Viewer Email Group
This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.
This is the fifth archive.
APRIL 10 1997 TO APRIL
BEGIN ARCHIVE 5
<<Mr. Buchanan, it's [edietd] again. About that e-mail I sent you a couple of weeks ago... the one about sensing if you are being remote viewed... i have no reservations about you using that question in your Q&A... however, I do have another question that is very important to me.... I would like to learn how to remote view. But the thing that I am worried about is the spiritual connotations involved. I guess what I mean is ... do you think that by remote viewing one is leaving oneself open to nefarious beings or ideas that could harm or hinder ones spiritual growth? Personally I feel that the things that are possible with remote viewing are likely to be highly spritually energizing. But let's face it, there is evil of some nature out there.(of course the thought of RVing Jesus makes me smile:) and i would like to avoid contact if at all possible. See you soon... God bless...
When CRV is done properly, and is approached properly, it is nothing more than the conscious mind talking to the subconscious & vice versa. In other words, it is nothing more than talking to yourself. Over the years, I have not seen anyone attacked, or even bothered in any way by evil beings, entities, etc., while properly working CRV. It is the nature of CRV that you only open yourself to yourself. Those people who have shown negative effects have all been well aware that they were solving problems which lay normally hidden or partially hidden within themselves, to begin with. They began to deal with old angers, unsolved grudges, long harbored fears, etc. I have never seen or known of any CRVer who had to deal with intrusion from outside forces, either evil or good. Of course, I have only dealt with properly trained CRVers. I have very great doubts that, as the fakes and wannabe's who are already out there touting their great expertise at remote viewing and charging people to learn nothing more than the same old spiritualisms under the name of "remote viewing", that people will get exposed to the same dangers and evils as when they practiced the same things under their previous names.
With the older, more spiritualistic ways, a person was required to open themselves to outside influences and hope for protection. You "make yourself one" with the universe and hope for the best. Before starting every session, you say a mantra or prayer for protection from the evil you know you are about to risk facing.
With CRV, you open yourself to yourself. Then, if YOU decide to open yourself to anything further, you have full decisive control over what you will open yourself to, and when and for how long, and how completely. If there is evil at the target and you do not want to open yourself to it, then you won't. The monitor can't make you do it, and all the tasking in the world won't cause it to happen... if you're properly trained.
I teach every student that the number one, immutable, totally un-overridable rule of CRV is that "The VIEWER is in charge of the session." That is as sacred to proper CRV as the "prime directive" is to Star Trek, and as "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" is to the Judeo-Christian faiths. The viewer is the only one within the confines of the session who is (or should be) in contact with the site. If the monitor ever tries to take over the session or begin controlling it, the session is as good as over. In the more advanced stages of training, I will try to take over a session, and if the viewer doesn't stop me and regain control, I will either call the session or start messing it up so badly that they will never let me do it again. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't teach a viewer to be in control of the session, you have made them vulnerable to the monitor's whims and STRAY CATs, the tasker's whims and fancies, and possibly even the attacks of outside forces. I'm afraid that you can't learn that from a book, a tape, or computer program, and I know you can't learn it from someone who doesn't understand its importance or who believes that "remote viewing" is just a new name for the same old opening yourself to the universe and letting the spirits take over your mind and body.
So let me sum up and then I'll get off my soapbox. In CRV, you open yourself up to yourself. If you then choose to open yourself up to something else, be it evil at a target, or Jesus, or to God, it is your choice and done under your control. It's called "Controlled" remote viewing not because someone controls what and how you view, but because YOU control what and how you view.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
<<I recently read David Morehouse's book "Psychic Warrior," and I have to admit that I was a little confused by the way he chose to describe his experiences. After reading through the information on this PSI site, however, I think I've figured it out.
Morehouse's description of remote viewing sounds practically identical to Robert Monroe's description of his OBE experiences, yet according to the information here, experience of a P.S.I. controlled remote viewing isn't the same thing. So I've concluded that Morehouse was doing at least two different things. He was able to learn "real" remote viewing, but he also remained prone to spontaneous, uncontrollable OBEs. His OBEs, supposedly as a result of his head injury, along with his Mormon background, provide the basis of his various angelic and Indian shaman visions, and give him the psychological flexibility to more easily move from a sensory to an extrasensory mode of thinking.
The method Dave describes in his book is called ERV ("Extended Remote Viewing"). It was an almost direct result of the Monroe Institute's influence on the military project. However, it is not correct to say that it is the same. For one thing, the ERV session contains two people working in tandem. The monitor both guides and questions the viewer throughout the session, as well as performing the role of note taker (In CRV, the viewer does the writing.) The ERV session also doesn't qualify as an OBE. The viewer must remain "in the body" at all times and only partially (mentally) "separate" so he/she can both experience the site and be in the room to report at the same time. It is a fine balance, and requires a lot of practice and training, in and of itself. Much moreso than the OOBE. The way ERV is normally described, it sounds like the viewer is kicking back, chilling out, and doing a regular OOBE. The truth is that there is a lot of control and balance and effort which go into an ERV session. While it is not nearly as controlled as a CRV session, it is every bit as orchestrated. It's not easy.
