firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 060
.


This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.

This is the sixtieth archive.


November 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 60

> <<IN ADDITION, I'm also VERY SUSPICIOUS that the PSI talent, once > awakened continues to GROW WITH USE.>>

Perhaps it does or doesn't grow. It does however, get noticed more. In my Psy development classes, I stress that whether it grows or not is not as much an issue as is the fact that you are learning to recognize more and after a while begin to recognize impressions more easily. Perhaps not more or less strength, but certainly more recognizable. It could be as good as answer as any so far. Just an opinion.

Rob A


<<IN ADDITION, I'm also VERY SUSPICIOUS that the PSI talent, once awakened continues to GROW WITH USE.>>

Nancy replies: It has been my experience that you are correct. I don't know what my degree of natural talent was, but I DO know that it has increased with use, and the more use, the FASTER the growth. In other words, there is an acceleration factor in the system, so that with one rate of practice you get one "amount" of growth, and double that rate of practice will give you more than double that "amount" (it's clumsy usage, but I find there isn't much language for the unspoken...).

Just remember to also develop your ability NOT to do it. Take it from me, it can be very uncomfortable to be out somewhere quietly minding your own business, selecting cantalopes or some such, and glance up at someone passing by and be impacted by what's going on with them. I've had to play catch-up on that one, since while I was working so hard on my ability to perceive, I didn't pay any attention to the clues that I'd need to know where the "off" switch was located...but then I'm Irish....

Remember, it is a law of the mind that it gradually adapts itself to the subjects upon which it is trained to dwell.

Besides, if RV isn't trainable, that means that all of your teachers and mine are charlatans. I don't know about you, but if anybody even IMPLIES that about MY teachers I'm ready to fight. And I've been studying psi topics since 1952 and have had a LOT of teachers...and while I would now characterize some of them as being from bunny-rabbit school, I certainly would not say they were fakes, teaching fake stuff. I suspect you feel the same about your teachers.

End of lecture. Carry on.

Best to all,

Nancy

PS Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Heh.


David H wrote: >Have heard/read multiple statements made (Joe McMoneagle & James >Spottiswoode for ex.) stating or inferring that RV training is not >effective, or to that effect.I hope I'm not misrepresenting the >intended communication. Perhaps I heard incorrectly. Was it meant >that RV training couldn't affect one way or the other a person's >NATURAL PSI abilities? I'd like to know what came from lab results.

The latter part of your statement is essentially what I believe to be true.

You can test it yourself.

Run through ten Remote Viewing targets under the appropriate protocol (target blind to the monitor and viewer; target selected by someone independent of monitor and viewer; target evaluated or judged by someone independent of the rest of the remote viewing effort--for what could be said versus what was said, versus what was said that was right.) Then train for about a year using any system and do it again. I'm betting you will not see any substantial improvement in psychic functioning.

I'm not saying someone isn't psychic, and I'm not saying you haven't learned a format in which to display it. I'm saying that your innate talent level probably won't change.

regards,

Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


> Just remember to also develop your ability NOT to do it. /snip/
> I didn't pay any attention to the clues that > I'd need to know where the "off" switch was located...but then I'm > Irish....

Nancy, I'm Irish too, but I'm not a viewer; that is, whatever happens with me should not -in any way - be termed CRV, but it is deliberate. I take your point about checking the location of the off switch. I was given a lesson on where the off-switch is and how it works about 25 years ago when, as a result of assisting another person in pain, I suddenly perceived (for lack of a better word) all the pain in the world. (Before then, I didn't even know an on/off switch existed.) Because this input was so distracting, I switched it off until I could get the injured person to the hospital. But once I had a little time to myself, I let my mind experiment - switching on and switching off - a number of other, quite different perceptions.

