firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 012
.


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 twelfth archive.


MAY 03 1997 TO MAY 19 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 12


> I am looking for any suggestions to solving a problem. I had very good success with my first three targets. Almost too good. My discriptives on color, shapes and objects ran about 75%. Since then It's as though a dark veil has been pulled over my minds eye. Only weak information if any gets by the haze. I know formal training would help, but it's ot in the budget. I seem to have almost become addicted to the subject and activity of RV/CRV. Maybe thats my problem. Don't know! Any and all help greatly appreciated! Thanks! Good Luck To All!

There is a documented phenomenon called the "first time effect" in CRV. That is, the first few times you try it, you tend to get fantastic results, then, I guess because your mind has time to build up some defenses, the scores start going down. The good news is that if you just keep working through it, the slump goes away and you (most people) start on a series of "plateau" rises, through which you fairly quickly come back up to the great scores again. At that time, you start giving yourself harder targets, and the plateau process starts all over again.

There is also the possibility that you did the "magician's apprentice" job on yourself. That is, having done a couple of targets impressively, you decided to take on the world and started giving yourself targets you just aren't ready for yet. You'd have to be the judge of that. Remember that CRV is a slow process of very small and incremented steps. Take your time. Ease into it with VERY simple targets, then very simple targets, then simple targets, then not-so-simple targets, etc. You have the rest of your life.

There is also the "hero or goat" tendency that most beginners (and most experienced viewers, as well) have of doing a huge string of miraculously wonderful sessions, and taking each in stride as you rise to new heights.... then a single bad session comes along and you are suddenly convinced that you are pig slop - unfit to be called human - worthless, etc. - all on the basis of a single session, with no consideration for the long string of successes. Don't fall prey to this tendency, either. It can really be destructive.

Just keep trying. We all have bad sessions. The thing to do with a bad session is to write "session end" at the bottom and file it away just like you would a good session. Later, something will happen which will send you back to look at what you thought was a failure, and in reviewing it, you will learn something about yourself. Never throw a session away.

Lyn Buchanan

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


>I realize this is not in line with your current topic. I'm new on this list and I have a question: Do any of you have a tendency to be drawn to the more violent targets, those that are more sensation oriented? Vickie

Hi, Vickie.

There are many meanings for "drawn to", but I think that a general summary of them all would be the catch-rule that "Anything you tend to turn your eyes to, you will turn your mind to, and anything you tend to turn your eyes away from, you will turn your mind away from."

That is to say, some people will have a tendency to see the violence and report it, some will be "drawn" to it, and some will shy away from it. From a CRVers point of view, you want to set all emotional attachment (positive or negative) to the site aside. Emotional attachment can stop a session in its tracks. So ideally, during the "perfect" session, no viewer would be drawn to violent or any other type of target. But then, you have humans doing CRV....

As for me, I am not drawn to violent targets, nor do I tend to shy away from them. There are other things I am drawn to and shy away from, but violence isn't one of them.

Lyn Buchanan

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


Mark replied to Vickie: (snip) >......I often times get bogged down in them (emotional targets) or they jerk my attention from the target itself and off to something else and I have to just tell my subconscious to put these emotions aside for now and I will deal with them later. I don't know that this is what I am supposed to do since I am in the very (and I mean very) early stages of learning even how to stay within in the lines of controlled remote viewing but I am committed to learning.

That is exactly what you are supposed to do. The structural term for this is a "set aside" (descriptive enough, huh?). You set the emotion, stray cat, physical distractor or whatever over to the side and promise yourself to deal with it later. Simple as that.

>........often when I am attempting to view a target I can't really tell at this stage which sensation I am feeling and I may sense and emotion as a color or something equally unusual to me at this point...

There is a psychological phenomenon called "synesthesia" which can happen to some beginning viewers (it happened to me), and it is great!!! In effect, in CRV, you are using your body as a translator between your subconscious and your conscious minds. That means that you are getting physical impressions from a new source and your mind doesn't know what to do with them. As a result, it often sends them to the wrong "place". You see the sound of a bell ringing or hear the color yellow or smell the texture of canvas, etc. It is truely exciting to experience the world around you in this new way. Unfortunately, when you mind works things out, it all goes away. Enjoy it while you can.

Lyn Buchanan

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


>But...that Dachau target was a bitch!

