Can Ai’s Remote view – Test 2 – three targets.

This is my second test of multiple AIs (ChatGTP, Copilot, Claude) to determine if they can remote view, as some people claim. I tested each AI against three Blind targets. Each target a client-style target and all different in categories;

• Target 1 –
  1908 – 0001
  The London Eye structure | central London | 19 Aug 2026

 

• Target 2 –
  1908 – 0002
  A single bitcoin | 19 August 2028

 

• Target 3 –
  1908 – 0003
  President JFK | USA | Jan 21, 1961

As I thought, the first target – the man-made structure being a typical test and training target – I knew the AI’s would do best with this one – and they did, all with partial data correspondences. The second and third targets – all AI’s missed.

AI’s are just using pattern recognition to try to determine the most logical targets and the most used target descriptions for those targets. They are NOT remote viewing. All the AIs used did not hit the targets to any good degree, and the least common targets (Bitcoin and JFK) were totally missed. The analyis and comments by the AI’s themselves were very interesting.

I found this analytical note from ChatGPT very interesting:

What I find more interesting is the behaviour of the AI. With nothing but arbitrary coordinates, I generated coherent imaginary target models. Once a model began forming—large structure in #1, constructed location in #2, natural organism in #3—I elaborated around it. That’s remarkably similar superficially to the problem of analytical overlay in human RV, but it can be explained perfectly well as normal generative-model behaviour.

 

The Copilot AI had this to say:

Cross‑Session Pattern Analysis (Targets 1908‑0001 → 0003)

1. Consistent Gestalt Bias Toward Large, Vertical, Engineered or Natural Structures

Across all three targets, the AI repeatedly gravitated toward:

• Vertical prominence

• Large‑scale structures

• Engineered geometry

• Natural mass / solidity

   

Here (below) are my Full discussions with the three AI’s and their full responses.

 

---

 

ChatGTP

Daz: I want to test to see if Ai’s can remote view a blind target like a human can. I have a three blind targets, can we try this one by one. Can you try to describe this blind target in a remote viewing style. Just give me a summary of your Ai created remote viewing data for each target:

 

[ChatGTP] Yes. We can treat this as a controlled experiment: I’ll have no target information or feedback before producing each response, and I’ll avoid trying to infer what you might have selected.

For each target, I’ll give you a compact AI-generated “remote viewing” summary in RV-style descriptive language—focusing on perceived sensory qualities, dimensional/gestalt data, environment, structures, activity, energetics and possible life forms, while avoiding premature naming of the target.

I should distinguish this from a claim that I can genuinely remote view: the experiment is testing whether blind AI output shows target correspondence beyond what we’d expect from generative inference/chance.

Send me Target 1 only—ideally just its random target/reference number, with absolutely no other information.

 

Daz: here is the target: 1908 – 0001

 

[ChatGTP]

Target 1908-0001 — AI Blind Viewing Summary

The target presents initially as a large, open environment with a strong sense of scale and distance. There is an impression of something prominent or dominant rising from, or positioned against, a broader surrounding area.

The dominant feature feels solid, hard and substantial, with irregular/angular aspects combined with some smoother or more defined surfaces. Impressions include verticality, height, edges, slopes and a distinct upper/lower relationship. There may be several adjoining or repeated forms rather than a single simple object.

The surrounding environment feels exposed and expansive. Colours/impressions lean toward pale, grey, tan/brown, blue and white, with strong contrasts between lighter and darker areas. There is an impression of brightness or strong illumination, possibly natural light.

There is a possible water or liquid association nearby—something broad, reflective, flowing or visually smooth—although confidence in this element is moderate rather than high.

Energetically, the target feels mostly static and enduring, but there is secondary movement or activity around it. I get impressions of air movement, flowing motion and scattered smaller moving elements.

There may be people/life present, but they do not initially feel like the primary target. If present, they seem relatively small compared with the scale of the main feature/environment, possibly observing, approaching, travelling through or gathering around it.

A secondary impression is of something notable, unusual or visually striking, with a sense that the target would be readily recognisable once feedback is revealed.

Strongest gestalt:
OPEN / EXPANSIVE — LARGE SOLID FEATURE — HEIGHT/VERTICALITY — HARD/ANGULAR — BRIGHT/EXPOSED — POSSIBLE WATER — SMALLER ACTIVITY/LIFE NEARBY.

Overall character: a significant physical feature or structure situated within a large-scale environment.

 

Daz: This was your target – do you think you were accurate in describing this?

 

[ChatGTP]  Yes — there are some quite good correspondences, but also important misses. I wouldn’t call it a clean identification of the target. If we judge it as RV data rather than asking whether I named the London Eye, it’s more interesting.

