firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 015
.


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 fifteenth archive.


JUNE 11 1997 TO JULY 11 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 15

Dear Viewers,

I have spent a greater part of several years trying to research the basic common denominators consistent with all RV and Psychic reception work.  I have come to some basic ideas that I am trying to find any 'credible' information relating to it.  They are as follows:

1)  Each effective discipline seems to work best when the subject reduces their brain wave patterns to 7.81 hz., or there about.

2)  When a sender is used or not, Bio-Emmissions Lab. in Japan demonstrated that even when information is not able to be brought to conscious awareness by the receiver, with information sent, the Brainwave pattern changes seems to point to some sort of response and transfer of influence.

3)  The most difficult part is in bringing information from the subconscious mind to conscious awareness and then using a good and organized protocol to report it cleanly and effectively.

This information suggests that perhaps the steps that we need to focus on in the obtaining of information is the ablility to control BW patterns and hold them at an optimum level consistently each time, the removal or effective softing of the filter mechanism between the subconscious and the conscious mind, the learning of the person to recognize the information received and the ability to describe it accordingly.

Therefore, my request is to ask if anyone out there knows of and mechanical method of controlling proper BW patterns to a specific level and the ability to hold them at those levels.  I am not interested in Light/Sound machines as they move all BW patterns to the same level without discrimination, therefore interferring with those levels that need to stay in Beta.

Please let me know, if you have any ideas (especially affordable ones). Please E-Mail me at rca@worldstar.com.

Rob


Rob--

Without commenting on the validity of your theory (which at this point I have no way of assessing), let me at least respond to the following portion of your note:

Therefore, my request is to ask if anyone out there knows of and mechanical method of controlling proper BW patterns to a specific level and the ability to hold them at those levels.  I am not interested in Light/Sound machines as they move all BW patterns to the same level without discrimination, therefore interferring with those levels that need to stay in Beta.

Yes, there is such a method.  In fact, I suspect you've heard of it.  It's the Monroe Institute's Hemi-Sync technology.  I seem to recall that they can entrain several different frequencies in the brain by mixing in various levels of beat-frequency signals.  Whether they have developed a tape that will cover the frequency(ies) you're interested in, I don't know.  But I'm pretty sure it is technically doable.  If you're interested, I'll be glad to link you up with the Institute's lab director, Skip Atwater.  (I was down there visiting with him over the last several days, so this solution came immediately to mind.)

Good Luck!

Paul Smith

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


Yvete,

I've been doing this for twenty years, but it is still the very rare occurence when I know that I am "on" or "off" the target. The only real way of knowing is post-hoc, through feedback. Point to remember, is that it is ok not knowing, as long as you take what you learn about what you did "post-hoc analysis" and try and apply it to your next effort. You will begin to see what you are doing in your own mind with regard to internalized processes during viewing which you may then need to either pay attention to or discard. Since everyone is different, these points of focus will be different. The point being that you are learning about what "you" are doing when you are viewing.

Good luck,

Joe

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


I have spent a greater part of several years trying to research the basic common denominators consistent with all RV and Psychic reception work.  I have come to some basic ideas that I am trying to find any 'credible' information relating to it.  They are as follows:  1)  Each effective discipline seems to work best when the subject reduces their brain wave patterns to 7.81 hz., or there about.

I'm not sure this is completely true for the following reasons. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who could physically control their brain wave activity to a single frequency range; secondly, the only research that I am aware of which has any connection to PSI functioning concerns Alpha ERD's (evoked responses); and lastly, I can't recall ever seeing anything published (within science anyway) that would make that prediction. Albeit, there may be some significant anomalies that might occur at that frequency; e.g., invoked convulsive effects, light pattern perceptions, etc., when such a frequency is applied electromagnetically directly to the brain vis-a-vis a device.

2)  When a sender is used or not, Bio-Emmissions Lab. in Japan demonstrated that even when information is not able to be brought to conscious awareness by the receiver, with information sent, the Brainwave pattern changes seems to point to some sort of response and transfer of influence.

Are you speaking here of a human sender? or a bio-mechanical/electromagnetic/etc. sender? How are they able to tell the specific sender specifics through measurement? I think they are mixing apples with oranges here. They are probably studying the effects of bio-electromagnetic measurements between sender and receivers by hard-wire monitoring. While this may show some interesting time/frequency correlates, they do not establish cause and effect relationships between two separate bio-systems (brains). I know of no work that does this.