For me (and perhaps only for me, on this list at least) I find these perceptions to be in large part distractions, so they mostly stay switched off unless needed in a specific situation. From watching my own children -and my childrens' children - develop, I am convinced we all _start out_ with these abilities, but unless the parent is perceptive and aware, our culture quickly teaches the child to repress, and eventually forget their native abilities. Which is not to say they're lost, only misplaced, but are being recovered, thanks in large part to the participation of the people on this list. Remote viewing, IMO, is just the tip of the iceberg...

Bill


Howdy Everybody,

I'm a little confused about some of the literature that is available to the "newbies," i.e. me, via P.J.'s outstandingly well maintanied database (Thank you again for your superhuman efforts by the way: even if Gene thinks you are a machine). Without you and this site, I would still be adrift about a great many things that have fundamentally changed the world as, I think, most of us had previously thought it to be.

Specifically, what troubles me recently is the dichotomy between some of our our online mentors about the practical uses of remote viewing in our present, post-military applications, world. I feel that I don't need to quote extensively as I'm getting this information from our favorite website (Please see P.J.'s Firedocs Transcripts).

Lyn- (forgive me if I sound too familiar sir, it's just that I've been reading so many messages for so long now, that I feel part of such an intimate community now.) -has made it quite clear that after his training, he would hope that his students would try and put their newfound skills to good use by locating missing children. I cannot applaud this effort any louder. In fact, while I am in no place to afford the three- thousand-ish dollars that it would cost for me to attend one of these programs, (I'm a grad student at Columbia, so be carefull not to leave your wallet anywhere where I might be able to put my hands on it-) I would very much like to participate in helping people in need to find missing loved ones. This must be, absolutely, at least one place where RV can make a real, immediate difference in peoples lives. I want to be part of that. So I have decided to learn the protocolls on my own as best as possible and learn it on my own. From everything I am now gathering, this seems to be the, really, only way to do it. Ultimately, I think that's best. Maybe you disagree.

I can say for myself that I have been quite blessed in this life. Of course, some of that has been hard work and determination (I know,you all have a story just like mine, if not better) to get where I am now, but a lot of that (and I can tell you some stories...) has just been plain, good karma. Needless to say, From these experiences, I now truly believe that certain people are "gifted" in certain ways. And that, more importantly, with every gift comes an appropriate level of responsibility. Here. in this newsgroup, we may demonstrate (at least collectively) a great ability to help others that may have no other recourse for assistance. I want to help these people. I think that this is why I have been lucky enough to have been drawn here.

At the same time I don't want to waste an effort that may be better placed in helping others somewhere else. And that brings me back to my original point (pardon the long, soapbox lecture).

Lyn has made it quite clear that RV'ing can be used to help find missing children, yet Joe has said that RV is a tool that is best utilized for other purposes, i.e. RV is not a tool designed for such specific work. If I have it straight, I think the analogy may be that to a hammer. a hammer is good for driving in a nail, but not so hot for combing out a perm: One just need know what tool is good for which situation.

As far as I can tell from this newsgroup, most of us are beginners. I know I am. But I can feel that so many of us truly feel a NEED to learn Remote Viewing. We have been drawn to it. I hope that the others are as commited to this as I am. I think time will be the final test.

But like many other pursuits, a final goal is one worth working to. A goal (beyond the esoteric "evolution") that many of us can work toward, helping families or locating terrorists or whatever may be the necessary goal that helps drive the "newbies" to become helpful, productive members of the RV community.

This may be, ultimately, a personal decision but, if we can decide the toools in the toolbox, maybe together, we can start to make a real difference. I have put this notice out on the group because I truly want to hear from everybody. I think we all need to make a decision (in some respect) to this matter. If I'm wrong, please tell me. I'm learning just as much as you are.

Eric

P.S. To this intent, (I'll bet just like you) I will continue my efforts at Remote Viewing and, with any skill and luck, 'will be able to replicate the successes of the like-minds that have gone before me. To those persons, I cannot pay enough respect or thanks. They have cleared a pathway for the rest of us. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Lyn, Joe, Paul and Gene. Thank You.