(The Dachau target was the Nazi Dachau prisoner of war labor camp where the Jews and others were kept during WWII)

>There's a weird thrill in realizing that despite my replacement of the real emotions with the dizzyness symptoms, I was really tapping into the feel and meaning of that place. The previous targets have been fairly flat, emotionally. I've been pleased because I've gotten at least some of the elements right on most of them, but it was two-dimensional, I guess is the best way to describe it. This was more holographic somehow, despite the lack of any detail. Does that make sense? Exhilarating, in a way. But I'm not sure I'll thank you! :-) Skye

Dear Skye,

Thanks for the feedback. In a way, I selected the Dachau target because of its strong emotionals, but also because the emotional time there is not an on-going thing, so the emotionals aren't so binding on the people viewing the site. I wanted to make people aware that there are times when a viewer can get in over his/her head and really get caught up in things which aren't, to say the least, desirable. The fact is that some emotional targets can affect a viewer so strongly as to make a long-lasting or even a permanent emotional impression (sometimes the better word is "scar") on the viewer's psyche. The Dachau target is not one of those, but is strong enough to make people stop and realize that this stuff isn't just a parlor game.

Not only can the target's emotionals do that, but when a student first sets up a line of communications between his/her conscious and subconscious minds, the two might have a lot of things they've been waiting for years to say to each other. Finally given the chance to say those things, they usually do so in an emotionally heated manner. While the end result of this exchange is usually a clearing of personal problems and inner conflicts, the process of having it happen is usually traumatic to some degree.

"Remote viewing" as gained in 90-minute tapes or computer programs is OK and almost always very safe. Real CRV, however, is something to be approached very carefully and at the proper pace - and with someone present who has been through it all before. That's why people aren't seeing any how-to books being published - at least by those who know what's going on.

There has been a lot of eagerness on people's part to self-instruct. To an extent, that's great. There aren't enough trained instructors to go around, anyway. Now that Paul Smith and Dave Morehouse are setting up their courses, the prospects of getting more people properly trained look better. There are also several of my graduate students who are about to meet their enforced "2 years of real-world experience after graduation" requirement, and are beginning to look toward helping reduce the training load.

In the meantime, we are trying to help people self-train >>>in a correct manner<<< as much as possible, thanks to PJ's mail list and our web pages.

Glad you got the experience of the emotional contact with the site. I know exactly what you mean by, "Exhilarating, in a way. But I'm not sure I'll thank you!"

PS: Do you mind if I repost this to the mail list? I won't until I get your permission.

Lyn Buchanan

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


Lyn,

Given the following that Skye wrote and you commented on:

>>Not much has changed since then, I still "feel these things," except in viewing Dachau I went into total overwhelm/shutdown mode. I felt them, but I didn't want to *feel* them. I became so disoriented and dizzy that I was more preoccupied with not throwing up, than with trying to get more detailed perceptions. Never got past the dizzyness, although I assume there are tricks to doing that.

Is there any danger in RVing, in the sense of damaging the psyche? Given the posts I've seen from Skye, I get the feeling of a fairly strong spirit. If Dachau (which was one of the more 'mild' camps) did this to her, what could potentially happen to someone viewing some of the more traumatic camps like Auschwitz, for example. I've seen warnings issued about trying to read the thoughts of various individuals like Saddam Hussain, but is there some danger to the viewer, especially inexperienced ones, in viewing sites with very strong emotions attached to them?

Mike


Hi, this is a question for whoever might have some insights on doorknobbing.

When Paul in the Basic course not long ago brought up the subject of doorknobbing (focusing on a single aspect of the target), at first I didn't see how that could happen.

Then I remembered something that happened last year when my wife Leveda and I were down at Monroe Institute for the Gateway course. Joe McMoneagle gave a "fun" program one evening where he talked about his experiences in RV, then led us in a short exercise. When he gave us the coordinates (real lat-long ones!) for the site, I began to get images of large red rock formations, just like those beautiful and impressive ones so characteristic of the Denver-Colorado Springs area. So I was initially crestfallen when Joe announced that the site was Devil's Tower, which is in the northeast corner of Wyoming. Then I remembered when we had visited the Tower some years back, I had been impressed by the red rocks formation about a mile from it, which seemed so out of place, like they belonged in central Colorado. I was pretty mystified by the whole thing, and stayed that way until Paul explained what had happened.

So my very first RV session was a doorknobbing!

It made a believer of me, though my question is -- *how* can the viewer become aware when they are doing it, especially in an operational or solo session? And of course, how can they decide what to do about it when it happens? Could this relate in any way to what I was asking about some days ago re self meta-programming in RV?

Cheers, Gene


Hi PJ

>It was a little white wooden church, with a wooden fence/railing around it, a pointy steeple at the top, surrounded by tall thin trees, on a clear blue day. It WASN'T A BOAT.

Maybe you would feel better, if I told you that out here in Iceland we refer to the back of the Church (the Altar area) as the "Church's Ship". :)

Regards Egill


The struggle goes on...... I would like to share a couple of items and hope someone can help clarify.