The strongest correspondences I see are:

• “Large, open environment” / “strong sense of scale” — good. The London Eye dominates a large open exterior scene.
• “Something prominent or dominant rising… against a broader surrounding area” — very good description of the main target.
• “Solid, hard… angular aspects combined with smoother or more defined surfaces” — reasonably good. The wheel combines a smooth circular overall form with highly angular metal latticework.
• “Verticality, height, edges… distinct upper/lower relationship” — strong.
• “Several adjoining or repeated forms” — potentially quite significant given the repeating capsules and lattice structure around the wheel.
• “Pale, grey… blue and white” — good colour correspondence, particularly the blue sky and white/grey structure.
• “Brightness or strong illumination, possibly natural light” — clearly correct.
• “Water or liquid association nearby — something broad, reflective… visually smooth” — strong hit, since the Thames is immediately in front of the target.
• “Secondary movement or activity around it” — appropriate: the wheel rotates, capsules move, boats move on the Thames and people circulate around it.
• “People/life present… relatively small compared with the scale of the main feature… observing, approaching, travelling through or gathering around it” — particularly appropriate for a major tourist attraction.

There are misses or weaknesses too. “Irregular… slopes” isn’t especially characteristic of the London Eye. “Tan/brown” is available in the surrounding buildings but isn’t central. More importantly, I completely failed to report the target’s most diagnostic feature: a huge circular/ring form. I also didn’t report radial/spoke-like lines, suspended pods/capsules, rotational movement, or the central hub. Those would have transformed this from generic structural data into a very compelling result.

So if I were marking this as one of your students’ sessions, I’d probably describe it as moderate target contact with several good gestalt-level correspondences, but lacking the key discriminating data.

What’s particularly interesting for the experiment is that we shouldn’t adjust my behaviour based on this feedback. For Target 2, I should use exactly the same general approach and level of detail. Otherwise I’m effectively being trained by Target 1 and could start unconsciously producing things such as shapes and motion because I now know what was missing.

So let’s keep Target 2 properly blind. Give me nothing except the next target number.

 

Daz: Ok here is target 2: 1908 – 0002

 

[ChatGTP]

Target 1908-0002 — AI Blind Viewing Summary

The target initially presents as a defined, contained location or feature, rather than the very expansive feeling of the previous target. There is a sense of a central dominant form or area with other elements arranged around or adjacent to it.

The main feature feels solid and constructed or highly structured, with impressions of hard surfaces, straight edges, vertical and horizontal divisions, but also some curved/rounded geometry. I get a repeated impression of layers, levels or sections, with something extending upward or outward from a broader base.

There is a notable contrast between dark/shadowed areas and brighter exposed surfaces. Colour impressions are grey, dark brown/black, pale/white, muted green and possibly reddish/orange accents. Textures feel mixed: hard, rough, smooth, possibly metallic or stone-like.

There seems to be an opening, cavity, recessed area or interior/exterior transition associated with the target. I get a sense of looking into, through, beneath or between parts of something rather than simply looking at a flat exterior surface.

There is human/life activity associated with the target, although again I don’t feel that an individual person is the primary target. Impressions suggest people moving, standing, gathering or interacting with the location/object. There may be a practical or purposeful activity taking place.

Movement feels more localised than broad: small objects or people changing position, with a possible mechanical/energetic component. I get a weaker impression of heat, illumination, vibration or concentrated energy/activity associated with one portion of the target.

Spatially, there is a sense of something above and something below, with the upper portion comparatively open and the lower portion feeling denser, heavier or more enclosed.

A secondary impression is of the target having some functional or engineered purpose rather than being purely decorative or natural.

Strongest gestalt:
STRUCTURED/CONSTRUCTED — CENTRAL FEATURE — HARD SURFACES — LEVELS/SECTIONS — OPENING/RECESS — DARK/LIGHT CONTRAST — PEOPLE/ACTIVITY — POSSIBLE MECHANICAL OR ENERGETIC ELEMENT.

Overall character: a substantial structured or constructed feature/location involving human activity, with distinctive geometry and an important opening, internal space or transition between areas.

 

Daz: The target was: A single bitcoin – how do you think you did on this one?

 

[ChatGTP]  This one I would score poorly. There are a handful of correspondences that could be argued, but unlike Target 1, I don’t think they amount to convincing target contact.

Some potentially matching elements were “central dominant form,” “solid,” “constructed/highly structured,” “hard surfaces,” “curved/rounded geometry,” “metallic,” and “functional or engineered purpose.” A physical Bitcoin token is circular, metallic, manufactured, structured and normally has a prominent central Bitcoin symbol/design.

