Viewer Email Group
This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.
This is the sixteenth archive.
JULY 12 1997 TO AUGUST
BEGIN ARCHIVE 16
Joe McMoneagle wrote: Or, it may have nothing to do with the galaxy at all, but instead how we are aligned with the linear magnetic core of the earth in relation to our bow wave through space. Or, the geo-magnetic lay lines and how or at what angle they enter the earth at the point at which we are standing, or... Lots of different things are possible. I suspect that it is probably not "cosmic," and hope I don't see a new "cosmic" book telling me all about it.
Good point, Joe. How quickly we assume, heh? It may be that the sidereal times involved in this study mark convergences of effects, rather than a simple relationship between us and a distant galactic point, although the galactic relationship may be one of the factors involved.
In fact, when I first heard about the LST corollation -- and not understanding it very well at that -- I remembered an article I found on the Internet. A couple of dots just seemed to connect, as this involves rotational effects too.
Here it is, in case you all are interested -- and why wouldn't you be? <g Be warned, the source of this information is not usually reliable and I haven't had time to go find the Science News article referred to in this article. From firstname.lastname@example.org Sat Mar 15 12:16:24 1997 Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo Subject: The Spin Within//Spys R Us From: "Dr. Richard X. Frager" <email@example.com Date: 15 Mar 1997 20:16:24 GMT
I agree that the effect may not be related at all to the allignment to the galaxy's center. The first theorum I heard was concerning radio waves that is projected from somewhere in that mass may have an effect on us. If so, then I assume the next step for enterprizing scientists like James would be to either validate and isolate those wave frequencies and work on their artificialy generated enhancements, or to discount them and search for what else may be coresponding to this angle.
BTW, a good title for such a book could be, "Psychic Alien Spies from the the Center of the Galaxy." It has location, intrigue, no sex though so it probably wouldn't sell.
I am totally confused about this siderial time issue. Could you please explain it.
Sidereal time in relationship to "remote viewing or paranormal functioning" has come to the fore as a result of a paper produced by S. James P. Spottiswoode, Cognitive Science Laboratory, Palo Alto, titled; "Apparent Association Between Effect Size in Free Response Anomalous Cognition Experiments and Local Sidereal Time." He hypothesizes that a specific time in sidereal time (which differs from solar time--the standard 24 hour clock, by about 4 minutes per day, less), correlates to better than worse paranormal functioning. Since Sidereal time is figured on the longitude at which you are standing, the assumption may be that only longitude might have an affect in conjuction with the specific times sidereal. I postulate that since the data was rather restrictive with regard to latitude data, that latitude may also have an affect. I was also cautioning against jumping to a conclusion that the effect is "cosmic" versus "local" just because it has something to do with sidereal time.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
[Archivist's note: You can find this paper by Dr. Spottiswoode on his web site at http://www.jsasoc.com/]
Or, it may have nothing to do with the galaxie at all, but instead how we are aligned with the linear magnetic core of the earth in relation to our bow wave through space.
But that alignment shouldn't change with time. Only with where we are. BTW, what is a 'bow wave through space'? I'm not familiar with that term.
Or, the geo-magnetic lay lines and how or at what angle they enter the earth at the point at which we are standing,
That also shouldn't change with time.
I realise I may have jumped the gun with my question, but to me, a relationship to Sidereal Time is significant. Sidereal time is about Earth's alignment to the galaxy. That's why the conversion from Solar time to Sidereal Time changes daily. Because the Earth is revolving around the sun, so it is in a rotating reference frame. Noon sidereal time means the Earth is facing a specific part of our galaxy. It has nothing to do with where the sun or moon are, and nothing to do with where we are on Earth.
It could be as simple as that there is a lot of background radiation coming from somewhere that interferes with with psychic abilities, and that our best chance of RVing happens when the Earth is blocking it.
or... Lots of different things are possible. I suspect that it is probably not "cosmic," and hope I don't see a new "cosmic" book telling me all about it.
I disagree. If the study is valid, then the effect is likely something to do with the relationship between the relative positions of the Earth, the viewer and the galaxy. It could be something simple, or something unimaginable. But don't worry, I won't be writing any books about it.
I remember seeing something about Faraday cages in RVing and how they had no effect on RVing. (is that right?) If so then whatever is causing this effect wouldn't be affected by a Faraday cage (probably). This means that alignment to Earth's magnetic fields is not significant. It would be interesting to specifically study the effects of Faraday Cages at 13:30 and 1:30 LST.
One of the things I noticed in the Farsight demo sessions is that the RVers gave themselves "movements". I had not heard of that before as being a part of a solo session.
