firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 014
.


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 fourteenth archive.


MAY 20 1997 TO JUNE 10 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 14

>It is My understanding that to the infinite there is no separation >between superconsciousness, consciousnes, and subconsciuosness. >Subconsiousness is just another way of talking or seeing things that >have been taken for granted. Or that's just the way it is. CM

Nice understanding.  Very lofty and ideal.  The problem is that while wearing this mortal veil, we tend not to be so "infinite", and therefore sometimes need a little help in remembering.

Lyn Buchanan

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


I'm copying this to The View From Here BBS as general info, and the Viewer group, hope you don't mind.

Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) is not actually a form of remote viewing, but a form of tasking remote viewing (setting up the project and analysis; it can be used with any methodology the Viewer chooses).

This contradicts some comments by public people about ARV's efficiency (or lack thereof compared to their own glorious methods); there is clearly misunderstanding about this in the 'modern media RV world'; ARV is not a "methodology" per se. You could use ARV tasking for street psychics or for detailed CRVrs... method isn't relevant.

Some of the scientific studies done with this tasking have been quite effective. Others have failed to duplicate earlier results. I know of a couple of Viewers who have been working this for quite some time and they say that it improves with practice (like all things do) and they've made some decent money off it.

Now normally, remote viewing is carefully tasked (privately with specifics desired) (and publicly blind). (By private I mean, what you as the tasker write up as the target tasking. By public I mean, what you as the tasker communicate to the monitor and/or Viewer.)

In ARV, the goal is to get around going toward alphanumerics and other concept loaded difficult datas, and instead the Viewer is tasked with finding a specific other thing based on a determined outcome or presence of those datas.

ARV brings up tasking such as the formula:
if {x} = {a}, then {1}; if {x} = {b}, then {2}; otherwise, {3}.

where: x= the determinable thing seeking outcome (e.g., stock/commodity)
a=one probable result (e.g., "yes")
b=another probable result (e.g., "no")
1=Item 1 chosen for the Viewer to describe in case {a}
2=Item 2 chosen for the Viewer to describe in case {b}
3=Item 3 chosen for the Viewer to describe in all other cases(e.g., "not applicable / doesn't happen" etc.)

Direct Associative
(Note: THIS was a bright idea but apparently won't work... see the notes below.)

As a hypothetical scenario, let's say that you're attempting to predictively RV the stock value trade-result of widgets.

You would set your project up in this sort of way:

Choose a target (say, your tabby cat) for #1
Choose a target (say, niagara falls) for #2
Choose a target (say, the moon) for #3

Make them as different as possible in every way. Do not choose three different buildings, three different biologicals, etc.; vary them as widely as possible. Choose specific targets, not concepts (e.g., not "a" tabby cat but THE tabby cat; find something 'real' and 'specific' as a target). Avoid random moving things such as 'my friend's white car.'

Write (physically) down in words, the formula above, such as:

If the widget trading price is up at close of day 5/22/97, the target is Tiger my tabby cat. If the widget trading price is down at close of day 5/22/97, the target is Niagara falls waterfall. If the widget trading price is neither specifically up nor specifically down, or both, or other, at close of day 5/22/97, the target is the moon which orbits Earth.

To the Viewer, you would provide only the following tasking:

"Describe the target."

If you want, you can assign a number, random/date/other, or not, doesn't matter. If you do that, also write on the paper where you described the targets, "this exercise is referred to as target# "___"."

If you can figure out which of your options the Viewer's data is describing, that is your 'predictive mechanism' for using ARV tasking to determine a number.

Feedback Associative
(Apparently this is the traditional method that works <g>)

This is slightly different in concept; it is probably better for training Viewers to do this kind of tasking than the first method.