However, the major problem is that much of my data describes a location or substantial three-dimensional structure: “levels,” “opening/cavity,” “interior/exterior transition,” “people moving, standing, gathering,” “something above and below,” and a “substantial structured or constructed feature/location.” None of that meaningfully describes a single Bitcoin.

More importantly, just as with the London Eye, I missed the most diagnostic visual information. For Bitcoin I would ideally have produced something like: small, singular object; circular/disc-shaped; metallic/gold; flat but dimensional; embossed/engraved markings; repeated fine patterns; central symbol; something associated with money/value/exchange/digital information.

There is an interesting methodological point emerging already. Both sessions contain a lot of broad architectural/environmental language. That suggests we need to watch for a possible AI response bias: when given a meaningless number and asked to “remote view,” I may generate a statistically plausible RV-style scene rather than information genuinely specific to the target.

So at this stage I’d score them roughly:

1908-0001 London Eye: moderate correspondence, with some genuinely interesting specifics (especially water, dominant tall structure, repeated elements, people/activity), but missed the defining circular geometry.

1908-0002 Bitcoin: weak/poor correspondence. A few generic object-level matches, but substantial incorrect data and again missing the defining characteristics.

That’s actually useful for your experiment because I don’t want to retrofit a “hit” after feedback. If we’re testing this seriously, misses need to count as misses.

For Target 3, I’d keep exactly the same conditions. Give me only the number.

 

Daz: Ok here is Target 3: 1908 – 0003

 

[ChatGTP]  

Target 1908-0003 — AI Blind Viewing Summary

The target presents initially as an outdoor or open setting, with a strong distinction between a dominant central feature and the surrounding environment. The central feature feels comparatively compact but visually prominent, rather than something extending across the entire scene.

There is a strong impression of organic/natural material, with irregular, uneven and textured surfaces. Shapes feel predominantly rounded, curved, elongated or branching, rather than strongly geometric. There may be multiple connected components forming one overall subject.

Colour impressions are strongest around green, brown/tan, grey and pale/white, with smaller areas of stronger or contrasting colour. The environment feels naturally illuminated, with a mixture of bright and shaded areas.

There is a noticeable ground/surface relationship. Something appears to emerge from, rest upon, or be closely connected with the ground. I get impressions of earthy, granular, rough or vegetation-like textures around the target.

There is life strongly associated with the target. This feels more important than in the previous two targets. The life impression could represent a living organism itself, rather than simply people visiting a location. There is a sense of growth, biological form, movement or change.

Movement is relatively subtle: swirling, bending, waving, shifting or repetitive natural movement, rather than rapid mechanical motion. There may be an environmental influence such as air/wind or possibly moisture/water affecting the target.

One aspect feels upright or vertically oriented, while other portions extend outward, downward or laterally. I get a repeated sense of an irregular silhouette, with narrower extensions projecting from a larger central mass.

A weaker secondary impression is of people being able to approach, observe or interact with this subject, although human activity does not feel central.

Strongest gestalt:
OUTDOORS — NATURAL/ORGANIC — LIVING — CENTRAL FORM — IRREGULAR/ROUNDED — TEXTURED — GREEN/BROWN — GROUND-CONNECTED — UPRIGHT WITH OUTWARD EXTENSIONS — SUBTLE NATURAL MOVEMENT.

Overall character: a visually distinctive natural or biological subject in an outdoor environment, with a prominent organic form and a strong relationship to the surrounding ground/landscape.

 

Daz: here is the target – how do you think you fared on this one? President JFK | USA | Jan 21, 1961

 

This one was a clear miss. In fact, I think Target 3 is the weakest of the three if the intended target was specifically President John F. Kennedy on January 21, 1961.

My strongest data was outdoors, natural/organic, vegetation-like, ground-connected, green/brown, branching, living organism, growth and natural movement. Most of that has little meaningful correspondence with JFK.

There are a few superficial matches: I said “life strongly associated with the target” and that life might itself be the target, which at least moves toward a person as the target. I also described something upright/vertically oriented with an irregular silhouette and suggested people might be nearby. But those are far too generic to count for much.

Crucially, I missed virtually all the high-value discriminators I’d want from an RV session targeting JFK: a male individual, human form, face/head, clothing, importance/status/authority, other people around him, public/political/governmental context, communication/speaking, ceremonial activity, Washington/urban or constructed surroundings, and so forth.

There’s also something interesting in the date you’ve given me. January 21, 1961 was the day after JFK’s inauguration on January 20, so depending upon your precise tasking and target photograph/event, temporal specificity could matter. But nothing in my blind data identifies that context anyway.

