What is this? From this page you can use the Social Web links to save British Remote Viewing Experiments- Follow up Research to a social bookmarking site, or the E-mail form to send a link via e-mail.

Social Web

E-mail

E-mail It
February 27, 2007

British Remote Viewing Experiments- Follow up Research

Posted in: proof,psionics

Well, after Ben posted that comment about the excact definition of “near guess” and how important it really was to the relevancy of the results, I went digging on the Ministry of Defense’s website. Since it was a study from 2001 and 2002, it has since been declassified. You can view the results of the 18 remote viewing sessions here in part one and part two. (They are fairly large~about 4 megs~ and in pdf format.) The Ministry of Defense has this nasty habit of blacking out a lot of the pictures, so only four of the targets are left in those files. They do however have examples of what good responses for that target would have been. This makes it a little harder to tell how close they were.

They have all the details of the 18 cases, which are very interesting to read, but its also takes some time. I’ll hit the highlights:

There was one instance of electromagnetic phenomena. This has been a supposed side effect of a lot of psioinic abilities, but the study discounts this one instance for these reasons:

  1. It was windy outside, and metal objects could have been blowing by.
  2. Power was lost during one of the sessions, making the stability of the current in the building questionable.
  3. The fact that it only happened once.

This same subject had some success as defined by their standards. I’m going to have to say that this is an interesting event, but not really evidence for anything.

Upon reading the documentation of these tests, it has become very clear to me that the numbers in the article from the BBC was very misleading.

The 28% number was the amount of subjects who “may have accessed the target in some way” as opposed to how it was presented before in the article, as a close guess. When you look at the trials, the subjects can produce as many as guesses as desired. This puts the results within the realm of chance, so the subjects might have just been lucky.

There were no results that were deemed remote viewing without a doubt by the Ministry. I agree with them.

Conclusion:

These results were really hyped up by the BBC article, and upon further examination, it makes a lot of sense why the Ministry decided not to continue tests. The lack of conclusive evidence shows that well, nothing supporting remove viewing really occurred. I suppose this has been a lesson in getting all of the relevant information before reaching conclusions. The fact that these people failed to produce good results does not however, disprove anything. So I will continue to look for “conclusive” proof.

A thanks to Ben for prodding me to check out my facts a little more.

-Hatter

StumbleUpon It!

Return to: British Remote Viewing Experiments- Follow up Research