firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 020
.


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 first archive.


AUGUST 21 1997 TO SEPTEMBER 05 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 20

> Actually, most of the evidence (as least indicative from the research side)
> is that remote viewing is the last vistages of "a much older talent."  It
> probably has more to do with survival than evolution. We are probably
> evolving out of "psi-functioning" rather than evolving into it.

Mmmm, I don't think evolution works quite that way.  A trait has to impact the ability to procreate and raise young that can procreate to be added in or taken out.  And, people in danger frequently experience psi events.  I suspect that it is alot more like adrenalin which provides strength and high-speed mental processing.  If available when needed, it makes the difference.

> I personally believe that if the growth of human consciousness has to rely

Are you referring to standard cognitive abilities or spiritual aspects. If it is the latter, understanding soul-abilities is an inherent part of any development.

> now. I believe such growth will be, and is going to be, birthed from a
> greater understanding of our responsibilities to other human beings, and a
> stark reduction in daily personal needs. We've got a long way to go I'm afraid.

Why a "stark reduction"?  Is this an environmental concern?  Or, do you believe that material comfort and spirituality are incompatible?

Rusty


P.J.,

Your detailed explanation of RV and the necessity for feedback is clear, concise, and I trust this will complete the matter...For this time, anyway....

Paul D


Joe,

On Page 200 of Dean Radin's new book- 'The Conscious Universe', you are mentioned as part of a successful endeavor to consistently influence a Random Number Generator on demand. So with your mind you could theoretically throw a switch, blow a horn, launch a missle, etc. You're probably able to do this too, I suspect.

The question. Do you perform the random number generator influencing as you do in remote viewing and the influence evidence itself as RV activity byproduct, or do you operate in a different manner entirely? (I recall Ingo stating PK influence on the Lawrence Livermore Lab equipment as byproduct effect from RV activity.)

Thank you for fielding this question.

David


I don't remember Ingo making such an emphatic statement about PK before. But, in any event, Yes and No. There is a feeling (during a PK effort) that feels similar to "being one with the target" in RV. (you might call this a replicable disassociative state), but this may or may not have anything to do with successfully demonstrating PK--as it is only a feeling associated with it.

Studying PK in the lab is like trying to write your name on the back of a hummingbird in flight; then trying to read it as well. If it were more easily replicable, then it would be a lot more easily talked about or studied. I'm not entirely sure I've seen actual PK demonstrated. Since PK with a random number generator is generally an interactive PK (between me and a machine) there is a somewhat complex argument which says that I may be selecting the specific times and places in which to interact, thereby creating a specific outcome, therefore I'm being a hell of a psychic, but not PK'ing.

I'm not sure yet, if I agree or disagree with this statement. I've witnessed things with my own eyes that makes me "want to believe" in PK. However, I've also had my eyes fooled (both deliberately as well as accidentally) on many occasions, so I still have a lot of questions in this regard. My jury is still out to lunch on the PK issue.

However to answer your question; when I'm attempting to do PK, the efforting is totally different from whatever I do during RV; but the feeling is somewhat similar. Don't know if I can be any clearer than this. Sorry.

Regards,

Joe

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


Hi pj
Its really considerate of you to make a new group, but its nice to discuss all the areas, and listen to what people say. It might be a bit limiting just to talk about non feedback targets.
AXE


Hi Jason,

>> Its really considerate of you to make a new group, but its nice to discuss all the areas, and listen to what people say. It might be a bit limiting just to talk about non feedback targets. AXE<<

Thanks for your feedback, but I think you missed the point.  This group has a limited charter - it discusses RV.  Period.  General psychic work (including non-feedback work) is not included in the discussion topics.   Sorry if that's hard.  The rules and sign up info say that pretty clearly.

I'm glad you're contributing, you have sponsored some discussion. Thanks.  But I really wish (as I asked privately) you would DELETE EXTRA QUOTED TEXT.  One can't even tell what you've written in a current message.  There's text from two or three messages all over the place and it's really confusing (and messy), and time consuming to wade through trying to figure out what's what.  You may notice if you read over the list rules/info that it mentions "minimal quoting" as well.

