For example in the RNG research, they measure a period(s) of time and say, "Ok, this period was less random than others so the consciousness of people caused that." But the problem is that someone had to decide what period(s) of time to measure, and the innate psi of the researcher may cause them to make decisions that support that effect. There's a couple of white papers on this, called DAT or 'Decision Augmentation Theory'. Essentially in a nutshell it is about the concept that if psi is real, that the researchers running science are as likely involving it in their decisions, setup, subject selection and more, as psychic subjects are. There are protocol points/statistical ways to deal with this -- to predict when this is really the effect and to demonstrate when it likely isn't -- but nobody seems particularly interested in that alas... maybe someday.

But this issue is applicable even to remote viewing in some respects. For example, if you do a session precognitively, and then go randomly generate a target for it, is it entirely that you did a good or bad session, or that you psychically arranged the instant-of-request so that it influenced which became the target? These things are "mental models" that a viewer has to decide for themselves, based on what paradigm is most conducive to their skill and/or sense of comfort with existing belief systems. (Those are usually two opposite things. :))

This dynamic is in bold-neon for any PK claim. In the present, if you follow a standard science protocol (which will have commonalities with a decent RV protocol), (1) something will be planned and documented ahead of time, and (2) done within a 'controlled' situation that precludes non-psi interference, assumption, etc., and (3) the effect, data, documentation, etc. secured, and then (4) later evaluated in the most objective way possible, and then (5) published with documentation and protocol inclusive, after sanity-check of course, for peer review, whether that is laymen on the internet or a peer-reviewed journal.

Unfortunately, as you note Marv, it is physically and logically impossible to prove that anything in the past has been changed. That doesn't mean it can't, it just means it can't be proved.

It is entirely possible that reality is subjective and we are all changing the past constantly, just (a) usually in smaller ways and (b) we may, on a psychic level, actually interact with others based mostly on 'the points where we agree' as this is less threatening to our sense of continuous (and contiguous!) reality.

It is also close to logically impossible to prove that anything in the present or future has changed unless it is done within a controlled protocol. This is important because this again impinges on an understanding of remote viewing, too.

This time-travel-PK-claim is in the same boat as "spontaneous psi". If someone tells you, "I totally had a psychic flash that was going to happen!" what can you say? It isn't remote viewing unless it's in protocol and that includes that it is planned in advance, done on purpose, documented before, during, and after, and that the results of the experiment must be able to be compared with the original and/or the feedback in order to validate that the effect/data is real/accurate. If any of those protocol elements are not in place -- or the situation (as in this case) makes it impossible -- then this becomes "a personal experience" but not something that science (or even other people) can touch or see reason to believe.

Personally, I would not have announced it in the way it was done. To me, it sounded like the locals were awestruck as a result of GW telling them about it personally; and this inspired one of them to go on about it on the internet because it was just so exciting -- where alas, people with somewhat less pre-existing rapport with GW had a different reaction to the claim.

I think in a field of social politics it sometimes helps to try and separate the personalities from the points. I find the retro-PK stuff very interesting on its own. This example is not well suited to that, any more than spontaneous psi is suited to remote viewing, but the idea in general is cool.

Edited to add this point: while equally unlikely, even if we assume that everything said about this is 100% true, there are still other explanations. For example, it is possible that the tasker's choice of target was subconsciously psychically based on a photo with an anomaly; and that the viewer's choice of lettering was subconsciously psychically based on an anomaly that was already there. Like I said, unlikely, but my point here is that unfortunately we just can't know either way.

The fact that one needs to alter the compression of the image in order to make out what must be barely discernible letters doesn't help their case either. Betcha anyone can find all sorts of words/letters etc in a myriad of online pictures given a decent zoom function and some recompression settings.
Hmmn. An interesting idea; reminds me of reverse-speech; might there be some visual analogy to that in digitized photographs?

QBL (Cabalah) would indirectly suggest that the universe is holographic and nearly everything carries patterns which potentially can be 'read' for information about something else. Probably many things we haven't even thought of yet.


Maybe the real lesson has to do with discretion and not making big announcements about stuff -- since in a way this is no different than the last dozen years of "psychic and remote-influence" claims made online which, I might add, even when made only as quiet discussion elsewhere, GW has been quite vocally against. This kind of puts them in the same boat. I see the psi as less a problem than the venue/approach.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Guys,
I do see lots or potential problems with this experiment like the blindness (as the tasker and one other who knew the target were in the room) and front loading part of it (trying to leave a message in the past), how to assess a change if one occured and lots of things - but I still am trying to keep an open mind until I can see all the information presented on this.

I did have a personal time travel type experience myself in a session once where the target was an Alistair Crowley house - so I do have an open mind on this happening from this experience but its all so fraught with problems.

