NSA said:We can armchair debate this all day long but the bottom line is
You wont knowit wont work till youve tried it :
I have tried it. With and without viewer permission. Circa 2003 when all this came out. My comments are based on that, and of several other people I know on and offline trying it, plus of a few people I know who deliberately experimented with similar concepts more formally trying it as well.
Pretty much it always comes out to the same thing -- can two people have rapport? Sure. Can one initiate it? Sure. Can one force it upon someone else and affect their activity with it? Depends on both the people in question. It's a matter of "Which is to be Master, is all."
RV might be a new term, but human power dynamics have been around since the dawn of time and don't seem to have changed much.
There are many positive aspects to come out of doing experiements of this nature and its not all doom, gloom and negativity. You just need to think outside the box.
Existing positive aspects of 'rapport' are things like viewer+monitor/interviewer. That is psi in tandem. Unless you screw it up by informing the monitor of course.
Besides, it's a beautiful excuse for nobody demonstrating competence in RV, and for nobody demonstrating real RV work, which to me just ties right into several 'agendas' working against the development of this field (some from within it).
Another example of leaning towards the negative aspect to practical experimentation of RV. [...] You have to RV in the first place to prove an hypothesis works either way so no its not an excuse not to veiw in public.
It IS an excuse people make for not viewing in public, for years I've heard person after person MAKING this excuse for not viewing in public.
Not a damn thing can be done in this field unless people get off their ass and VIEW -- and view in such a way that like every other subject on earth, we can "congregate" and encourage and experiment and get creative and give each other ideas and more--there is basically nothing I can think of that has as poor a social sharing situation as remote viewing has. As long as the field en masse is mostly afraid to do anything publicly for a long list of reasons -- including the infamous "retrotasking" -- we are not going forward very fast.
If a viewer competently demonstrates he viewed a target that he was unaware of existing and not his intended target there is still a lesson to be learnt from that. All we have at the moment is talk and theories with no actual data to back it all up mixed with a paranoid and somewhat irrational fear towards basic experimentation
Well I think it's more that if people think it's a legitimate problem then they have no desire to risk looking worse for failing data than they already risk by doing something publicly, or, in other cases it just makes some people feel like "why bother, why even try, in that situation?" I don't agree with the philosophy, but I think if people genuinely expect it's an issue they are helpless to prevent, then I see their reason for wanting to avoid it.
All you would need to do at the end is see what target the viewer got. Real target or decoy. It isnt rocket science.
I suspect you want a little more time evaluating ARV or retrotasking, which would make you realize how in fact, it kind of IS rocket science to make an intelligent, fairly objective, "clear decision" about one target vs. another, unless the session is (a) VERY brief and (b) VERY on-target (for either). Most layman viewing, particularly in method-based sessions, can quite easily match a huge % of any randomly selected target, even without RT involved.