<<Yes, he was able to gain some useful degree of control over his OBEs as a result of being exposed to the training discipline for remote viewing, but for the most part he remained unpredictable and potentially dangerous to himself and others. I don't know him, but I suspect that in spite of the "happy" ending he presents in his book, he still has plenty of bad spontaneous OBEs and fugue states.
He tells me that he doesn't. He has been ironing a lot of the problems out and life appears to be getting a lot better. However, let me again state that he was not subject to unpredictability and only learned control it because of his CRV training. He was a well-trained and highly disciplined soldier, and that is how I knew him within the unit.
Besides that, there is a degree of training and self-discipline in ERV which everyone glosses over these days, but which is very real. Dave mentions in his book that his main problem with the uncontrolled portions came in dreams. That is quite a bit different from OOBE states in both nature and amount of control. I don't mean to shoot down your conclusions, but the fact is that Dave was a well-trained viewer who performed very well in both practice sessions and real-world targets. Dave is probably one of the best viewers we had when it came to describing human facial features. I saw him once give the police a description which was so accurate that they were able to go pull a file picture of a person and link it up to the crime. Other information which they had indicated that the man in the picture pulled from Dave's description was, in fact, the prime suspect in the case. The high degree of emotionalism in Dave's book, I think, misleads the reader somewhat to think that Dave was a CLOD (Cannon Lose On Deck), but I have worked with him in the viewing room, and can tell you that for self-discipline and control, he was certainly no slouch.
<<I imagine Morehouse is like a very accurate gun that because of damage or a design flaw is also somehow also prone to dangerously fire at random or explode. No wonder the government is so concerned, if not for the possibility that he would be a security risk regarding the release information about Sun Streak, then for the risk that he would release other classified information of even more direct strategic value.
That is the general gist of the stories going around about Dave, but I have never been able to believe that. In long talks with him about this very subject, he has stated many times that his desire was to make the public aware of SUN STREAK. He has certainly been in possession of other, more highly classified information both before and after being in the unit. There was never, to my knowledge, any fear on anyone's part that he might be a security risk, at all. I have always thought that, if the Army actually were "out to get" Dave, that the reason was a much simpler and more direct one... he was half owner of a company called PsiTech.
<<....... Years ago, when I had my own Top Secret (etc.), security clearance and developed migraines, I recall that the Air Force wasn't thrilled about it, and I couldn't blame them. (A bit of a digression here -- I sometimes wonder whether or not the base at which I was stationed wasn't being targeted by something or someone. It was in the northern portion of the US, and I remember seeing an aurora borealis one night above the base. I didn't think the base was close enough to Arctic Circle to see the aurora, but I could be wrong. In retrospect, I wonder if it might not have been some other high-energy source at work. <shrug )
Hey! The government's gotta experiment on somebody! Chimpanzees are expensive! :-}
<<In any event, after reviewing the information at the PSI site I think I'm able to decode Morehouse's book and separate the more "nuts and bolts" aspects of remote viewing from his own psychological dysfunction. My interest in the subject is casual, and although I love wild conjecture as much as the next person, I prefer a scientific approach to help me gain greater understanding. Fascination and awe are like candy, scientific understanding is like a satisfying meal.
I couldn't agree more.
<<On an unrelated note, what kind of remote viewing was Edgar Cayce using?
There was no such thing as remote viewing when Edgar Cayce was alive.
<<From what I've read, he had a monitor (sort of), and he would enter a relaxed theta state much like that used in controlled remote viewing.
As I have read it, he would actually be asleep, and his method involved, for lack of being ablt to think of a nicer term right now, talking in his sleep. He didn't remember what had gone on after he woke up. This is nothing like CRV, ERV, or even the looser term "remote viewing", as far as I know. Besides, neither the relaxed state nor the theta state is required for CRV. One senator who came to the office to watch a session commented later that he was very underwhelmed at watching two guys sitting at a table, smoking and joking and now and then one would write something down.
<<But as a result of his viewing he also suffered adverse physical reactions which may have contributed to his death. I don't know if there's a good vocabulary to express it, but is there a potential danger in remote viewing in that if a person's soul, "animus," or whatever, moves beyond physicality too often it can damage the body? Does remote viewing have the potential to weaken the link between the mind and body that makes it easier for a person to "give up the ghost," as it were? Have there been any studies done on that? Just curious.