Thanks for participating Jason.  Good luck on the learning.  You'll like Joe's book.

PJ Gaenir
List Owner


PJ Wrote:

> "Anomalous Cognition," as parapsychology is now called, is a good
> start.   Whoever invented that, tell 'em we need a new term for RV!

[Archivist Note: The A.C. term was invented by the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, as an alternative description of remote viewing, as it turns out.]

Some good term might be something like:

Quantum perception
Aquired perceptions
Aquired Collective perceptions

> Also, as Joe has already mentioned, a Viewer may wait decades to get
> feedback on a session.  That doesn't mean that they didn't DO the
> session in the first place.  It means that it was "psychic work" when
> they did it, and 15 years later when they got feedback, it became
> "remote viewing" by definition -- because now, in accordance with
> required RV protocol, there was feedback.

Although I can understand where you are coming from I feel that you are getting R-Ving mixed with psychic work. Psychic type of experiments have a completely different structure and feel about them to the techniques of R-Ving. Psychic is completely archaic and chaotic in its structure, the feel of the information is different from rving, which because of structure and cueing gives a definition to the data which is distinguishable from Psychic. So when I do a session using R-Ving protocols and at the end of the session have no feedback, then in my opinion its still R-Ving because the data is different from Psychic, the only problem is that it can't be authenticated by feedback at that time. Maybe though there may be others ways of authenicating data other than feedback, such as statistical correlation? I feel its not feedback that makes the distinction between Psychic and R-Ving because the distinction is made by the protocols involved. They are of the same thing but the protocols streamline basic psychic into R-viewed data.

> OK, that's an interesting insight -- tell me what you have in mind.
> What would you like to do that needing feedback prohibits?

> Again, there is no limit to psychic ability, or targeting choices.
> There is only a limit to what fits in the term 'remote viewing,'
> which has a specific meaning.  Remote Viewers can happily target all
> sorts of non-feedback things and learn constantly from the
> experience.  They just wouldn't (or shouldn't) call it "RV", is all.

I feel that when we get to a position when we have people who have results that statistically show the amount of sessions that they are target, then we can group these together on R-Ving projects, with no feedback. Once the data has been analysed then statistically some of this should be correct  going by the history of the viewers.

EXAMPLE:
If you have 200 statistically sound R-Vers and 147 say that the target feels like a bridge. Then even without feedback you could take it under advisement that it may be a bridge.

So I guess my argument lies with, Is it feedback that makes it R-Ving? or is it protocols and structure? or maybe we are being a bit stubborn and its a bit of both.

all the best...Darryl S


> Actually, most of the evidence (as least indicative from the research side)
> is that remote viewing is the last vistages of "a much older talent."

Yes, there is much evidence of this ability with seers ect in the past, The way rv has grown out of this was a step in the right direction.

>  It
> probably has more to do with survival than evolution. We are probably
> evolving out of "psi-functioning" rather than evolving into it.

The development of the human concsiousness is important in whatever way we choose to grow.

> I believe such growth will be, and is going to be, birthed from a
> greater understanding of our responsibilities to other human beings, and a
> stark reduction in daily personal needs. We've got a long way to go I'm afraid.

Yes its very sad, people have no respect for each other let alone our beautiful planet.
If things carry on the way there going we wont make it.

> I like your concern about evolution; I also like your impatient desire to
> get there--its the mother of invention.

thanks

AXE


>Why a "stark reduction"?  Is this an environmental concern?  Or, do you
>believe that material comfort and spirituality are incompatible?

You can have material comfort without promulgating greed, increasing the population, or sitting back and watching people starve to death. Kindness to one's neighbor doesn't generally cost much--nor does taking responsibility for one's kids, rather than passing it off to a government bureaucracy.

So, yes, it's partially an environmental concern as well as a spiritual one, but in no way do I imply that material comfort and spirituality are incompatible. Maybe losing sight of some of the elements of spirituality have distorted or twisted perceptions regarding comfort.