3)  The most difficult part is in bringing information from the subconscious mind to conscious awareness and then using a good and organized protocol to report it cleanly and effectively.

This is probably correct to a certain extent. The error in assumption would be that any such "effective protocol" (or method) would be as effective from person to person. There is some reason to believe (based on extensive experiments between subjects in RV) that each individual has a preference for how they process information in that transfer, where they transfer that information, and the levels of cognition they are willing to assign such information prior to acting on it. That is, of course, if information arrives vis-a-vis transfer from the unconscious to the conscious mind. No one has proven that to be the case yet either (although I'm inclined to buy that at the present).

This information suggests that perhaps the steps that we need to focus on in the obtaining of information is the ablility to control BW patterns and hold them at an optimum level consistently each time, the removal or effective softing of the filter mechanism between the subconscious and the conscious mind, the learning of the person to recognize the information received and the ability to describe it accordingly.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but suggest that it would probably go a great deal further if one were to concentrate on establishing a specific place within their mind in which they do a repetitive function, such as remote viewing. That is try and replicate the meditative state they acheive prior to attempting to remote view, instead of trying to replicate specific frequencies; in which case the Hemi-Sync tapes produced by the Monroe Institute would/or could be of benefit. Train themselves (softening of the filter mechanism) to pay attention to when they might be jumping to a conclusion instead of processing the actual input coming through their mind in a more or less raw format. And, perhaps keep the expressions they are trying to present reference a target, as simple as possible at the outset.

Therefore, my request is to ask if anyone out there knows of and mechanical method of controlling proper BW patterns to a specific level and the ability to hold them at those levels.  I am not interested in Light/Sound machines as they move all BW patterns to the same level without discrimination, therefore interferring with those levels that need to stay in Beta.

There is some entrainment effect as a result of using the Monroe Institute tapes (Hemi-Sync). There is also some entrainment effect which can be achieved with practiced forms of meditation. Again, I'm not sure frequency is as important as replicability of the state which you might find the most comfortable to be in while remote viewing.

Just my own observations from a few years puttering around in the lab. Hope this helps.

Joe

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


The following is long. Sorry. It's a personal note but to someone just learning about Remote Viewing it might be interesting. I could have used the benefit of reading about common folks experiences when I first got interested in RVing. Sure I read all the books. But most of them have a degree of drama that I just haven't found in real life applications.

So this is an honest and personal look from a simple person.

If you're a veteran RVer, you may not want to waste your time reading this. You've seen it before.

____________________________________________

About a year ago I stumbled onto Remote Viewing and quickly became fascinated with the prospects of such possibilities.  That lead to a string of books on Remote Viewing as well as OBE's.

Later I took a class taught by Lyn Buchanon on Remote Viewing. I found his class very helpful.  For one thing it helped in giving me a place to start. And it gave me guides for measuring progress.  A road map, if you will. Following the class I've been involved in a number of RV sessions.

In the middle of all this I asked myself, "Why."  Why am I perusing this?  I came up with a few lofty ideas to appease my ego, but the truth is I'm just curious.  If indeed there is something else "out there" the allure of this will easily draw me in.  After all, there just has to be more to life than watching TV and going to the office.

Here is what I've found.  Remote Viewing works.  There is zero doubt left in my mind.  But I don't know why it works.  I've developed a hypotheses to make myself feel comfortable about doing it.  It has to do with the basic atomic level that is the foundation of all things.  All things are made from energy and quantum physicists have proof that energy has intelligence.  It's this beginning point that starts my hypotheses.

The next question is, if it works than how well does it work?  Science won't support a new concept until it can be successfully repeated by different people in a controlled setting.  While our own government apparently has a lot of data on this, I've not seen a consensus among the various "camps" of private citizens that have sprung up in recent months.

Each camp makes their own set of claims and then professes to be one one who discovered Remote Viewing. It seems to me that everyone has a creative way to avoid the tuff questions.  Unfortunately it is this infighting among private experimenters that will ultimately be the end of all research on this subject, except those "weirdos" in the parapsychology labs at SRI and various other places.