Can anyone comment on that?
One of the things I noticed in the Farsight demo sessions is that the RVers gave themselves "movements". I had not heard of that before as being a part of a solo session. Can anyone comment on that?
Last I heard, a "movement exercise" was "the same by any other name" as the saying goes :-) Farsight has created their own methods on many counts though, so I can't answer to their methodology. (Might it be in the manual they put online?) In general (CRV) however:
A movement exercise is where the monitor (or remote viewer if they are working independently) consciously (verbally and in writing) directs the Viewer/themselves to a different or specific part of the target or target site.
This can be in measure (e.g., "Move 20 feet closer and tell me what you see" or "Move 100 feet underground; do you see anything?") or in direction (e.g., "Look West: what do you see?" "Look to your left: what do you see?") or in specific, based on data the Viewer has _already provided_ (using their words, and nothing more, that is important) (e.g, "Position yourself above the 'vertical metallic object' : what do you see from that perspective?" or "Move to the 'biological' and describe."). Pretty simple, as you see, but necessary for adjusting focus while in session.
Movement exercises can also be used for conceptuals as well as physical descriptives, but that doesn't usually come up until stage/phase IV (it's not part of basic-level CRV, in other words). It's one of those tools that can be applied in any way it might work during a session. Sounds pretty impressive (I heard it described by someone on the radio once and went "Oooh! Aaaaah!") but in reality it's just pretty obvious. :-) CRV is filled with underwhelmingly simple but effective things like that. :-)
They can also be used as a filter exclusion as well as a specific inclusion. For instance on the latter, I have some difficulty with round/motion when it is part of a target; I tend to be so overwhelmed by either of those facets (especially if they are found together) that I have a difficult time getting any other data around that, it comes through so strongly. (No kidding, on bad days I'll just sit and draw circles like an autistic child or something -- my ideograms are nothing but roundroundroundround. <grin>) I have to direct myself to "describe the target EXCEPT the round and/or motion aspect" (which I know is there the minute I begin, alas!) so that I can deal with the rest of the target data (then I can come back if I want).
Hope that helps. Some others on the list might have better descriptions. Some Farsight students belong to this list, so maybe they'll volunteer what is meant by that in their terms.
>One of the things I noticed in the Farsight demo sessions is that the RVers gave themselves "movements". I had not heard of that before as being a part of a solo session.
Seein' as I have no monitor in the vacinity and am left to my own devices, I can answer this question with some authority. If there's no monitor, you *have* to give yourself the movements. Or else teach your housepets...<g>
I'm a Farsight student, but am in the early stages of their intermediate level training. I _can_ say that at my level, students do sessions which are monitored. I think you'd have to get a reponse on this one from someone who has taken their advanced training where I believe it's more likely that solo sessions are dealt with.
Any advanced level Farsight students on this list? If not, you might try posting to the View From Here bulletin board (wasn't Prudence checking in there now and then?). Or try posting that question to the Farsight web site (Philosophy board).
When I hear you folks talking about CRV, I THINK I usually get the drift. Some terms are the same and others slightly different. In the latter case, I try translating them for myself -- not always successful, but often so. However, I don't know if the terms are used in the same way by each approach. For example, I don't know if Phase 4 in CRV is the same Phase 4 I've been taught. Wouldn't it be fascinating if there were a CRV manual we could lay beside a Farsight manual to compare and contrast!
I have to agree with PJ. The purpose of the Monitor is to provide the RVer with a controlled means of viewing without having to insert consideration and judgement. As open and clean a view the better. The movement suggested by the monitors, is easly duplicated by the viewer. I would suggest a prearranged set of directions and angles. Decide the kinds of directions you will go through and then record the session keeping with the pre-programmed directional base. This will allow you to get used to a pattern (keeping your analysis mechanisms out of it), and your view can be kept more clear.
Yes, we use movement exercises in solo sessions. If one is perceiving some type of structure then a useful movement is "move inside (or outside depending on your orientation) and describe." If there is a group of subjects at the target location, a collective deep mind probe is useful for sensing psychological and emotional information. One movement exercise I always do toward the end of phase 4, after I have worked the target as much as I feel comfortable with is: "move to the precise center and time of the target and describe." I find this to be quite useful if you have been focusing on something at the target but not central to the target (an "attractor"), or if you happen to have move forward or backward in time for whatever reason.