It all helps keep things interesting though :)

thanx..

daz
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
Daz Smith said:
like the blindness (as the tasker and one other who knew the target were in the room) and front loading part of it
Well, I know I'm the double-blind protocol obsessive and all, but when it comes to PK, I'd be more than willing to ditch all of that if only someone could demonstrate it within a protocol appropriate for PK itself.

I mean if I say, "OK daz, write your name in this lipstick on that mirror" I'd be perfectly happy for the (1) pre-planning, (2) measure-before, (3) controlled during -- but without blinding -- and (4) measure-after elements of protocol to suffice.

I don't think any amount of frontloading or blinding is going to affect the legitimacy of whether or not I can go back in time or even in the present, and physically write my name (or something confusingly obscure...) on a photographic plate. If it could be done inside a decent PK protocol it'd be provable regardless of that factor, as there is no known scientific way of using 'knowledge' about something to physically affect something remote from you in time or space (so there is nothing to control for there).

The controls would mostly relate to whether the participants were unintentionallly.... "confused or in error". For that reason though, you're right that a cleaner RV-style protocol would probably be more ideal.

Then again it sounded like a spontaneous thing to me--not unthought of, since they have posts on their forum going back years talking about going back into the past to influence the future--but unplanned, and I've had plenty of out of protocol, unplanned experiences that I can't prove but I still find interesting enough to tell my friends, and convincing enough to influence my philosophies.
 

LD

Member
Staff member
Malexeev's comment about making an image on a photographic plate in the present reminded me, this isn't a new idea (except for traveling into the past to do it and making the image a totally random lol.) In Jeffery Mishlove's book, "The Roots of Consciousness" (Random House/The Bookworks - 1975,) he has a couple pages on alleged "thoughtography." Basically imprinting photographic plates with a image through PK.

I scanned the excerpt because I'm too lazy to type the whole thing out right for reference right now. Hope Mr. Mishlove doesn't mind.









If Glen were to repeat the experiment but make it extremely public beforehand, show everybody the targeted photo from the past so we could all examine and save a copy to our hard drives, then go into the past and alter it so significantly and dramatically that there would be no question whatsoever that the photo wasn't the same when we all saw it and saved it to our computers before he "altered" it, that would be impressive. I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen any time soon though lol.



P.S.
I did have a personal time travel type experience myself in a session once where the target was an Alistair Crowley house
The only time I ever felt like a person was actually 'looking back at me' in session, I saw the head of a completely bald man staring strait at me with wide eyes and a hard look on his face. I was sure he was looking right at me. FB was a photo of an older, completely bald, wide eyed Aleister Crowly. Creepy lol.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Would be interesting to experience the paradox. What if someone went back and drew a circle around the lettering? Then we would look at my post and say why would you do that there is already a circle drawn around the lettering?

But perhaps, all earlier posts would have been modified to include the fact that there was a circle drawn around the lettering?

I don't know, it was so much easier to understand the child ghost putting hand prints in the Jello at my grandmother's than trying to figure out how to prove this, are they so much different?

Mycroft
 

blackcat

New Member
LD,your proposed methodology may not be possible due to paradox. You make an assumption that we can take the photo and look at it and not see anything, and then it would be possible for someone to go back in time and change it so that suddenly the alteration shows up in the now whereas before it did not show up in the now. But if someone goes back in time, then the alteration would have always been there, or at least, that is how I see time. I could be wrong, but I think any methodology to test RI would have to at least consider the possible nature of time and be set up so that the nature of time itself would probably not prevent it.

Anyway, it's probably not necessary to add the time paradox to the experiment at first. I think first, the goal would be to show that alteration of a photo is possible. I am guessing that Glenn decided to use one of these old style photos thinking the slow exposure time would help him. I don't necesarily see it that way. I think one could easily target any instance in time, no matter how small. I think you could do many RI sessions, all on one instant in time, ie the instant of a modern day photo exposure. Assuming that, then modern day photos could be used. A trusted neutral (if such a person exists) could be scheduled to take a photo and then Glenn or whomever could attempt to RI it and once he felt the RI was done, the photo could be analyzed for a predetermined publically announced code word placed in a predetermined place. As controls, other photos could also be analyzed. Assuming the RI worked, one would expect only the chosen RIed photo to show the code word. The trusted neutral could do the analysis and keep the other photos a secret to prevent potential RI sabotage by others.