My prediction is that Remote Viewing will surface as a hot topic in the next few years.  The press will have lots of fun with it and rather than seek out those who are well informed on the subject they will put every common garden variety physic warrior on TV making a fool of themselves and sadly the entire RVing community.

Remote Viewing will flash on the scene like CB Radio did in the seventies and once boys figure out girls are no longer impressed if you say you can Remote View, the fad will fall into the history books as yet another silly thing Americans tried for kicks.

Too bad because I really do think there is something of value to be discovered. As you look over the copies of the two sessions, keep in mind that I got nothing more in  my "tasking" than a six digit number.  That's it. I knew nothing else. In one case I out right named the target (don't worry Lyn, even though I knew exactly what I was looking at I still put it down as a SC, just to stay in structure) and in the next case clearly got aspects of the target. This is defying all laws of random chance.  And remember, I'm a beginner.

So how well does it work?  I don't know.  For me it works real well one day and not so well the next.  I guess practice can make it better.  The measuring stick seems to be RVing against random chance.  Honestly?  If I had known that the best I could ever expect would be a reliability factor of 60 or 65% I probably wouldn't have bothered with it in the first place.

Of course now that I've had sessions yielding 100% it's addicting, like Las Vegas.  If I can win once why not all the time?  If you're dealing with chance (Las Vegas) you just can't win all the time.

But in Remote Viewing, are we dealing with simple chance?  I think not. So if not, than why can't it be improved to what I would call a, "Useful Reliability Level?"

What is a Useful Reliability Level?  Well, if you need to know something about something, and it's important, can you use a remote viewer to get the information and depend on the results?  If the answer is "yes," then it's useful. If the answer is, "maybe," "no," or anything but "yes," then in my view it's not very useful.  I can think of much more stimulating hobbies if Remote Viewing isn't useful.

Personally I think I'll proceed to study it with cautious optimism.

As for OBE's, I've had some very interesting and exciting experiences.  If nothing else it simply amazes me that we can do things with our mind that most people don't have any idea we can do.  And we don't need to ingest anything or use any sort of equipment.  It suggests possibilities we've yet to uncover.  Just what is the rest of our brain for anyway?

I can tell you for certainty that meditation (just a name for clearing your mind) can yield fascinating results.  I've seen vivid images with full motion from remote locations.  Unfortunately I have only been able to do this while conditions are "just so."  Unfortunately in a Remote Viewing session, where such information would be of great use, I can not induce such images. Perhaps the monks in Tibet can do this at will.  I bet they can.  But I have other worldly concerns that prohibit me from spending my days meditating.

The greatest aspect from all of this is the realization that there is a big wonderful universe out there.  Most of it is unexplored.  There are so many opportunities to be unearthed.  What a great time to be alive.  Or dead!  As someone once wrote, and I'll paraphrase, really we may, just may, not ever be more "dead" then we are right now.

Good luck to all-

Ric


Hello out there in viewer land,

I would like to here from those in the know how one should deal with Ego as it pertains to good sessions.  Is it the reason for a drop in data in a session, following a real good one.  What can we do to avoid this.

Thanks

-Paul F


A few things I'd like to share.........................

Ingo points out in his newly released 'Activation' series that our understanding of PERCEPTION itself may flawed. When I read this message, I thought back to a few sessions and remembered HOW the descriptors came to me.

1. The word RED just came out of my mouth. NO color visualization. The color was correct. Was that an example of PURE perception?

2. A little yellow daisy came floating up from a lower left place and rose to the center of my 'view', ignored the first time, written down the second. The target included yellow TULIPS. Was that an example of how quickly the signal to noise corruption can occur?

3. The words "It's a Building!" came blurting out. NO visualization of a building. Later the 'building I described was significantly distorted and reminded me of a western building scene from a movie. Was this an example of pure perception with later corrupted visualizations?

4. A spontaneous S/P3 sketch drew a shape which seemed meaningless, was gone past for the moment and became RIGHT ON with correct orientation, proportion, and shape relative to the feedback. Was THIS true perception?

Ingo appears to be on the trail of the mechanics of this thing, Perception. He certainly is considering our concensus realities that abound within most all of our discovery efforts. He is looking where the rest of us may not have looked.

I had believed that the spontaneous was the PURE perception as occurred in #1. #4, and the first part of #3.