Besides, I really don't want to open this can of worms, as everyone breathing air probably has a different opinion about it--sort of like religion. I was just suggesting that PSI functioning probably has about as much to do with human development as tying shoe laces. Now, I'm sure that somewhere out there, someone understands that tying shoe laces is very Zen.

Try not to take me seriously.

Joe

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


Thanks Gene

What you have shared is very informative.  I plan on training with Lyn this spring and was wondering how long it would take to get from the beginners course to the advanced course.  You, in gereral, answered that question.

John


John,

If you are taking the course from Lyn, it may take longer than 6 months to go all the way through to the Advanced Course.  Lyn won't teach the Intermediate until he is sure you are ready.  We took the Beginner's Course in April, and hope to take the Intermediate before the end of the year. Perhaps if we had been living closer and had been able to be in more frequent contact with Lyn, we would have been able to progress faster, but there is no guarantee.

Lori


Dear Joe

If you dont mind, would you answer some questions for me, I would like to make sure I have got everything right, Its very difficult to know if information comes from a reliable source?

1. You were with the remote viewing program at Forte Meade from 1978-84? You were in the program for  a considerable period of time,  did you make any friends you still have contact with?

2. A Quote from the CSL Website:
Welcome to the CSL For over 20 years, the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory has been the centre for goverment-sponsored parapsychology research in support of its intelligence program most recently known as STARGATE
Is this the new goverment program? It sure sounds like it!

Thanks for helping

AXE


>1. You were with the remote viewing program at Forte Meade from 1978-84?

1978 through 1995. I worked at Fort Meade from 1978 through 1984, retired from the Army, and then worked within the project as a consultant with SRI from 1984 through 1991, and SAIC from 1991 through 1995 when it closed. I am still a Research Associate with the same lab, which is now called The Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, located in Palo Alto.

>did you make any friends you still have contact with.

Dozens, most of which I still have contact with.

>2. A Quote from the CSL Website:
>Is this the new goverment program?

There is no new government project that I am aware of. STARGATE was terminated in November of 1995.

Have fun,
Joe

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

 


PJ,

It's great that you're offering to provide another list for almost-RV, but I think that will confuse the issue.

I can see most people subscribing to both, and some not, and some threads getting crossed between the two.

Besides, given your's and Joe's definitions of RV, if we discuss a topic that has no feedback now, it may have feedback in 2 months, or 5 years or 30 years, at which point it becomes valid!  How about if we promise to keep this sort of discussion to a minimum here.

You must admit, Jason has sparked a lot of discussion recently, and most of it has been RV related.  I can't see this list getting involved too much in specific targets anyway (RV or notyet-RV).  We get more into who's teaching, how to do it, and things to watch for.  This discussion is valid for both sides of this very fine line.

People who are interested in targets should go to the AEF BBS [Psi Hands-On Board], and we can have lots of fun with them there.

BTW, Jason, I do intend to view your target when I get the chance.  I'm a rank beginner, but I love a challenge.  Thanks for the lively discussions.

Mike CT

 


Rusty,

>Mmmm, I don't think evolution works quite that way.  A trait has to
>impact the ability to procreate and raise young that can procreate to be
>added in or taken out.

I tend to agree Rusty,  I think it's more like an ability that has been forgotten and must be relearned, like making Stratavarious violins or those special Stained Glass windows.  There is no reason the ability would be evolved out unless it was harmful to the species, and there haven't been enough systematic witch trials, in my opinion, to have made a difference.

But with various churches suppressing the knowledge for so long, it isn't surprising that this ability isn't widespread.

The other problem is distractions.  In the past, daily living was a great distraction.  Most people had to spend much of their time surviving.  Only designated people (shamans and other spiritual leaders) seemed to have time for practicing this ability, though everyone acts on hunches and uses psi in some way.

Now, our free time has been filled with distractions:  TV, Nintendo, etc. (not to mention being surrounded by EM fields, and who knows what that does to us?) which also tends to limit our spiritual growth. So, I think Joe's point on reducing our needs for material comfort, may be partially describing modern distractions.  OF course the environmental concerns have to be considered as well.