Of course, I would guess that people would most likely do their own private experiments first to make sure it was possible before trying a public experiment. If the RI of a photo seemed to work, then one could try more complex experiments like viewing old photos. In fact, should the photo RI work decently, then would could potentially use the technique to learn more about the nature of time itself!
-Eva
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
I am guessing that Glenn decided to use one of these old style photos thinking the slow exposure time would help him.
Apparently he was 100% blind to the target and thus would have had no idea that there was a slow exposure photography set-up involved.

btw I like your proposed experimental design and have worked out a way to run it whilst avoiding the paradoxical loop. In this case we have no need for a 'trusted neutral' as the photograph we are going to try and effect already exists but won't be seen by any of the RIers until AFTER they have purportedly installed the code message to it. In other words it should already contain our code word....it is now up to us to put it there.

Confirmation will come with the eventual selection and display of the photograph we are aiming for. If our message is there, we've done it, if it isn't, we failed.

Let's all have a go at this. Check out the experimental design on this separate thread:

http://www.dojopsi.info/forum/index.php?topic=3823.0

Marv :)
 

blackcat

New Member
Hehe, Marv, according to my hastily conceived plan, you are still using the 'trusted neutral.' But you have taken on the position yourself. The point of the trusted neutral is that all sides involved, both skeptics and the viewers, feel you would not cheat either way. Why I said such may not exist is that I couldn't off hand think of anyone that is well known and trusted by all the well known groups, RV being so cliquish as it is. ;-P

By the way, I also think the paradox issue still exists. We are just dodging it by not scrutinizing the photo in advance, which I think is wise. No need to add extra variables before the basic concept has even been tested. Now you just need to pick out a logical symbol or word and an RI technique. I am guessing you have already done so since there is apparently an experiment pinned to the top of the board. I will amble on over now to check it out.
-Eva
 
PJ wrote:
Unfortunately, as you note Marv, it is physically and logically impossible to prove that anything in the past has been changed. That doesn't mean it can't, it just means it can't be proved.

It is entirely possible that reality is subjective and we are all changing the past constantly, just (a) usually in smaller ways and (b) we may, on a psychic level, actually interact with others based mostly on 'the points where we agree' as this is less threatening to our sense of continuous (and contiguous!) reality.

It is also close to logically impossible to prove that anything in the present or future has changed unless it is done within a controlled protocol. This is important because this again impinges on an understanding of remote viewing, too.
If the effects are tiny, it would be hard, but not impossible to "prove", prove to most everyone's satisfaction, that is. If the effects are significant and obvious, then, sure, you could prove that RIing done in the recent past (that is, earlier than this present nanosecond) had changed something already existing in the more distant past. At one end of the scale, replace Andrew Jackson's face on the $20 bill. Would be a nice touch. :) Or, as mentioned, change something in one of the Star Trek movies - something well-known now world-wide. If anyone saw the 'new version' it would be all over the news. That would be, for all practical purposes, proof. The kind of proof that would really count. Other targets: overlay some famous photo in an obvious way, like the Abbey Road album cover where the Fab 4 stroll across the street, or the Roswell message held by Col. Blanchard.

Not to interrupt Marv's experiment; but if successful, this could be a worthy successor... :eek:

Jon
 

psijunkie

New Member
Why not try a different blinding protocol. Entirely remove human interaction from the initial process.

1)Have a machine take a given number(maybe 50) of IDENTICAL, randomly chosen pictures.
2)Randomly sort the pictures into two groups - experimental and control. The experimental group is to have a message imprinted in it through psychic means. The other group of pictures is to serve as a control.
3)AFTER this has taken place, task someone to RI the experimental group of pictures.
4)Examine the experimental and control groups. IF the RI process was successful then ONLY the experimental group of pictures should contain the message.

The advantages of this would be:
1)Avoids the complicating factor of the time paradox because nobody ever observes the pictures until after the RI process.
2)The same, identical pictures are used in both groups so there is no problem of inadvertently biasing the results beforehand by 'choosing the right ones' so to speak.

Thoughts?
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Psi-Junkie...the fact that you are attempting to travel back in time and imprint on the original photograph as it is being taken means that should you be successful ALL photos whether control or experimental will bear this mark. Likewise ALL photos won't if you fail.

Jon the same holds for your Star Trek example...it would be impossible to spot a 'difference' effected by a retro-active RIer because that difference would ALWAYS have been there and hence there would be no 'difference' to spot. The original reel would contain that one RI effect and thus every copy since would contain that RI effect and thus me telling you that I caused it is like...um....GW claiming to have added the words A HEADS W to his photograph. Bit silly.

Marv :)
 

psijunkie

New Member
Multiple copies(such as photocopies, scans) of the same picture raises the problem that if you change one, you change them all... And also the problem that if a human has seen the pictures, he will say after the retroactive-RI that they have 'always' been that way.

