firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 007
.


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 seventh archive.


APRIL 17 1997 TO APRIL 26 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 7

Vickie, Palyne, et al (that's fancy talk for "Vickie, Palyne, and the rest a' you guys!)--

><<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. :-) - PJ

Ha! Just finished another assignment, so I'll indulge myself with a few dips into the Viewer e-mail pool. What you're talking about is in my opinion a form of telepathic overlay, and it's darned insidious. It's likely to be a problem any time someone views a) a widely-discussed, emotionally-laden event, or b) when viewing an event that never actually happened or a target that doesn't exist.

Let's talk about a) first. Whether it's the OJ Simpson trial or TWA 800, or any other huge, nation- or world-wide event, the so-called "psychic" airwaves are as full of commotion and strongly held belief patterns as the normal worldly media channels. And it is certainly likely that a viewer will be unconsciously attracted to one of these reinforced thought patterns instead of the "real" signal line. That is, of course, one of the dangers of targeting something like this.

Since the RVed material comes in through the same channels as regular target-relevant data, it is VERY difficult to tell the difference between signal line data and telepathic overlay. This is where having a whole team--monitor, analyst, tasker--to back you up is very useful, and where feedback and corroborative data is invaluable--none of which is provided to the viewer until after the viewing is done, of course, but which can be used by the support team to evaluate whether the viewer is getting sucked into the societal frenzy or is actually riding the signal line for valid data.

Obviously, an isolated, solo viewer hasn't recourse to such a support team, which means data collected against such a target is always suspect (it goes without saying that the viewer has been targeted "in the blind"--i.e., does not know he/she has been tasked against any particular target). Often, one must wait until real feedback is available to assess how one has done against such a target. I myself have on a number of occasions been tasked against high-profile targets like this, and I frankly don't like them much. But there is some salvation in being fully blind when tasked; front-loading can be a real disaster in such cases, as all the presuppositions come flooding in, and cloud the issue dramatically. Some will say "Oh, if you're good/disciplined enough, there's no problem. Baloney! There are ALWAYS problems with frontloading on cases with great notoriety (frankly, i don't care much for frontloading in any circumstances). It's the same reason why for major court cases they try to pick jurors with no prior knowledge of the events of the case.

Oh, well. I see I'm rambling. The bottom line is that, at least in my experience, there is no clear-cut way to distinguish between telepathic overlay and real signal-line data. It's best to avoid viewing in situations where telepathic overlay is especially strong, but if you must, make sure your protocols are especially tight. Some viewers might be tempted to task themselves--"Hey, why don't I just take a look at X and see what the truth/answer to the problem is!" Resist the temptation! It is highly analytic overlay (AOL) enhancing to attack a target consciously--"unblindly"--like this. You can never be sure the data you get is anything but fantasy until (if ever) full feedback is available--and then only in rare circumstances will your data turn out to be correct.

Oh, but I haven't talked about b), have I! There is a favorite pastime of tasking viewers against what I call "anomaly" targets--UFO events, cryptozoological subjects, odd happenings. While these targets are certainly interesting, and sometimes even instructive, they have a number of unique problems, one of which I will here discuss in terms of telepathic overlay (which I'm getting tired of typing, so I will now call it TPO). Certainly some, perhaps many of these "anomalies" are real--actually occurred, really existed. However, some/many of them did/do not. So what happens if you are tasked against a target that has no reality?

I'll tell you what I think happens; I think it's a lot like trying to divide by zero in arithmetic. Why can't you divide by zero? Because according to the rules underlying mathematics, dividing by zero is like a wild card. ANYthing can legitimately be produced as an answer. It becomes meaningless. So when we RV something that isn't real, we can get ANYthing as a response. Now, our minds don't LIKE such lack of definition; they want closure. So what is a logical thing to do? You guessed it--cast around for the strongest impression available relating to the target. And in many/most cases, that signal turns out to be the strongly-held expectations of the person doing the tasking. The viewer's unconscious links to this signal, and--voila!--the tasker gets from the viewer EXACTLY what he/she expected to get--data about a non-existent target.