Instead of setting up so that "if the answer is {xyz} show me {abc}," instead, you're going to set it up so that:

"at {xyz time} I am going to give you {abc feedback}, describe that feedback now"

where {abc} = a feedback based on the result of your initial target query
your initial target query = the stock's action or result at a certain point

For instance, say your choices are "yes" "no" "maybe/other". Say you assign three things to this -- say we're going to use sounds for this one. One is a high ringing tingling bell, for 'yes'. One may be a low gong for 'no.' One may be a loud clicking-roaring like a lawn mower for 'maybe/other.' You set up a basic time loop so that at point A (present tasking/session), the Viewer is targeting point C (their feedback presentation). And what the Viewer is given at point C is going to be determined based on what happens or is demonstrated at point B, which let's say is your stock close point.

So, if the stock goes up on 5/25, on 5/26 you'll play your ringing/tingling alarm bell as feedback for the Viewer. If it goes down on 5/25, on 5/26 you'll clang a gong as feedback for the Viewer. If it stays the same, or any other option comes about (you never know!), you'll start your lawn mower for them as feedback. So on 5/22 in their session, they are NOT targeting what happens in the world on 5/25. Rather, they are targeting what happens to them on 5/26. Comprende?

You can tell them they are targeting a sound, or a smell, or a taste, or..... as frontloading, as long as you do NOT tell them what the options are. (Later note: Joe says this is a bad idea. See below.)

Now, say they do the session on 5/22 and say, "high ringing." But on 5/25, the stock goes down. That means on 5/26, you play them the gong, because that's what you have set up as representing that result. So, the feedback they get is based on what actually happens. When they are wrong, their brain is then forced to recognize that it was wrong, and over time and practice, the brain learns. You would however need to use different targeting focuses for each session if you are using the same Viewer on more than one session (or different Viewers on the same session), or the AOL/STRAY CATs will make them nuts and your data will probably be worthless. It can take some time to train Viewers to this kind of tasking; like anything else, practice will improve their skills. Their general ability to acquire the kind of data you're providing as feedback is the best indicator of how well they'll do (you'd know this from their Viewer Profile).

You can use taste, touch, smells, sounds, sights, shapes, sites, concepts -- whatever your Viewers are good at -- as feedback/targets. Be aware that all predictive RV has a much lower expected accuracy % than present-RV. You may wish to consider the Viewers' profiles prior to choosing your feedback types, and choose accordingly. I personally suspect that highly singular sites might be best, but what do I know.

It is generally best to use different Viewers (who should be, of course, blind to each other's work and projects) for each thing you are targeting. If you choose to use multiple Viewers on the same task, choose different feedback (duplicating the tasking identically will increase your chances of getting confirming Views, but alas, will not increase your chances of those confirmations meaning it's any more correct a conclusion).

Good luck. I've never tried this personally, so I'm not an expert -- my advice (as always) is worth what you're paying for it.

It should go without saying that you cannot task yourself on these things.

If you make money, send me some. :-)

Regards,

PJ


Re: Associative Remote Viewing

Just a short note. Your first scenario probably won't work. As you've not designated a specific time and date the remote viewer must target the target that has been designated (a,b,c). You "need" feedback, based on the actuality of what should have been done (associatively) at a specific time and date, for associative RV to work.

Also, you should not front load the remote viewer as you suggest is possible with regard to the final portion of what you are saying here. Front loading the remote viewer in any way, presents the viewer with a "guessing" or "what if" scenario, that only gets in the way of information production.

When done right, the associative Rv works really well. It's when you don't follow through on the protocol, exactly as designed that it will usually fail to work.

The person who selects the targets representing a,b,c, should not participate in any other portion of the remote viewing, except the judging and decision making. The monitor should not know what the target(s) possibilities are. The remote viewer (for obvious reasons) must remain totally blind to any of the target possibilities. Feedback must be given to the remote viewer at the pre-designated time and date to complete the protocol. That time and date is generally decided by when you could have made a selection of the appropriate response you are seeking, thus selecting the specific target associative to the result.

Have fun.

