I had this conversation not too long ago,

"so is the remote viewing double blind?"

And I started to go on about what double blind means and blabla, and they sort of interrupted and like

"No. I mean. They're blind to the target, but they're also blind to each other viewing the target."

To which I said "Ah. Is that what you mean? Then yes, in that sense, they're double blind"

I suspect this is what a lot of people are thinking.

I have removed all of my comments on these Fora due to ongoing jealous hostility by certain posters

I'm a fan of SRV and SRV. Call them SRVa and SRVb - SRVa being Scientific Remote Viewing, and SRVb being Sloppy Remote Viewing, or GRV (Guerrilla Remote Viewing)

also known as DGAFAPBSOGKAR , Don't Give A Fuck About Protocol But Still Occasionally Get Kick Ass Results

That history is quite educational, I was glad to learn thanks for sharing

I have removed all of my comments on these Fora due to ongoing jealous hostility by certain posters

About double blind, there is much confusion. It was promoted (and still is promoted) as a gold standard for doing remote-viewing research, and it started decades ago. But most people are not aware that there are serious problems with "double blind", and often they only know the term but not what it actually means. But at Farsight, we have done much more research on the remote-viewing process, and the term "double-blind" does not work for what we do. We don't think is it very good. The term was invented when remote viewing was done in a laboratory where there were othe people. Blind means that the remote viewer does not know the target, but other people in the laboratory may know the target, and they could unconsciously lead the session by giving hints, however subtle. Double blind means that all those people who have contact with the remote viewer are also blind to the target. Triple blind is when the people doing the analysis of the remote-viewing data also are blind to the target. But there are serious problems with all of those methods. Simply blind is obviously a problem, since unconscious leading could go on. But double blind is also problematic since people around the remote viewer could have ideas about the target based on the remote-viewing data, and this could bias the session. They could also have been involved in discussions in previous experiments, so they could have ideas about posslble targets that could contaminate the session. Triple blind has huge problems because early researchers did not understand what causes a target to be a target, and they did not understand that they could not separate the remote-viewing process from the analysis in classical terms of time and space, and they did not understand that the thoughts of the analysts CREATED the target in the first place when they anayze the data, often resulting in what is called the displace target phenomenon, where a good session results but for the wrong target in a list. At Farsight, we don't think any of those approaches are good enough. What we use is instrument blinding protocols, which you can read about here:
https://farsight.org/SRV/vocab
With instrument blinding protocols, the remote viewer works totally alone, or solo. Nothing else is good enough for us. But an interviewer is watching the session take place using Zoom, with the video and the audio turned off. Thus, the remote viewer can have no leading from the interviewer, but the interviewer can know when to send the remote viewer on to the next part of the session with nonleading movement exercises, such as "Move to Focus 2 and describe." The Interviewer works off of a pre-written script for the target, and this allows us to condence what would otherwise be a project needed many sessions by each remote viewer into one long session that has movement exercises. But the remote viewer must do their work solo. And this includes when they record their session on video. The must be solo, and no one else can be in the room when they record. So we don't like double blind because we like the remote viewer to word solo.

You must understand that an interviewer is much different from a monitor. A monitor is someone who works with students in remote viewing, and a monitor can indeed lead the student as the student struggles to perceive new things. An interviewer is highly trained to work with Instrument Blinding Protocols so that the remote viewer can work totally solo, where no leading can occur. And the movement exercises are pre-determined to be totally nonleading and very generic. The vocabulary list link above with help explain more.

Thanks Courtney,

I think I understand essentially, and I think although I struggle with the verbiage I get interesting strange questions no matter what.

It's almost like an audience watching a magician, convinced they're going to find something that the magician does to prove that the entire trick was by conventional means with a few elaborate tricks meant to fool. "Wait, was there a string beside his hand, and then it moved up and that's why he looked like he could pass it sideways and then over? Is there see-through glass? Is there a hole under that box?"

I get tempted to be extremely basic and say "all they got was a number. They didn't talk to each other, they didn't talk to anyone who planned this, they just had a number and a sheet of words they can use and if they use all the right words, the possibility of that happening by accident is like a hundred lightning bolts hitting the same person every day for a year ... "

... or something...

Aw hell. "Look! A UFO in the camera! Does that get you thinking??" Lol.

I will brush up on the link