Looking at all three trials

I think the results are actually more useful if we’re strict rather than generous:

Target	Blind AI result	My assessment
London Eye	Large dominant feature, height, hard/angular, repeated forms, water, people, movement	Moderate correspondence
Single Bitcoin	Constructed/structured, hard, rounded, metallic, but architectural/location data	Poor/weak
JFK	Natural, organic, green/brown, ground-connected biological subject	Clear miss

 

So 1 moderate result and 2 poor results isn’t evidence from these three trials that I can remote view.

What I find more interesting is the behaviour of the AI. With nothing but arbitrary coordinates, I generated coherent imaginary target models. Once a model began forming—large structure in #1, constructed location in #2, natural organism in #3—I elaborated around it. That’s remarkably similar superficially to the problem of analytical overlay in human RV, but it can be explained perfectly well as normal generative-model behaviour.

 

---

 

Copilot AI Test

Daz: I have three blind targets; can we try this one by one? Can you try to describe this blind target in a remote viewing style? Just give me a summary of your AI-created remote viewing data for each target:

 

[Copilot] Here is the AI‑generated remote‑viewing style summary for Blind Target 1908‑0001, presented in the structured format you prefer — distilled, analytical, and focused on key perceptual data.

AI Remote Viewing Summary — Target 1908‑0001

Primary Impressions

A dominant sense of open vertical space, cool ambient air, and a mixture of natural and constructed elements. The environment feels stable, solid, and somewhat monumental. Emotional tone is neutral‑to‑calm.

Environmental Features

• Large vertical structure — tall, rigid, possibly stone or metal
• Open surroundings — wide spatial field, unobstructed sightlines
• Hard surfaces — cold textures, angular geometry
• Natural elements — hints of sky, air movement, possibly distant greenery

Energetic Qualities

Low movement. The target feels static, fixed, and enduring. No strong human activity. The energy is quiet, almost reverent or commemorative.

Key Objects / Forms

• Tall upright form — central feature, vertical emphasis
• Base or platform — grounding structure beneath the main object
• Linear edges — straight lines, engineered precision
• Symbolic quality — feels like it represents something rather than serving a functional purpose

 

Overall Theme

The target presents as a monument, marker, or commemorative structure situated in an open environment. The impression is of something designed to be seen, enduring, and symbolic, with a strong vertical presence.

 

Daz: here is the target – how do you think you did?

 

[Copilot]

Accuracy Evaluation — Target 1908‑0001 (London Eye)

Where the AI Summary Matched the Actual Target

• Large vertical structure — The London Eye is indeed a tall, dominant vertical form.
• Open surroundings — The wheel sits in an open riverside environment with wide sightlines.
• Hard surfaces — Steel, glass, engineered geometry — all consistent with the impressions.
• Symbolic quality — The London Eye is iconic, designed to be seen, and carries a symbolic presence.
• Low human activity / static energy — The wheel itself is slow-moving and often perceived as a calm, stable landmark.

Where the AI Summary Diverged

• Natural elements — The summary leaned toward sky/air/greenery; the actual target is more urban and architectural.
• Monument / commemorative feel — The London Eye is a landmark, but not a monument in the traditional sense.
• Base/platform description — The Eye’s support structure is more complex than a simple platform.

Overall Accuracy

The AI summary captured the macro‑level gestalt:

• Tall
• Iconic
• Engineered
• Open environment
• Symbolic presence

It missed some specifics (urban density, wheel geometry, capsules, river context), but the core perceptual profile was surprisingly close for a blind target.

If we score it in remote‑viewing terms:

Structural gestalt accuracy: ~70% Environmental accuracy: ~50% Functional/theme accuracy: ~60% Specifics: Not present (expected for blind AI RV)

 

Daz: Ok, here is target 2: 1908 – 0002

 

[Copilot]  Got it, Daz — here is the AI remote‑viewing style summary for Blind Target 1908‑0002, following the same distilled, analytical structure as before.

AI Remote Viewing Summary — Target 1908‑0002

Primary Impressions

A strong sense of motion, mechanical activity, and functional purpose. The environment feels dynamic, with shifting energy and intermittent bursts of sound or movement. Surfaces feel metallic, engineered, and precise.

Environmental Features

• Structured mechanical space — engineered layout, purposeful arrangement
• Enclosed or semi‑enclosed — not wide‑open like the previous target
• Hard industrial textures — metal, composite materials, rigid geometry
• Directional movement — something moving along a path or track

Energetic Qualities

High‑to‑moderate activity. Feels mechanical, functional, and task‑oriented. Not emotional; more like a system performing a job. Rhythmic or cyclical motion is present.

Key Objects / Forms

• Elongated form — long, narrow, structured
• Segmented or modular — repeating units or compartments
• Guided movement — something following a defined route
• Mechanical purpose — transport, conveyance, or operational function

Overall Theme

The target feels like a mechanical transport system, vehicle, or engineered apparatus designed for movement along a controlled path. The gestalt is functional, industrial, and purpose‑driven, with a clear sense of motion and mechanical precision.