HOWEVER, #2 was totally unsolicited and out of context. The 'Look a Like' characteristic in our descriptor perceptions makes me wonder how/where the targeting, transfer, presentation, interpretation, and representation occurs. We DO need to know, because the difference is in the RIGHT/WRONG category of signal to noise management and is basically what we consider as hit or miss of feedback.

Perhaps the targeting/tasking to 'go find' is one bit of technique to develop,  both in activating the go find as well as the finding. Perhaps the transfer process from the wherever with the whatever is another. Perhaps the presentation and conditional/unconditional acceptance are others. Perhaps the interpretation with attitudinal preparation process is another. And on and on.

At least Ingo is trying to include the possibilities without limits.

This stuff works, we all can do it, we've made the first step via knowledge and work, we hunger for more. Is it up to us to discover? I think its up to all of us, but I fall back into that old Concensus Reality of 'Let Ingo Do It!'. 'Let CSL do it!'. 'Let someone in the PA do it!'. and on and on. At least Ingo is letting us know he's working on it and how. THANK YOU, INGO...........

Bye,

David..........


Firstly, hi everyone, I'm new on the list, and to RV.  At the moment I'm saving up for Lyn's basic course.  In the meantime, are there any good procedures/exercises I could get on with ?  I don't want to start developing "bad" habits that will compromise my official training when it starts.

I hope this is not too long but I've a few comments on some of the emails I've been receiving.  These comments are only my opinion.

With regard to Ric's June 13 message "Personal Note".  I think that was a nice bit of feedback.  I also think RV will be put under the spotlight, so to speak but I think it will received positively, especially when one looks at the applications eg the AWP.  I believe in Sheldrake's idea of the morphogenetic field so it is difficult to predict people's potential reactions based on previous related cases.  Taking Sheldrake's MF into account, as well as the pragmatism I see in some of the key figures (Lyn, Joe McMoneagle, Paul Smith, etc.) I think people will accept RV in a good light.

It's important not to get too hung up on whether or not RV will be widely accepted.  Ultimately we are doing this for the benefit of ourselves as RV practitioners, and, by using RV in a positive way, the human race and the planet as a whole. Morphic resonance will do the rest !

Ninjutsu become a "fad" and was highly sensationalised.  This didn't stop the "true" ninjutsu-ka from practicing their art - they knew what the art was about and that's what was (and is) most important, despite all the media hype and apparent misrepresentation.  Those "true" ninjutsu-ka are still there today, keeping the spirit of ninjutsu alive and as strong as ever, as they always have, and smiling at all the fuss that was made about it.  This is kind-of what I see happening to RV (but without the movies!)

I can't remamber the actual email but somebody wanted to know about machines that could enhance the ability to hit the theta brainwave pattern which seems to be the most conducive to receiving data from the subconscious ( in a nutshell - I stand corrected ! )  Dannion Brinkley, author of "At Peace In The Light" and "Saved By The Light", is in the process of building stress relief centers in the US based on data he received during an NDE.  He apparently has one completed in Alabama somewhere.  One of the devices in these centers is a bed that, amongst other things, promotes OBE's and relatively good subconscious feedback. Has anybody done any investigation into this ?  According to the books, it had some good reviews.

Lastly, I want to take my hat off to David Morehouse.  If his book "Psychic Warrior" truly represents what happened to him (and I've no reason to doubt this) then this is one chap I'd like to meet, at least just to shake his hand.

PJ, this is a great list - I promise I'll try to keep future messages shorter.

Thanxamil

Andy Evans


Paul Smith and I discussed this subject briefly earlier this week during class but I would like to address it again.

If a target such as a city is specified or implied to be RVed at the "present time", what happens if it is night time at the target, or if there is some extreme weather? If I RV New York at night/present time would I expect to perceive a lot of lights? Similarly, couldn't any target for which a photograph ( perhaps years old ) is used as feedback give false feedback?  It seems to me there are at least a few caveats involved in creating targets for practice with the intent of getting good feedback.

I know that Ingo Swann did some experiments where he was tasked to determine the weather at various cities and then a call was made to that city to get the weather feedback. Has anyone experienced any weather or time of day phenomena in a session?

