|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:28 pm
Pyrokin132 fluffysteel2 Pyrokin132 a**l Jesus Im getting something long and curved inward it seems, with red somewhere on it. Something oval shaped, brown, flat on some part of the surface. Something like a barbie flashed in my head too, just the barbies head though. Just some descriptions that came to mind. Now though I can't reveal the answer or if your right or wrong, but I would like to point out that this is how an observation should look. Just details, not identification. >.< dam yoo!! emo you didnt read the friggin post did you.... crying you done hurt my feelings. arrow Uh, dude, look one post above it. >_< oh...well i feel silly now... whee Quote: The white noise thing is Ganzfield. People were asked to describe a picture however, not identify. Responses would be something live, "has lots of greenery, plants and such. Perhaps trees. Some blue is also in there as well as a person. Not sure what they are doing, but there is a person there. It seems artificial though, the colors and shapes." instead of "It's a painting of a woman in the woods" The point is that you can't identify clearly a picture or place or something purposely using ESP. At least not without tons of training and practice. However, almost ALL people can remote view. I got a fair match on my first try, as have many people tested. ESP isn't as foreign as people make it out to be. .... im not sure how much exactly you read on ganzfield but i read two books on it from the library. one was on the ganzfield and the other was on the auto ganzfield. they were asked to describe what they felt during the experiment. if any 'forgeighn' thoughs images ect... were in their heads. and if so, to describe said thoughts. afterwords, they were asked to pick which picture best described the feelings they got/images revived/'foeighn thoughts' ect... acctualy, upon typeing this it sounds basicly like im telling you that your describing the first part of the process.... hm wtf was i arguing about again?.....um... idk lemme look back ater i post maby ill figure it out.. EDIT: i went back and looked. it was about teh people being able to do it with tons of experiance. in the majority of cases, people who belived in psi/magick and wereraised to think that its poossibe did much better. if i remember correctly the majority of people who were tested who belived were NOT people with tons and tons of experiance, though they did do testing on many people who claimed to be able to do remote veiwing on will. also, sorry if i type in german grammer i dont have firefox at my aunts house.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:36 pm
fluffysteel2 Pyrokin132 fluffysteel2 Pyrokin132 a**l Jesus Im getting something long and curved inward it seems, with red somewhere on it. Something oval shaped, brown, flat on some part of the surface. Something like a barbie flashed in my head too, just the barbies head though. Just some descriptions that came to mind. Now though I can't reveal the answer or if your right or wrong, but I would like to point out that this is how an observation should look. Just details, not identification. >.< dam yoo!! emo you didnt read the friggin post did you.... crying you done hurt my feelings. arrow Uh, dude, look one post above it. >_< oh...well i feel silly now... whee Quote: The white noise thing is Ganzfield. People were asked to describe a picture however, not identify. Responses would be something live, "has lots of greenery, plants and such. Perhaps trees. Some blue is also in there as well as a person. Not sure what they are doing, but there is a person there. It seems artificial though, the colors and shapes." instead of "It's a painting of a woman in the woods" The point is that you can't identify clearly a picture or place or something purposely using ESP. At least not without tons of training and practice. However, almost ALL people can remote view. I got a fair match on my first try, as have many people tested. ESP isn't as foreign as people make it out to be. .... im not sure how much exactly you read on ganzfield but i read two books on it from the library. one was on the ganzfield and the other was on the auto ganzfield. they were asked to describe what they felt during the experiment. if any 'forgeighn' thoughs images ect... were in their heads. and if so, to describe said thoughts. afterwords, they were asked to pick which picture best described the feelings they got/images revived/'foeighn thoughts' ect... acctualy, upon typeing this it sounds basicly like im telling you that your describing the first part of the process.... hm wtf was i arguing about again?.....um... idk lemme look back ater i post maby ill figure it out.. EDIT: i went back and looked. it was about teh people being able to do it with tons of experiance. in the majority of cases, people who belived in psi/magick and wereraised to think that its poossibe did much better. if i remember correctly the majority of people who were tested who belived were NOT people with tons and tons of experiance, though they did do testing on many people who claimed to be able to do remote veiwing on will. also, sorry if i type in german grammer i dont have firefox at my aunts house. I have no objections to those statements. They all seem right and match what I've read. I would take your challenge and describe that object but i'm too ticked off right now to connect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:53 am