Now, it is always possible for a viewer to get TPO from the tasker even in an RV mission that is against a real target. But if there IS a real target in these cases, and the viewer has been properly trained to access the actual target (hence the importance of Palyne's posting a day or so ago about learning to view the target and not the feedback package), the possibility of TPO is greatly diminished.

><<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?

As I interpret this question--and I think Lyn understood it this way, too--you're talking about making a list of general sensory categories, rather than specific sensory details. In other words, a list with "colors," "smells," "tastes," (etc.) on it, rather than one with "red, yellow, green, rough, smooth, glossy, matte, salty" (etc.).

Your list is POSSIBLY a good idea; but I have my students do the same thing essentially when they are first learning how to deal with the sensory aspects of RV. I tell them to MENTALLY run through each of the five senses as they are addressing the target. So they might put their pen on the paper in the column for sensory impressions and think "visual," or something similar. They would then hopefully receive colors, lighting effects, etc. They could do the same for the remaining four primary senses. Doing it mentally not only helps streamline the process--it also forces the viewer to internalize more of it--which is precisely the goal we're after for effective RVing.

Hope these comments are of some help, 'cause I'm tired of writing!

Best, Paul

[Archive Note: Paul H. Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]


Have been viewing for apx 7 mo now. Have also heard both Joe and Ed talk of 'significant new discoveries'. Can hardly wait. PJ, we are counting on you......

Also, some things I belive I have learned that may be of help to others.

1. A THEORY of how this thing works is critical to confidence and conviction.

MY THEORY - There exists a fourth dimension we have failed to recognize as 'real'. It has these characteristics, - NO LIMITS on TIME or SPACE and includes all the knowledge that ever was, is, or will be.

Further, since there is no limit on space, all knowledge of all times could and does reside INSIDE EACH of our skulls all the time. I believe further that our sixth sense is really an OR circuit on our existing 5 sense input to the analytical and physiological brain functioning components. Further, all this information is stored/addressed by conciouness parameters and therefore describes our targeting requirement as well as our collection requirements. This theory stands the test as to why there is no 'smoking gun' on frequency radiation, speed of light time limit on telepathic events, and no restrictions on past/present/future viewing sessions. (helps me anyway)

2. Targeting needs careful tasking INTENT and TECHNIQUE to land at the correct site at the correct time. (OUTSIDE Stray Cat-AOL management probs)

3. Collection requires a building up of self detection to know from WHICH 'OR' circuit leg the information is reaching the conciouness/analytical functioning. I believe our physical brain has the sensories to this fourth dimension and utilize the senses as input to the rest of brain functioning.

I know I'm no scientist, but I do need belief in the how-to's to keep going. My sessions have often been quite a struggle and ego, imagination, analysis, technique, attitude, etc have contributed to some ugly misses. However, the hits blow me away and as PJ says - you have to be also able to handle success in psi functioning. Theory and understanding of how and how-to really helps.

You have your own theories I'm sure for endurance. This thing is a changer of the world. Theoretically, we can change the past with the psi knowledge. If the past changes, so the present and future. Here we go again.

Thx for the ear........... By the way, how do I stimulate colors???

David.................


I have moved the terminology into ASCII text format and cleaned it up. For those who want to download it for either reading on screen or printing, it should be looked at and/or printed in either courrier or system font, since there are a lot of indented paragraphs, charts, etc. which get really messed up when using proportional fonts.

The manual was attached to a file sent to PJ, and she can post it on the CRV Home Page or make it FTP downloadable. She will let you know when it is available.

Headed for San Antonio tomorrow morning, so will see you all and catch up with news when I get back.