#1. It seems that the sessions go for five or so pretty consistently, that is, the ideogram appears to be consistent. Lifeform ideogram = lifeform, manmade = manmade, etc. When all out of the blue - I will experience COMPLETE ideogram miss with no target method change, no sense of imagining, memory, nor analytical intrusion. Could it be that the subconscious just DECIDES not to cooperate? Is it like the DOWSING techniques given of ASKING - "Are you willing to dowse/REMOTE VIEW" proper and await an answer before beginning? It seems so damaging to my confidence in functioning when these gross misses occurs.

#2. Have been using the pile of photos from basic training as targets. Started using random book/page numbers to provide fresher targeting. This has seemed just fine, even when I target the book I am GOING to select as a target AFTER I do the session. However, when I wrote my que, I inadvertantly worded it like this - 'Describe the photo image on page such and such from book such and such'. Since then, I get only visuals and shapes. If I word the cue like ' Describe the site the photo image represents, it seems to work again, but from this point forward I seem to have to be very sure to SPECIFY. Could I just be reading into this or is this your experience also? (anyone please)..............

BTW I feel this is such a wonderful site. PJ, you are to be complimented and thanked.

And - HAPPY MOTHER's DAY!!!!

David


Hi David,

I had a few questions for you:

How long of a "cooling down" period do you have prior to remote viewing the targets you have prepared?

How long are each of your sessions?

During your sessions do the mundane events of the day pop up during your sessions?

In my experience and from the words of wisdom I have read in this group, it seems that: 1. patience is the key, and 2. allow ourselves little victories. Very few of us will receive 100% accuracy on the targets, or on a consistent basis. We need to reward and encourage the subconscious to work with us and not against us.

I don't know if this matters or not, but instead of assigning book number/page number, to just assign a sequential number that has no significance other than that is the cue for that picture. Are these pictures in a book, versus loose individual pictures? It seems to me that if the picture is in a book, that it would be confusing if there were other pictures in the book that are targets too. Isn't that like trying to find a piece of hay in a haystack?

I would like to hear from the group regarding viewing a target that is nested with other similar targets, such as a picture or document that is in a folder/book/ file.

Regards,

Roger


Hiya David!

<<#1. It seems that the sessions go for five or so pretty consistently, that is, the ideogram appears to be consistent. Lifeform ideogram = lifeform, manmade = manmade, etc. When all out of the blue - I will experience COMPLETE ideogram miss with no target method change, no sense of imagining, memory, nor analytical intrusion. Could it be that the subconscious just DECIDES not to cooperate?>>

Hmmmn. I don't think it's that, but who knows. My own failures are either to read he ideogram properly (they're nearly always very compound/complex with me -- 2-6 gestalts and vaguely pictographic) or simply that I haven't done enough practice to have them developed or recognizeable for many major gestalts. In retrospect though, I see that my subconscious nearly always nailed it right off, within seconds... it's the conscious part afterward (figuring it out) that often gets me.

Sometimes when I do great for awhile and then totally fail I assume it's some subtle but relevant change in the way I'm working, due to my new confidence (perhaps less attention due to more faith?), that affected the data.

I have noticed though that the moment one gets comfortable with just a few major gestalts, the subconscious starts expanding the ideograms. You just start getting all kinds of concepts in them, and often, they represent your interpretation / concepts... not a more objective categorization. The only thing I can think of is that if you feel it's some kind of subconscious rebellion, be sure when you get your feedback to really focus on it, invoke a good feeling in yourself, be nice to your subconscious in other words. Eat chocolate or something. <g>

There's very seldom just one gestalt at a target site. And in addition to the major and obvious ones, over time your mind starts pointing out new things. Just like how you start getting more sensitive to ambience with practice, you start getting more sensitive not only to half a dozen simple gestalts, but concepts, etc. included in targets with practice. After awhile your mind may decide that of the various options of concept it could give you, you may be expecting land or natural or biological (depending on your vocab) if it turns out to be a cactus in a desert, but it may decide to give you 'spiky,' or 'sunset,' or 'dry' or 'sandy' if it's a little bored with repetitive basics and wants to communicate -- especially if, when you look at the feedback, those are qualities your attention is drawn most to. If you assume your new 'spiky' id is your 'water' id because it looks like that, you look at the desert picture and think, 'my god -- that's miles off!' You asked for info; it gave you some. It's been my experience and that of watching others that if they've put in a little practice, it is usually the subconscious (the psi) that is correct, and their way of interpreting things that is incorrect. For one reason or another.