Rich


 If a target such as a city is specified or implied to be RVed at the  "present time", ...If I RV New York at night/present time  would I expect to perceive a lot of lights?

Based on my personal approach, present time should mean just that -- it should be as if you were standing there looking at the situation.  In the case of NY, it would depend where you were "standing".  If you are in a dark cellar with no windows in NY, you would have to depend on your hearing, smell, and touch rather than your sight to get feedback. I'm not sure how much the military derivative remote viewing practices emphasize other sensory alternatives to seeing.

 Similarly, couldn't any target for which a photograph ( perhaps years  old ) is used as feedback give false feedback? 

I would probably use the word inconsistent rather than false.  False implies an error whereas inconsistent indicates that the information may be true but still not match the formal feedback.  Real time fast feedback would always be ideal but I suspect it is too expensive for most training purposes.  A mental perspective that would help you get the picture rather than the actual site might be self-defeating if the goal is the actual site.  Instead of getting new correct information, you would be parroting what was already known.  On the other hand, if the goal is to learn to look at photos and material which then builds a basic skill set that can be expanded to looking at the actual sites, it is ideal because of the fast and inexpensive feedback.

 Has anyone experienced any weather or time of day phenomena in a session?

Both are normal.

Rusty


This was really quite amazing. It was my first RV experience. No training. PJ thought I should start anyway.

I strongly felt the tower, grass, birds, air, water (thought the sprinklers were a small stream), and black jeep  (thought ir was an explorer or 4X4), vehicles, and people.

I am looking forward to another session.

Charles


Hi Charles!

<<This was really quite amazing. It was my first RV experience. No training. PJ thought I should start anyway.  I strongly felt the tower, grass, birds, air, water (thought the sprinklers were a small stream), and black jeep  (thought ir was an explorer or 4X4), vehicles, and people.  I am looking forward to another session.

That's so cool!  See, this is why I keep pointing out how this is an innate talent to all humans.  Training will help -- but is certainly not required for a person to be able to work on this kind of thing.

I think you'll find that if you practice this sort of thing, you'll get better all the time.  Much of what there is to improve with practice at this isn't about psychic ability.  It's about paying attention to yourself, becoming more comfortable with allowing yourself to open to the data and trust it, learning about yourself, how you tick, how you communicate, and getting your own communication skills and your psychology working in a way you're more aware of, so it helps the process (rather than hinders it, as it often can!). Usually mistakes and errors are the things that teach you, but that makes them worthwhile.

..."Live" sites can sometimes provide more sense of the target that photos, especially for beginners.

Happy viewing Charles.... glad it went well for you!

PJ


I know that Ingo Swann did some experiments where he was tasked to determine the weather at various cities and then a call was made to that city to get the weather feedback. Has anyone experienced any weather or time of day phenomena in a session?

Actually I've been quite successful at weather. In many targets I can give you wind direction, clouds, humidity, etc. I do confuse snow with humidity, which is interesting since there is generally very little moisture in the air when the OAT is cold.

I've never thought much about this inclination toward weather. I figured it may be due to the fact that I'm a commercial rated pilot and weather is a large part of that, which may suggest a propensity toward areas of familiarity.

As for your time of day phenomena... I remember being given a target that was a commercial photograph. In my session I got the "subject" but also got someone holding a photo reflector, and two other people looking over photo's on a table. (Test shots?)

It was my impression that I had probably viewed the feedback photo at the 'time that the photo was taken' rather than the time the photo was given to me for feedback. Of course I could not obtain feedback to verify someone holding a reflector or the rest... So I could have been simply 'lost in space.'

Hope this helps.

Ric


I just had a rather unusal session. The target was the Brandenburg Gate. In the session I seemed to pick up emotions as visual and energetic perception. Is this simply part of getting to know HOW one's reception of data operates?

(data...)

Immediately upon saying the cue I got a VERY STRONG image of a red circle expanding outward.  I sketched it and then drew a rectangle containing that. Several lines to the left below and then one upper left. And three small ovals to the left below, right below, and right above. From these I derived the sense of a crystalline substance: Granite? I don't really know what the composition of granite is. I was especially surprised by the sense of the lines of connection not being visible: It had a very strong energetic feel to it.

Thanks for any feedback...it had a totally different feel to it that I can't quite get a grasp on... the there but not there feeling.