Lyn Buchanan

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


Hello again,

<<You mention many times that CRV is scientifically proven, does that means that, in addition to comparing CRV sessions to verifiable feedback, you have placed individuals in EM shielded labs and measured all the RF energy present?

This has been done every few years by everyone entering the research. It has been done by almost every country in the world which is into this field, and the results are always the same. There is no radiation at any frequency either to or from the viewer. People have tried for years to make this into "bioenergetics", "vibrations" of the electromagnetic specturm, light spectrum, ELF frequencies, brain-wave frequencies, all the way up through and to microwave frequencies - all with the same results - nothing.

>.... Has anyone been able to, through false color imagery, watch any unusual EM fields leaving or eminating from individuals engaging in an CRV session?

Same answer. It is just not mental radio.

>Another question about Dave's book that perhaps you could answer, at what point did SUN STREAK become STARGATE? It is not entirely clear in the book. I get the impression that it happened after the original crew left and new people where brought in to look at the Gulf War, but like I said it wasn't clear to me.

The project actually went under 7 different names throughout its life span. 5 of those have been made public and two will not be. Most people think that the name of the project got changed. In fact, that didn't happen. The old project, for whatever reason, was dropped and a new project started. That may seem like a small distinction to most people, but the fact is that, for instance, anyone who asks for information about STAR GATE (2 words) will get information about that project, and that project alone. Information about SUN STREAK or CENTER LANE will not be included. This isolation of one project from another has obvious security ramifications.

>Thanks again,

Any time.

BTW: I don't know if you are on the CRV mailing list or not (if not, it is a good list to get on), but this is a good question, so I have taken the liberty of "sanitizing" your name and email address off it (to keep you from getting unwanted email) and sending it to them, as well. Hope you don't mind. I will be gone for the following week, so if you don't hear from me, I'm not ignoring you, just not here to respond.

Lyn Buchanan

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]


Has anyone tried (reviewed) any of the home study courses on RV that are available?

I've heard of Inner Vision's course ($95), Paranormal Management's Course (160 UK pounds), and Psi-Tech's still waiting to be delivered video course ($250).

Thanks for your help.

Mike


Regarding some recent comments:

Targets that do not exist.

Prudence Calabrese at Farsight has said that when they target things that do not exist they get data signifying not real or fantasy and other indications like that. Target examples were the Loch Ness monster and Jack & the beanstalk.

Viewing numbers:

Another Farsight claim from 2 months ago is that they have developed a method for viewing numbers including lottery, license plates, etc. There has been no further discussion on the BB regarding that.

Rich


Hi Rich,

<<Targets that do not exist. ...<snip> ... when they target things that do not exist they get data signifying not real or fantasy and other indications like that. Target examples were the Loch Ness monster and Jack & the beanstalk.

Sometimes I think one would pick up on this. Sometimes not. However, the final authority in RV would be the feedback. The problem with many popular targets nowdays is that there is no feedback to determine where the signal line ends and the fantasy begins.

>> they have developed a method for viewing numbers including lottery, license plates, etc.

That would be wonderful. There are some viewers who can do numbers, but not many (Joe McMoneagle is one of the few that I know of). Although not all that predictably, and the future (like lotteries) is a little different (higher error% at feedback time) than the present.

On the other hand, if they can RV lotteries (stock market, et al), I don't see why they'd need to be begging the government to provide them research funding.?

Either way, I'm all for innovations in this field, and I hope eventually we can all get together and share what we've learned.

PJ


Lyn,

Regarding your statement that laboratory research has shown no radiation associated with the CRV phenomena. Would it be appropriate to qualify this statement with 'no known radiation within the capabilities of our existing technology to measure' or something like that. We might argue whether our physiology is actually the sensing mechanism but we cannot dispute the fact that our brain transduces this 'sensed information' into a form we can communicate. There has to be a biological interface or perhaps a superconducting/biological interface. Otherwise we wouldn't be enjoying this discussion,...which is great by the way. Thanks.