Joe

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


>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?

Telepathic overlay is very subtle and, in the situation where it is the "monitor's STRAY CAT", is almost impossible to distinguish from subtle body cues, etc.  Telepathic overlay from other sources doesn't seem to adversly affect the viewer, unless it is something like the mass overlay that some public figure is guilty/not guilty, etc.  Then, who knows?  There is no way to measure that.  As for intent, the viewer's intent must always be to get to the target and the truth about the target.  An overriding intent towards that goal can overcome an awful lot of problems, telepathic overlay being only one of them.

>..... 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?

In the "total site integration" or "bilocation" state, most of the information is there for your senses to recognize.  One of the dangers of this state is that when in it, you don't report.  Therefore, you come back from it and tell what you experienced.  During the summarizing and telling of it, you almost certainly fill in gaps of what you remember by using your imagination.  That happens with all eye-witnesses.

>.....  Also, it would be helpful >if someone could talk about "getting into your zone" and if it means >different things to different people.   

If you mean getting prepared for the session, everyone has a different way to do that.  Paul likes to zone out for a half hour.  That ruins my sessions.  I need to line the session up as just another job to be done on a busy day and rush into it without preparation.  However, I didn't find this out by seeing what "feels best", nor did Paul.  We kept data and found out what gives the highest scores results-wise.  Often, what feels like it gives the best session also gives the worst results.  Only good record keeping will let you know for certain.

>I'm really enjoying this forum and learning a lot! > >Thanks, > >Vickie

Thanks for joining it.

Lyn Buchanan

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

 


Hi Viewers,

Looking for some experience concernig targets that were, but are no longer in the physical.  ie If you are going for target X, but this target no longer is alive ( if animal, Organic/Natural ) or standing, having been torn down ( in the case of a structure, Manmade ), does one automatically go down the signal line to a time where this target was in the physical. Are we running the risk of the subconscious interpriting this as a lie and getting crosswired or angry at feedback.  This may a silly question, but I think the answer will help with my understanding of the signal line.

- Paul


Lyn, Thanks for the practise targets you've been putting up. You're probably familiar with the following two procedures but I thought them worth posting for dowers who use a pendulum for remote (map) dowsing: Thanks for the practise targets you've been putting up. You're probably familiar with the following two procedures but I thought them worth posting for dowers who use a pendulum for remote (map) dowsing:

METHOD.1
1) Ask for the usual permissions to dowse the map
2) Using a ruler, drag it across the map horizontally asking whether the target (reference no) is on the ruler line.
3) When a positive 'yes' is indicated, draw a line.
4) Turn the ruler to the vertical and repeat the same procedure.
5) When a positive 'yes' is again indicated, draw a line.

Where the two lines intersect, this should be the location of the target.

METHOD.2
This second method involves drawing a grid on the target map and labelling it like a chess board:

1) Mark a suitable grid on the map labelling each row with numbers and each column with letters of the alphabet. (Or the other way around - whichever 'feels' most comfortable.)
2) Ask for the usual permissions before working the target.
3) Focus by using a pointer on each square and ask whether target (reference) is in this square.

4) Repeat until a definite 'yes' is obtained.
5) Continue asking for all squares around the 'first find' to ensure that the target does not overlap into more than one cell.

Method 1 is useful for approximating positions (85%-96% accuracy on your targets with the exception of the concentration camp target which was 68%.)  Method 2 is useful for attempting to crudely define shapes within targets and/or the area they occupy. It can also be used for refining the first location method after a verifiable hit has been established. It can often work better where more than one target may exist within a given area because it allows you to question in a different way but always in the singular sense.  Hope this is of interest and maybe useful.