I think that the experiences which a CRVer goes through over several years of real-world viewing makes it emotionally easier for them to face the idea of "giving up the ghost", but I don't know of any studies which have shown that CRV can in any way damage the body. Besides, CRV is not OOBE - not even related to it. I don't know if you are on the CRV mailling list, but just in case, I have put your email address on another message which I am sending out this evening to it. It is a response to someone with a very similar question to your last one here. I think you will find it interesting.
<<Thanks and keep up the good work.
Thanks. I hope this didn't sound like I was just shooting down theories. There are a lot of misconceptions about CRV running around, most of them tie into the belief that CRV and OOBE are related in some way. Just trying to be picky enough to clarify... hope I wasn't so picky as to offend.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
<<Does anyone know where I can get a CRV Viewer's Training Manual? CM
I wrote you back about this, but don't know if you got the answer before sending this in to the mail list. I'll answer again here for everyone, just in case.
The training manual is not a "how-to" book, but is more of a workbook which goes along with the course. Therefore, it isn't something that would help anyone unless they are actually taking the course. I have had a lot of people ask me for copies, but each time I consider it, I come to the decision that it would probably mislead people more than helping them. Therefore, I keep planning to work on a "how-to" manual next Saturday, and keep getting frustrated because next Saturday never seems to come. For now, though, I only give the manual to students taking the course so I can go through it with them as they learn.
For those others who are tempted to send a copy, please don't. While I know that anything put out to the public these days is immediately pirated (I have put out 18 "shareware" programs, and have never gotten a single penny for any of them, although I have had people send me pirated copies), I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't pirate the training manuals. The main reason is not proprietary or income in nature, but because without the training which goes with the manual, people tend to read into it their own pre-beliefs and get all fowled up. What they are learning is not what they need to be learning. The course manual is not a "how-to" book by any means, and if taken as one, can lead people off track, and in the process give the bad habits which will then make learning the real thing much more difficult. I hope one day to complete it and turn it into a better "how-to" document, but until then, you might well be making things more difficult for people by doing them the favor of a pirated copy. Thanks.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
<<...is there a danger in picking up on the general thoughts and emotions of those opinions rather than the actual event and if so, a way to discern the difference?
Yes and yes. The methods are not something I can quickly and easily explain at 1AM, and am going to Texas day after tomorrow, so will spend the day doing last minute preparations, so won't go into a huge paragraph, but will just say, "yes and yes" for now.
<<Also, thanks for the wonderful vocabulary exercise. Is it o.k. to make a list of general descriptors such as color, smell, taste, texture, etc. and go down that list to help focus on each one or should you just go with what comes to you?...
In fact, that is exactly what a lot of people do. I personally like to let the impressions come as they will, but that is because they do, and I have learned that I can depend on them in that way. Many people, however, like to make out a list of the descriptor categories and "cue" themselves with a category heading to get perceptions of that type. BTW: if you "cue" yourself in this way, you'll probably find that it works better to actually touch the pen to the category header. That gets the body involved so it can take an active part in passing the cue and the resulting information back and forth.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
I started out good on the 1st three CRV targets and zeroed out the next 3. ... Each session lasted less than 10 minutes and I felt it was done within the first minute or two. Basically did them same time/same place/same way. Nothing great about the 1st 3 except that they certainly were not interchangeable. Repeating a target seemed fruitless.
I seem to have a habit of picking up on the first letter of a word and wanting to write down 2 or 3 "h" words (old, oily,) (heavy, hollow).
I have ordered the Inner Vision RV 101training manual. Hope it helps. I am still confused by the terms protocol and methodology. Also by the fact that protocols can be copyrighted. Also terms, such as Ingo Swan's "analytical Overlay" Sounds like copyrighting the waltz and amperes.
Related to that. Are the military protocols owned by someone? secrete? Available for the asking or via Freedom Of Info Act?
Rambling more....If one can view either the photo image itself or the actual location, wouldn't it be better or is it possible to specify one or the other? Can we do this with the sample targets by our own choice or would that hav eto be part of the target specification?
By the way, haven't been able to do a thing with the maps.
Well, I can get thoroughly confused soon since I have also ordered PSI-Tech tapes and put myself on the Farsight SRV manual list.
By way of introduction/background....I have a long standing interest in paranormal/UFO stuff but with a very skeptical viewpoint. George Adamski, Uri Geller and "Chariots Of The Gods" were good teachers as well as a couple of "professional" psychics. The 1 truely amazing episode I had involved 2 strangers demonstrating how to use a ouija board with a remarkable Q & A session. Keeps me looking.