Mike


Hi Mike,

Lyn will be back in a few days. He's off training in Texas.

<<statement that laboratory research has shown no radiation associated with the CRV phenomena. Would it be appropriate to qualify this statement with 'no known radiation within the capabilities of our existing technology to measure' or something like that.

You're right, but we could go around in circles about that with everything in the world that way. (E.g., I was here 10 minutes ago, but that's only to my ability to measure, as my consciousness and extensions of it may have been somewhere else that I am not currently capable of knowing or measuring... There's no end, either in science or mind, of those kinds of arguments. It would just make it difficult to have a conversation... language requires limits as part of its conceptual design.) I think radiation is a human word, and it means what we define it to mean, which probably would mean what we can measure or know exists at this point (it will probably be qualified with a different name, or different "type" name, if more is discovered). You have a good point that this could be related though, at levels we're not aware of, and that we shouldn't disregard any road of inquiry just because our current knowledge didn't find results with it.

A lot of things, more than just radiation-as-we-know-it, have been tested and discarded as explanations for the phenomenon. In some cases, such as Faraday cages, some studies actually show _improved_ results when the person is shielded, indicating that these energies-as-we-know-them which are prevented may be "noise" rather than the signal line itself.

<<We might argue whether our physiology is actually the sensing mechanism but we cannot dispute the fact that our brain transduces this 'sensed information' into a form we can communicate. There has to be a biological interface or perhaps a superconducting/biological interface.

I agree, there must be a biological interface. There's a portion of the brain suspected to be dealing with this input (in the same way that certain portion of the brain deal with sight for instance), but little work has been done in that, that I know of. I would agree though, that I consider psi biologically-as-we-know-it rooted... at some point.

PJ (-as-we-know-her <g>)


Vic, PJ

Although there is no known measurable energy associated with CRV there have been measurable electrical phenomena as well as brain wave entrainment associated with healer/healee interactions. CRV seems purely sensory to my limited knowledge. Healing on the other hand is motor or effective i.e. there is a projection of energy on the part of the healer to the healee. With CRV we might expect characteristic brain activity but given it is sensory the 'interface' must be able to differentiate signal input only. Lyn get back here and fill in some of these blanks.

Mike


Lyn, PJ, and Paul,

Thanks for your responses to my questions. I was wondering if intent plays any part in differentiating the signal line data from the telepathic overlay? Also, can the telepathic overlay exist when there is what I believe is called, total site integration? If your mind wants to make up things to fill in the spaces ; - ) might that not occur with total site integration too? Also, it would be helpful if someone could talk about "getting into your zone" and if it means different things to different people.

I'm really enjoying this forum and learning a lot!

Thanks,

Vickie


We had a strange thing happen the other day when 3 of us were RVing a target off the net. One of us got the basic shape correct while the other 2 of us simultaneously drew...and wrote the words...Hoover Dam! We were both wrong, but one of us must have come up with this dam and the other got telepathic overlay. Both of us have spent some time learning RVing and I can't help thinking that it might be better if instead of RVing together during our daily practice.....we stagger our practice times.

Has this happened to anyone else!

Jim


Hi there everyone

After I saw a program (summer 96) on RV on the Discovery Channel (Europe) were they interviewed Ingo Swan and Lyn Buchanan (I think) and more, I have been looking for a book on the subject but have not found one out here in Iceland. Or untill I found Mr David Morehouse's "Psychic Warrior".

Now, I am very intrested in RV and would like to try and master it. Do you think I have a chance doing it alone?? Can anyone point out books for me to read to supplement the Internet materials?? Do they teach one way to get into the "mood" or are there many ways??

I will not trouble you with more questions at this time.

Thank you all sincerely.

Greetings from Iceland

Egill


>>A lot of things, more than just radiation-as-we-know-it, have been tested and discarded as explanations for the phenomenon.