--------
Moderator's Note: Eric, that's pretty funny really, if you saw it from my perspective. I've got transcripts up there from Ed Dames, Courtney Brown, Joe McMoneagle, physicist Ed May, Lyn Buchanan and Paul Smith, and the only minor point you find of difference is between Lyn and Joe?! Who probably agree more than any two people in this field? Seeing as how Dames/Brown dramatically contradict the rest, I thought that was pretty funny.... now to the point though...

I'm pretty sure that there is a minor interpretation issue going on with Joe's comments. You wrote: >>Joe has said that RV is a tool that is best utilized for other purposes, i.e. RV is not a tool designed for such specific work.<< Joe does quite specific work with RV. I think what you heard there was his response to how modern RV is presented as being mostly a tool for "locating" people or things. That is dowsing. Which is not technically RV, even though a couple of dowsing tools are in the CRV methods structure. Locating is one of the things RV is probably worst at in comparison to its usefulness in other areas. Now, although dowsing is also used in Lyn Buchanan's AWP program, he uses plenty of "plain old RV" on those child cases as well, by working with the investigative agency and tasking toward different information or evidence that the investigators would like to find. (e.g., the description of the surroundings of the child, the state of health, or if the child is known to have been abducted, perhaps a description of the car, the driver, etc. etc.) He is not trying to solve the case / find the child -- he's just getting a description via RV of whatever information the investigators would like to have, so THEY can solve the case / find the child. So he is using RV toward what it's good at, which is *contributing* to the finding of the child.... but except on rare occasion, is not like, "We swept in and found the child."

Joe has a number of suggested 'best uses' for remote viewing in the current (revised) edition of his book 'MIND TREK: Exploring Consciousness, Time, and Space Through Remote Viewing." These are based on the combination of what RV has proven to be BEST at -- sometimes the type of target is more relevant than the type of process, when it comes to 'what works best' -- and what the world really needs most at this time that RV skills could contribute to. I strongly recommend Joe's book if you have any interest in doing RV yourself, as his book contains writing on the required protocols, targets and tasking and practice, the story of his own development with RV, and an interesting story about his own life, besides. You can find more info about (and from) the book at: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/joe/ And you can go directly to Amazon.com to order it online at: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=1878901729/7879-8990504-862489

P.S. You are willing to accept that it takes natural talent plus generally years of very serious practice to get good enough at this to be truly useful to such an effort, right? :-) -- PJ


Joe wrote: >So, while RV ability can be somewhat displayed within any general >>population, exceptional RV (highly replicable) is probably down >>around 1 or 2 percent of that same population.

Michael wrote: >>>What has been demonstrated is that 6 talented, inexperienced people >survived the screening procedure. Since those who did not survive >the screening were not tested, we do not know how they would have >performed. If the screening were totally ineffective, then we would >see the same proportion of talented people in the general population >as in the selected sample. Then our estimate would be that 66.7% (4 >of 6) of the general population are exceptional in RV!

Recently I bought Angela Thompson out to Australia for a 4 day ERV seminar. All 12 participants at this event had to not only pay for the actual seminar, but their air travel (from all over Oz), accommodation, food, etc. All up it cost each individual around $2500. My greatest concern was that some of the individuals might not have an "RV success" and thereby feel financially "cheated". To my great delight (and relief!) each and every person there had multiple successful RVs. A couple were quite breathtaking. (Joe would have been proud of them :-) All went home feeling that they had got their money's worth. The point here is that 12 ordinary Australians, over a 4 day period, were able to have significant RV experiences. And these 12 were not preselected..they were simply interested enough (and financial enough) to come. The whole exercise was an eye-opener for me because I seriously expected maybe a half of the attendees to have minimal success. This tends to indicate to me that a fairly high percentage of the general population could be taught to RV........providing they were seriously interested and committed.

Jim


>The point here is that 12 ordinary Australians, over a >4 day period, were able to have significant RV experiences. And >these 12 were not preselected..they were simply interested enough

Jim,

Even though they were not preselected, they were self-selected. This could very well mean that they had greater psi talents than members of the population at large. Using a self-selected sample could lead to an over-estimate.