Other useful movement exercises in solo sessions (remember to pay special attention that these movement exercises are basic - you don't want to start storylining because you start assuming things about the target, and also remember to use these only when you first perceive and describe the activity, the subject, etc...):
"move to the central activity and describe"
"move to the central subject and describe"
"move 1000 feet above the target location and describe"
Another exercises that can be used in solo sessions are the consciousness map (I don't believe this is in the manual), which is a very detailed method of obtaining conscious and unconscious thoughts from a subject - but do this in phase 5, not phase 4. I also often use sliding techniques in my landscape and internal and external sketching sheets.
I guess the point here is to use exercises as needed during a solo session, but to be extremely careful that they are basic, and not leading in any way.
The Farsight Institute
I wanted to add something to your post. My point is an important part of movements and most viewers forget to point it out (generally because we all know about it). That is, every move is a new session. One does not make a move and try to shift her position is space but rather does the move and record whatever comes regardless of how different that data is from whatever has come before.
Another point is that there are different types of movements. For someone fairly new to the process (say less that 400 sessions) it is often good to take the movement command and then start over all the way back at stage one and work forward from there. This helps keep the AOL from taking over the session.
A last point, the CRV method (which is the parent of SRV, TRV, etc. etc.) was never intended for solo use. It can be used that way, but of the seven or eight training methods used in remote viewing, it is the one methods least suited for solo work.
I have a question about attractors....
I can see from several of the sessions that I have worked that I seem to be picking up on the emotional content or emotional issues surrounding the target as much or more than the target itself.
My question is was I drawn by the attractor, or was the target so immense and unfocused, (i.e., 1,500 miles of the Great Wall of China) that the current day symbolism of it rather than the physical of it was what I saw? With so much of the world's focus being on Hong Kong and it's reabsorbtion into China, and knowing so little about China proper, (other than the Great Wall as being a defensive maneuver which did much to ensure China's isolation for so long), I suppose HK was the only link I had to the target. My ideographic sketch contained a ramp like center (elongated oval) with four large semi-circles swirling off to the left and right. The differing directions faced by the semi-circles suggested to me the orientations of the humans involved in the event.
In a reply from Charles about SRV he said that although CRV was the parent of TRV, SRV etc. it is the most not suited for solo Remote Viewing........ Well my question which is the most suited for solo Remote Viewing? I have trouble with getting help from others.
Thanking You All,
While I realize your question asks which one is best for solo, there is an implicit question that you also raised. How far can you get from the viewer-monitor-analyst-tasker team approach and still have the reliable and measurable results that make military-style remote viewing so impressive? My guess is simply that you can't change the recipe so drastically and still be making the same soup.
Having a team approach with real-time real world feedback makes this approach unique. Drop it and you might as well be using any of a number of good but fundamentally different psi development systems.
Does this ring true for others?
Am testing my connection to this forum. Needless to say, I will have quite a bit to address.
Greg "Sloan" (The last CRVer from STARGATE)
[Archive Note: Greg "Sloan," former U.S. Intell RV]
My name is Darryl, and I am from Great Britain, England. I have been interested in remote viewing for approx four years and activley trying it for approx six months. I am getting good results on all my targets so far. In this country rving is new and I have found it hard to get info on procedures and protocols. At the moment I am using the techniques from the Farsight SRV manual.
Does anyone know where to get the protocols for the form of military rving?
Also when r ving, when I perceive colors shapes etc, they are not an acurate representation of the target in the form of my imagry.
Example: whilst rving a target which was the mask of Tutenkhanun, I reieved images in my mind of colors bright and neon glowing in the form of neon lights, now the colors were there in the revealed target but the image of them in my mind was neon lights. Was this an overlay or does the visual imagry have to take on a form (in this case the nearest form was of neon lights) to get access to the subconcious?
I am also an artist, but have found that the sketching side of a target is the hardest part for me to perceive, any thoughts on this?
I look forward to any replies..
I have read alot about Bi-location or Perfect Site Intergration, can anyone help me with deatils on this.
I have not experienced this yet does everyone after a while or is it just a few individuals?
Can it be forced or learned faster than by natural processes?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Just a quick response on my way out the door--
>I have read alot about Bi-location or Perfect Site Intergration, can anyone >help me with deatils on this. > I have not experienced this yet does everyone after a while or is it >just a few individuals?
Some people escape without encountering this during training, others experience it once or twice.
>Can it be forced or learned faster than by natural processes?
Bilocation/"perfect site integration," despite certain accounts to the contrary, is an UNDESIRABLE in controlled remote viewing. Briefly described, it occurs when the viewer is so caught up in the signal line that he or she becomes enamored with being at the target, and is no longer able to report data. In effect one becomes so engrossed that one falls out of structure, and stops vocalizing and writing down the information one receives--kind of like a severe case of daydreaming while you're supposed to be paying attention in class :-)
If one encounters it, one should take a "bi-lo break," and get up and walk around or something, then come back and resume the session from where one left off.
