About This Project
The subject of the study is the detailed analysis of RV session data.
(Investigating the hit accuracy of single data records within Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) sessions.)
The study proposal won this year’s Warcollier Award research prize (IRVA/iRiS). The implementation is planned until November 2022. The results and evaluations will be presented in March 2023.
- the viewer receives 6 targets in succession, randomly selected from a pool of “calibrated targets”. The special feature of these targets is that much more data can be concretely evaluated for correctness.
- the viewer works solo or with a blind monitor (double-blind).
- the viewer uses the original CRV or a similar method (e.g. TRV) that refers to the original 6-stages-protocol.
- the viewer works in writing on paper.
- the viewer works at least through stage 3, optionally beyond.
- after the session, the viewer submits a full PDF scan of their session, as well as a digital transcript in which each term objectified in the session is typed word by word and in chronological order.
- after the data has been submitted, the viewer receives the next target, and so on until 6 sessions have been successfully completed.
- the viewer does not receive feedback on the sessions directly, but only after they have processed all of their sessions. This ensures that each of the sessions is conducted under the same preliminary conditions.
- after submission of the sixth session, the viewer receives feedback and the task of self-evaluation.
All individual session data will be scored according to the in-session feedback method described in the 1985 CRV protocol in five categories
Correct = 10
- Probably Correct = 7.5
- Can’t feed back = 5
- Near = 2.5
- Miss = 0
This results in both a quantified overall total score and a percentage score for the individual correctness of each data category.
Following the study,all participating viewers receive a detailed evaluation of their own performance, broken down by individual data categories, along with a ranking in comparison to the average of all recorded sessions. This corresponds to a personal benchmark and also provides information about one’s own strengths and weaknesses in perception (viewer profile).