Mike CT


Hi  everyone,

I'm sure these are old questions, but I have a confusion on "scientific" remote viewing. What does a SRVer view with? Is it the mind or brain? (keep in mind these questions are from a simple mind) Or, is it the two combined in an altered state?  Also whom or what is viewing or observing the data he or she is RVing? Does the SRV  consider the " I "  that is viewing, the body, mind or brain? Woluld someone know if a person with a higher I.Q., or a person with pronounced psychic ability, turn out to the better viewer?

Thanks for your time......Terri


While respecting the reasoning of those who would delve into what Joe Mc has described as "psychic" rather than RV, and much as I also enjoy psychic areas, I do agree completely with PJ that this specific list should stay on the track of feedback-able targets and practices and comments... I happen to be quite into dowsing, also, and saw with dismay what happened to that listserve as people with widely divergent interests in psychic, paranormal, UFO's, healing with colors, crystals, you name it, began to pour in their individual interests ... The dowsing aspect simply got buried in the debris... I finally unsubscribed because there was just too much mishmash to wade through... Paul D


>What do you personally class as feed back, scuse me for being unscientific,
>but if it is backed up by  many others.......
>..Surely thats evidence even if we are unable to stretch our minds to say its fact

History -- even recent history -- is chock full of situations where overwhelming majorities of the population of one or another country fervently hold beliefs which most of the rest of us consider nonsense or worse.  Examples, if necessary -- Germany under the Third Reich -- Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini -- Serbia under Milosevitch --

A head count of believers simply doesn't meet the standard of verifiability.
It may meet some other standard but that's not the point here.

Tom C


If you set up a classically non-verifiable target with coordinates, and 5 RVers independently and blindly view the target and all see the same thing, is that good enough as feedback?  According to the strict methodology of RV, no.  Psychic data is not yet acceptable as 'hard evidence.'  That is not to say that you can't have multiple viewers viewing the same target, and draw conclusions from the data.  It just falls outside of RV.

Comparing that to fascist belief systems is one of those apples and oranges things.  We're not talking about belief systems, but corroborating evidence. And we're saying that 'physically derived evidence' is required for proper feedback.  Right or wrong, that is how RV is defined wrt this discussion forum.

Mike CT


> But with various churches suppressing the knowledge for so long, it isn't
> surprising that this ability isn't widespread.

It is also likely to be under reported.  My parents went to extreme lengths to make it clear to me that it wasn't a topic for discussion outside the family.  It took years before I could even talk about it without feeling guilty for breaking a family trust.  I suspect that early testing of children in kindergarten or first grade would show that psi abilities were evenly distributed and about 1% to 3% of the population have significant capabilities.

> Now, our free time has been filled with distractions:  TV, Nintendo, etc.

Very True!!!  It takes deliberate measures to remove distractions or not invite them into your life.  Before, it was very expensive and rare to have entertainment.  It is a form of gluttony to allow your life to be absorbed by fiction.  Some Buddhist don't allow any fiction for aspiring monks.  They believe that its allure pulls you from the right path.  Of course, they also have the ultimate anti-clutter belief system.  You don't own more than you can carry.  Of course, I'm not suggesting anything extreme -- I need my desktop pc!

Removing both entertainment and clutter from our lives could only help.

Rusty


Dear Joe

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

I asked about the CSL welcome because surely if its goverment sponsored, its research that belongs to the goverment, seems a big coincidence it also has the same name STARGATE?

May I also ask what the machine was, you were building with Dean Radin. Sounds Curious......

AXE


CSL did nearly all the research and some of the collection for the government project STARGATE, and was considered fully part of the classified STARGATE project from it's beginning to its end. It's government contracts were terminated the same time the project closed down in November of 1995.

The machine is proprietary to Dean Radin.

Regards,
Joe

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


I have a couple of questions for the Ex-military remote viewers. Are there any targets for thee military that really were not nice in either feeling or content of any kind? Targets that the viewer found distressing etc.

I have also heard rumours of other secret psychic groups (DIA) practicing techniques of "virtual realization" are they aware of any other groups american or foreign that were using remote techniques in the cold war years? If so, did they often meet any other viwers from other agencies at target sites?

Do they feel that remote viewing and other projects are still ongoing, but are now underground and are black projects?