My suggestion is to spend more time in phase 1, and after coming to some id conclusion, go back and ask for more if there are more. See if you can not only expand your id library but allow your SC to feed you more of the target... so it's less an arbitrary choice of gestalt, what it hands you. When you get 'land' for instance, re-task yourself with "describe the target except for the land aspect." and see if it's easier to get another id/concept out of it... see how far you can go, information-wise, like this. This will also sort of prevent one quick trial from being the cause of failing to do a proper id -- your SC will have a chance to communicate at more length. Worth a try.

<<However, when I wrote my que, I inadvertantly worded it like this - 'Describe the photo image on page such and such from book such and such'. Since then, I get only visuals and shapes. If I word the cue like ' Describe the site the photo image represents, it seems to work again, but from this point forward I seem to have to be very sure to SPECIFY. Could I just be reading into this or is this your experience also? (anyone please)..............>>

The mind is pretty literal. I think when you are working 'in general,' like 'describe the target,' your subconscious may grab feedback or site or both for data. As soon as you get SPECIFIC, you have in effect "taught" your subconscious to be specific. From that point on, it's a little more open to specifics and might flounder a little with generalities. Your first cue is clearly designed to make the target the picture not the site, so it doesn't seem surprising that you'd get that 2D effect. I think tasking is one of the most important and unexplored areas of this subject and worth experimenting with. (I plan to... one day....!)

PJ


Hi Roger,

To toss in my two cents here (worth what ya pay for it <g>):

<<How long of a "cooling down" period do you have prior to remote viewing the targets you have prepared?

Thus far, I really don't have any such thing. I just sit down and do it. The process of phase 1 forces me to ground a bit, relax a bit, which leads to the next phase which is the next step in it. One thing I think many people don't grok about CRV is that you're not doing full contact work until late P3 or P4. It technically isn't remote viewing in the literal sense until then. The first phases are basically set up to lead you into that step by step, a gradual increase in target contact. I happen to feel that the phase/stage 1 and 2 ARE the 'cool down' period -- or at least, can be used as that, if you prefer. Some people make a specific ritual or 'cool down/warm up' period prior; I have not had any trouble getting phase 1 data right off, no matter what state I was in, though being either too hyper or too relaxed tends to make me have a difficult time processing and correctly gauging its meaning.

<<How long are each of your sessions?

Usually your session length is going to be based mainly on the phase you work to and the type of data inherent in the target. If there isn't anything there but a mountain, after you've covered land, mountain, snow, blue/white, et al, you're probably out of data. Other targets you could work for two weeks. Most people working outside the structure of CRV (iow, most of the public using the CRV targets for practice, for example) are sort of 'dipping straight into phase 2,' without the phase 1 anchoring, and without the structure that'll take them farther into contact until they're really remote viewing. (Which off the top I'd say is probably determined by the moment that the site becomes fully "3D" to you, but I could be wrong.)

<<In my experience and from the words of wisdom I have read in this group, it seems that: 1. patience is the key, and 2. allow ourselves little victories. Very few of us will receive 100% accuracy on the targets, or on a consistent basis. We need to reward and encourage the subconscious to work with us and not against us.>>

People new to piano are never perfect without a revolting amount of practice, yet they accept that this is supposed to be the case. People in psi are often hugely disappointed that they aren't god right off, I mean no matter logical and fair they are about it consciously, subconsciously there is the combination of incredibly high self expectations, mixed with some worries about ability in this discipline, which often combine to make them overly critical of themselves and their work. The target pool is INFINITE. The fact that you got anything right is mind boggling.

The point of practice is practice. The goal and the success of a practice target depends on, as Lyn says, whether you learn something from the session, about yourself or how you work or how you communicate -- not to be 'right' about the target. When you learn about yourself, the 'right-ness' comes, so that has to be the goal of practice. I am critical of myself in this area, probably my biggest failing, as it really interferes with my work here. Learn vicariously -- let me be neurotic, you can just enjoy sessions and learning about yourself. :-)

<<It seems to me that if the picture is in a book, that it would be confusing if there were other pictures in the book that are targets too. Isn't that like trying to find a piece of hay in a haystack?

Probably not too much more than if you're trying to describe a person out of the 5 billion available on earth. :-)

<<I would like to hear from the group regarding viewing a target that is nested with other similar targets, such as a picture or document that is in a folder/book/ file.

If you don't KNOW they are nested, and/or if your tasking is "describe the target in the envelope", you're going to get both. More than once I've accidentally had two targets in an envelope, and tried to do a session on it. The result has always been that I got plenty of accurate elements about both targets, but could never get into P3 contact.