Shelia


>In the session I seemed to pick up emotions as visual and energetic perception.

Many of the words we use to describe emotions are references to levels of energy and its intensity.  "Hyper", "mellow", "high-strung", "cool", "hot", "strong feelings", "vibes"; and of course all the colors - "feeling blue", "seeing red", and the omnipresent New Age "white light". There are two reasons for this IMHO. (1) We don't learn to describe emotions clearly in our society or the words are taboo.  So, we use descriptors that we do understand. (2) Such descriptions reflect an intuitive understanding of the impact that colors have on us and the underlying energy patterns of emotions.

Rusty


This may be particularly relevant for me, as I have studied color and its uses both in regard to art and in conjunction to psychological/physiological healing methods.  In my dreamwork color has been an important cue system for me personally, indicating a particular action, symbol, etc. should be given greater weight or attention.  Also, in dreamwork I have learned first to look for direct connections to reality in the dream action, characters, props, landscapes, etc., but if none is found I look at them secondarily as descriptors of conceptual or emotional content.

Shelia


Hi,

I was wondering what unique challenges are involved when remote viewing a target, that is a composite sketch of a person or object.

Regards,

Roger


Hi Roger,

>I was wondering what unique challenges are involved when remote viewing a target, that is a composite sketch of a person or object.

Hmmmn.  Well if your target is the sketch itself, I wouldn't think it'd be any different than RVing any other 'representation.'  Or do you mean, when a cue is the composite sketch, like using that as a photo?  Hmmn, now that would be interesting... hard to say if the 'intent behind the picture' actually led to the guy, or if one would technically have to target 'the person 'intended to be represented by' the composite picture' which would actually be targeting something from the witness rather than the artist.  Well, I think somewhere, somehow, the psi actually knows the answer regardless of the question.  But I suppose it might come through a little better if the tasking is clear.  (I'm not sure to what degree that affects a session.)  As you can see by my answer, I'm speculating, I don't really know.  Maybe someone in the group has worked from a composite at some point.

PJ


Let's suppose the scenario is that the cue is a composite sketch.

The composite sketch was drawn by a police artist from descriptions given by one or more witnesses.

The composite sketch is the cue, and remote viewers do a session not knowing anything about the target other than the target is a person and find the location of the target.

Roger


I was wondering what unique challenges are involved when remote viewing a target, that is a composite sketch of a person or object.

Roger,

The answer to your question depends on how you are tasking the session. If the viewer knows that the target is such a sketch, then you not only have all the problems of telepathic overlay (see Ingo's homepage), but in a sense, you really are not remote viewing at (because any front loading is best avoided). If you are trying to create a composite sketch, you run into a different set of problems. However, you might try something like the following: first get a collection of general descriptors within session without bothering to make a sketch. Next, have someone else put the descriptors together into a sketch. It's not perfect but it takes an experience viewer to do much with the data they have from a session (which may explain why there are so few viewers who can work without the help of a monitor).

I would like to add one more point people may want to think about. That is, often when people are targets, there is some confusion as to what is actually taking place within the session. It is possible to get some fairly basic information about the target's dispositions. However, the claims made by some instructors that one can access a targets person's mind using the CRV method is misleading. If one could actually do this, then he would be able to provide names, dates, addresses, etc. of various criminals and other's. Now, I'm not saying this can not be done but just that the entire operation requires a special set of methods that is different in type from general CRV. Evidence for this claim can be seen in that some viewers claim they can know they are "remote viewing" Jesus, learn that this is the identity of the target but yet if these same viewers are asked to do the same operation against a target with feedback (i.e. a target person that could be checked out), they fail. The same observation would apply to attempts to actually name a site target. It can be done but like people's names, this type of methods is beyond basic RV training.

Hope this helps.

Charles


Hi Charles,

Thanks for your input. In another post, I  posed to PJ the scenario, that the composite sketch is the cue. To add further:  If the composite sketch were already in existence, rather than creating one specifically for an CRV session it seems, that there is some real potential for contamination because "so many cooks are adding to the soup", with the witness(es), police sketch artist, the detectives, and any person handling the composite sketch preparing it as a cue for a remote viewing session. In addition to that, if the composite sketch has been broadcast on television or printed in print media does that nuke any possibility of getting valid data from a crv session. Or as PJ suggested, can the remote viewer weave their way through the obstacles avoiding monster stray cats and get to the pure data?