Dear P.,

Thanks for the input.  Actually, the two methods you sent are two of the several methods used by the military unit in their "CRV Dowsing".  That is, dowsing which is so organized as to fit into the CRV structure for acquiring and reporting information in a standardized and uniform manner.  Each viewer in the unit had his/her favorite method.  Mine was the ruler method.  I found, however, that drawing two lines to form an "X" on the map was only accurate within a certain percentage (there is a discussion of the ruler method on my home page, and how to score accuracy with it).  The "X" was rarely directly on target, but you could know from databasing a viewer's previous dowsings about how far off he/she would be, and could draw a circle around the "X" point to show an area of highest probability.  The problem is that you don't have any idea which direction from the "X" is correct within that circle of highest probability.

I found, however, that if you pull the ruler across the map in yet a third direction.  You have to be very careful honestly let the ruler give the "bump", rather than trying to draw the third line so it exactly intersects the other "X" point.  That is imagination, and is pollution to the process. What generally happens is that the lines form a triangle, and that triangle will almost always contain the target, plus it will give a much tighter and more well defined area of probability.

Thanks again for the input. If you don't mind, I would like to post this to the CRV mail list page for further comment and discussion.  I'll keep your full name off it.  If you would be interested in joining the CRV mailing list, contact PJ Gaenir, who runs it, at fire@zmatrix.com.  Thanks again.

Lyn Buchanan

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


>>Looking for some experience concerning targets that were, but are no longer in the physical.  ie If you are going for target X, but this target no longer is alive ( if animal, Organic/Natural ) or standing, having been torn down ( in the case of a structure, Manmade ), does one automatically go down the signal line to a time where this target was in the physical.

I presume you are referring to a target entity without a specified time or event.  While there is no one answer for your question other than "It depends", most of the time you will be attracted to the brightest emotional event which is IMHO a function of intensity and time-distance.  However, it is not unusual to see a series of overlays if there are multiple potential targets that share a person, place, or thing.

Are we running the risk of the subconscious interpreting this as a lie and getting crosswired or angry at feedback.

IMHO, the subconscious mind provides the symbolic information pretty much intact.  It is the rational mind that gets angry, decides something is a lie or that it is too confusing, and reshapes the symbols to match "reality".

Rusty


Hi John,

<<If the training offered there is for real, we here are living in the dark ages of RV. Beyond the capabilities offered in their (expensive) courses, one or two small points are disturbing. The two references to Ingo Swann misspell his first name.

Apparently the webmaster can control your brain from a distance, but he can't type. <g>

I have read the site you referred to.  The inability to distinguish, or keep separate in concept, the difference between 'remote viewing' and 'electronic mind control' is so wearying -- old hat, on the web -- that I gave up shortly after visiting the site.

I must be getting weary in general lately.  Seems like everybody's got 'the only answer', and everybody's scientific even though they apparently aren't working with real scientists, and everybody's got a plan that'll cost you an arm, a leg, and your firstborn child if you want to be cosmic like them.  It all sounded interesting to me, but I have here in my desk the plans for -- I kid you not -- a time machine, best used in a DeLorean car.  With a flux capacitor.  A totally rational-seeming, intelligent, funny guy I'd been talking with online sent me this.  I didn't know he was a little loony until I got the plans.  I nearly died laughing.  Since then I've learned to take everything I read with some humor until it has been demonstrated to me.

CRV has science and military and documentation history that one can actually look up and read about and talk to people about, including people with lots of impressive academic credentials, and people who have no potential $ invested in selling you on it, which I consider critical for validating anything prior to sending somebody money.  In fact, I did NOT give anybody money until I'd found a lot of that stuff, those people, those sources, to validate it.

In my studies searching for RV stuff, I have waded through a lot of mind-control type stuff.  Some of it seems legitimately based; some is wild assumptions... in between a dozen normal name/date/place facts will be a comment like 'and everybody knows {x}...' which is hardly a fact or verification.