PJ


Roger--

I've been out of circulation lately writing term papers (which I must get back to tomorrow) and a symposium presentation (which I gave yesterday, so am allowing myself some time for the e-mail group).

>I would like to hear from the group regarding viewing a target that is nested with other similar targets, such as a picture or document that is in a folder/book/ file.

I've been told by one of the participants that SAIC used to conduct some of their RV experiments this way--all the targets were in a file, the technician would pull one out, jot down the number, then push the target back into the file, and send the viewers the tasking. Essentially what they were viewing was a photo sandwiched in with a lot of other photos, which describes the situation you laid out here, if I'm not misunderstanding.

Technically, a remote viewer should be able to do this as well as anything else. But my preference is to treat things a little more discretely. I don't believe in encouraging student viewers to view photos or similar two-dimensional targets. Whenever possible, viewers should be targeting real world sites, objects, etc, and using the pictures only as feedback (this has been discussed before). Of course, if you're conditioned to do the latter, you may at first have difficulty shifting to a target photo.

To a viewer who is accustomed to "going" to the actual target, a photo as a target might not "come in" as a description of the photo, but rather as a shiny piece of paper in an envelope. The ideal, of course, is to respond subconsciously precisely to the intent of the tasking. Then it really wouldn't matter WHAT the nature of the target is--whether it be a real-world 3-D object, or one photo stacked in with hundreds of others.

At any rate, I guess my answer to this is--make it as easy as possible when you're learning--which to me means, discrete, individual targets represented in real space-time if at all possible. Get more complicated later (which to me is a photo nestled in with a whole bunch of other photos). Some of you may have no problems with either. In that case, keep on doing whatever it is you're doing!

Paul Smith

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


Gene--

> It made a believer of me, though my question is -- *how* can the viewer become aware when they are doing it, especially in an operational or solo session? And of course, how can they decide what to do about it when it happens? Could this relate in any way to what I was asking about some days ago re self meta-programming in RV?

Up through Stage/Phase III, "the viewer has not yet reached the point where complete comprehension and appreciation of the size, shape, and dimensional composition of the site can be ascertained," (from the original DIA training manual) and therefore must always be aware that there is no set perspective on the target--in other words, the viewer may have a "normal" perspective on the target, or he/she may not. And you often CAN'T TELL. PJ's discussion of her session run against (what was it, a hippo?) is a great illustration of this phenomenon.

However, you can "train" yourself eventually to access the target in such a way that by Stage III you get a perspective from a normal stand-off distacne MOST of the time. But doorknobbing isn't "bad"; it's a normal thing to have happen, and something you will be encouraged to do (but under control, of course) later on in more advanced stages/phases. If you turn in a session in which you have described in excruciating detail the wrought iron elevator gate at the base of the Eifel Tower, when the target was the tower itself, it counts as a hit for a basic course student.

Paul Smith

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


Thank you all for your tips and suggestions. (Paul, PJ, Roger, Skye)

Roger asked about 'cool down'. I have found that the cool down techniques (alpha state functioning prep with #1-EEG entrainment of sound/light/pulsation, #2-TMI tapes of focus 12, #3-Hemisync Music Cds) each serve purpose for ERV, NOT for CRV, for me anyway. Crv requires me to be very ALERT. I CRV after exercise and get my best results that way. I actually WARM UP now.

I have found that when I finally got a crude start on the multiple gestalt language in each ideogram I had my session 'anchor' to start 'sensing' with. I definetly prefer the CRV process, but there's certainly no way to argue with Joe's success with ERV. BTW why doesn't Joe get a medal for his contributions to our country???? Maybe he's just a recognition casualty of security requirements.

Also on the ideogram- it has evolved with a pretty similiar pattern with just enough variation on each one to add meaning. It also has definite physical 'feel' spots that clarify water, lifeform, etc within the line pattern. So, I'm saying that with MY ideograms that they have developed to be both pattern and touch identifiers for session sensing start. I hope I haven't indicated some CRV rule brak here, but that is how it seems to work for me.

PJ, as always, you waded through it all and clarified well about the specific vs general targeting consideration. I still wonder if the SC has an attitude!

Paul, maybe I can include DC in my travel plans for some custom CRV composite work on targeting. At your rates, of course. Thx for suggestions.

Skye, look fwd to working with you in Lyn's Phx CRV class, thx for input.

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


Gene--

I've wanted to respond to this for awhile, so now I'm finally taking the time!

