Many peo­ple when they first learn about Remote View­ing are nat­u­rally skep­ti­cal. So here at Learn Remote View­ing we want to put you at ease by pro­vid­ing you with the Remote View­ing hard evidence.

I’ve uncov­ered an aca­d­e­mic paper which goes in depth into the prac­tice of remote view­ing and reviews the find­ings exten­sively by experts Jes­sica Utts and Brian Joseph­son. The paper was orig­i­nally pub­lished in 1996 and it’s time that every­body wit­nessed their findings.

We’ve also had com­ments say­ing that the his­tory of remote view­ing is quite well known but there’s no con­crete evi­dence to com­pound this amaz­ing phe­nom­e­non … so here goes …

Here’s their con­clu­sion on Remote Viewing:

“For the past decade the U.S. gov­ern­ment exper­i­ments were over­seen by a very high-level sci­en­tific com­mit­tee, con­sist­ing of respected aca­d­e­mics from a vari­ety of dis­ci­plines, all of whom were required to cri­tique and approve the pro­to­cols in advance. There have been no expla­na­tions forth­com­ing that allow an hon­est observer to dis­miss the grow­ing col­lec­tion of con­sis­tent results.”

Don’t get bogged down in the sci­en­tific lan­guage, this is an exhil­a­rat­ing read.

THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS

by Jes­sica Utts and Brian Josephson

Those who rec­og­nize that sig­nif­i­cant dis­cov­er­ies in sci­ence are very often prompted by obser­va­tions that do not fit expec­ta­tions will find a stim­u­lat­ing chal­lenge in accu­mu­lat­ing evi­dence that it is pos­si­ble to elicit psy­chic func­tion­ing in exper­i­ments with ordi­nary vol­un­teers act­ing as sub­jects. Even more con­vinc­ing results occur with spe­cially selected subjects.

Remote View­ing: The Experiment

In one type of exper­i­ment, a “tar­get” pho­to­graph or video seg­ment is ran­domly cho­sen out of a set of four pos­si­bil­i­ties. A “sender” attempts to trans­mit it men­tally and a “receiver” is then asked to pro­vide an account either ver­bally or in writ­ing of what she imag­ines it might be. She is then shown the four pos­si­bil­i­ties, and selects the one she thinks best matches her per­cep­tion. By chance alone, a cor­rect match is expected on aver­age one time in four, whereas the exper­i­ments typ­i­cally show the con­sid­er­ably higher suc­cess rate of around one in three.

The recent declas­si­fi­ca­tion of the US government’s psy­chi­cal research pro­gramme (exper­i­ments on “remote view­ing”, sim­i­lar to the type just described except that it used inde­pen­dent judges to assess the matches rather than hav­ing the sub­jects judge them­selves) has per­mit­ted a com­par­i­son to be made of the results of this pro­gramme with those described in the open literature.

Despite the dif­fer­ent judg­ing pro­ce­dure, sim­i­lar suc­cess rates were found. In addi­tion, many of the gov­ern­men­tal exper­i­ments used gifted sub­jects. The suc­cess rate was then even higher, typ­i­cally over forty per­cent. The few exper­i­ments in the open lit­er­a­ture that used gifted sub­jects found sim­i­lar suc­cess rates.

Remote View­ing: Exten­sive Repeat­able Results

In the past, crit­ics have attempted to dis­credit pos­i­tive results in psy­chi­cal research on grounds of lack of repeata­bil­ity. But, as any­one with a train­ing in sta­tis­tics knows, even where an influ­ence exists, an iso­lated exper­i­ment with an insuf­fi­cient num­ber of tri­als may not demon­strate a sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant effect. Accord­ingly, with­out a more sophis­ti­cated analy­sis, “fail­ure to repro­duce an effect” does not demon­strate its absence.

Sup­pose, for exam­ple, psy­chic abil­i­ties, in line with the results already described, increase the chances of a suc­cess­ful match from 1/4 to 1/3. Then (accord­ing to the accepted sta­tis­ti­cal the­o­ries), an exper­i­ment with 30 tri­als, which has been typ­i­cal of these exper­i­ments, would have less than a 17% chance of achiev­ing a result of sta­tis­ti­cal sig­nif­i­cance. The more recent larger exper­i­ments still uti­lize only about 100 tri­als, and have only about a 57% chance of achiev­ing sta­tis­ti­cal significance.

Detailed analy­sis of the com­plete col­lec­tion of exper­i­ments on this type of phe­nom­e­non shows that what holds, despite changes in equip­ment, exper­i­menter, sub­jects, judges, tar­gets and lab­o­ra­to­ries, is far greater con­sis­tency with the 1 in 3 suc­cess rate already men­tioned than with the 1 in 4 chance expec­ta­tion rate. Such con­sis­tency is the hall­mark of a gen­uine effect, and this, together with the very low prob­a­bil­ity of the over­all suc­cess rate observed occur­ring by chance, argues strongly for the phe­nom­ena being real and not artifactual.

Reex­am­i­na­tion of other types of psy­chi­cal inves­ti­ga­tions reveals that they too achieved replic­a­ble effects, which went largely unap­pre­ci­ated because of a poor under­stand­ing of sta­tis­tics. For instance, an analy­sis of exper­i­ments in pre­cog­ni­tive card guess­ing and related “forced-choice” exper­i­ments, pub­lished by Hon­or­ton and Fer­rari in the Jour­nal of Para­psy­chol­ogy, found that gifted sub­jects were able to achieve con­sis­tently about a 27% suc­cess rate when 25% was expected by chance. Sim­i­lar U.S. gov­ern­ment exper­i­ments have been revealed to have achieved the same 27% suc­cess rate over thou­sands of trials.

If chance alone were the expla­na­tion for these results, it would be truly remark­able to achieve a 27% suc­cess rate over thou­sands of tri­als, and it would be even more remark­able to see iden­ti­cal results in the gov­ern­ment work. For fur­ther details about the recent evi­dence, includ­ing both a favor­able and a skep­ti­cal assess­ment of the U.S. gov­ern­ment exper­i­ments, con­sult the Jour­nal of Sci­en­tific Explo­ration, Vol. 10(1), or http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/ on the Internet.

Remote View­ing: Take a Step back all you Critics

Strong sta­tis­ti­cal results are of course mean­ing­less if exper­i­ments are not prop­erly con­ducted. Debunkers of para­psy­chol­ogy are fond of show­cas­ing the very few exper­i­ments that have been found to have seri­ous prob­lems. But that ignores the fact that the vast major­ity of exper­i­ments were done using excel­lent pro­to­cols, pay­ing close atten­tion to poten­tial sub­tle cues, using well-tested ran­dom­iza­tion devices and so on. For the past decade the U.S. gov­ern­ment exper­i­ments were over­seen by a very high-level sci­en­tific com­mit­tee, con­sist­ing of respected aca­d­e­mics from a vari­ety of dis­ci­plines, all of whom were required to cri­tique and approve the pro­to­cols in advance. There have been no expla­na­tions forth­com­ing that allow an hon­est observer to dis­miss the grow­ing col­lec­tion of con­sis­tent results.

Read the full paper »

Keep your eyes peeled for an illus­tra­tion of how the tests Jes­sica and Brian car­ried out would have taken place. Do you want to see Remote View­ing in action??? Why not watch …

A Remark­able Remote View­ing Work­shop With Ed Dames that Pre­dicts a Ter­ror­ist Attack