I will use the term Attention Bit Locator or ABL to describe the form of electronic measuring devices I use. In 1965, I did a series of experiments with a form of Attention Bit Locator with a partner. Both of us were hooked up to seperate ABL's, she had me on her ABL and I had her on my ABL. We used a one handed electrode. What was observed was the facilitator would always manifested the same as the client, same resistence indications and needle manifestations. We even used long cords, and processed in separate rooms, noting down the needle manifestations, and resistance indications. They were usually identical.

This was so successful that I used to facilitate all my Executive Directors using this method. I had ten Centers at that time: Dallas. Boston. St. Louis. Kansas City. New York. Beverly hills. La Jolla. New Orleans. Charlotte. Atlanta. (I sold these Centers in 1970.) As you can see these offices were several hundreds of miles apart.

What was amazing, the thought that occurred in Boston also occured in Dallas. (My HQ.) and registered on the Attention Bit Locators's in both locations similtaniously. I continuously facilitated all of those execs using this method. Basically I kept them in a. (High Green Zone.) Using two-way communication, Attention Bit Locators and fundamentals. This was where and when I first began to develop the Clean Slate method of handling. And the Zones technology.

Today we still use these devices and do remote facilitation, often internationally. By having the verification of the Attention Bit Locators, I was able to develop other procedures that validate the "truth or accuracy" of a situation.

I realize this is not CRV, but it does validate the ability to measure thought and intention across great distances.

Alan


Hi, everybody--

Just to show that remote viewers CAN civilly disagree about things without having to get in a fist fight about it, I'm going to discuss my own perspective on the protocol/methodology issue, which differs in some ways from Joe's.

I believe what Joe explains as a "remote viewing" protocol is really a laboratory protocol for doing a remote viewing experiment. As such, it is very well and accurately described and as he says, should be strictly adhered to if one wants to produce legitimate scientific data. Most aspects of it are also definitely recommended for NON-scientific viewing projects as well. But there are a few items worth noting; Joe actually might agree with some of what I say about this. Some he won't. First, the issue of protocol vs. method is perhaps a case of splitting a few hairs a might too fine. Some dictionary definitions of "method" and "protocol" sound almost the same. But that may be a quibble.

>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.

This is generally true, especially concerning the viewer, who in my opinion should ALWAYS be blind to the target--to do otherwise invites AOL (there are some who maintain that a modest amount of frontloading is desirable to "save time"; while such have at times gotten respectable results, I'm uncomfortable with the practice, and think it is nearly always a recipe for disaster with respect to valid RV results); however, on some operational-type viewings, it is impractical for the monitor/ interviewer to be fully or even partially blind to the target. Indeed, some of Joe's best operational sessions for the government were conducted with Joe blind and the monitor witting as to at least portions of the target. What was unknown was the answer to the intelligence question. Because he knew certain things about the target already, the monitor was able to direct the viewer to the right area to answer the question--for example, the viewing Joe did against the Typhoon submarine. The monitor had an overhead photo of a very large building that intel analysts wanted to know the contents of. The monitor (I believe it was Skip Atwater--this was before my time at the unit, so I don't have first hand knowledge except from the after-the-fact documentation and "war" stories) could target Joe against the structure, but didn't know what was inside. Joe then proceeded to describe the contents, and the rest is history. There were other instances when the monitor knew at least where the target was and at least what the outside of it looked like--and sometimes knew even more. But there were also many instances where the monitor didn't know ANYthing more about the target than the viewer did. It all depended on the circumstances and the mission requirements.

>>The RV has to be done at a specific time which is pre-set-- ... The remote viewer and monitor must be isolated from any other participant in the remote viewing process-- ... 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. ...

This is all clearly directed at laboratory RV experiments.