The best way to arrive at an unbiased estimate would be to choose a reasonably large sample from the general population, give them all the same training, and measure their accuracy. Unfortunately, many participants might not be highly motivated to learn RV under these conditions, so there are complications. Answering this question is much more difficult (and expensive) than in appears at first blush. Surely some of the others on this list must know of other research in this area.

Regards, Michael


>To my great delight (and relief!) each and every person there had >multiple successful RVs. ...<snip>... This tends to indicate to me >that a fairly high percentage of the general population could be >taught to RV........providing they were seriously interested and >committed.

Hi Jim,

Having spent the last couple of years trying to reconcile the many 'debates internal to' the RV field, my conclusion on this particular one is that everybody is right *by the standards they hold.*

The difference, I am certain, is that what most people consider a successful RV session hinges on obtaining data that clearly relates to the target. What is a measurable and demonstrable success as an RV target in the lab takes a different level of talent, I am willing to bet. Many people probably considered quite good in training and in some applications might not qualify even as lower level Viewers in the lab, possibly due to the different requirements related to the dominant measurement. (Eg., telling the target described from 4 others, vs. simply 'getting some of the data right.' Also the lab may use a 'what could have been said vs. what was' measurement which is probably a massive pain to figure out and is certainly not used in any non-lab RV that I know of.)

So, like most 'debates' in this field, the real issue is not the one presented, but the definition of the terms used within the initial question. The real question is not "can most people display an impressive level of psi talent?" but rather, "exactly what constitutes an impressive level of psi talent and how should it be tested to demonstrate or determine this?" Until that issue is resolved to a mutual understanding, all conversants are playing ball on different fields.

Regards,

PJ


>The definition I use is: >Perfect Site Integration is a form of 3 dimensional holography that >includes all perceptions. This includes the exact and precise who, >what, where, when, how, moods, emotions, sights sounds, smells, >colors, visio, tactile, audio, etc. The ability to observe 3D exactly >what is.

Being chronically practical in nature, I tend to shy away from "dictionary-type" definitions and lean more toward situational ones:

I would define "Perfect Site Integration" (PSI) (also called "bilocation") as that time in a session when you look up from the paper and can't for the life of you tell that you're NOT at the target site. You don't see the workroom around you or the monitor or your papers or anything of your real physical surroundings. For all your senses can tell, you're actually there at the target site.

Interestingly enough, the accepted concept in CRV is that no part of you actually "goes" to the site. When you start your session, your subconscious mind starts telling you things via the body (it talks to the body, not to the conscious mind). It starts affecting your nerve endings in such a way that you get a >>>conscious<<< perception of, say, a smell of vanilla or a temperature of cold. As your conscious and subconscious minds both start using the body as their interpretor, they get so wrapped up in the conversation they are having that they "buy into" this mini virtual reality they are creating, and at some point, your conscious mind forgets to pay attention to its real surroundings and only pays attention to the senses which are being stimulated by the subconscious mind. Therefore, your conscious mind only gets the sensory input it would >>>if it were<<< actually at the site. In CRV, you don't "go" to the site: you only sense it. The PSI experience is when you consciously sense only those site related impressions which are being created in your body by your subconscious mind.

That has some very important implications, and sets it off from such things as OOBE, trance meditation, visualization, etc. It also has some very important implications for working a CRV session. The part your conscious mind plays in a CRV session - if you are working CRV correctly - is not to define or identify - only to perceive and what is going on with your senses. Your subconscious mind will give your body (nerve endings) the sensory impressions. It doesn't give the definitions, the meanings, the logical conclusions, or any of that. It gives sensory stimulation. It is your conscious mind's job to just report what is going on. As you report, your conscious attention is focused more and more on these senses, and at some point, you notice them only. That is what the PSI experience is in the CRV setting.