I do consider it theoretically possible, even probable, that physiological fields could affect psychic work including remote viewing: that certain affects on us might make us better at it; that certain affects on others might make them more susceptible to it.  I once studied with a PhD whose theory, part of it anyway, summed up, was that the body was the literal manifestation of the subconscious; that it isn't really that the subconscious communicates via the body, so much as that the body experiences everything chemically, stores most of it, and IS the subconscious... which we have come to think of as 'the mind,' like part of the brain, instead.  (I'm simplifying it beyond fairness or discussion.) If there's something to this, and I believe there is, then ANY effect on the body has some effect on psi... it's just a matter of determining what is what.

Anyway, so I am happy to entertain the idea that physical effects will influence psi in one way or another.  However, electronic mind control, which that web site references, and remote viewing, are simply NOT THE SAME THING. It is not simply that MC "goes farther" than RV; they are two different animals, period.  Even remote influence does not qualify as mind control.  (I would put it more in the realm of magick -- not the 'wild mystical' part, but the Crowley-science part.)

(Granted, I've had some MIB-dreams that, once I realized them (six months later) almost made me a believer in mind control overnight, except that it seems to me there'd be too many other interesting things for them to be doing than indoctrinating unimportant civilians, so I tend to think it was just creative and recurring imagination, in retrospect.)

It is difficult to have an intelligent discussion about anything if one can't keep the semantics straight.  The PMS fellow sounds earnest, but my impression from reading is that he's comparing apples and oranges and calling them pineapples.  He may for all I know be an expert on his own form of "mind control" through the use of his machines.  I'd be glad to learn more about it but am not going to pay him money for something which has no, to my knowledge, legitimate demonstration -- any product that you buy in the free market has existing applications, customer references, etc. -- and psi stuff should be no different.

He does not, alas, appear to be any kind of expert on remote viewing, or even particularly educated about it, so every time he begins talking about that, I suggest you take it with a large grain of salt.

(I suspect Ingo would be disappointed to hear himself so referenced without regard to what he was REALLY doing to deserve the recognition.)

PJ


<<If the training offered there is for real, we here are living in the dark ages of RV. Beyond the capabilities offered in their (expensive) courses, one or two small points are disturbing. The two references to Ingo Swann misspell his first name.>>

Yeah, I added PMS to my page about a month and a half ago. I wanted to kind of show my page surfers the broad spectrum of what lies out there as far as RV pages go. After speaking with  the author of that page a few times I became fairly convinced that the guy is just crazy. Either that, or he is a good con artist!!!! I would never take a course from him. That is not to say that SOME of his information isn't correct, but some of his inacurracies are rather disturbing. It is an interesting page for bedtime reading though, I'll give him that!

-S


Paul, and all others interested--

Sorry to have been "offline" for so long--final exams, final papers, and clients have been taking all my available time for the last several weeks. My family (for some inexplicable reason) wanted what was left over :-)

>>>Looking for some experience concernig targets that were, but are no >longer in the physical.  ie If you are going for target X, but this >target no longer is alive ( if animal, Organic/Natural ) or standing, >having been torn down ( in the case of a structure, Manmade ), does one >automatically go down the signal line to a time where this target was in >the physical. Are we running the risk of the subconscious interpriting >this as a lie and getting crosswired or angry at feedback.

This is an interesting question.  There were a number of instances when we at the Ft. Meade unit were tasked to do RV sessions (whether operational or training), and reported that something at the site was different than expected by the tasker.  I remember once (I believe it was Joe), where the viewer was given the coordinate and came back adamantly that "there is NOTHING here but dirt" (or words to that effect). The tasker decided the viewer must have been off--but not long afterwards discovered that the coordinate was wrong, and indeed put the viewer down out in the middle of nowhere.  We also had a training site for Stage/phase III movement exercises, the polar coordinates for which seemed to ALWAYS get the same results from any viewer that did it, but which were NOT the results anticipated in the targeting package (I'll not tell you what the overall target was, since I still use it for training my clients in SIII movement exercises).  It turned out that the direction of movement was wrong.  The viewers went where they were told to go, but they were being given the wrong directions.