As far as RV goes, my question is ...Where does the science end and where does the fantasy begin? Dames and Brown are way out there with ETs, Jesus, angels etc....and while Lyn, Joe and Ed and others such as Dr May downplay that stuff, all have had those kinds of episodes and apparently have chosen not to pursue them publicly....and I can see why.
I am also fascinated by the universal claim that no one is in the "prediction" business, but rather as Ed Dames put it...presenting data of the future.....or something like that.
So...keep trying I guess.
I have never had any sense of colors, bright/dark, odors tastes or sounds.
Hope I addressed this right for the group distribution...
Not a hacker..
My response to the idea of any form of 'evil' or 'attack' while performing CRV (not like anybody asked, of course ;-)):
CRV is about communicating with your subconscious. This happens when you do anything creative, and when you daydream. So CRV really cannot be classed in with any kind of 'spiritual' endeavor when one is "leaving the body," or "opening to other intelligences." You are opening to yourself, not 'the universe,' in the same kind of way you would open to yourself if you were trying to remember something from a long time ago.
I have a decent history with a wide range of religious, spiritual -- and metaphysical -- disciplines and experiences. The reason I am so fond of CRV is because it is nothing like this. It's a simple matter of you learning to pay attention to your subconscious and communicate what it tells you. To me, CRV has more in common with my business experience than with my 'spiritual/metaphysical' experience. It's a logical methodology, a process. I can do deep breathing exercises and stretching to wake up nicely in the morning, or I can do tantric yoga. A lot of this comes down to intent, and how a person chooses to create it and place it in their life.
Where your subconscious gets psi information, I don't know. I consider that a matter for quantum physicists and theologians and parapsychologists.
Spiritual disciplines always aim for the root "source" of the information -- the universe, god(s), aliens or entities, elementals or daemons, et al. CRV has ZERO to do with any of this, and makes ZERO attempt to locate or open to whatever the root "source" of psychic ability may be. The bottom line is, CRV is between you and your subconscious.
It has, however, been my experience that people who are afraid of evil lurking outside them are often projecting inner denial; that their belief system may actually desire this sort of conflict at some level; and that their subconscious may hold repressed issues, which may manifest in whatever way they shape it, when they begin getting in touch with themselves. This is, however, nothing that can be blamed on cosmic entities. It would come solely back to the individual. If getting in touch with themselves via CRV didn't inspire an abreaction, something else eventually would (falling in love, getting creative, a sudden life change, or anything that can bring the subconscious into sudden high relief). (btw, I'm not saying cosmic entities don't exist or can't interact. I'm just saying that their active involvement begins with the individual.)
I always dread conversations about remote viewing that have anything to do with entities or influence or evil, as much as entities or 'evolving' or 'the light,' because in my world, that just doesn't have anything to do with CRV at all... it's a bit like assigning "powers" to a method that frankly, in structure, has more in common with learning "business/psychology/logic" things -- management training, for instance -- than it does with religion. Now some people might call mgmt "understanding finance and learning to work effectively with people." Others might call it "Learning the SECRETS of the powerful executives" and "learning to CONTROL or have POWER over other people." There's always going to be people who just frankly enjoy the latter way of looking at things more, and those people might drag that mindset into CRV as well as anything else they do. Personally, that totally turns me off, but that's just a personal take.
CRV, as Paul explained so well, is about the process, the structure -- not the root source (the cosmos/god/whatever) or the end result. Your psyche, and your psi, may have any number of things attached to it based on experience, beliefs, or other legitimate issues. But putting CRV in the position of spirituality just seems... off track to me. CRV is like the road that happens, by the way, to lead to your church. You might get there by following it (or you might find something more interesting along the road prior to getting there, or after passing it). But it's just a path, it's just the process. It has very little reason to be either praised for, or blamed for, what you choose that road to lead you to.
[edited various non-CRV comments -Ed.]
1. PJ, Lyn, Paul all say the things I am needing!!! 2. Student comments seem to show energy and interest in learning techniques and skills just like myself. 3. Detailed 'How to's' are great!
#2. Some conclusions of a beginner (I warned you of ego/analytical bent)
Concl.A. I believe a CRV trained individual needs an acceptable THEORY of howthe thing can and does work to aid the "I believe" to the "I know" requirement. Mine is.......... There exists a Fourth dimension which has at least some of these aspectsas descriptors for knowledge/emotion storage. 1. No spatial nor temporal information limitations. (Everywhere at once in the past, present, and future) This means knowledge and emotions of everyone, everyplace, and everytime is everywhere all the time. This includes INSIDE our skulls. 2. Our brain not only has memory, imagination, and analytical abilities,it also has the Fourth dimension SENSORIES required to sense, then utilize an OR circuit on our 5 senses to superimpose our RVinformation to be collected by the concious brain. The memory,imagination, analysis, etc does its work on the superimposed sensed information and makes the 'Stray Cats or AOL's. However, I believe our functioning brain holds the 'Gateway' to the 'group mind' in thisdimension. I feel this is why there is no 'smoking gun' frequency, noshielding, space nor time limitation on PSI functioning.