All the best...

Darryl


Daryl:  I am one of the folks from the old program...Allow me to give youy some "opinions" about your questions since, unlike some, I do not profess to be an expert nor the final word on anything let alone RV...

During the years of Stargate or any of the other names it used, there were fairly reliable reporting concerning efforts by the Warsaw Pact (specifically the Russians) to use telekenisis as a means to "influence" our ICBM's if they were ever fired at us.  Their research is believed to be one of the factors which caused the US Government to initiate its own program..got to keep up with the Jone'es you know...When you ask if our viewers ever ran into anyone at targets, I presume you mean "at" the target while viewing...I witness a couple of incidents in which viewing sessions in which I was acting as a monitor reported the presence of other entities at the target site.  On one occasion we actually "went" to the suspected Russian research site and "confronted" one of their female veiwers.  She acknowledged our presence but noted she was not going to report it since she knew here "bosses" would be unhappy about it.  We decided to stay away from there and "asked" her to stay away from our site and our program.  She never really said she would but indicated she found us to be rather uninteresting and usually only "dropped" in on us for a moment or two anyhow. She didn't like Americans simply because we were Americans and ithad nothing to do with the fact we were RV'ing her country.

Did any of our sites cause our people to come away with bad or distressed emotions?  Yes.  Anytime our folks came across death, certain inherent personal emotion sets took over.  Some people handle death betters than others.  One of our viewers "ran" into my decease Father-in-Law.  A family crisis the recent death of a young child for cancer was challenging the unit of the extended family and shaking some of our rather strong religious convictions.  My Father - in - Law interfered with a session and "spoke" with the viewer and left him with certain messages only I would know about (things about some wounds I received in Vietnam and things about his daughter - my wife).  The Viewer had no idea what he was talking about but passed the messages...with the "image" of the Father-in-Law, there was the image of a young boy being held tightly by the hand by the F-I-L.  They were at a fishing pond (the only 'real" outdoor activity the young boy could perform while he was sick and dying...the F-I-L use to take him to this pond on the family property and stay with all day.  The message he left to the viewer was that the boy was OK now and he (the F-I-L) would now take care of him for us. It scared me, amused the viewer (a very religious Catholic gentlemen) and restored my faith..was this stressful..Yes...Was it distressing..No, actually not...But there were other cases where a viewer would find a missing person who was now dead, or see the death of a person and some of them took this very hard....

Do I think anyone in the Government is now involved in RV?  No, not really regardless of what some folks say about selling their services to the Government.  I am in the Government, have very high clearances and very complex and extensive accesses to many special programs within our Government.  Even if I did not specifically know of a program, I would suspect it through a number of methods of deductive reasoning and of course, the fact that no one in our goverment can keep a secret very long...Look what happened to the information concerning the existence of Stargate...folks who had beenin the program just couldn't wait to make it public domain for money...if they were ladies of the evening we would know what to call them but these were honorable men (Majors and such) and obviously believed they knew more about the need to keep secrets that the whole government...I feel very sorry for the Ed Dames and Dave Morehouses of the world but they seem to think they did nothing wrong..OK..so what...its done but it does point up the fact, if a program were in existence, one of the Ed Dames/Dave Morehouse types in that program would soon be retiring and could be expected to try to make a buck out of their own mystical experiences...Nope..if it was there, I and about fiifty million of my closest friends on the net would know all about it...

Hope all this helps....
P.S.  How's Texas treating you???

Regards...Gene

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


Hi to all,

I am seeking a bit of technical information.  Of late, the last month or so, I have been finding the target ok and start getting data ok, then out of the blue I'm gone, out in left field, and don't know how I got there. When I go back and look at my data I can see just where I lost the target, but while I'm working it, its taking a good long while to recognize I'm off line with waisted time. So I am looking for some of that expert advise about staying on line and recognizing when I'm off :) All and any, Thanks in advance!

PaulF


>I have a couple of questions for the Ex-military remote viewers. Are there
>any targets for thee military that really were not nice in either feeling
>or content of any kind? Targets that the viewer found distressing etc.