What you've said about metaprogramming makes a lot of sense. I think most experienced viewers have some sort of half-conscious "program" that runs when they're working a serious project of some kind. While telepathic and "monitor" overlay were both occasional problems at the Ft. Meade program, they did not often create major difficulties (especially since, once a viewer was operational, the monitor usually knew little more about the target than did the viewer). I think that if a viewer's intent is to address the correct target as the tasking intent dictates, some sort of "metaprogramming" kicks in almost automatically. So formulating it consciously as you suggest can only help. And I think you're right, that to do it every time as Courtney Brown suggests is not necessary, once you've got the hand of it. It's like Bob Monroe used to say about going to Focus 10. After you learn what it "feels like," you don't need a hemisync tape to do it anymore.

An example from my own experience might reassure some of you. Somewhere back among all the messages this e-mail list has generated, someone mentioned the "Stark" incident that I RVed precognitively (Schnabel's book gives a brief account of it). The tasking for this particular session was a coordinate that stood for an "open search" that Ed Dames wanted me to perform, and for which he was monitoring. Now, the specific tasking the coordinate number represented had something to do with "finding the most important thing in the 'psychic' signal line to report on," but what Ed really hoped was that I would focus on some UFO/ET event or activity. However, my subconscious apparently took the tasking quite literally, and went after the strongest signal it could find--which in this case was a true, if future, event.

If, on the other hand (as I have said before), the tasking had been narrowly defined against a specific target which in fact did not exist, THEN I would have been primed for telepathic/monitor overlay and very likely would have reported some sort of crazy story gleaned from the imagination of the tasker--if I didn't instead just distintegrate into a quivering bowl of AOL-drive (or SCWERL soup, as Lyn would have it ;-).

So, in any case--as far as TOL goes, I think this metaprogramming idea has merit. But further, as long as one works against valid targets, carefully selected for learners, there shouldn't be any real problems with telepathic or monitor overlay.

One other thought--metaprogramming suggests in some ways the concept of subroutines in computer programming [a subroutine is a small "package" of programming instructions that accomplish some activity necessary for the larger program to accomplish its purpose--for example, say you write a program that causes a robot to toast your bread in the morning; the main program would lead the robot to get the bread out of the wrapper, put it in the toaster, and push down the lever--or whatever you call it<g>; a subroutine might direct the robot while the bread is toasting to get a plate out of the cupboard to put the toast on when it is done]. In this case, many of the lower level instruction sets one develops in mastering the overall process of RV might be considered a sort of metaprogramming. If this is so, then any trained viewer already has experience with it, and could put it to use focusing on specific "fine tunings" of the system.

Paul Smith

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


Hi guys,

[edited ...]

Please, never pull any punches when discussing any of these topics. Your many years of expertise are too important. Don't hold back things that it might take us decades to find out....the hard way....for ourselves.

I do have one question. Do the spouses of professional remote viewers generally learn the skill themselves? It does not appear to me, from what little I have seen, that the spouses do get involved and I am wondering why.

I have known, since I first heard about this skill, that I have to learn it. I am just as adamant that my husband must learn it and he has expressed an interest, providing I can prove to him that it works. (He's from Missouri, literally).

Can you please tell me how may spouses and adult children, in your experience, choose to learn remote viewing and, if they elect not to, why?

Kay


Kay wrote: <snip> I have particularly enjoyed these posts about Dave Morehouse etc. These have been very revealing with regard to remote viewings effect on a person and their loved ones. Please, never pull any punches when discussing any of these topics. Your many years of expertise are too important. Don't hold back things that it might take us decades to find out....the hard way....for ourselves. <snip>

I have to agree with Kay. Please don't pull any punches. Paul, if you hadn't said anything, then we would only have one perspective of the possible toll on a person and their family from remote viewing depending on each individual circumstance. And, if you hadn't commented on Dennis's post, then we would not have gotten his response, which gives us insights about the effects of hard targets on law enforcement officers, whether they are in physical proximity or remote viewing.

It's not a guru thing, or an overly attentive fascination towards the dramatic or political titillation, as the reason I find Paul and Dennis's comments interesting. It's because it provides me with more information regarding

1. do I really want to learn CRV or any type of remote viewing knowing there could be a potential downside to it?

2. When I hear that other people are wrestling with certain obstacles such as target accuracy or dealing with certain emotional components of remote viewing emotionally hard/difficult targets, I know that I am not alone on this road, and that in time I will overcome that challenge.

Regards,

Roger


"We are designing our future as we've decided our past, and we all share in the responsibility. Let's wake each other up and work on it together."