Concl.B. Targeting and collection are two separate skill development objectives. 1.Targeting is stronger with aspects of emotion and concious mind energy history applied. (live better that photo, activities better than inanimate objects, etc - my limited experiences). 2.Talent is a factor of significance, but once fully understood and then fully developed, generic talent could far surpass current functioning.
Finally - How can I stimulate COLORS? I can't get off P/S 2!!!
Thx,, I won't do this often, I promise.
<<Is it possible to have a cue for yourself so that you don't get too off-track in accessing information.
Well.... that's what your initial target cue is for. If you think you're going off the signal line, you can refocus on the cue. You can also (or, have the monitor) refocus yourself to a more specific area or tasking if you seem to be getting distracted.
<<For instance, if you are viewing a scene where the media or some such thing has caused millions of people to think about and form an opinion about a certain event...is there a danger in picking up on the general thoughts and emotions of those opinions rather than the actual event and if so, a way to discern the difference?
Yes... but Lyn and Paul would answer this far better than I would, as I'm really not advanced enough in my own skill to get into that. Give 'em a few days, they're kinda busy. :-)
<<Is it o.k. to make a list of general descriptors such as color, smell, taste, texture, etc. and go down that list to help focus on each one or should you just go with what comes to you?
Great idea. I made a list of colors, not to use DURING sessions but to use to try and increase my color vocabulary. I think I came up with about 132 total, but I could probably get a library book that would list some official spectrum.
If it weren't for Crayola 64 crayons as a kid I wouldn't have done half so well. :-)
There's also going to be a lot of stuff you don't think of until you start making a list. For instance, once you pass "blue, red..." types, and then pass, "mauve, brick red, blue-green" types, you start getting things like "brunette, auburn," or "jade, opal," and then there's things that indicate color patterns... I think I'll put my list up on the firedocs site in case anybody wants to look at it and add it to their own.
<<I am still confused by the terms protocol and methodology.
I'm going to copy something Joe McMoneagle wrote for me a long time ago. I'm hoping he won't mind. I greatly edited this for, um, removal of his very delightful personality, making it a little more generic. :-) (And a little less 'alternative' to CRV. If you want to know how Joe works, and he's great so it's worth knowing, get a copy of his book MIND TREK. The new edition should be on the shelves now... with new chapters and cover. Some how-to RV stuff & practice tips and exercises. Worth reading.)
A protocol is made up of very specific and exacting rules which can't be broken in order to perform a valid RV. Some of these rules are; Target must be blind (preferably double-blind) to the remote viewer--this means, the monitor or interviewer of the remote viewer can't know what the target is either. Target must be selected from a target pool randomly, and the target pool can't be assumed by the viewer or monitor--which means it has to be large enough and complex enough (varied), so that no one can honestly assume what the general target might be (event vs. place vs. person vs. where vs. detail required, etc.)
The RV has to be done at a specific time which is pre-set--this means you must decide ahead of time the specific targeting time and place--09:00AM through 09:30AM on Friday the 11th day of October 1996. The remote viewer and monitor must be isolated from any other participant in the remote viewing process--this means they can't speak with, interact with, or even be in the same room with anyone else who might have had a part in the selection of the target, the decisions regarding how the information will be processed or evaluated, etc. Once the information is provided by the viewer, it must be recorded and no changes can be made to it, no additions, no deletions, etc. The remote viewer and monitor can't discuss what they have done with any of the other participants in the process until after the evaluation of the material has been completed and duely recorded for historical purposes. These are essential elements of the Protocol.
Method on the other hand is "how" the viewer collects the information. Once in the sealed remote viewing room, they can [choose their methods]. Now, [some] disagree with that. [They] say [only their own] method is eveything and critical to producing appropriate information. However, I am the best evidence that this [is not true]. What [some] do, is ignore the "protocols" entirely, and focus on the "method" which they call a protocol and say they are doing RV. Their method would be fine, if they adhered to the original protocols, but they don't. I would never have a complaint if they stuck to the protocols, as I've never cared what someone needs to do for "method."
So...what to pay attention to? Pay attention to whatever you need to do to dig the information out of your own mind. ... As long as you are strictly adhering to all the protocol requirements at the same time.