Another implication is that the PSI experience is not a desired one in CRV. When you are in the PSI experience, like I said above, you don't see the paper on which you are supposed to be writing your experiences down. Therefore, when you are in the PSI mode, you tend to not report. The monitor can call you back to report, but that breaks the experience. If you go into the PSI experience and get tons of data, then try to write it all down when you "get back", all you can do is summarize. When you are in the PSI experience, the monitor can't ask you for details, can't direct you to some part of the site for further information, etc. In other words, as far as CRV is concerned, the PSI experience is the ultimate distractor which takes you out of the session and prevents you from working like you should. Therefore, CRV discourages the experience from taking place, and the monitor's course even gives ways that the monitor can prevent it from happening without polluting the session.

Another implication of "For all your senses can tell, you're actually there at the target site" is that your conscious mind will keep things on a real-world basis. For example, in an OOBE, you can float through walls, up through the ceiling, etc. In the CRV PSI experience, if you try to jump up and float through the ceiling, you'll just fall back down again. You can re-target yourself and be suddenly in another place, but doing that requires that you drop out of the PSI state long enough to analyze what is going on and where you'd rather be. In CRV PSI, if there is a chair, you can sit in it, stand on it, or walk around it, but don't try to walk through it. It won't work. CRV is NOT an OOBE. As much as people want it to be, it just isn't. It is nothing more than the conscious mind listening with total concentration to what the subconscious mind is telling it, to the exclusion of all other things.

Another implication is that, if you >>try<< to force the PSI experience, you are paying attention to the process and not to your subconscious mind. Therefore, those who say that they can will it to happen just don't make sense. That's like telling someone, "I'm saying this sentence without thinking of an elephant." The very process of making it happen prevents it from happening. Again, it's like humility - as soon as you are aware that you have it, you don't.

In the more than 15 years I have been working CRV, I have bilocated (had a PSI experience) only 8 times. The first was one where Ed Dames was my monitor. I knew going into the session that it would be something to do with the ETs or flying saucers, because that's all he ever gave us. Therefore, the frontloading was horrendous. However, at one point in the session, Ed asked me something (I have not idea what, now) and I looked up from the paper at him. He wasn't there. All I could see was red desert sand stretching out for a few miles in front of me to some distant mountains, with a darker-than-usual sky (even though the sun was out). There was a feel of fresh, cool, very thin air blowing across the place where I was standing. I was just inside the opening of what looked like a tunnel or cave entrance. I stepped out of it and realized that the "cave" was actually an opening in some kind of structure which was reddish and sloped back at an angle. I was barefoot and could feel a thin layer of sand between my feet and the hard stone below me. The building which sloped upward was very flat-sided. I could just see it out of the corner of my eye, but when I started to turn to look at it, the sudden realization came to me that I wasn't where I was supposed to be. Panic! How did I get here? etc. Just as suddenly, I was looking at the dark grey wall beside the viewing chair. I turned my head back and saw Ed looking across the viewing table at me with a grin on his face. He knew what had happened. I had bilocated. It was one of the most exciting and interesting experiences I have ever had. Even though I actively discourage it during real-world sessions, where someone's life or health may be in danger, I live for the experience. It is great. There was another time when I (mentally) sat in the back seat of a convertible as it traveled through a small town in the Swiss Alps. By that time, I had gotten more accustomed to the PSI experience and learned how to use it. I made mental notes (memory-pegged them, as I had leanred to do in the Dale Carnegie course) about the street names, buildings, layout of the town, etc. When I returned from the experience, I drew the town map to include street names, types of businesses, location of the railroad yard, town hall, a bank, and several other key locations. Luckily, we had a map someone had brought back from the town, and could check all those things out. There was a very high degree of accuracy, but like all viewers, I couldn't tell left from right, and had reversed almost the entire map. Not only that, but I spent the next month or so remembering tons of data about the place which I had not thought to write down in the report. Oh, well.... war stories abound.

Lyn

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


>Looking for positive signals during a session isn't enough. >"Verification in life" might be, depending on what you mean by that.

