Download FREE now! - Eight martinis is a magazine

Judging, Scoring and Feedback,There Are ProblemsLyn BuchananOn one of the remote viewing email lists, a participant asked:“.....one target (on a certain target list) was about anhistorical event and the feedback on that target wasa painting of that event- a painting is a fantasy aboutwhat happened. …..how can a painting that an artisthas done be involved at all in the target? Another example(of this question) is another historical event that(was given as a target). In this case part of the feedbackwas some hypothetical facts about the target that someresearchers thought was correct? …... How can theoriesabout what took place be valid feedback? “That question actually reveals a much larger situation aboutremote viewing. There are a lot of problems involved in howto judge, score, and give feedback for a viewer’s work. Thequestion touches on such things as what is and isn’t a validtarget, valid tasking, valid feedback, etc. This article discussessome, but far from all, of the problems brought up by just thisone viewer’s question.Problem 1: The definition of “a valid target” is iffy,at best:There was one set of targets given to viewers at SRI and inthe military in which cut-outs of things like Donald Duck werepasted to pictures of real places. The task was to view thefeedback picture. Since the military viewers were trained toview the actual site and not their feedback, the paste-on wasalmost always totally ignored and the location shown in thepicture was viewed. This brings up the question of, “Is it validto give a viewer a target which doesn’t (or hasn’t or won’tever) exist?” Is a computer generated site a “valid target”?The viewers at HRVG have shown that imaginary or computergenerated targets can be viewed with accuracy, so they mightbe good for research, to prove that remote viewing works, andfor training and practice modes to hone your skills. But arethey really “valid targets” in operations? Also, since knowledgegained from viewing a future event will usually make aperson act to change that future, and thereby make the viewingresults wrong, can a future target really be considered a“valid target”?Problem 2: Poor and untrained selection of targets:The proper selection of “good” viewing targets should addressthe viewing process, itself, not what the person selecting themthinks is “cute”, “inspirational” (to the selector), “pretty”, orworst of all, “funny”. A viewer goes into Stage 1 and getsgestalts. A “good” Stage 1 target, then, will have good anddistinct gestalts to be viewed. The viewer then goes into Stage2 and describes sensories and dimensionals. A good Stage2 target, then, should be one rich in sensories and dimensionals.Stage 3 work involves sketching the site. So, thereshould be something that is recognizable enough to sketch.The same principle applies to more advanced targets, as well.They should contain something to be viewed at each of thelevels, or else they aren’t “good targets” for those levels.The “Targets of the Week” on our site (http://www.crviewer.com) are all developed in such a way that the feedback will18 *eight martinis