The protocol requirements are absolutely necessary in both a learning as well as a collection situation for the following reasons; if you don't stick to them while learning, then you can never convince "yourself" that you are truely being psychic. In [some] methods of training, [they] always know the target [they're] walking the trainee through. Way in the back of their minds, the trainee will always doubt their ability because they will never know if they got the target through honest psychic functioning or [the monitor] led them to the right information. This destroys the whole motivation of learning to be psychic, it also empowers... whomever is using that particular training method, with a great deal of control over not only what someone is thinking, but how they are processing. To the point that someone never really learns to dig the information out of their own mind without the help of the "Master." ... this means [they] will always be the Master to [the] students, since [they] are the cause of their getting it "right." The fact that [they] know what the target is plays an important role in that implied power.
Where real learning comes in, is in throwing oneself into the swimming pool a hundred times, until you learn to tread the water. Then once you've discovered you really have hands and feet, you learn to control the environment of the swimming pool. Before you know it, you actually develop the inbred (personal) confidence to stay in the water and enjoy it on your very own. -----
So as you see, similar to what Paul and Lyn say, PRACTICE and experience -- within the proper controls -- is the critical key to this.
<<Read the Whispers info - SPICY, but good info for me.
This is a good time for me to note that firedocs is my PERSONAL site. Although I'm the owner and operator of this email group, it is dedicated to the subject of CRV. My email site is dedicated to whatever subjects I find personally worthwhile -- that is dominantly CRV, but includes other things, and may include 'RV politics' as well. Those politics are not, however, part of this group, and I strongly recommend against anybody even mentioning any form of politics or some of the more vocal people involved (pro or con anybody) in here. I have a hot button a mile wide on the subject. ;-) I have made it clear that all people are welcome here if they want to learn about and discuss CRV.
<<Concl.A. I believe a CRV trained individual needs an acceptable THEORY of how the thing can and does work to aid the "I believe" to the "I know" requirement. Mine is.......... There exists a Fourth dimension...
If it works for you, go for it. Just remember, it's a theory. All theories tend to evolve into belief systems (paradigms) and may at some point limit some aspect of your work. On the other hand, they may also open doors nobody else even thought of.
In CRV work, that believe --> know sequence happens by DOING it and having it work, not really as a result of any given theory -- theories are great, and everybody's got 'em, but it's amazing how much psychology you find you have hiding out related to your feelings on psi, once you are in the middle of it.
<<Concl.B. Targeting and collection are two separate skill development objectives. 1.Targeting is stronger with aspects of emotion and concious mind energy history applied. (live better that photo, activities better than inanimate objects, etc - my limited experiences).
Work has already been done in this area, such as by physicist Ed May. I could be wrong but I believe he relates it to Shannon Entropy (technically I believe that's the rate of radioactive decay in a given thing..?). It does certainly seem to be the case that it's going to be a LOT easier for people to grab the target 'signal line' when RVing the great pyramid, etc., than when RVing (as I joke) uncle Fred's woodshed back in Kansas. This is one reason why giving new Viewers those kinds of targets can be both good and bad: good because they generally experience immediate success; bad if they are not brought down later by facing up to mundane details of totally boring targets, which may be far more difficult to make contact with, and which may be far more boring for the subconscious to pay attention to. As for targeting in general, May has done a LOT of work on this subject, and has a number of scientific papers on it as well. You might wish to look at the abstracts on the firedocs science page, such as 'managing the target pool bandwidth' and such -- or preferably, get the articles from Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Journal of Parapsychology past issues.
<< 2.Talent is a factor of significance, but once fully understood and then fully developed, generic talent could far surpass current functioning.
I personally suspect that no different than anything which mankind has developed -- music, art, etc. -- talent will always play a big role in the end result regardless of how good training is. I would hope that the average person making an effort could meet and surpass our current best 'psychics,' someday, too.
<<Finally - How can I stimulate COLORS? I can't get off P/S 2!!!
If you're having a specific problem with one sensory (e.g., visuals), you can: 1. Make a point to work on the other sensories; when you finally get in good target contact, you should begin getting all sensories; "good" (close) target contact is really just beginning at Phase/Stage 3. 2. You can ask someone to help you with targets, and have them choose targets that have a dominant differentiation of color. For instance, you might have a photo of two dozen roses; pretty much all you've got is flowers and branches and a vase maybe for other sensories, but the different colors would be the most prominant aspect of the target. This might help.
I have some colors I always get. White, for instance. But I had one target, a photo of a glowing-blue-dial wristwatch, that I got this monster FLASH in my head of that color, about knocked me out of my chair. (Alas, I got zero OTHER data from that rather miserable session! I never did really make contact with that target except that one flash of color (I was really not suited for a session at that moment). Then I was mad at myself, because I wrote down "blue," when I should have written down "deep glowing sky-blue," which is exactly what it was and what I saw.) That's the only time I've ever actually SEEN a color really clearly; usually, I get the "sensory" of "white" or whatever the color is.
