View Full Version : Accuracy Rate of HRVG Viewers

2011-Jan-25 Tue, 18:02
Question for any so inclined to investigate: In 1995 Jessica Utts reported that remote viewers were correct 34% of the time.

Based on our history of remote viewing over 3,000 targets, what is your objective opinion of the accuracy rate of HRVG viewers? Do you think methodology has an impact on accuracy rates? For example, CRV vs SRV, vs HRVG? If we cannot quantify this, should we conduct a test using all data and session worked, with number of viewers to determine accuracy rate to target for 2011 and establish what our rate is based on our work?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

2011-Jan-26 Wed, 05:43
That is in my opinion a difficult task because it depends on who is setting the standard for "accuracy." Scientific validation is probably more stringent than what you and I might set up as a criteria for accuracy. Lyn Buchanan in his book Seventh Sense has a chart for just such a project. Also, what is the track record of the viewer or viewers doing the sessions. Are we going to judge the RV as a whole ( SRV,CRV,HRVG,remote viewers regardless of their ability) or only the sessions of those people who have an outstanding track record. Most people can pound out a tune on the piano but few will Play in the Symphony. The same is true of RV as well. One thing I have noticed about my sessions is that I usually get good ideograms and visuals but do poorly in the other areas like sound, temps, textures etc,so down down down, goes my accuracy. So is it the structure that we are asking about or the viewers who use a specific structure plus that individuals ability.

I have see some astounding HRVG sessions, but I have also seen some really great SRV and CRV sessions. I have seen some junk as well, to which I have contributed more than my share.(:-)

Personally I think all the structures are capable of getting good results but as for accuracy that is dependent on the viewers ability and their focus.


2011-Jan-26 Wed, 18:03
Thank you, Robert. Good comments. If we establish a progress chart and track the session work in terms of congruency (we would have to agree as a group on what the factors are which constitute an accurate session), essentially answering the question, "Does this session accurately portray the content and intent of the cued target?" We would establish, for one year, a profile of our viewers and track session work. At the end of the year, we would compute the data based on our own internal criteria and establish the level of accuracy of our viewers. Granted, everyone has high sessions where they are king of the consciousness trophy, while there will be times when we literally bomb out, but each session will be carefully looked at and documented for target congruency. I may do this as a project just to establish a pulse check of our group as a whole.

Dick Allgire
2011-Jan-27 Thu, 21:01
When we tracked MJ001 (first operational group of HRVG remote viewers) around the years 1999-2001, we found that on operational targets the 3 viewers in the operational cell (Viewer, Mission Manager, Monitor) were generally above 50%.

If I recall the top viewer on a given target could reach a rating above 95%. The second tier viewer would be 70-80% accurate. The viewer with the least target contact might come in at 25-50%.

This means the percentage of data in the session that was judged to be congruent to target. If a viewer describes "sloping land" was there sloping land at target. If the viewer perceives "multiple humans in an agitated state" were there many people in an agitated state at the target? If the viewer describes a man with a firearm, was there in fact a man with a firearm present at target?

We have all those sessions in the files, with the rating. I think Valtra had the highest rating.

This was judged by taking every data point in the session, from Visual Ideogram to Sponid Probes, to every bit of data produced in every cell in Playfair and Nimo Playfair, to each data point in S-4 galleys.