I would also question "what you mean by that". If what you mean by that is a new character development or personal growth, then I would seriously question that that has any relevance whatever >>>to the target information<<<. However, if what you mean by that is that you can take the viewer to the site, papers in hand, and score each perception, one by one, then I would certainly believe that there is merit to the procedure.

I would also apply the same criteria to your "in-session" indicators, as well. If that means that the viewer gets a really strong belief or feeling of being on-target, then the "positive signal" is nothing but hogwash. If, however, you have specific, repeatable, dependable, >>>and documented<<< indicators for each viewer - indicators which can be shown to mean something very exact every time they occur, and which can be filmed and shown to others (not something like, "Oh, look! He's looking really sincere when he writes that - it must be good information!"), then I would certainly believe that there is merit to the procedure. Without those standards, I would certainly have to question it.

>The standards that we adhere to are far more precise and exact than >any I have observed so far discussed here or posted on the RV >web-pages.

As we say in Texas, "Sounds like you've quit preaching and gone t' braggin', now." :-]

Lyn

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


>What if you describe something, and when you get feedback, it is >clear that what you described is involved in the target - or could be >- or has been - but you cannot see it clearly in the feedback photo >or visit to the site?

There are two ways to look at this, but actually only one answer: Way #1 is that if the perception is one which HAS to be a part of the site, even though you can't find it at feedback time, then logic dictates that the viewer gets credit. Way #2 is that in order to be "scientific" about the scoring, you would have to give it a "Can't feed back" and not count it. Therefore, it wouldn't count against you, but also wouldn't count for you. Now, that's both ways of looking at it. The only one answer (at the risk of sounding like a stuck record) is that "the viewer is in charge - ask him/her. You will find that the amount of certainty the viewer has will generally cause a pretty dependable decision to be made. Note that this is in those cases where logic dictates that the perception would probably be correct. If, on the other hand, you have the viewer absolutely certain that the empty can contained plant pathogens dropped by lizard people, and that no trace of the pathogens can now be found for feedback because it was other-dimensional in nature, etc.etc.etc., then the question maybe shouldn't come up. If it does, however, I would bite my lip and fall back on the first rule: "the viewer is in charge". (I would also doubt all my data on that person from then on.)

>Here is where "arbitrary scoring issues" begin. > >Q: If you have "revving motor sounds" in your data, and the target >feedback is a photograph of a yacht, is that data accurate? The yacht >does have a motor. However, there is no indication from the photo >whether or not that motor is revving or even on at that moment. Maybe >the revving is one of many motors that could be assumed to be near >the boat in dock. Or not.

I would tend to talk the viewer into a "can't feed back".

>Q: If you say there is a biological or human at the site, and there >is not, can you include as feedback the fact that a human almost had >to be at the site in order to take a picture of it?

I have had this happen. There is no denying it, and in fact, I would tend to let the viewer get away with the credit for such "waffling", because it is logically accurate. After all, the viewer is supposed to go to the site, not to only that part of the site that the camera was pointed to. How many times have you gotten accurate site elements which weren't in the picture? I have done that lots of times. If you only allow the viewer to take credit for what is in the picture, then you are actually training the viewer to go to his/her feedback, and not to the site. That will give you someone who is good at parlor games, but not at doing actual targets where feedback is not provided (to the viewer), or is a long time in coming.

>Q: If your target is one object or structure, and you describe both >that item and another behind it, are the accurate descriptions of the >item behind the intended target considered correct?

Sure. If the descriptors are accurate, and if the viewer has, in the session summary, indicated that the descriptors for the 2nd bldg don't belong to the target bldg, then why not? Again, you want the viewer to go to the target site, not to the feedback. Encourage it.

>Q: If you describe fire and burning, and the target turns out to be >the cold, charred remains of a house, can you count the fire/burning >data as accurate?