Hi again Rich,
Also by the fact that protocols can be copyrighted. Also terms, such as Ingo Swan's "analytical Overlay" Sounds like copyrighting the waltz and amperes.
LOL! Okay, I'll address some of that.
1. A protocol is a control (rule); most people don't grok the word's use in this field; what they MEAN when they say it is "methodology." There is "how you do" something (e.g. two steps left, one step back, swing your partner), and then there is "the conditions for how you do something" (e.g. your partner must be over here, you have to file this form prior to dancing, you're not allowed to know what song is coming up, everyone has to be given a score when done, your dance must fit established parameters of Swing, or whatever). How you do it is a method. The conditions surrounding how you do it are the controls. Technically, IMO, protocols ought to mean the combination of those two things. However, in the lab they say protocols means controls, and method is something else. So, since they are technically the ones with the credentials, I have adopted their way of looking at it.
2. Technically, to legally protect or claim a method of doing something it would have to be patented, not copyrighted. All you could copyright is your unique terminology, logo, etc. I used to handle a lot of R&D patents, and they do have them for methodologies -- usually manufacturing methodologies which are responsible for creating a unique product (when the product ITSELF cannot be copyrighted... such as a product which exists, but you invent a means of making it that makes it much better; you can't patent the existing product, but you can patent the _process_ you use for making it better). The generally same end product, or the same process simply done in a different order or called a different thing, cannot be legally protected.
However, I am reasonably certain that it would be impossible to obtain a patent on any RV methodologies. Most particularly because (a) they have been distributed for free by the lab long ago to many people; and (b) the newer methodologies (TRV, SRV) are derivations of the Swann/military CRV method (and even those were somewhat... evolved from the first original lab work), so as derivations would be unlikely to have anything SO incredibly novel that they could be legally differentiated for patent infringement [I've talked with students of both, and concluded that the most critical difference between them and CRV is the controls, not methods] [long boring rant snipped - Ed.] Since NO method has "proven to be responsible for the data result obtained via RV," -- many methods have been used in the lab, and if anything it has been demonstrated it is that it is the person's inherent talent that is most critical to the end result, and besides [another long boring rant snipped - Ed.] it would just be difficult to do anything legal in this field. Which means there isn't much point to trying to create the protection, if you can't enforce it, except to impress the public.
However, all this being said, one COULD put a copyright on the name of a method, and if others claimed to teach your method, or used your name/logo etc. in any form in their advertising, they could legally be prosecuted. Still, you must understand that absolutely none of the existing (if they are truly existing) trademarks or copyrights could stand up to the slightest challenge. You cannot keep a challenged copyright if it can be demonstrated that your name includes words that either (a) others used first, or (b) are generic descriptions which in effect would prevent others [if it's copyrighted] from using quite normal words in the language to describe what they're doing.
So, technically, neither "controlled" nor "technical" nor "scientific" remote viewing really have a legitimate basis for any kind of claim, since remote viewing began as a scentific process, under controlled conditions, doing in many cases data collection on technical targets (particularly in the military).... ALL proper remote viewing is "technical, scientific and controlled," so it could never stand up. I mean, we can all call it whatever we want, but in the long run, about the ONLY thing that could be claimed as copyright would be the original lab-coined term "REMOTE VIEWING." But even the various people highly involved with the development of this, who hold the credentials of being experts in the subject, disagree on what exactly constitutes it -- the scientists say it is a matter of controls (including feedback) only; others feel it is a matter of methodologies -- and to make matters worse, in order to KEEP a copyright you have to sue people infringing on it, or it is considered a general terminology, which is about where RV is at this point. So it would be pretty much hopeless. I see all these copyright and trademark logos all over the place and I just laugh.
...All altruism and cosmic purpose aside, when people make money doing something, it is a BUSINESS, and competitive strategies are going to play a part. Controlled remote viewing is what Ingo Swann calls his methodologies. So, people who use those figure, he invented them, he can call it what he wants, and they use the same name. The other various names which have cropped up only came about to differentiate a method or process -from- what Swann and the military were using.
As for Ingo's terms, he did request that others not use them, but I wasn't around then; I think it was probably just a personal request, not any big deal. Many of his terms would not stand to any form of copyright challenge (though I don't know that Ingo has felt the need to copyright them anyway). You couldn't tell somebody that legally they're not allowed to use the term "analytical overlay" for instance, when in fact that term is common verbiage and a common thing in psi, and has even been used by other PhDs (Charles Tart has a paper with that in the title, and it's about the same kind of thing... of course, Tart worked with Swann at least once... still, my point is, it is a commonly accepted "thing" and "term" and is not unique, even if it once may have been).
...I am trying to avoid politics between different RVrs or methods here (something not allowed in this group); basically, everybody is subject to the same limitations when it comes to copyrighting terminology or methodology.