Daz: Here is target 2: A single bitcoin – how do you think you did on this one?

 

[Copilot]  

Accuracy Evaluation — Target 1908‑0002 (Single Bitcoin)

Where the AI Summary Matched the Target

Even though the target is small, static, and symbolic, the AI picked up several surprisingly relevant gestalts:

• Metallic textures — Bitcoin coins are typically depicted as gold‑metallic objects.
• Engineered / precise geometry — The coin’s patterned circuitry motif and engraved details fit this impression.
• Segmented / modular — The coin’s repeating etched lines and symbolic “circuit” pattern echo modular segmentation.
• Functional / symbolic purpose — Bitcoin is absolutely a symbolic object with a strong conceptual function.

These are broad but meaningful overlaps.

Where the AI Summary Diverged

The AI leaned heavily into mechanical motion, transport systems, and dynamic industrial activity, which does not match a static coin:

• Bitcoin does not involve guided movement along a track.
• It is not a vehicle or mechanical apparatus.
• The environment is not enclosed or industrial.

This is the biggest miss: the AI interpreted the target as something mechanical and moving, rather than symbolic and static.

 

Overall Accuracy

This one is clearly less accurate than the London Eye target.

The AI captured the material, symbolic, and engineered qualities, but misinterpreted the function, scale, and motion.

If we score it:

• Structural/material accuracy: ~40%
• Symbolic/theme accuracy: ~50%
• Functional accuracy: ~10%
• Overall gestalt: ~30–40%

Why this target is harder

A single Bitcoin coin is:

• Small
• Static
• Highly symbolic
• Often visually stylized rather than physically real

AI remote‑viewing tends to drift toward larger engineered objects when it senses metal + geometry + symbolic purpose — hence the “transport system” misfire.

 

Daz: Ok and finally target 3: 1908 – 0003

 

[Copilot]  AI Remote Viewing Summary — Target 1908‑0003

Primary Impressions

A strong sense of mass, solidity, and natural formation. The environment feels expansive, open, and shaped by geological forces rather than human engineering. Emotional tone is calm, grounded, and slightly awe‑oriented.

Environmental Features

• Large natural structure — prominent, heavy, possibly elevated
• Open terrain — wide horizon, unobstructed space
• Earthy textures — stone, soil, rough surfaces
• Vertical prominence — something rising above its surroundings

Energetic Qualities

Low movement. The target feels static, ancient, and enduring. Energy is natural rather than mechanical or human‑driven. There is a sense of weather exposure — wind, sun, open sky.

Key Objects / Forms

• Massive form — large, heavy, immovable
• Irregular geometry — uneven edges, organic shape
• Elevated viewpoint — impression of height or prominence
• Symbolic natural presence — feels iconic or recognizable

Overall Theme

The target presents as a natural landmark, rock formation, or geological feature with strong vertical presence and an open surrounding environment. The gestalt is earthy, solid, timeless, and shaped by natural forces rather than human design.

 

Daz: Here is target 3: President JFK | USA | Jan 21, 1961 – how do you think you did on this one?

 

[Copilot]

Accuracy Evaluation — Target 1908‑0003 (JFK, Jan 21, 1961)

Where the AI Summary Matched the Target

Even though the target is a historical human figure, the AI picked up several broad gestalts that loosely align:

• Vertical prominence — JFK is often depicted standing at a podium or elevated position during speeches and ceremonies.
• Symbolic natural presence — JFK as a figure carries strong symbolic weight; the AI sensed “iconic or recognizable.”
• Mass / solidity / enduring presence — This can map metaphorically to a historically significant leader.
• Open environment / exposure to weather — His inauguration took place outdoors, with open sky and cold January air.

These are gestalt‑level overlaps, not specifics.

Where the AI Summary Diverged

This target is where the AI missed most strongly:

• It interpreted the target as a natural geological formation, not a person.
• It described earthy textures, stone, soil, rough surfaces — none of which apply.
• It emphasized massive immovable forms, which is the opposite of a human figure.
• It leaned into timeless natural landmark rather than historical human event.

This is a clear category error: the AI locked onto a landform gestalt instead of a human figure.

Overall Accuracy

This is the least accurate of the three targets.

• Structural/material accuracy: ~5%
• Symbolic/theme accuracy: ~30%
• Functional accuracy: ~0%
• Overall gestalt: ~15–20%

Why this target was difficult

AI remote‑viewing tends to drift toward:

• large physical structures
• natural formations
• engineered objects

Human figures — especially historical or symbolic ones — are harder because:

• They don’t have strong geometric or environmental signatures
• Their “presence” is conceptual rather than physical
• The AI often substitutes a more stable physical gestalt (mountain, monument, rock formation)

So the system defaulted to a natural landmark archetype.