[Archive Note: Paul H. Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]
This is not the answer you're looking for, but it's my experiences for your review.
Almost any session where a conceptual generalization pops out, such as-'On top of something', or-'It's a whole lot lighter than it should be', occurs, I have found the session to end up scoring well. However, that image of PSI type bilocation has never come. Whenever I have a session with a general conceptual surface from my lips, I take that as a cue I'm on the target line and stay on the session longer than normal and add focus (P/S 5) to the conceptual. If that's as close to PSI I ever get, it seems pretty good enough for me. If I stay with the methodology (CRV or ERV) long enough I end up feeling satisfied the output would be useful in an application. I really wonder about the PSI effect being very common.
Joe, do YOU have this clear imagry? Is it all the time?
>Can it be forced or learned faster than by natural processes? >
This is where the labs/Joe/Lyn/Paul/ others with a whole lot of time in can come to the table. I've tried a whole bunch of stuff - EEG biofeedback and brainwave frequency entrainment, TMI and other 'entrainment' type sound effectors, light/sound equipment, etc. ERV sessions seem to do quite well after an alpha/low beta entrainment via music, sound, or whatever. Definitely need a recorder tho, cause speech is the only way to record descriptors. CRV sessions require a relaxed, but alert state, and I haven't found anything but sticking to the stray cat/AOL management as effect.
You've asked a good question that I would love to hear responses from others about. This also points up the common interest in the 'PSI switch' the labs have been working so hard to define. Lab input anyone???? Please?
Bilocation/"perfect site integration," despite certain accounts to the contrary, is an UNDESIRABLE in controlled remote viewing. Briefly described, it occurs when the viewer is so caught up in the signal line that he or she becomes enamored with being at the target, and is no longer able to report data.
This is surprising to me, but I see your point. It seems to me that bilocation would be a good way of receiving data, and if you could stay in structure, it would be desirable. Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage bi-location or perfect site integration (is it coincidence that the acronym is psi??) and to train people to stay within structure? (ie: get them to report while they are 'wandering around the site.')
It just seems like the potential for perfect site integration is quite high.
It sounds great in theory, and it seems to me, that per the "hundredth monkey" phenomena it won't be long before people in a CRV session experiencing bi-location/perfect site integration will be able to report in real-time what they are experiencing, hearing, seeing back to the monitors.
As it is now, it would seem to be a formidable challenge for someone doing a CRV session to reconcile the reality their physical body resides in with the reality where the consciousness is currently standing when they bi-locate, and still be able to communicate with the monitor. And on top of that, do it consistently as they are able with standard procedures.
The problem is acclimation. How many people bi-locate or have perfect site integration during their session? And of these people, how many bi-locate or have perfect site integration during their session on a regular basis, with consistency? Once the "Wow, I'm in Egypt, staring right at the Sphinx" shock/excitement wears off and the mind can have the awareness to report back what you are seeing, will the plug get pulled, lose the PSI and get yanked back to where you are sitting. Maybe the rare person who can consistently accomplish PSI would get used to the phenomena, and then they could discipline themselves or be trained to remember to talk to the monitor during the CRV session.
To me, a similar challenge would be lucid dreaming. Trying to be aware, that I'm dreaming, and yet I am conscious, and then to be able to control the dream by intending things to change in the dream. There's that duality. Essentially being in two places at one time, and trying to figure out how the conscious mind will integrate with the subconscious without being overly enamored with the surroundings.
> Bilocation/"perfect site
integration," despite certain accounts to the
> contrary, is an UNDESIRABLE in controlled remote viewing. ...
> that he or she ... is no longer able to report data. ...
> stops vocalizing and writing down the information one receives--
Interesting. Is the quality of the information degraded because you are relying on memory accuracy rather than on-the-spot description? Or, is there inherently more inaccuracy in the information?
I really wonder about the PSI effect being very common.
The party line is that it is common. If what is meant by "common" is that a large percentage of any population experience spontaneous psi events during their lifetime, I agree. Almost anybody can experience an overwelming loud/bright psi event. However, the capabilities needed to use psi consistently are still as rare as when the shamans took years to find their one successor.
Examples such as the military or SRI selection processes have been used to show that "everybody can use psi". IMHO, you are looking at a self-selected group of individuals who have already demonstrated that they handle stress well, are self-disciplined, have initiative, and have strong personal egos capable of accepting failures as part of the longer term learning process. Then, the voluntary nature of the selection process narrows the group down to those who willing explore new terrain and enjoy learning new paradigms. And, if that isn't enough, the likelihood of them having integrity is extremely high.