In intelligence work, this characteristic is quite valuable.  For example, let's say we wanted to know if the Soviets could use their OWN psychics (we always presumed they had counterparts to our own RV operation) to tell which bunkers held MX missiles and which ones didn't.  If a viewer could view a bunker and determine that it held a missle, then view it a day later and determine that it was empty, that would have major operational significance.

However, in normal CRV training, you don't want the confusion of practicing against a target that isn't there in "real time" anymore, and therefore drawing a blank (or worse, AOL-drive).  The change in targeting coordinates from geo-coordinates to "encrypted" coordinates helped this problem a lot. Now the coordinate no longer stands for an actual location on the ground in current time, but rather for the "intended" target.  Let's say the target is an old theater in downtown Toledo.  It had been there ten years ago when somebody took a picture of it, but just last week it was torn down.  Today, somebody gives you a coordinate to that theater.  If it had been a geographical coordinate, you would go to that place, report a pile of old bricks, and your tasker would scratch his/her head and say, "Gee, you must be off today!"

With an encrypted coordinate, the intent is to report on the target for which the coordinate is an address, in this case the old theater.  If the tasker wants CURRENT time, that must be expressed as part of the intent (in the targeting materials, NOT to the viewer, of course!).  This clearly does not just apply to old theaters, but should work as well for (deceased) persons and other such no-longer extant targets.

This implies a certain amount of Stage VI temporal displacement, but it is always into the past, and very low on the difficulty scale, so it hasn't proved to be problematic.  Hope this answer helps...

Paul Smith (the "other" Paul<g>)

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


> This implies a certain amount of Stage VI temporal displacement, but it is > always into the past, and very low on the difficulty scale, so it hasn't > proved to be problematic.  Hope this answer helps...

Your comment that "it is always into the past" to be thought provoking. Do you believe that this limitation is the result of the rv approach? Could it be a result of the implicit expectations of the people involved in the process?  Or, has the naturally lower rate of accuracy in precog work resulted in a lack of interest?

While precognitive viewing is rarer and less accurate than present or past remote viewing, it does occur.  I had the wonderful experience of viewing, including sound, the television program announcing the winning numbers, bought the ticket, saw the actual program that matched exactly several days later, and tore up my ticket - wrong #$%@^& state lottery. {The universe has a sense of humour.  Unfortunately, it appears to be vaudeville.}  Since I actually dreamed in math occasionally when I was a kid, I don't seem to have the mental block against seeing numbers that others report.

And, there have been viewing experiments where the target was selected randomly AFTER the session.  Right?

If you have done precog work, does the remote viewing methodology raise the accuracy of the precog-viewing significantly?

Rusty


>Do you believe that this limitation is the result of the rv approach? >Could it be a result of the implicit expectations of the people involved >in the process?  Or, has the naturally lower rate of accuracy in precog >work resulted in a lack of interest?

Actually, nothing quite so profound.  The reason I used the phrase "always into the past" was because we were talking about targets that once existed but no longer do. Temporality is confusing enough without doing past targets precognitively! ;-)

>While precognitive viewing is rarer and less accurate than present or >past remote viewing, it does occur.  I had the wonderful experience of >viewing, including sound, the television program announcing the winning >numbers, bought the ticket, saw the actual program that matched exactly >several days later, and tore up my ticket - wrong #$%@^& state lottery. >{The universe has a sense of humour.  Unfortunately, it appears to be >vaudeville.}  Since I actually dreamed in math occasionally when I was a >kid, I don't seem to have the mental block against seeing numbers that >others report.

Now THAT was a remarkable experience!  Seldom does anyone (that I know, anyway!) get that high quality a "picture."  And if you have that success with numbers, you really ought to cultivate it--it would be a very valuable resource.

>If you have done precog work, does the remote viewing methodology raise >the accuracy of the precog-viewing significantly?