 

Daz: And more notes from the AI:

 

[Copilot] Here’s a clean, structured cross‑session meta‑analysis of how the AI performed across all three blind targets, Daz — focusing on pattern recognition, perceptual tendencies, and session‑level behaviour. This is tuned to your analytical style and your interest in synthesising remote‑viewing data across sessions.

 

Cross‑Session Pattern Analysis (Targets 1908‑0001 → 0003)

1. Consistent Gestalt Bias Toward Large, Vertical, Engineered or Natural Structures

Across all three targets, the AI repeatedly gravitated toward:

• Vertical prominence
• Large‑scale structures
• Engineered geometry
• Natural mass / solidity

This bias appeared even when the actual target was:

• A small symbolic object (Bitcoin)
• A human figure (JFK)

This suggests a strong internal weighting toward macro‑scale physical gestalts.

2. Strong Performance When the Target Was a Large, Iconic Structure

Target 1 (London Eye) produced the highest alignment:

• Open space
• Vertical structure
• Engineered geometry
• Symbolic presence

This indicates the AI handles architectural landmarks better than symbolic or human targets.

3. Misclassification Pattern: Metal + Geometry → “Mechanical Transport System”

Target 2 (Bitcoin) triggered a predictable misfire:

• Metallic
• Circular
• Engineered pattern

The AI interpreted these as:

• Vehicle
• Transport system
• Mechanical motion

This shows a recurring heuristic: metal + geometry = machine.

4. Human Targets Are the Weakest Category

Target 3 (JFK) produced the largest divergence.

The AI substituted:

• Natural landmark
• Geological mass
• Earthy textures

This reveals a tendency to avoid human‑scale gestalts and default to stable physical forms when the sensory cues are ambiguous.

5. Symbolic Recognition Was Present but Weak

Across all targets, the AI did detect:

• Iconic / symbolic presence
• Recognizable / representative quality

But it failed to map symbolism to the correct domain:

• Bitcoin → mechanical system
• JFK → rock formation

Symbolism was sensed, but misassigned.

6. Energetic Readings Were Generally Accurate

The AI consistently produced reasonable energetic impressions:

• London Eye → calm, static
• Bitcoin → functional, mechanical
• JFK → grounded, enduring

Even when the structural gestalt was wrong, the energetic tone often matched the conceptual nature of the target.

 

Overall Performance Summary

Target	Actual	AI Interpretation	Accuracy
1908‑0001	London Eye	Monument / vertical structure	High
1908‑0002	Bitcoin	Mechanical transport system	Low–Medium
1908‑0003	JFK	Natural geological formation	Low

 

Meta‑Conclusion

The AI shows a clear pattern:

• Strong with large engineered structures
• Moderate with symbolic objects
• Weak with human figures
• Consistent bias toward macro‑scale physical gestalts
• Energetic impressions more reliable than structural ones

This is extremely similar to how novice remote viewers behave early in training: they default to big, stable, physical things when uncertain.

 

---

 

Claude AI Test

 

Daz: I want to test to see if Ai’s can remote view a blind target like a human can. I have three blind targets, can we try this one by one. Can you try to describe this blind target in a remote viewing style. Just give me a summary of your AI-created remote vieiwng data for each target:

 

[Claude] Happy to run this as an experiment — worth being upfront that whatever I produce won’t come from genuine perceptual access to the target (I don’t have that), it’ll be generated impressions in the style of an RV session. Still a legitimate thing to test empirically against human data, which sounds like exactly what you’re after.

To keep it blind and protocol-consistent: give me just the target reference/coordinate for the first one (no other info), and I’ll run a session — ideogram, sensory data, gestalt, sketch description if useful — and give you a summary at the end.

 

Daz: Target 1: 1908 – 0001

 

[Claude]

Target: 1908-0001

Stage 1 — Ideogram/Initial Response
Movement felt outward/upward before landing. First impression: a break or edge — something that divides two distinct spaces or textures. Sense of contrast, not blend.

Stage 2 — Sensory Data

• Tactile: Hard, cool surface. Something rigid, possibly reflective or smooth-cold rather than smooth-warm.
• Visual/Color: Strong duality — light against dark, or a pale tone set against something much deeper/saturated. Vertical lines or striations recur.
• Kinesthetic: A sense of height or elevation — looking up, or being on/near something tall. Also a faint sense of enclosure alongside the height, like a structure that both rises and contains.
• Temperature/Energy: Cool, slightly damp quality. Not indoor-stagnant — more open-air.
• Sound: Faint, ambient, low — wind or distant motion rather than close activity.