----- closing lines from Joe McMoneagle's book, MIND TREK

Blessings, vic


Dear Kay,

My husband & I began getting interested in CRV in February. We attended Lyn's beginner's class last month in San Antonio. As often as we are able, we do practice sessions 4 or 5 times a week. I practice the ideograms about 3 times a week, and he does them more faithfully. We take turns being monitor and viewer. The older children have shown interest, and we do not discourage them from interrupting us while we are in session. They come in and talk to us, even sit down to watch and ask questions. My 14 year old daughter filled in for me today as monitor for my husband to practise phase 1 targets only. We try to present CRV in a very "normal" light and allow the kids to see us alertly talking and scribbling. We enjoy it, it is something we can do as a team and something for us to talk about other than the kids and our jobs. We encourage each other to keep progressing. I can envision potential problems in the future, depending on where this road leads us. I do not know how I would feel if I suddenly bi-located and found myself at the scene of something horrible, tragic, and gory. I'm not sure Joe McMoneagle would agree with me, but I feel a strong urge to pray and stay close to the Lord during the stages.

Anyway, just an anecdote for anyone who may wonder about family issues.

Lori


I am not, as yet, a remote viewer. I am one of the silent masses waiting impatiently for Major Dames' home study TRV tapes. In the meanwhile, I am gaining immensely from the flow of information in this email group.

Me too, Katherine!!! I've been 'lurking' in the background these many weeks absorbing, questioning (to myself), and assessing the exchanges and contributions I read here, all (I've decided) in preparation to my own attempt(s) to engage in remote viewing of one genre or the other.

At this point, I'm still trying to learn by name AND abbreviation the various types of remote veiwing...and understand the basic (FUNDAMENTAL) differences in their respective approaches to the (dare I call it a) science. Actually, I'm looking for the format that will permit the accumulation and documentation of hard data and results that will qualify it AS a science...if this has not yet been achieved. (I get the impression that there is not enough 'empirical' data recorded in one place to formulate any solid hypotheses...towards the establishment of a 'scientific' LAW.) My hope, then, is that by growing this forum such an end may one day be achieved. How about it, you *other* "lurkers". How many ARE we? Write in and 'be counted'. (I'd be interested in your locations, as well.)

I do have one question. Do the spouses of professional remote viewers generally learn the skill themselves? It does not appear to me, from what little I have seen, that the spouses do get involved and I am wondering why.

On this question:... The answer probably is hidden in many places. I'm of the opinion that there are at least TWO groups of us. One is bound (in a sense, 'disabled') by their own personal commitments, goals and/or needs which command/exhaust all of their time, interest and energies. Their activities are pretty much either 'daytime' or round- the-clock. The 'other' group (to which I belong) consists of individuals who have some 'spare time' during the day; OR, as is also the case with me...who can be characterized as 'night people'.

Another 'reason': The fact that the very nature of remote viewing... especially among those who 'came upon it' by way of their (in some cases) "addiction" to the Art Bell show places them, in their spouses' eyes, at the very brink of lunacy. ESPECIALLY if they attempt to discuss in a serious vein some of the material that finds its way to that talk show. I'd like to expand... but it would be way off course. However, for me, it's enough to know that there are some astonishingly brilliant minds among Art Bell guests...along with those whose claims and credentials are very 'suspect'. The 'wait and see' ("show me") position is appropriate... and is precisely where I am with respect to Ed Dames. In his case it would "appear" that he has come up with some pretty accurate 'projections'. I'm not certain, however, that much of this may not have been deduced from previously available scientific observations and data trends not broadly communicated by the media. All of which tends to align me, more and more with 'CRV'. (Is that "coordinate" remote viewing?)

That's it for now. Back to the shadows...

B.T.


Hiya Lori,

Glad you decided to join the discussion. Sounds like you're having a good time with CRV!

<<I'm not sure Joe McMoneagle would agree with me, but I feel a strong urge to pray and stay close to the Lord during the stages.

Wow -- did something Joe said give you this idea?! I don't think Joe would ever argue a person's desire to do such a thing. He's quite spiritual himself in fact. (Weird you'd think that.)

Involving your kids in the process sounds like a great idea. They oughtta be masters if they start now!

PJ


Roger,

<<Paul, if you hadn't said anything, then we would only have one perspective of the possible toll on a person and their family from remote viewing depending on each individual circumstance.

To those of you fairly new to remote viewing, this seems like an innocent and informative enough subject. It's fascinating. However, there is no way for us to have a discussion about alleged evidence of personal-RV-damage without ending up in a discussion about Morehouse's accuracy, honesty, etc. David is not here to defend himself and I won't allow it to begin. The only reason this conversation has been so calm is because Paul was kind enough to write me privately prior to posting on the board, and agreed to edit his comments to be considerably more ... diplomatic.

This discussion is closed for the list, unless you guys can limit yourself to addressing only non-political and non-personalized elements of the conversation, which I personally think will not last long before devolving.

Thanks.