Pyrokin132 LoBo_23 And I think you have, or are trying the technique where you take a paper clip and a string and a cup, and tie the string to the paper clip, then tape the string ot the cup, and move the paper clip. please tell me I'm wrongNice try Lobo but your looking over what I posted in the skeptics forum and using that to increase your rating it seems. I actually don't have one, I just designed it off the top of my head. what the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:56 am
When do we find out if we're right or not? D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:30 pm
a**l Jesus When do we find out if we're right or not? D: Actually, the end is now.  This would be the target. A painting I have hanging in my room. I'll be grading peoples guesses sometime tomorrow, I'll probobly adjust my scoring methods. The Decoys were: A dartboard, two small swords crossed on a wooden plaque, and a fake tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:24 pm
Given that there's a lot of objects in your room, how would people know that the painting was what they're looking for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:45 pm
Mitsh Given that there's a lot of objects in your room, how would people know that the painting was what they're looking for? Just by telling you that it's the object needing description. I'm not entirely sure how it works myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:39 pm
Pyrokin132 Mitsh Given that there's a lot of objects in your room, how would people know that the painting was what they're looking for? Just by telling you that it's the object needing description. I'm not entirely sure how it works myself. You need to read Limitless Mind by Russel Targ gonk I can tell there is quite a lot of items in your room, and remote viewing through communication is done mostly through the mind redirecting the viewer to the target. This is especially hard over the internet due to the lack of feeling/emotion in a word. I said it was round and pinkish, so I was a little close. =/ Nicely played and bravo for a nicely done game that the whole guild could partake in. smile Keep this up and you shall be put on the member honor list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:04 am
This was fun, we should do more stuff like this. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:04 am
I missed it! gonk
That's okay, I'm only good at Remote Viewing when I don't INTEND to RV. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:11 pm
LoBo_23 Pyrokin132 Mitsh Given that there's a lot of objects in your room, how would people know that the painting was what they're looking for? Just by telling you that it's the object needing description. I'm not entirely sure how it works myself. You need to read Limitless Mind by Russel Targ gonk I can tell there is quite a lot of items in your room, and remote viewing through communication is done mostly through the mind redirecting the viewer to the target. This is especially hard over the internet due to the lack of feeling/emotion in a word. I said it was round and pinkish, so I was a little close. =/ Nicely played and bravo for a nicely done game that the whole guild could partake in. smile Keep this up and you shall be put on the member honor list. They don't have it at the library but I got to read The Mind Race by Keith Harary and Russel Targ. Close to the same concepts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:01 pm
OMG. Im so angry that I ignored some of the descriptions that came to mind. I woulda had that painting down easy. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:46 pm
a**l Jesus OMG. Im so angry that I ignored some of the descriptions that came to mind. I woulda had that painting down easy. gonk Don't worry, I'll do another eventually. Remember, it's usually the ones that pop up for a second and leave just as quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:11 pm
LoBo_23: Well, you really didn't hit anything except for round. Kinda ADD to because you focused more on that paperclip/cup design which I don't even have. Also, because of the fact that I don't know you well yet and I posted that design in the skeptics discussion, I'll have to over look it. If you really did get it from me, impressive. Yes my room does have a lot of stuff but not necessarily cluttered or different from anyone else's room so I can only give you a few points. Correct, but vague.
Final Score: 10-100
Dark_of_Niwa: Well the bad news is, you missed the target completely. However, you got a fair description of the swords on my wall. They are reflective and pretty much pointed rectangles with fancy hilts. However, this is not the target so I have to give you half points.
Final Score: 25-100
aaarhus: Sorry, not really even close. Better luck next time.
Final Score: .001 - 100
fluffysteel2: Again, too specific like aaarhus's. Be careful with mental noise. Better luck next time to you as well.
Final score: 1 squared minus 1 to the fifth power - 100 (For those who don't like numbers, that equals 0)
a**l Jesus: Impressive. There is a curve, though not point inward and red is a very predominant color on the painting. Oval fits the vase decently but not perfectly. Brown makes a fair amount of appearances however you missed the green. The painting is flat so thats a direct hit but still slightly vague. Barbie is in there and because you didn't mark it as noise, I have to reflect it in your score. My apologies.
Final Score: 70-100
Taking into consideration the number of people participating, experience, and other various things, I'd say we did decent but I'm sure we can do much better and I'm sure we will do much better now that we know what to look for. I look forward to trying this again in a few weeks. I may even design another experiment for then. =3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
