daz said:
Nobody said it wasn't a good effort. Nobody said it wasn't interesting.
True - but
nobody anywhere in any of the discussions about this project both here and elsewhere had yet said any of this either. 99 times out of 100 within this field its always lets focus on the negative. Show me one comment, one discussion that mentions these - just one?
I'll take your word on it. Alas as I am only 'here' --and that like 60 seconds a day sometimes -- I'm not aware of the discussions on all the other forums and lists and groups about the subject. I don't even know much besides the fragments posted here several eons ago. I asked a couple people way back if there was a clear outline of the protocol somewhere online, but they didn't know. Personally, I can only comment on what I see, and as far as an overall project (eg to discuss the merits of its altruism or glory) I like to see the protocol in detail to feel like there's any evaluating of it from the outside.
Those little tidbits (major quake/LAX destroyed, vs. minor quake nearby) are the only things I've seen here at the moment so it's all I addressed. Is there a detailed doc that goes through the protocol for this? Perhaps more people would have more discussion of more than a few tidbits -- like "the prediction on the internet about LAX" -- if more people were exposed to more than that?
And from a viewers point of view I cant be held responsible for poor analysis - as far as I'm concerned I nailed that and all the control targets in the study.
I think your personal involvement here makes you a little defensive, but I guess that's understandable.
Predicting quakes in a territory that has them *constantly* would not be much of a prediction either, although if it were specific enough to size and date that would be a very good example at least. So, predicting a huge one in one place and getting a tiny one in a nearby place, 'semi-near' in date, is just not a good match. The probabilities are too high; even guessing might work.
Oh come on its not like the experiment was looking for an earthquake in LA - it just happened across one in the data - all the data.
I find that interesting on its own merits, but don't know the detail; all I heard about was 'the LAX prediction on the internet'. Maybe next time predictions are made, some better (as in more detailed) publicity for them should be passed around or linked to. Then anybody 'hearing the prediction' would at least be able to see some of the details -- what it "really" said, the overall project, the protocol, etc. in a capsule form like a press release. Given the effort y'all are putting into this it seems worth making something like that.
he predicted a major earthquake in an area - the area of rv focus within a time window and it happened just not to the scale he got from the analysis (which we would ALL analyse differently) - now that's a lot of pluses.
I respect your opinion on this, we'll just have to disagree--I am FROM southern California and I assure you that earthquakes are so regular that it's like predicting that it will rain in Spring or Fall in the Ozarks.... yeah. It's gonna happen pretty near in space or time. The thing is that doesn't mean it wasn't psychic, it probably is, though how/why that data is another story; just that to me it doesn't help RV to brag about 'hits' on things people really could throw a dart at a calendar or map of southern CA and be right about.
Anyway, I must completely misunderstand -- and oddly enough in these messages I still haven't seen you mention it -- what the target WAS? Did every viewer go into sessions knowing they were describing the weather? What specifically at LAX (I believe that was the target location right?) was the tasker looking to find?
(Would going into a project on climate change build in a sort of chronic T.O./AOL regarding negative things I wonder...)
I have to admit that Brown being both the tasker and evaluator (not analyst since he knew the task) and many of the viewers probably having some T.O. issues with him of course, is so shades-of-Dames that it kinda makes me wary... I suppose that doesn't mean that the viewers won't succeed despite that though.
I must have not seen all those positive comments about this project in my inbox, and online
Well I'm sorry about that. I'm thinking though, that like I said above, perhaps there are many places you hang out online where there is great detail about this and it was discussed all over, but I've only heard some passing references to it early on, and this stuff.
Most subjects are more likely to be discussed in detail if the people in conversational areas are aware of the detail. Did Courtney post the detail protocol etc.? Or is it just a private group thing?
As I said it makes me think its not worth the bother doing things in public and sharing
Well it's been 13 years I've been in this field now and there has been very, very little in public for anybody to comment on this far, assuming you do not count insanity, insanity, insanity, and oh yeah, insanity.
There was HRVG's reports which were very interesting, but I believe that I and everybody else I knew at the time considered them single-blind, since the viewers themselves at times said so and that was a given then (...until Atwater's visit...) so I didn't comment because I didn't respect the protocol enough to validate it and I didn't want to say anything negative. Unfortunately nobody else commented either until they complained about that and decided they wouldn't post any more. ('Course that was years ago and I haven't a clue what's up anywhere now. Just haven't got time alas.)
There've been sessions posted publicly in the TKR Window Gallery, I've commented on many of those. There've been a few things now and then posted here on the forum and most of 'em that I've seen I've commented on, including your own just a couple days ago. I think it's important to support viewers and public work.
I just don't necessarily think one should be dysfunctionally forced to make target-'hit' matches they don't think are so, and if they don't want to, I don't think it should be taken as an attack on the viewers, tasker, team, overall project, etc.
I remember when Dave's team did this TV viewing. The target was -- boy this is fuzzy memory now, sorry if I mess it up -- a guy on a motorcycle and a 12 mile ride through the city. The main data people were enthused about wasn't the guy, the bike, the ride, or the city, but a picture on the T-shirt of the show assistant who helped the guy get on the motorcycle before he took off. When some people pointed out that while interesting, that example probably shouldn't be considered much of a hit on the intended target, and that a '12 miles of city experience' target might not be ideal protocol for tasking either (this in the viewer's defense!), other people freaked out a little, insisting that all this was SO negative and 'attacking Dave' and so on. But it wasn't; it was just fair (and it didn't even mention him!). I only remember this because not long ago I archived all my posts from the stargate list circa '02-06 which was really... enlightening as a refresher. My one observation being that "nothing changes". :
Anyway. I do agree that more positive really should be in place. I can build stuff to help people post sessions, I can cheer on the sessions I see people post that I think are good, but that's just me and I'm just one person.
When it comes to someone's evaluation of "what session data means", that's a hellishly hard job everybody knows, and I see NO SHAME IN BEING WRONG when it comes to remote viewing -- everybody is sometimes about any given role and that is an important part of learning! -- but what is 'announced as prediction' is kind of where the discernment comes in there.
Anyway, certainly nobody is going to learn from it probably if discussions are never allowed for it. There's so many examples viewers and scientists from the lab have given me over the years, and Ingo makes ref to this too at times in his writings, where they discovered a certain way that things were being done -- in the protocol, physically or even mentally on the part of the tasker or viewer, and sometimes it was wrong or misinterpreted data that helped point them to it, to figure it out. If nobody'd been able to critically evaluate the results, or if 'sorta almost close' was 'on target' for them, most of that never would have been figured out.
Many things that laymen think are problems (...such as serial displacement, telepathic overlay, etc.) are problems that a clean protocol and disciplined thinking on the part of all involved will avoid or resolve in the first place. But focus on it and validate it, and it can become the overwhelming norm. That's an issue of process they learned over 20 years ago in science, but it takes layman's groups running into it afresh to have reason to figure it out in the present in the public. Well, by the same theory, I'm sure there's much about this project you're working with Courtney on that the layman public could learn about and from, as it goes on. But that can't happen without discussion--and that's always going to include critical questions and comments anywhere the people have brains and aren't afraid to speak up.
And yet I do think you're right about the positive/negative thing in the field overall, for sure. So maybe in the various places you post you should introduce some topics that cover the project from a description perspective and talk about it in a positive way.
I think it's fair to say that a project can have 1001 great things about it, and have 1 more thing that isn't so great. If the only thing covered is that one more thing, that isn't real fair, I would agree. But since you know about it and are doing it and I'm not, how about you be the one -- in separate threads -- to introduce the larger picture of it that people would be more likely to appreciate?
PJ