PJ (Yes, I know I sound like a grouch. It's a touchier subject than you may realize.)


Hiya Bob,

Glad to see you back again. :-)

<<At this point, I'm still trying to learn by name AND abbreviation the various types of remote viewing...and understand the basic (FUNDAMENTAL) differences in their respective approaches to the (dare I call it a) science.

There are at least a dozen remote viewing methodologies. Assessments of their value seem to be reasonably subjective; in the scientific lab, they don't appear to feel any one way is preferable to another, but rather, place the importance on the innate talent of the individual. In applications, such as the former Army intelligence unit, since the unit members were (except perhaps McMoneagle) not considered 'accurately psychic' until they were trained, they tend to emphasize the value of training, feeling they've seen it work.

There are four major titles you'll encounter when studying the science and military ways of obtaining so-called clairvoyant (and so on) data.

The first is controlled remote viewing (CRV). Whether this is tasked or set up through the use of beacons (outbound persons, where the viewer attempts to 'describe the location where the individual is') or coordinates (such as geographical coordinates) or something else (the current methods use target meaning-independent numbers as address), the controls (protocol) and the methods are the same. 'Coordinate' remote viewing is controlled remote viewing using coordinates instead of some other means of target address.

The second is extended remote viewing (ERV). This has the same set of controls (same protocol) as CRV, but the methods vary. It sometimes incorporates certain aspects of the first stage/phase or two of CRV, or sometimes not, depending on the Viewer. As far as the guts of the process, it is much more free-flowing, tends to be verbal instead of written, and in some cases records some of the information after the session, not during (dramatically different than CRV in that case).

The third is associative remote viewing (ARV). This is not a methodology, it is a method of tasking, and it can be used within the context of any other methodology.

The fourth is the ganzfeld techniques. These are not technically 'remote viewing' in the standard sense of the term, but they have had some very reputable scientific studies done on them. Sometimes the public confuses these methods with ERV, but they're different things. I believe Angela Thompson even worked as a subject in some of the ganzfeld scientific trials, so she's the one to talk to about this.

Not counting ganzfeld and other 'parapsychology studies,' there are many 'methodologies' of remote viewing itself that have been worked out and experimented with in the lab. They are not public. I don't know that this is because they are classified, so much as that there are a tiny number of people who hold that data and they just don't have time to spell it out, they've got other stuff to do. Also, many of the scientific projects were funded by sponsors with specific requests, and so, the information belongs to them, not the scientists.

I realize the public is probably going, "Well what about TRV and SRV?" TRV is a derivative of Swann's controlled remote viewing (CRV). Well, the details on that vary; I have records where at least a dozen times it is referred to as just that, and other records where it is referred to as "not a derivative" and "unlike anything else." In any case, Ed Dames learned beginner remote viewing (Stage 1-3) from Ingo Swann in the mid 80's, so one is forced to assume that his own methodologies (independently named in 1996 I believe) are at least partly based on that. SRV is Courtney Brown's derivative of Dames's TRV; while it is also said that it cannot be compared to what he was taught, still, it's an obvious conclusion that his own methods are at least based on his TRV class with Dames.

So, as far as both science and military go in the records today, the major 'methodologies' are pretty much CRV and ERV (with occasional work using ARV tasking). Most of the _current_ science stuff, to my knowledge, is more a matter of ERV (as McMoneagle is one of the leading subjects, and that's his methodology).

<<Actually, I'm looking for the format that will permit the accumulation and documentation of hard data and results that will qualify it AS a science...if this has not yet been achieved.

If it seems like it hasn't been done, it's just because it isn't public. I assure you, there are over 20 years of painstaking research in this field, there is more data than you would believe, including quite convincing evidence all over the place, by almost any measure of science. Like I said, you just don't hear about most of it. The CIA said they would declassify this, back in 1995, but they have not yet done so.

<<The 'wait and see' ("show me") position is appropriate... and is precisely where I am with respect to Ed Dames. In his case it would "appear" that he has come up with some pretty accurate 'projections'. I'm not certain, however, that much of this may not have been deduced from previously available scientific observations and data trends not broadly communicated by the media.

I could really rant about this myself, but I won't. I'd prefer it if people on this list could avoid mentioning individual's names in any manner that verges on... political. After all, Ed isn't here to defend himself. (Including from ME.) I want to keep this list to conversation about hands-on and theoretical RV, and I'm really trying to keep it from devolving into personal or political discussions. (I know, you weren't getting into that -- I'm just afraid your comments may inspire something else, you know how it goes.)

Glad you jumped in Bob. Participate more often! You always have good points.

PJ


MAY 03 1997 TO MAY 19 1997
END ARCHIVE 12

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.