You would have to assume that the charred remains were the result of a fire. Logic dictates that. I would, however, point out to the viewer that he/she was drawn to the >>>time<<< of greatest entropy, and that there may be certain cases where that is not the desirable thing to have happen. In other words, reward them for what they did right, but also make it a learning experience. Then, later, give another target with a single high-entropy point in time and make the target a point in time afterwards. At that time, no matter whether they are drawn to the high-entropy time or whether they correctly stick to the target time, make it again a learning situation.

>Q: How can you say you have feedback for anything like a smell or >sound or temperature or direction etc. from photo feedback?

You can't. As adamant as [some] get that the viewer only goes to the feedback, there is some part of the viewer's mind which has to have actual site contact in order to get the sensories. Some people will count something in a viewer's session as wrong if it isn't in the feedback, even if you can prove that it is at the site location. [That] scoring system is a self-fulfilling prophecy...

>Q: Where do you draw the line between "Proven accurate," "almost >certainly accurate but not in the feedback," "probably accurate," >"possibly accurate, could go either way" and "inaccurate?"

That's why the score "can't feed back" was created.... you can't always draw that line.

>Q: How do you decide which of those "in-between" determinations >should simply be called "no feedback for scorable data" instead?

Again, to sound like a stuck record, when all else fails, ask the viewer whether he/she will get credit for the perception. He/she is, after all, in charge. (BTW: I realize that that is as far from scientifically acceptable as possible, but in actual practice for developing viewers for real-world applications, it is one of the best things you can do. I have always said that the scoring I do is not designed for (nor would be acceptable in) a research setting.)

BTW: The Ingo term for "no feedback for scorable data" is "Can't Feed Back" and is abbreviated "CFB".

Lyn

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


>Q: If you have "revving motor sounds" in your data, and the target >feedback is a photograph of a yacht, is that data accurate? The yacht >does have a motor. However, there is no indication from the photo >whether or not that motor is revving or even on at that moment. Maybe >the revving is one of many motors that could be assumed to be near >the boat in dock. Or not.

Yes. It's implied by the photograph.

>Q: If you say there is a biological or human at the site, and there >is not, can you include as feedback the fact that a human almost had >to be at the site in order to take a picture of it?

Probably. But, it adds nothing of value to the target, unless it's a significant component of the target; e.g., target needs people to be a target. In other words, you can say that "theoretically" about 95% of the targets--so who cares.

>Q: If your target is one object or structure, and you describe both >that item and another behind it, are the accurate descriptions of the >item behind the intended target considered correct?

Depends on the targeting instructions. If you were asked to describe only the target, no. If you were asked to describe the area, yes. If you are using it as a training target and are practicing CRV, no. If you are using it as a training target and just wondering about how your mind might be working, yes.

>Q: If you describe fire and burning, and the target turns out to be >the cold, charred remains of a house, can you count the fire/burning >data as accurate?

Depends on what your targeted time period is. If you said describe the target, it could be a yes. If you said tell me about the target this moment, it could still be yes, if you were trying to determine the condition of the target. Or, no, if you specifically wanted to know something other than condition about the target. In this case, I would tend to yes in most circumstances.

>Q: How can you say you have feedback for anything like a smell or >sound or temperature or direction etc. from photo feedback?

You can, only if it's implied. In other words, if it's a "stretch" forget it, you've just missed the target.

>Q: Where do you draw the line between "Proven accurate," "almost >certainly accurate but not in the feedback," "probably accurate," >"possibly accurate, could go either way" and "inaccurate?"

Accuracy is a measure of what you can prove to be in the target. That can include the photographs, or the site (if an outbounder was used), or everything that is pertinent to the site, dependent upon how it was targeted.

>Q: How do you decide which of those "in-between" determinations >should simply be called "no feedback for scorable data" instead?

If there is doubt--forget it. And there will always be doubt about something. Just let it go and move on to the next target. It's one of the reasons Rv will never be 100%.

Warm regards,

Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


END ARCHIVE 60
November 1997

A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.


VWR Email Archives Menu
Firedocs Entrance
Top of Page

All contents copyright © 1995-2002 by PJ Gaenir. All rights reserved.