<<Well, I can get thoroughly confused soon since I have also ordered PSI-Tech tapes and put myself on the Farsight SRV manual list.
I think all sources of information are good. Since TRV is based on Swann's CRV methodologies, there will probably be a good deal of information similar to CRV on the video. And of course, since one KNOWS they are making a video for the world to see and dissect, I strongly suspect they'll stick to the most formal and appropriate ways of going about things, which is good. SRV being based on TRV, that may also have some CRV-related info in it. It will be interesting to see just how derivative and changed the TRV/SRV methods are from the original.
Do keep in mind, however, that the critical factor in RV as a whole "field" (as opposed to one line of study) is not the differences between 'C/T/S' methodologies, but rather, proper CONTROLS and contextual/conceptual understanding. I highly doubt it is going to matter if one person has a different term for something. One person may just say, in some circumstance, "I directed the Viewer go to back three years," while another may say, "...and then we implemented a technical movement exercise" (sounds complicated huh?) -- getting a good look at the different methodologies will probably be very educational, and will make you well qualified to point up the similarities and differences between the methods and approaches.
I'm going to have a page on the firedocs site for people who'd like to talk about their video/manual experiences, and the differences they see between methodologies and how they feel about that, what works for them. I feel that self-teaching is simply required for the many people who can't afford formal training (or remember, there just aren't many teachers, and/or in the right locations), and I want them to have a place to talk about it. There's also going to be a public BBS linked to the firedocs site before too long, run by Skye Turrell, and that will be a good place for public conversation.
<<As far as RV goes, my question is ...Where does the science end and where does the fantasy begin?
I believe you asked that on the Art Bell board, and I addressed it there as well. Is there some aspect of things that I didn't address that you have in mind?
<<...are way out there with ETs, Jesus, angels etc....and while Lyn, Joe and Ed and others such as Dr May downplay that stuff, all have had those kinds of episodes and apparently have chosen not to pursue them publicly....and I can see why.
They do not downplay them simply because they are 'sensational.' They downplay them because if a target does not have feedback, and cannot be worked within controlled conditions, then the process of working that target is not remote viewing. It is "collecting data via psychic means." Anybody could claim to do this and it doesn't require the remote viewing label. And it may be just as accurate and it may use the same methodologies, even though it (obviously) cannot use the same CONTROLS -- and as I've noted, methodologies may vary but the controls are critical to something being literally qualified as RV. So, since those types of targets are not technically RV, people who are serious about educating the public about what RV really is will seldom divert attention to angels and aliens, as they feel it distracts from the real-world, hard-fact, prove-this-to-me nature of 'real' RV.... that RV is RV, and UFOs are UFOs, and talking to Jesus is either a conversation or a spiritual experience or both, but is not within the parameters of what "defines" RV.
Also, many experiences people speak of... happened spontaneously, without any active RV in process at all (in some cases, long before they'd ever even heard of it).
<<I am also fascinated by the universal claim that no one is in the "prediction" business, but rather ...<snip>... presenting data of the future
That isn't 'universal' in the RV field -- only one individual has used that comment that I've heard, mostly to remove his predictions about the future from being called "prophecy" and to place them into a more 'reputable' verbiage. However, the fact is, data on the future is not a "fact" until the future exists [as real]. So, up until the event comes to pass, it isn't factual information, it's prediction. Once the event comes to pass as specified, it becomes 'factual data' -- though of course at that point, since it's current, it has ceased to be a 'prediction.'
<<If one can view either the photo image itself or the actual location, wouldn't it be better or is it possible to specify one or the other?
I happen to believe it is _highly_ preferable to make it clear up front, and makes a difference, but that is only my personal input.
<<Can we do this with the sample targets by our own choice or would that have to be part of the target specification?
Part of what you might get may depend on the tasker who is in effect an 'anchoring consciousness linking one [number] to the other [target].' On the Inner Vision site, the firedocs site, and the framed CRV site, I always specifically have the real target in mind, not the feedback, as the 'goal.' I don't know if Lyn has anything specific in mind for the non-framed CRV site targets, or which it would be, you'd have to ask him. I think the target is the goal, personally -- however, you may one day have a target that IS a photo or paper or picture, and you do need to be able to focus on that and what is in it, NOT just what it represents, so either are good targets.
Technically however, a photo is 2 dimensional... RVing the literal feedback as the target, if done well, should bring up the medium you receive it in (e.g., paper, computer monitor, etc.), rather than the 3D feeling of being at the site itself.
You can specify yourself to aim for either one. When you begin your session, just write down what you wish, clearly and simply, and use that as additional direction. You can provide yourself additional direction during a session, too.
END ARCHIVE 05
APRIL 01 1997 TO APRIL 10 1997
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page