Properly executed RV can increase the accuracy of data perceived in the course of a precog session, but in my view cannot improve the likelihood that the perceived data will be part of the actual future.  Somewhere filed away are some comments I made earlier to the group about my opinions on precognition.  If I can find it I'll forward it on to you.

Best wishes,

Paul

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


There was some very interesting discussions on targets that were.  Thanks to all those who contributed!

I have a similar question:  What about targets that are unreal, but exist in the human consciousness.  Targets that many people identify, because of popular fiction, etc.  For example, if the target was Minas Tirith, or Gilligan's Island would the viewer just get garbage back, or would she get information back based on the general public's impression of the site.

There was some interesting research done on poltergeists many years ago by two different groups independently.  They wanted to understand the phenomenon better so they each created a fictional character, in amazing detail.  When he lived, where he lived, what he did, who his friends were, and how he died.  The characters became very 'real' to their respective groups.  Then they did the seance (sp?) thing and began talking to this 'ghost' that never existed, except in the story the group created.  He would knock on tables, and move them around, etc.

This character became 'real' to their subconscious minds, and actually 'manifested' itself.  Now I can't vouch for the validity of the experiment, or the controls used, but it is interesting reading.  I wonder, though, if the same is true of Remote Viewing.

This also leads to the question, if enough people believe that there is a colony of beagles living on Venus, would a remote viewer, targetted on Venus, see a bunch of beagles?  IS there any way of 'protecting' oneself from this mass conscious overlay?

Mike CT


i'd like paul and lyn to respond to this if they have time.

could you please give an in depth definition of "signal line" and how a crver learns to recognize it.

also, i've read about "apature". could you please define/explain this.

thanks

ed m.


Re: Paul Smith

Thanks for your comments regarding reception of emotions from a target. These emotional states were confirmed by the other party at the exact times I logged them.

I would like to mention another aspect of this experience. I never met this person and tried to remotely determine physical appearance.

What I picked up was an image representing the true personality. The image didn't match the physical appearance but did match the true self. The image was of a child movie star with the same exact personality as the target. This was confirmed by e-mail.

The entire experience was enjoyable in the fact that the feedback strengthened my belief that I was receiving something real. I began to learn how to interpret and understand the received emotions. It wasn't enjoyable because the received thoughts occupied a lot of my time. I had difficulty attending to my normal work routine. Yet, I had a strong desire to help this person work out certain personal problems by trying to send back telepathically an analysis and possible solutions.

I was even informed by e-mail that the target had a very real dream-like or semi awake experience of directly conversing with me about the same subject matter as the perceived emotions and thoughts. I was sound asleep at the time, but my unconscious could have been wide awake.

You did not completely answer my question regarding the nature of these received emotional thoughts. They seemed to seemed to be my own thoughts, but different.

What was your experience in this regard? How are telepathic emotions perceived?

cc


Hi viewers

Since i reacently got involved in RV i need some tips about how to practice remote viweing.

So if anyone of you have experienced something that made it easier for you to do remote viewing and dont have anything against sharing that experiance please mail me.

All other kinds of genaral tips are welcomed aswell.

best regards Konrad


to all crv'ers in training... i suggest making it a point, if you don't do it already,to fill out those scoring sheets as you do each session. i have not done this and as a result i have over 40 that i must now do and get to lyn so he can build my viewer profile and determine when i'm ready for more advanced training. don't make the same mistake i made.

ed m.


Ed--

I thought I'd give Lyn a chance to answer this one, but I guess he's got off to Phoenix, so I'll jump in first and let him answer when he can.

you wrote:
>could you please give an in depth definition of "signal line" >and how a crver learns to recognize it. > >also, i've read about "apature". could you please >define/explain this.