<<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 is where Joe and I encounter a difference of opinion. I am firmly convinced of the value of "in session" feedback when a person is learning. True, sometimes it comes close to the case where the trainer/monitor is "leading" the novice viewer. But despite all the "old-husbands'" tales to the contrary, the best way to teach someone to swim is NOT just to toss them into the deep end and let them thrash around until they either drown or instinctively learn to dogpaddle. Good training methodology and sound curriculum ALWAYS faciliate the learning process. A novice viewer will inevitably build somewhat of a dependence on the in-session feedback and the trainer's guidance, and will have to be weaned of these crutches--a child wobbles alot and falls over a few times when mommy lets go. But they soon walk confidently despite early uncertainties. Yes, self-confidence will waiver a bit when this support is withdrawn. But a normal person can weather this easily enough, and he/she will learn to view much less traumatically and perhaps even more rapidly than with a more "hands-off" approach.

>>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.

This last is normally referred to as "teaching" ;-) But just because a teacher influences a pupil's thought processes and exercises a certain amount of control during the teaching experience, it doesn't mean the pupil will not go beyond that as he/she later gains experience on his/her own. Think about when you learned to drive a car. At first, you did everything the way your instructor told you, right down to how you held the steering wheel and how you moved your eyes. How many of us today still feel we were unduly influenced by our driving instructors? How many of us still do things exactly the way they insisted we do them? Actually, some of those habits and skills we probably STILL practice, just because they were very effective and sensible. But we were individual enough not to be locked into an empty form just because we put ourselves under the influence of a teacher for a while.

To be fair, I suspect Joe is more concerned here with the "guru" syndrome, where hero-worship of (as he says) "the Master" rears its head. That's a different phenomenon, about which both he and I agree, I'm sure.

<<So as you see, similar to what Paul and Lyn say, PRACTICE and experience -- within the proper controls -- is the critical key to this.

As usual, PJ has gone to the heart of the matter. This IS essentially the bottom line. But of course, you have to practicing a productive approach.

Paul

[Archive Note: Paul H. Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]


Some interesting discussions about laboratory work! I think it would be a lot of fun to research the how and why of RVing, as well as using it as a tool.

I agree with Mike that just because we haven't measured any radiation, that none exists. So many people in the field of science figure that if it hasn't been measured or discovered yet, than it probably doesn't exist. In fact, I was just reading a statement in a Physics book about how there weren't any new discoveries to be made and that all physicists could do now would be to measure things more accurately and add new decimal places to existing knowledge.

This was stated *before* the fields of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics and people still believed that the atom was indivisible. Since then, scientists have discovered strong and weak nuclear forces, and have come up with models to include them with the electromagnetic model.

There is a group in Britain called Paranormal Management Services that gets into studing fields associated with various forms of psi. Unfortunately, they give frustratingly little detail.

I figure that once I have a few years of practical RV experience, I too, can begin researching the hows and whys of RV.

Question RE: the faraday cage:

It would be interesting to have a blind experiment done, where the viewer does not know whether or not s/he is in a cage, to see if there really is an effect, apart from, perhaps a subconscious one. If a Faraday Cage really does improve RVing, then it would also be interesting to determine why. Does EM radiation interfere with psionic effects? or just with the brain wave patterns?

Thanks for letting me ramble....

Mike and Cathy


<<>I would agree though, that I consider psi biologically-as-we-know-it rooted... at some point.

While the "psychic" signal line may indeed enter the viewer's "system" at some point (Descartes thought it was the pineal gland--but then, what did HE know!) still, it is apparent that it seems to go on to activate the normal centers of the brain. For example, RV-based sensory inputs (at least for me) come in as half-remembered (but still sometimes quite pronounced) experiences very similar to "real" external sensory inputs. It seems the various sensory centers--and probably other portions of the brain for other types of inputs--are stimulated from an avenue unconnected with the hard-wiring of my five primary physical senses. If there IS identified some sort of brain structure that mediates between a "transcendant" sort of energy/signal and the physical, its work seems to be done once it dumps its info into the mind/brain of the viewer. OUR work is then cut out for us, in translating (notice, I didn't say "interpreting") that information into an objective, hence useful form.