Almost anything tackled using such a group will succeed given a reasonable amount of resources and time. Psi is no different. It is the people involved who are uncommon.
Sounds like there is a lot of confusion about the term "Bilocation" or "PSI." I have have had this experience twice, not in the course of doing formal remote viewing, but in real life. Both instances were apparently fueled by my need to know something. Boom! I was at another location, observing something/someone.
You are at the other location!!!! You are not capable of writing, talking or manipulating your physical/original body in any way. For all you know, while you are there, your physical body has shifted to the new location. That's how real it is!
Lyn says he's had the experience 8 times, or something, and doesn't have a clue as to how to create it on demand. I don't think anyone does. He's been able to flip back and forth between the two locations, "reporting back," so to speak. The problem with this is that you are relying on memory of what you observed, rather than noting what you are observing in the moment and therefore the data is subject to misperceptions, like any feat involving memory.
Moreover, when in an experience like this, you couldn't care less about anything but the unusualness of the experience. The idea of a remote viewing session, and all that entails, pales by comparison and the tendency, I would think, would be to bag the session and just have fun at the new location.
(It's pretty groovy, though! <g>)
I agree with Mike, although new to the subject and training of rv, I feel that dismissal of Bi-location or Perfect Site Intergration, as a seperate information stream when it occurs would be a waste of a talent and possible information.
There must be a way to develop PSI / Bi-loc before it happens, so as to prepare rvers for any possible PSI's/Biloc's in the future.
Then the information gathered should be analysed as a possible part of the target, but the analysis would be under different circumstances to the previous parts of target analysis. But I strongly feel that it should not be dismissed.
I had an interesting experience last night, that I am curious about. I was working one of Paul Fall's targets from the AEF BBS, and I was writing down data as it came up, and then I think I fell asleep.
I found myself walking on a wooden floor and there was a door and 2 round windows, but it was a kind of 'dreamy' sensation. But I was lucid, and I was able to 'snap out of it' and write that down, and close my eyes and get back there within a few minutes.
I think this happened because I was really tired (I've been having trouble sleeping due to 2 very active cats and a 2 year old child who is waking up early!!) and because I was trying to RV at the same time.
The question is, Was this bi-location or perfect site integration, or similar to it? Was I lucid dreaming while on a signal line? Or was it just coincidence?
BTW, the target turned out to be a port, with lots of boats around, so I'm pretty convinced that I was on target.
Great point, Rusty! More and more, it becomes evident that those who = have the faith to believe that they can access information through CRV = or other methods, are able to do it.
I think you are on the right track Lori. In 1985, the military RV Unit was tested in an attempt to determine what qualities/traits made the best Remote Viewer. It was part of the NLP craze sweeping INSCOM. A psychologist from Princeton spent a wek with the unit testing all members of the unit. Tests included I.Q. Tests, Meyers/Biggs (phonetic) and many others. The results were inconclusive. One thing all members of the unit had in common was a high level of intelligence. Many at or above the genius level. Of course all members of the unit were volunteers, who believed that RV worked. They also were doing something they felt was important.
The RV unit at Ft Meade gave a block of psycholgical tests to perspective candidates. Selection of unit members came down to a subjective deceison based more on the candidates professional reputation, ability to function in a small group in a close envirorment, mental stability, security awareness, and availability, than on the result of any test. It was only after the selection had been made, that the candidate was told what he had been selected for and given the oppurtunity to volunteer.
Thanks for the chance to share
[Archive Note: "Liam," former U.S. Intell RV]
John Said: I had an experience that I induced with concentration at work...
My psi training and understanding is that visualization is the key to starting the process of getting answers to questions. The answer is returned in the form of "just knowing". You just feel it's right even thou the answer may not make sense at the time.
Don't try to hard. The answer usually pops into the mind somehow at some later date when you are not thinking about it. You may decide to read a book and find the answer or talk to someone out of the blue and get it that way. It comes to you in some form usually not expected.
However, complete visualization of the problem is the key to starting the psi process of receiving an answer. I use this at work all the time. My field is metallurgical engineering. It has helped me develop new processes and solve production problems..
Can any one tell me if I was doing something right or if it was just part of my imagination or just the lucky roll of the dice 50/50 chance.
As I said, you just know the right answer. It's a good feeling.
And is this feeling usually this hard to conjure up in the beginning? And are there any techniques that will ease the process espesially concentration? Does concentration need to be involved?
Visualize the problem. Feel it, taste it, smell it. Be there mentally. Live it. That's what you need to do.
END ARCHIVE 16
JUNE 11 1997 TO AUGUST 04 1997
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page