Regards,

Roger


>>That is, often when people are targets, there is some confusion as to what is actually taking place within the session. It is possible to get some fairly basic information about the target's dispositions. However, the claims made by some instructors that one can access a targets person's mind using the CRV method is misleading.

It's a given that the basic structure of CRV was not designed for this.  (As in, Ingo doesn't believe it was, and he came up with the method, so that's pretty much considered law.) However, it seems to me that (a) anything can be a target [though quantity of information may vary of course], and (b) it is probably not a crime to apply any given tool to a new application, as long as there's feedback to see whether or not it works for you.  So, the fact that the formal structure doesn't say "here is how you target a person's mind" doesn't prove to me that applying oneself to that goal, even while working in standard CRV structure, would not be useful or would not be able to acquire any of the data.

If you were saying it "isn't" targeted with standard CRV method, then I'd have to agree, with the caveat that not having a method for a piece of data doesn't mean you can't get it either (a) spontaneously or (b) through intuitively creative means on the spot or (c) through applying processes one already knows to something new.

>If one could actually do this, then he would be able to provide >names, dates, addresses, etc. of various criminals and other's.

Hmmmn again.  I don't follow this logic.  You seem to be saying that the lack of "general" ability to do names/dates/addresses proves or at least highly indicates that one is not able to access other minds as a target (e.g., "if you could access his mind, you could tell me his partner's name or the name of the street he lives on, because those are components of data in his mind").  This doesn't seem to follow on as a conclusion. I can describe a street sign without being able to read it, or a book without being able to tell the title, and the fact that I don't describe that aspect of it would not infer that I was "not really targeting that thing or I would know;" nor would it mean that I couldn't get _other_ data about the objects.  You may be correct about people being, in essence, fixed on another aspect of the target rather than someone's mind.  I just don't know that the conclusion about "the lack of proper names/numbers proving you're not" has merit on its own.

Since the structure of CRV itself doesn't seem to aim for this data, if one isn't getting it while one is working in that structure, I don't know that we can attribute this to the target itself.  Or even to "what the target must really be."' ....So much as to the structural design of the process.  Which I realize was your point, that the process doesn't plan that.  It's simply that I know many highly intuitive people who, even working in structure, obtain data that is clearly related to the mind (even often from that "point of view") of an individual in the target.

Perhaps this depends on the difference of a Viewer being highly talented with or without structure, vs. using structure to attempt to organize minimal to moderate talent. Those with great talent do seem to innately pick up on this sort of data, and the "you can target anything" rule seems to work for them... I have limited experience here though, so this is only what I've noticed so far and heard from others; controlled studies may turn out otherwise.

There may already BE controlled studies on this; Joe is probably the guy who would know that.

From my point of view, I'd think it also has to be considered that psi, being an innate ability, may not always fit into the predesigned little compartments that any methodology might plan out; CRV may not expect that people will get that sort of info, but that doesn't mean they're not going to (though granted it may be rare, and can come in many forms).  Just because CRV doesn't have a slot allotted for "target which is a mind" with a paint by number method of going about it doesn't mean a person doing a CRV session, by the nature of psi itself, won't get the data, or that they can't just include that intent along the way.

(I sometimes wonder of late if the very structure of CRV itself doesn't create limitations on the data received just by setting up belief and process systems that, in the act of "being one thing and not another" by their nature exclude as well as include.)

>Now, I'm not saying this can not be done but just that the entire operation requires a special set of methods that is different in type from general CRV.

I agree that it isn't part of the assumed use of standard CRV.  I also agree that certain additional/other methodologies may specifically target that information, and it sounds very interesting; a number of people say they're working on this and feel they've made headway.  I just don't know if I agree that it is somehow not possible to target any given thing simply because one doesn't know some special method (and that includes even basic CRV). Particularly with those who have high talent, merely intending something with will can often bring them into contact.

>>Evidence for this claim can be seen in that some viewers claim they can know they are "remote viewing" Jesus, learn that this is the identity of the target but yet if these same viewers are asked to do the same operation against a target with feedback (i.e. a target person that could be checked out), they fail.