Paul

[Archive Note: Paul H. Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]


Mike--

Hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

<<>Regarding your statement that laboratory research has shown no radiation associated with the CRV phenomena. Would it be appropriate to qualify this statement with 'no known radiation within the capabilities of our existing technology to measure' or something like that.

The parapsychologist and dualist John Beloff actually answers this question in the negative. He maintains that ESP--particularly telepathy, but probably also clairvoyance (of which RV is a subset)--cannot be explained in terms of a "signal." This is not because there might not be some sort of non-electromagnetic "radiation" that our instrumentation just cannot detect, but because of the notion of encoding and decoding of information. In order for a signal to carry meaningful information, it must be transformed (encoded) into a transmittable form. Then, when it is received, it must then be again transformed (decoded) into a form intelligible to the receiver.

Anyone familiar with encryption or radio progagation/information broadcasting will be aware that BOTH ends have to have the same "key" in order to successfully execute the en/decoding process. But unless we all have identical mental coding "keys" to accomplish this (which it would seem we do not, since we learn different languages and have different experiences as we are growing up, yet ESP as such seems not to care in what language or culture a person's background is), there seems to be no sensible way in which a signal could accomplish it. So, since it nonetheless obviously works, some other sort of mechanism must be involved. My own suspicion is that it is something akin to Sheldrake's morphic resonance, wherein fundamental, holistic concepts form as a field which can be incorporated into a person's mental makeup. I still have a lot of thinking to do about this, however...

<<We might argue whether our physiology is actually the sensing mechanism but we cannot dispute the fact that our brain transduces this 'sensed information' into a form we can communicate. There has to be a biological interface or perhaps a superconducting/biological interface.

This relates to the old materialist argument against dualism (i.e., in its oldest sense, the existence of a spirit or soul). Materialists would argue: if there were a soul of some different order of existence than physical matter, how could it possibly communicate with/control the body? Beloff suggests that, given the strong evidence for PK that a number of labs are producing, if a mind can influence objects at a distance, why should it not be able to control its own brain and body? Of course, he doesn't thereby give an answer as to HOW it really works...

Nevertheless, it seems clear that there IS some sort of transducing going on. I think Sheldrake might again have the basis of an explanation; but there's still work to done to sort it all out. I know I've shed mainly smoke rather than light with this discussion, but it is still pretty interesting to speculate on.

Paul

[Archive Note: Paul H. Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]


Hi Jim,

<<The owner of Paranormal management has written 2 interesting RV articles for NEXUS magazine...

Isn't this the government-mind-control paranoid guy? Is that Turan Rifat? He had an awful lot of ... creative or 'interesting' Views on RV and RV history in the Nexus article I read by him. Not sure which one that was, though.

PJ


Hi Mike,

<<CRV seems purely sensory to my limited knowledge.

This is only my theory, but it seems to me that the psi data received via CRV (remember, CRV is just a structure/method) is TRANSLATED into physical sensories. Doesn't start sensory, that's just what our biology has to translate it into to fit it into reality as we know it (and communication as we know it). Actually, I think that's what you said. ;-) I wish more of the science of this was declassified. Even if it doesn't have all the answers, it's got more than we've got. :-)

PJ


Hi Jim,

<<We had a strange thing happen the other day when 3 of us were RVing a target off the net. One of us got the basic shape correct while the other 2 of us simultaneously drew...and wrote the words...Hoover Dam! We were both wrong, but one of us must have come up with this dam and the other got telepathic overlay. Both of us have spent some time learning RVing and I can't help thinking that it might be better if instead of RVing together during our daily practice.....we stagger our practice times. Has this happened to anyone else!

