NEWS: Analysis & Commentary Stealth Remote Viewing THE RV ROSETTA STONE? By Steve Talbot THE HISTORY In 1799, a link was discovered by Jean Francois Champollion on the western delta of the Nile River that provided translators with the ability to solve the mysterious meaning behind a complex order of symbols. It was found in a village called Rosetta. Once the meaning of hieroglyphs were realized, archaeologists were able to make a vast number of recordings about Ancient Egyptian history. Together with other fields of research, Remote Viewing shares its own Rosetta Stone, the search for a way to judge remote viewing trials without the pollution of data. The most ingenious procedures based upon digital imagery have been tried. In May 2002, Stealth Remote Viewing became accessible from the Internet, but its ability to judge between trials was never proven, its feedback -- a term used to describe the object or target of the Remote Viewers focus -- was not assembled within a protocol known as "double-blind", (i.e. targets set up by a stranger). In all fairness, attempting to do so would have been like trying to lay a chicken with an egg, but I feel a valuable step was made. Below I have described a promising ability to successfully judge a basic gestalt, especially where medium level descriptors are derived from ideogram probing, or sketching with the intention to view feedback. In appreciation of those who tried the system out this year, I will try to describe some of the findings. All observations are made exactly as recorded. Stealth made no attempt to correspond with members individually. THE IDEA In contrast to the testing of PSI ability by very large numbers of participants, this system was used to test RV ability derived from structure, within the framework normally used for PSI testing. The use of the system for PSI ability was still available, but users were allowed to leave the system and come back at a later date and resume it. Unique coordinates were available and the user could also ignore targets they did not wish to continue with -- without penalty. The novelty of this, coupled with the Associative Judging concept, attracted some proficient Remote Viewers. I am finally reproducing a few sessions in the knowledge that information used by the system is now destroyed, together with all member details. This was to make way for the final module that requires a clean sweep. I will briefly describe Stealth ARV -- now tested -- at the end. The few sessions reproduced here represent a good repeatable standard and illustrate what the judging made of it. Many thanks to the HRVG organization where more than 1000 hits lagged a single e-mail, and some members stayed with it. THE SET-UP The system was originally conceived for web-based private use, and by early Spring it seemed easy enough to slightly change the workings and give the system "free range" to judge between a single Remote Viewing target and a complimentary target selected from a database of 100. Statistically speaking, the figure of 100 is good for analysis because it can easily be converted into a percentage. In practice, the original recommendation of Ranking as a means of analysis proved unworkable; although it would have been perfect for extremely large numbers of sessions. Likewise, rankings become meaningful in proportion to the size of the database. The recently completed module re-addressed the computation of ranking and has been a little more successful. Comparison between this part of the Stealth System and other fast flowing PSI tests was brought home to me when I met an acquaintance (to whom I had already given details), and found that after spending a few minutes at my site he decided it didn't make a lot of sense. He took a prominent link to somewhere else (another testing facility), the results of which he relayed back to me with some enthusiasm. Aside from the difficulty of bridging a gap between the kind of set-up used by Stealth, and a set-up that is easier to use, there is some basic analysis to report. The sessions completed were e-mailed to the user and a copy was sent to the site administrator where an appraisal was made for logic errors within the system. Many of these sessions were not kept, and the statistics were overwritten by the user himself by more recent usage. The files were designed to overwrite themselves with the most updated information while keeping 3 or 4 sets of figures related to historical scores. Hidden targets were never seen. The degree of precognition in terms of dates was not recorded. Eventually, two computational bugs were found and corrected, and a recent complete check of the system indicated it reached a unique state of nirvana sometime last June. THE FINDINGS Bearing in mind that after locating a suitable Thesaurus it was not expected the Internet speed would allow its full use, the project was began with no clear outcome in mind. On a wing and a prayer, so to speak. So, respecting the entering of words, it did seem reasonable to hope that a maximum of Remote Viewing perceptions in the form of labels would be entered by the user, and that these would be submitted to the on-line Thesaurus, thereby growing the number considerably. The Thesaurus processing was effective, and it could cope with any reasonable quantity submitted and respond quickly. It was thought that the results would be copied to a word processor via the users clipboard (ctrl/c) where inappropriate labels and associations could be removed; the result would then be pasted back into the subsequent web-page form that does not employ a Thesaurus. This way the supplied Thesaurus would assist with the generation of associative concepts/ideas only, these would be deleted and the final results pasted into the penultimate stage before feedback. What happened in practice was that a large number of users did not do conventional RV sessions with summary, but spent around 1 minute between sessions and used the set-up more along the lines of a PSI test. It seems this may not have been productive, with nothing apparently related to the feedback target being found and all analysis was haphazard. The number of words entered was small even though a larger number would have made an effort at swamping the target in the hope of some connection. Members with above average results tended to space out usage of the system indicating it was being used in conjunction with a method, although this is just surmise. When session timings became short, the analysis showed a drop off in success. In addition to this it was possible to enter opposite words to those perceived and cause a reversal of results thereby foiling any analysis. The most interesting analysis, though, has little to do with the sessions supplied but everything to do with how the system, specifically, the