I would have to see the lab studies for this to know where to begin on belief let alone response (also, Jesus would be a massively high impact target and probably light years easier to RV than John Doe who the lab may choose; so, degree of talent or contact could also explain why some can do religious icons or famous people better than living mundane examples).

I do know that one of the first "major" real world applications remote viewing for the gov't had was the Iran Hostage Crisis, and I have heard it said more than once that "the health, mental state, etc." of the hostages was one of the thing the Viewers of the time were working on.  Of course, at that time it's possible that not all the people involved were using Swann's methods; however, that would sort of prove my point about how "knowing a special non-normal CRV method" may not be necessary for a person to be able to target a given thing (whether their method is CRV or any other, turned toward the "target of their choice," in this case perhaps a mind).

Just my thoughts.  You are, of course, more experienced in this than I am, so I am glad to hear your comments.

PJ


Targeting composite sketches by police has worked well as well as badly in the past.  Depends on the intent of the composite, and the police purposes for doing it. If it is a composite produced by a viewer for a previous remote viewing, it will usually work well. However, if it is based on fantasy, which sometimes even a viewer has keyed in on, then you will get a good reinforcement of the fantasy.

Joe

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


One of the key issues here is intent. If the intent is clear (the reason for why the composite sketch was made), then generally speaking, even if it was a bad composite sketch, the appropriate information will obtained. In all cases, the sketch is presented blind, just like any other data. The remote viewer should not see the sketch prior to doing the remote viewing, and should not add to the data after seeing it. Unless you are very very good, and very very lucky, I'd give up on names, addresses, and/or dates for specific people, places, or things. Historically, they just aren't gotten.

Joe

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


Perhaps this depends on the difference of a Viewer being highly talented with or without structure, vs. using structure to attempt to organize minimal to moderate talent. Those with great talent do seem to innately pick up on this sort of data, and the "you can target anything" rule seems to work for them...

Pj, I have to agree with this synopsis and the comment you made below. It has been my experience that the mind seems to operate within the parameters it can make sense of.  If it can't conceive it or has not conceived of it, the limiting parameters are established for input. There are many historic examples of this  such as breaking the 4 minute mile, etc.

When I and many people I work with, set upon a task...we must be convinced it is possible or the input is filtered out by the mind.  We know there is still energy there to be read and it naggs at us...but the processing of the mind doesn't happen much.  Sort of like the hearing sense.  Years ago when I was completely deaf...I could not hear sounds and therefore could not relate a sound to any meaning.  The same with sight....explain the color blue to someone who is blind and never experienced any of your visual references, in a way that they can understand it and experience it through your description. This human sence is much the same way, without a concept the input is meaningless. We notice and experience things due to their differences and not their similarities, then we have to be able to process that data.

[PJ](I sometimes wonder of late if the very structure of CRV itself doesn't create limitations on the data received just by setting up belief and process systems that, in the act of "being one thing and not another" by their nature exclude as well as include.)

[Charles]Now, I'm not saying this can not be done but just that the entire operation requires a special set of methods that is different in type from general CRV.

The two edges of the sword here.  the structure organizes information to be able to understand it and at the same time limits the information into having to fit the structure.  Interesting and useful.

[PJ] Particularly with those who have high talent, merely intending something with will can often bring them into contact.

One of the absolutes is that the merely desiring to inquire and select, creates an intent.

Great synopsis PJ and Charles thank you.  I can tell you are also speaking from some knowledge.  I would like to suggest there is always several roads to the old Grocery Store and lots of stuff on the shelves.

Have a wonderful day,

Rob Abbott


Hi;

It has been my experience, that the most common problem with this is the viewer may be confussed as to what the target is.  Example; if in July the target is a picture of Yellowstone Park in the winter, one of three things might happen. The Viewer might report information on Yellowstone in current time, such as hot, warm, green.  The viewer might report information on the picture, cold, white, isolated.  A thrid possibility is the viewer may report information on the park in the same time  as the picture was taken.  As long as the Viewer and/or the monitor are aware of this possiblity this does not present a major problem.  If I did not understand the question, let me know.

May the force be with you

Liam

[Archive Note: "Liam," former U.S. Intell RV]


END ARCHIVE 15
JUNE 11 1997 TO AUGUST 04 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.