That's why in the lab, people always view alone; the intent must be as isolated as possible. Having people view different targets at the same time is ripe for serious telepathic interference -- and if they're in the same general area, physiological communications (even unconscious ones, e.g., pheremones) greatly increase that. If you put them on the same target, it will same amazing how they all get the same data... even when it's wrong. (This can happen when separate too of course, especially if the tasking is identical, but the chances are much higher if they're viewing together in any form.)

You're right -- during daily practice, it might be better to take turns viewing (different) targets, rather than Viewing anything (same or different) at the same time.

Unless of course you WANT to do experiments on TP/Physio interference. ;-)

PJ


Hi Egill,

<<I have been looking for a book on the subject but have not found one out here in Iceland. Or untill I found Mr David Morehouse's "Psychic Warrior".

Joe McMoneagle's book "MIND TREK: Exploring Consciousness, Time and Space through Remote Viewing" has just been re-released here in the states. I put the ISBN# in another post here -- perhaps you could ask a bookstore if they're able to order it?

<<Now, I am very intrested in RV and would like to try and master it. Do you think I have a chance doing it alone?? Can anyone point out books for me to read to supplement the Internet materials?? Do they teach one way to get into the "mood" or are there many ways??

Doing RV alone? Yes, I think so. CRV? Well, since that's a specific method, not unless somebody taught you, but there is more than one way to work toward obtaining psychic data. CRV does seem to be effective in giving people a 'structure' for doing so, and has the benefit of nearly a couple decades of research and application to prevent as much "reinventing of the wheel" as possible. So it's likely the fastest route, but I doubt it's the only answer in the universe.

Books: MIND TREK, as I mentioned above, has a good deal of information that would be a help to you. If it's impossible for you to order from Iceland -- and I'd think it wouldn't be, because I think it's been (or will be) released around the world in a number of languages -- let me know.

<<I will not trouble you with more questions at this time.

That's what the list is FOR -- they're not a problem, they're the reason we're here!

PJ


Hi Viewers,

The new edition of Joe McMoneagle's book is out! Here's the info:

MIND TREK: Exploring Consciousness, Time and Space through REMOTE VIEWING <-- link to info about it, and about Joe

ISBN# 1-878901-72-9

Hampton Roads Publishing, VA USA It should be available at major bookstores, or, you can contact Hampton Roads above for ordering direct: 800/766-8009

It has a new cover, it has chapters added covering project STAR GATE, and "Delusions and Potentials," and a Q&A chapter.

In addition to being an interesting story about his own life and experiences, his near-death experiences, his work with Robert Monroe, and his RVing (which is arguably some of the very best), it's got a lot of tips for working on RV on your own, some very useful information there. Anybody seriously interested in remote viewing should include this book in their studies.

PJ


Hi Paul,

<<I'm going to discuss my own perspective on the protocol/methodology issue, which differs in some ways from Joe's.

Joe seems to have relented a little; he commented in one of the chapters of his revised book that teaching methods violate the collection protocols because the teacher, in order to teach and be in control of the session, needed to have data about the target. He just pointed out that the monitor knowing the target couldn't qualify as regular "remote viewing," since it violates controls, however, that doesn't mean it isn't useful in RV training.

PJ


Hi again Mike,

<<It would be interesting to have a blind experiment done, where the viewer does not know whether or not s/he is in a cage

That would be quite a job, keeping it a secret. ;-) And for proper blinding, nobody working with the Viewer could know either.

<<to see if there really is an effect, apart from, perhaps a subconscious one.

I think if the scientists say there is, there probably is. I mean, eventually we can look over in detail the research, but I'm hesitant to reinvent wheels that people much smarter, better educated, and better financed than I already worked out. There's so much to be done that hasn't even been addressed!

PJ


END ARCHIVE 07
APRIL 17 1997 TO APRIL 26 1997

A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.


VWR Email Archives Menu
Firedocs Entrance
Top of Page

All contents copyright © 1995-2002 by PJ Gaenir. All rights reserved.