Instead, a machine would take a picture of the same thing multiple times. If the idea is that the retro-RI acts at the time of exposure, you have multiple exposures and the possibility of either being influenced or not. In this protocol, nobody would see the photographs until after the retro-RI had taken place, which removes the problem of someone remembering that they had 'always' been that way.
 

blackcat

New Member
Psi junkie, yes very very very smart! Two thumbs up on that idea! Multiple different pictures of the same thing taken only seconds apart is a great plan. Some or maybe just one or two would be used as the target and the others would be controls.

Now wouldn't it be hilarious if they all showed effect anyway! ;-) I would assume the intent would be to influence the way the photo develops, but I guess it would be possible that one could be affecting the reality the pictures were taking a picture of. Now that would be even more weird!

Still a great great idea and the best idea for controls I have heard of yet. It would also help ameliorate to an extent the idea that the person picking out the target was subconsciously preselecting a photo without knowing it. Theoretically, the pictures should be really close to identical. Now it would not TOTALLY eliminate the potential that the picture taker unknowingly preselected the angle and the second and the tiniest detail to yield the desired result, but still, it would make it a lot harder for that to occur. Whatever the case, if one were to get results using those controls, you may not know exactly what was going on but you would know it was something darn cool!

And Jon, I agree with Marv. Most likely if you go back in time 100 years ago and change something, then that thing would be in that changed state for the entire 100 years which would be during your entire lifetime and so you would never have seen the thing before the change occurred. So you would not see change before your eyes, it would already be that way from your perspective. I know they often use that idea that it changes before your eyes on TV shows, but I think mostly because that makes for better entertainment, not because scientists think it works that way. But even on TV, often it is only the time traveler that notices the change and when he/she gets back to his/her current time, to everyone else living there, the new reality has always been the reality and they have no knowledge of any change. So in our case, it would be like someone just happens to keep picking photos that just happen to have the planned change already in em. That is why PJ was saying it would be hard to tell time travel ri from just the psi ability to pick a photo that already has the planned change in it. Cuz from our perspective, they would show up the same way. Of course, either way, it is still some kind of psi so still would be interesting.
-Eva
 

Mycroft

Active Member
blackcat said:
Psi junkie, yes very very very smart! Two thumbs up on that idea! Multiple different pictures of the same thing taken only seconds apart is a great plan.
Change a single frame in the Wizard of Oz, right when the witch starts to melt, etch the frame with "take that B..".

Now that don't run too far with this but it might be one explanation why the Zapruder film looks so hacked..

You can always go back and re-invent the wheel like I mentioned earlier in the thread where they prayed over medical records sorted randomly into two stacks one to be prayed over and one for a control and went back to check on the outcomes of the patients, those whose medical records were prayed over fared much better. The catch is that the prayers didn't take place until 10 years after all the patients had been discharged.

You could do a similar study using other types of outcome based statistics. Russell Targ's daughter Elisabeth did a wonderful study about distance healing people with HIV over a three year period. Distance or time it makes no difference.

There are no glass ceilings in my world.

Mycroft
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Psi_Junkie said:
Multiple copies(such as photocopies, scans) of the same picture raises the problem that if you change one, you change them all... And also the problem that if a human has seen the pictures, he will say after the retroactive-RI that they have 'always' been that way.

Instead, a machine would take a picture of the same thing multiple times. If the idea is that the retro-RI acts at the time of exposure, you have multiple exposures and the possibility of either being influenced or not. In this protocol, nobody would see the photographs until after the retro-RI had taken place, which removes the problem of someone remembering that they had 'always' been that way.
So... it's almost an analogy to when you have these multiple particles separate but close together, and you have this thing with two slits (options), and you send the particles forward and then you see after the fact if consciousness was able to affect which -- oh, wait... ;D

PJ
 
Eva wrote:
And Jon, I agree with Marv. Most likely if you go back in time 100 years ago and change something, then that thing would be in that changed state for the entire 100 years which would be during your entire lifetime and so you would never have seen the thing before the change occurred.
Maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough.

Don't go back 100 years in time. Use something that is now in the collective memory of millions of people. Announce you are going to change something that is well known today, like what appears to be in the Blanchard telegram, or the face on the $20 bill, or any number of things. If you could overlay or make any other readily noticeable change, then that would reliably show that it could be done. That would be proof enough. IMO, you don't need all RNG's or other attempts to get round various time-loop and DAT problems with this.

If after an announcement, on Larry King, say, that this is what you were going to do, people woke up one day and saw Marty McFly's picture on the $20 bill, or "Marv was here" on Col. Blanchard's telegram, or played the clip again and heard Kennedy say, "Ich bin Berliner" (rather than Ich bin ein Berliner) - Mission Accomplished! (Well begun anyway...)

I'm not saying this is at all doable. I'm just saying this seems like the simplest way to try to prove you can RI something "in the past". You rely on the existing collective memory of millions.

Jon
 
Top