Both "signal line" and "aperture" are terms Ingo Swann uses as part of his CRV theory base to provide a possible explanation for how CRV works.  Very briefly (I go into this in much greater detail and--hopefully--much more understandably in my course, but it takes a couple of hours--won't burden you with that now :-) all information about any given target in the universe is contained in an hypothesized "matrix" (somewhat akin to Hinduism's Akashic records).

The signal line is the "carrier wave" that links the viewer's subconscious to the matrix, and allows the viewer to obtain information about a given target.  The aperture functions much like that of a camera.  When the viewer first accesses the target the aperture is small, and only allows the most "energetic" signals in--a brief, overall impression of the target.  As one procedes through the "stages" (Ingo) or "phases" (Lyn) of CRV, the aperture gradually dilates, letting more and more "signal"--and therefore information--through.  Indeed, this is the point of the CRV process--to help the viewer learn how to "open up" that aperture.  Everything you do in CRV is designed to either help you recognize/acquire, or decipher the signal line. Feedback--both in-session (for beginners) and after-session (for everybody) is very important, in that it allows you to compare when you're "on" and when you're "off," so that with any luck you gradually become more proficient at recognizing it while you're doing it.  So if you've taken my or Lyn's course, you already know HOW one learns to recognize it.  The trick is actually doing it reliably!

Sorry for all the multi-syllabic words...

Paul

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


> Feedback--both in-session (for beginners) and after-session > (for everybody) is very important, in that it allows you to > compare when you're "on" and when you're "off," so that with > any luck you gradually become more proficient at recognizing > it while you're doing it. [snip]

I received the basic CRV training from Lyn last January.  At that time I had a monitor, but that's no longer the case.  I remember Lyn saying that it's a lot more difficult to do a session without a monitor, but of course I had no idea what he was talking about until it happened to me!... Since I don't have the benefit of having a monitor to watch for the signs, guide me through the session, etc., is there anything that I can do to know when I'm on or off target? Thanks!...

Yvete


Greetings!

As a new member, thought I'd better introduce myself. I have a computer background in programming, and just recently have begun the process of developing my own web-site...not yet up and not likely to be until September, as I'm also in the process of refurbishing a house and then will be moving in July.

I am also a visual artist, utilizing mostly paint mediums, some pen and ink, and love collage art.  I orginally entered computer technology for the sake of learning how to use it to create artworks and for writing.  I have an extensive background of study in dreamwork, yoga, mythology, and world religious traditions (for the purpose of finding their commonalities, and demythologizing the learning process found within the highly coded or often misinterpreted structures). I am a voracious reader and love to write fiction and poetry.  I also love science fiction, and am prone to quote words of wisdom from these sources.  I consider all dialogue to be an exciting opportunity for growth and will never hesitate to pull seemingly unrelated sources into the mix if it makes a connection to the topic. If it applies, it applies, and I like to demonstrate the connections between things. The processes of how consciousness operates is the guiding study of all secondary studies in my life.  Therefore, here I am.

I have taken the time to read the 5 archived batches of email on the site and have begun to practice on the provided targets using the information gleaned from this site.  The conversations that have occured in just the few months this group has been working together are excellent food for thought and action.

I used the "just do it" method for my first practice target, and found myself doing exactly what we aren't supposed to do and named -- nouned -- my first gestalt. (The old bell that turns into a bell tower then a church, etc. circle.)  And then when going further into the sensory had good results, except I could see my mind still trying to relate the impressions to my first impression. My colors were right, and even the descriptive aspects of how those colors related were correct; only one thing wrong: I totally missed the predominant color because it didn't fit with my preconceived notion -- my noun. Then when I drew what I was viewing I let my noun go somewhat better and actually ended up with a form that matched fairly significantly.  Even down to one detail in the center.  Although I could again see the conscious mind trying to justify the existence of that detail by naming it in relation to the first noun.  This is going to be really fun work, and informative.

Looking forward to an ongoing experience,

Shelia


END ARCHIVE 14
MAY 20 1997 TO JUNE 10 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.