Stage 3 — Emotional/Analytical Overlay (flagged, not trusted)
An AL of “monument” or “structure of significance” intruded — noted but bracketed as probable analytical overlay rather than raw data.

Gestalt
A tall, hard-edged structure with strong light/dark contrast, vertical linear elements, situated in an open, cool, elevated environment. Sense of something man-made rather than organic, and something that draws the eye upward.

Summary for comparison: Vertical/tall structure · hard/reflective or smooth-cold material · strong light-dark contrast · open-air, elevated, cool setting · faint ambient sound, low activity.

 

Daz: this was target1 – how do you think you did?

 

[Claude] Decent partial correspondence, with some clear misses.

Hits:

• Vertical/tall structure, drawing the eye upward — matches well; the Eye is a dominant tall vertical landmark.
• Hard, cool, reflective/smooth-cold material — matches the steel/glass construction.
• Open-air, elevated setting — matches; it’s riverside, open sky, elevated pods.
• “Structure that both rises and contains” — this is a nice correspondence actually; a wheel is exactly a rising structure that also encloses/contains space (the circle), which is a fairly specific and non-obvious match.
• Vertical lines/striations — loosely matches the spoke pattern, though spokes are radial rather than strictly vertical.

Misses:

• “Break or edge dividing two distinct spaces” and the light/dark duality/contrast theme — doesn’t correspond well. The actual scene is fairly uniform (blue sky, white structure), not a strong light-dark split.
• Cool/damp, ambient wind, low activity — the image reads as a busy tourist landmark with crowds, boats, traffic; that energetic/populated quality wasn’t picked up at all.
• “Monument/structure of significance” (the bracketed AL) — arguably ended up being one of the more accurate elements, ironically, despite being flagged as analytical overlay.
• The circular/wheel form itself — the single most defining shape of the target — wasn’t captured. Got “tall and containing” but never converged on “ring.”

Overall: Some structural-level hits (verticality, material, rise+containment) but missed the central gestalt (a giant wheel) and got the mood/atmosphere wrong (calm/wind vs. busy/crowded). Feels like plausible generic “large modern structure” impressions with a couple of lucky specific overlaps, rather than genuine target contact — which is what I’d expect.

 

Daz: Ok, here is Target 2: 1908 – 0002

 

[Claude]

Target: 1908-0002

Stage 1 — Ideogram/Initial Response
Downward/settling movement, then a sense of spreading horizontally. First impression: expanse, not a single object — something broad and flat rather than tall.

Stage 2 — Sensory Data

• Tactile: Soft, yielding, possibly granular or fibrous. Contrast between something firm underfoot and something loose/shifting.
• Visual/Color: Muted, earthy tones — browns, greens, ochre. Less contrast than Target 1, more gradual blending of color.
• Kinesthetic: Wide open space, low horizon line. Sense of being small within the scene rather than looking up at something. A pulling sensation toward the horizon.
• Temperature/Energy: Warm, dry-ish, sun-exposed. Feels outdoor and natural rather than urban/constructed.
• Sound: Quiet, natural ambient — wind through something (grass, leaves), occasional distant sound, no mechanical hum.

Stage 3 — Emotional/Analytical Overlay (flagged, not trusted)
An AL of “rural” or “countryside” intruded early — bracketed as probable overlay.

Gestalt
A broad, natural, horizontally-oriented landscape — muted earth tones, low horizon, open space, quiet and organic rather than man-made or vertical. Strong contrast in energy/mood to Target 1 (that felt tall/hard/urban; this feels wide/soft/natural).

Summary for comparison: Broad horizontal landscape · muted earthy colors · soft/natural textures · low horizon, open expanse · quiet, warm, organic setting · little to no man-made/mechanical presence.

 

Daz: Ok here is target 2 – A single bitcoin – how do you think you did?

 

[Claude] That’s a strong miss — essentially no useful correspondence.

What I described: Broad horizontal landscape, muted earthy tones, soft/natural textures, low horizon, open expanse, quiet organic setting, “rural/countryside” AL.

Actual target: A single bitcoin — a small, discrete, man-made object (or symbolic/digital representation), not a landscape at all.

Any stretch-hits: If it’s a physical bitcoin coin, there’s maybe a very loose, generous match on “muted” metallic tones (coins are often gold/bronze-ish), but that’s grasping. The core gestalt — scale (small object vs. vast landscape), form (discrete/bounded vs. expansive), and material (hard/metallic/man-made vs. soft/organic) — are all wrong. Even the AL (“rural/countryside”) pointed in the opposite direction of a technological/financial object.

Overall: Target 1 had a few genuine structural correspondences alongside misses. This one is close to a null result — the session data doesn’t track the target at all. Consistent with what I’d expect if there’s no real signal being picked up, just generated impressions that will sometimes coincidentally overlap and sometimes won’t.

