On the Cognitive Science Laboratory’s site, there is a page of videos.
http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videos.html
I was asked, on another thread, what I made of the evidence shown in these videos. I’ve only had a chance to look at the first, since I got bogged down in researching one of the claims.
The video player on this page has no timer on it, so I can’t direct you to exactly the right place on the video. Sorry about that.
The first one I looked at was the one called Put To The Test. This remote viewing experiment has two problems, One is that the remote viewing notes are directly compared to the target area. This allows images in the session notes to be made to fit the features of the target. Also, Joe produced several drawings, and the final one does not seem to be one of those compared to the target. There’s a brief glimpse of what he drew just before they go to the judging, and there seem to be quite a lot of pages. It looks to me like they’ve found correspondences among Joe’s data and then presented those as being the totality of Joe’s data.
This video clip also mentions an example of a hit from the 1980s. Edwin May describes it:
“One of his best hits we had a person who was in the administration building a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. And all Joe drew was... the laboratory. A perfect plan view of what this laboratory looks like. The interesting this is, Joe’s never been to Livermore and this person could’ve been hiding anywhere in the entire continental USA.”
This is not what happened according to the contemporary report (link to the pdf at the end of this).
This experiment took place on 7 May 1987. The plan was that Joe should do four RV sessions on one target (a location), using three people as beacons. One of the beacons was at the location from 8am until 8pm. Joe was told the man's name and told that he was a physicist. The two other beacons were SRI staff members, known to the remote viewer. They would also be on that site such that the three beacons would be there for a twenty-four hour period. Joe was also told that the location was in the San Francisco Bay area, and he was informed about the “technical” nature of the target (the exact word is blanked out).
The paper describes the target material in this way (from page 7 of the pdf. I’ve included the spaces left by the censored words):
“The primary target was the ATA facility [...] In particular, the accelerator itself was targeted during operation with an external beam.
We have also identified targets of lesser interest in the targets’ environment. We have designated a wind-power electric generator farm at Altamont Pass but adjacent to the primary target area as a secondary target, and the target’s main complex, which is farther away geographically but is functionally accocitated with [...] as a tertiaty target.”
The problem here is that it is not made clear when these secondary targets were chosen. In the section called “Target and Response Data”, it states that: “A few elements, however, were determined by an SRI analyst on a post hoc basis in order to allow for a more accurate assessment of reliability.” If the three targets were decided beforehand, there should’ve been no need to later change the elements used to judge the remote viewing sessions.
And if having three targets for one experiment is unusual, the reasons for calling these two extra targets “secondary” and “tertiary” also seem odd. One is because it was near the target (the wind farm) and the other reason was that Lawrence Livermore Labs had some kind of thematic link to the target. But if you consider that the beacon’s occupation and the nature of the target was known to Joe, surely some kind of thematic link was likely. Whatever you make of it, Edwin May's description of the hit is not accurate since the beacon was never at Lawrence Livermore.
I shall take a look at the other videos later.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/kbagmqr197j46im/88 April Application Oriented RV Lawrence Livermore hit.pdf
http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videos.html
I was asked, on another thread, what I made of the evidence shown in these videos. I’ve only had a chance to look at the first, since I got bogged down in researching one of the claims.
The video player on this page has no timer on it, so I can’t direct you to exactly the right place on the video. Sorry about that.
The first one I looked at was the one called Put To The Test. This remote viewing experiment has two problems, One is that the remote viewing notes are directly compared to the target area. This allows images in the session notes to be made to fit the features of the target. Also, Joe produced several drawings, and the final one does not seem to be one of those compared to the target. There’s a brief glimpse of what he drew just before they go to the judging, and there seem to be quite a lot of pages. It looks to me like they’ve found correspondences among Joe’s data and then presented those as being the totality of Joe’s data.
This video clip also mentions an example of a hit from the 1980s. Edwin May describes it:
“One of his best hits we had a person who was in the administration building a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. And all Joe drew was... the laboratory. A perfect plan view of what this laboratory looks like. The interesting this is, Joe’s never been to Livermore and this person could’ve been hiding anywhere in the entire continental USA.”
This is not what happened according to the contemporary report (link to the pdf at the end of this).
This experiment took place on 7 May 1987. The plan was that Joe should do four RV sessions on one target (a location), using three people as beacons. One of the beacons was at the location from 8am until 8pm. Joe was told the man's name and told that he was a physicist. The two other beacons were SRI staff members, known to the remote viewer. They would also be on that site such that the three beacons would be there for a twenty-four hour period. Joe was also told that the location was in the San Francisco Bay area, and he was informed about the “technical” nature of the target (the exact word is blanked out).
The paper describes the target material in this way (from page 7 of the pdf. I’ve included the spaces left by the censored words):
“The primary target was the ATA facility [...] In particular, the accelerator itself was targeted during operation with an external beam.
We have also identified targets of lesser interest in the targets’ environment. We have designated a wind-power electric generator farm at Altamont Pass but adjacent to the primary target area as a secondary target, and the target’s main complex, which is farther away geographically but is functionally accocitated with [...] as a tertiaty target.”
The problem here is that it is not made clear when these secondary targets were chosen. In the section called “Target and Response Data”, it states that: “A few elements, however, were determined by an SRI analyst on a post hoc basis in order to allow for a more accurate assessment of reliability.” If the three targets were decided beforehand, there should’ve been no need to later change the elements used to judge the remote viewing sessions.
And if having three targets for one experiment is unusual, the reasons for calling these two extra targets “secondary” and “tertiary” also seem odd. One is because it was near the target (the wind farm) and the other reason was that Lawrence Livermore Labs had some kind of thematic link to the target. But if you consider that the beacon’s occupation and the nature of the target was known to Joe, surely some kind of thematic link was likely. Whatever you make of it, Edwin May's description of the hit is not accurate since the beacon was never at Lawrence Livermore.
I shall take a look at the other videos later.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/kbagmqr197j46im/88 April Application Oriented RV Lawrence Livermore hit.pdf