Thesaurus, worked the results through. Here is a photo of an entrance to a mineshaft. Based on just a few words entered, the Thesaurus successfully matched up the following: ·  steel, earth, man, old, dark, silver, gold, money, metal, tin, shallow, water, iron, clean, hall, hard, up, train, weight, heavy, dry. Assigned target. Dated - 08/16/02 However, a different session was deemed unsuccessful, perhaps unfairly so. The precognitive impressions for this one were: ·  round, rough, jagged, blue, black, ale, sky, soft, luck, times, long, vertical, daytime, high, dangerous, loud, crowd. Precognitive Impressions - (seeded) bulls eye, darts, red and black circles, numbers, blackout, pitch dark, candle, lit, beige, flame, a man's finger to his mouth, quiet, caution, ~ (nonSeeded) blackout, beige. Post Feedback - spaceship, lifting off, shuttle, transportation, cargo, building, space, lab, enterprise. (These were comments made after seeing the feedback photo). These were the words held by the system for that particular target. As you can see, not very good: Descriptors - lift, drop, elevator, time, room, rocket, ship, space, fire, engine, water, flame thrower, burn, fresh, force, air, army, power, blast, furnace, explosion, dynamite, cloud, rain, burst, fume, smoke, anger, cupboard, gas, bomb, oxygen, hydrogen, rise, fall, up, stars, sky, stripes, moon, white, black, red, snow, upright, straight, erect, vertical, balance, scales, sheet, weight, firework, bang, display, banger, star, light, sun, shine, plane, flat, fly. This nevertheless provided 19 matches and a rank of 4, the matches were: ·  drop, red, white, black, light, army, sun, snow, room, fresh, sky, flame, fire, up, gas, thrower, burn, power, water.(These were matched words after the system had processed the perceptions). When the judging is computed, a list of precognitive perceptions are matched against those held by the system for that target, resulting in a number of matches and a ranking showing how this rated within the whole database of targets. The number of words held on the system was quite large and the number of words entered by a user was unexpectedly small, therefore correct results could occasionally be made without the need for any thesaurus! But this correlated with very good RV perceptions only, which were forthcoming. Here is one session that used no Thesaurus: Precognitive Perceptions - Stadium, planks, horizontals, moving, ups and downs, rhythm, stairs. But this is living dangerously! (although the session was a success). Two further users gave the following description for this target image. The first gave: Precognitive Perceptions - Contact, rolling, misty, mildew, curvy, sun, connected, lights, dark, contrast, substitute, freedom, once upon a time, fairy tale, trees, magic. Another gave: Precognitive Perceptions - Body, face, head, cloth, closed, eyes, dead, ~ (nonSeeded) potatoes, sandals, pencil. Sometimes the words are tantalizingly close to a complete description, even with a poor image: Precognitive Perceptions - Tubular, socialized, formula, wavy, drops, wet, melting, droopy, nextel, warmth, love, motion, seeing through a gate or pattern. This image was successfully matched with only 5 perceptions entered! Precognitive perceptions - (seeded) Bright, tall, outside, cool, people. After seeding and Thesaurus processing, the following 8 matches were provided by the system: Tall, tree, rain, down, out, water, drink, wet. In comparison the complimentary opposite photograph attracted only 1 match. Please note that with the above illustrations, I have not removed or added any words. The Stealth Judging System has fresh images and some of the lessons learned have been applied to their assignment. In particular, the creation of the archived words used by the system for matching purposes. When assembled, it was not known how many would be the most effective, the original suggestion was just 4 words, and these were deemed most popular for each target from exhaustive research where users input was requested. Many more than that were used here. From the users point of view, results could easily be improved by the cutting and pasting method described earlier and by using a structured form of RV data gathering covering 20 minutes or so. Lastly, there is a good facility to check spelling errors and typos such as accidentally joined words including dialectic differences in spelling, simply by going back and re-submitting a different spelling until the Thesaurus recognizes something. Scores were lost through spellings; if the spelling is being compromised by the immediacy of remote viewing then there were no unsuccessful trials that could be put down to mis-typing only an increase in matching. A VERDICT As usual with RV, one is greatly humbled by the ability of the few who have developed a very special skill, for anyone with an enquiring mind, exploration of the field of Remote Viewing is a worthwhile goal. The ability made sense of a fledgling system, the method of comparison used and the automatic selection of opposite targets (not pre-selection) and of ranking the results within the database as a whole, worked much better than expected. Because of this, basic ideogram probing is thought to be sufficient and the use of visual imagery more than enough when best converted to words. In many cases a single good perception alone would be enough to tip the scales in favor of a successful outcome. For example, the Thesaurus would match white with snow and ice if the image is a snow scene, the associated concept matrix would tend to prevail. By the same token it would also match white with black, these files, which are more than 20 years out of date and relate to another countries media at the time, could be improved. WHAT'S NEXT? Lessons learned from the original Stealth RV module have been placed within the final module that relies on effective associative outcomes to make simple predictions. Once again, the system is automatic. Stealth ARV is versatile, for example it allows word judging, the re-use of the same target pair. If a trend is suspected it allows judging or self-judging, and a demonstration illustrates its user friendliness. It is hoped that it will become available for use, but through irony of ironies, the system appears to have finally met its nadir -- it mistyping that frontloading and release of past results are one and the same thing, consequently results are held for fear of cuckoldry by StealthARV itself! This final stumbling block is being looked into with a view to a new approach.    PRINT THIS ARTICLE Privacy Statement Copyright © 2002, H.R.V.G. All rights reserved.

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER ARTICLES ·New Science Symposium ·Clairvoyance Trials ·Andrew Michrowski ·Conversations ·Stealth RV