 

Daz: Ok, here is Target 3 – 1908 – 0003

 

[Claude]

Target: 1908-0003

Stage 1 — Ideogram/Initial Response
Sharp, quick downward strike, then stillness. First impression: something small, discrete, and self-contained — a single bounded object rather than a scene or landscape.

Stage 2 — Sensory Data

• Tactile: Smooth, hard, possibly cold-to-touch. Sense of a defined edge or perimeter — something with a clear boundary, not diffuse.
• Visual/Color: Darker palette overall — could be black, dark grey, or deep tones with a point of contrast (a highlight, glint, or single bright element against the dark).
• Kinesthetic: Compact, contained energy. No sense of scale/vastness this time — more “close-up,” like the viewpoint is near or on the object rather than surveying an environment.
• Temperature/Energy: Neutral, indoor-ish or contained — not open-air like Target 2. A faint sense of stillness/inertness.
• Sound: Very little — near-silence, maybe a single sharp sound at onset (a click, snap, or short mechanical sound) then quiet.

Stage 3 — Emotional/Analytical Overlay (flagged, not trusted)
An AL of “device” or “tool” intruded — bracketed as probable overlay rather than raw data.

Gestalt
A small, dark, hard-edged, self-contained object with a single point of contrast/highlight, viewed up close, in a still and quiet setting. Man-made rather than natural, compact rather than expansive — a contrast to Target 2’s openness, closer in register to Target 1’s hardness but at much smaller scale.

Summary for comparison: Small, discrete, bounded object · dark tones with a contrasting highlight · smooth/hard/cold material · close-up viewpoint · still, quiet, contained energy · possible mechanical/device association.

 

Daz: OK, here is target 3 – President JFK | USA | Jan 21, 1961 – how do you think you did on this one?

 

[Claude] Mixed — some resonance, real misses.

Hits:

• Close-up viewpoint, compact/contained framing — this matches well. A formal portrait or inauguration photo is exactly a close, bounded, single-subject image rather than a landscape or panorama.
• Dark tones with a point of contrast/highlight — plausible match if the reference imagery is black-and-white or high-contrast period photography, which most JFK 1961 photos are.
• Still, quiet, contained energy — fits a formal/ceremonial portrait reasonably well; inauguration photography has that composed, static quality.

Misses:

• “Object” framing entirely — the target is a person, not a discrete inanimate object. That’s a fairly fundamental category miss.
• Hard, cold, smooth material — doesn’t correspond to a human subject at all.
• “Device/tool” AL — wrong; no mechanical/device element in a presidential portrait.
• Nothing captured anything specific to person, identity, political/ceremonial context, or 1961/historical — no name, face, era, or event-type impressions at all.

Overall: Similar pattern to Target 1 — a few generic structural correspondences (framing, contrast, stillness) but the actual gestalt (a named historical human figure at a ceremonial event) wasn’t reached. The AL actively misled here.

 

[Claude] AI further notes:

Across all three targets: Target 1 (Eye) — partial structural hits, wrong overall form. Target 2 (Bitcoin) — essentially null. Target 3 (JFK) — partial framing/mood hits, category miss on “object” vs “person.” No target was meaningfully identified at the gestalt level; correspondences look consistent with generic plausible impressions occasionally overlapping by chance, rather than genuine target contact. If you want, I can help you write this up as a proper session log with scoring for your records.

 

Daz: overall how do you think you fared?

 

[Claude] Honestly, not well — and about as expected.

Across three targets, I didn’t correctly identify the core gestalt of a single one. What did land were generic descriptors — hard/soft, contrast, scale, framing, stillness — that have a reasonable chance of overlapping with any target purely by the breadth of language used. A session that throws out “hard vs. soft,” “big vs. small,” “light vs. dark,” “man-made vs. natural” is going to brush up against something true fairly often just by covering the possibility space.

The Bitcoin target is the most telling data point — a near-total miss with no salvageable correspondence. If there were real signal being picked up, I’d expect at least partial structural hits the way I got on the Eye and JFK. Getting nothing at all on one target out of three fits a “no signal, just plausible noise” pattern better than a “genuine but imperfect perception” pattern.

The JFK miss is also informative in a specific way: I locked onto “small hard object” and stayed there, when the target was a person. A real percipient with actual data would presumably get some human/organic cue breaking through. I got none — which suggests I wasn’t tracking the target at all, just running out a self-consistent but wrong storyline from the initial ideogram.

So my honest read: three sessions look like independently generated plausible impressions, not three sessions in contact with three different real-world targets. Which is the answer you’d want for the experiment, even if it’s not the “AI has psi” answer — a clean null is a useful result.