No. Other than what would be anyone's normal reaction to knowing the details or intimate emotions/secrets of scumbuckets, terrorists, sadists, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, bombers, hijackers, etc., etc. It's all pretty much run of the mill.

>I have also heard rumours of other secret psychic groups (DIA) practicing
>techniques of "virtual realization" are they aware of any other groups
>american or foreign that were using remote techniques in the cold war
>years?

To my knowledge there were no formalized secret psychic groups other than the one's associated with STARGATE. Of course there are many other countries interested in RV (then and now).

>If so, did they often meet any other viwers from other agencies at target sites?

There were no other viewers.

>Do they feel that remote viewing and other projects are still ongoing, but
>are now underground and are black projects?

No. None that I'm aware of.

Regards,
Joe

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


PJ, I am answering the "psychological problem issue" separate because it is very personal and I want you to use it at your discretion since it could scare off some potential wonder children...

RV can be uncontrollable at times especially when "time" is the factor. A qualified and well experienced Viewer can sometimes "slip" into another time zone without even knowing they are doing it....This can lead to catastrophic results... I spent four intense sessions - on my own with no monitor -Naughty Naughty - tring to find a very tall and famous British Arch Bishop (Terry Waite) - who had been taken hostage by Lebanese fundamentalist...

I saw a house overlooking the ocean. A tall - dark haired man sitting with someone else in the room. Into the room two men came in with masks...they took out pistols and shot him to death. I could smell the blood, feel the terror, smell the salt of the ocean, hear the reverberations of the gunshots. I was taken back very hard and became very depressed about what I had seen for over a week. I was saddened to the point of almost wanting to cry and could not figure it out.

I reported my results to the system and about ten laters Terry Waite made a public statement about his health and welfare... Now I really was confused but somewhat relieved that I had been wrong.

About a year later, two men burst into the harbor view offices of a prominent construction engineer who had client in his office at the time. They wore hoods and motioned the client to move aside and proceeded to pump six bullets into this tall dark haired businessman. He died instantly. His crime was simply the fact he refused to get involved in the sectarian violence which was then plaguing the country.

It wasn't Lebanon however, and it wasn't an Arch Bishop who was killed. It was Northern Ireland and the tall dark haired businessman was my brother....it was 1988 and I refused to view again until just over a year ago for fear I would see the death of another member of my family.

Use this as you see fit PJ......

Gene

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


I would like to thank the viewers for the responses to my questions and have a few more.

I find it a bit perplexing that a technology such as remote viewing would be totally shut down by intelligence gathering agencies, is it not just the case that compartmentalized information means that only a select few know of any remaing remote viewing programs? Surely if the technology works as we all know then it would not be dumped, but made to look that way, secrets are kept?

David Morehouse in his book talks about lectures and talks during the training, what were theses about? Was it the theory behind the technology? Do any notes and material on these lecture still exist and are they available?

Was or is it possible to use two remote viewers ( who would be in seperate locations) at the same time in a target but getting them to approach the target from different perspectives, so that the viewers can subconciously work together within the target area? Or does the viewing sessions have to be seperated by an amount of time?

Do you have any indications on the percentage of data from targets that was influenced or involved "Subspace",paranormal/weird phenomenoa or data?

Are there any indications on approximately how many countries are applying remote viewing type of technology?

Thank you in advance for any information.

All the best...
Darryl.


Darryl--

I'll take a few minutes and toss in a couple of pfennigs worth.

At 11:15 AM 8/28/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I find it a bit perplexing that a technology such as remote viewing
>would be totally shut down by intelligence gathering agencies, is it
>not just the case that compartmentalized information means that only
>a select few know of any remaing remote viewing programs? Surely if
>the technology works as we all know then it would not be dumped, but
>made to look that way, secrets are kept?

While it is always POSSIBLE that there is a black RV program buried somewhere in the intel community, take it from one who has been associated with the bureaucracy for 20 years that it is NOT AT ALL unbelievable that a promising technology was scrapped because of biases and prejudice amongst the community decision makers.  The people who hold the strings at CIA and elsewhere are frequently hard-headed "seeing is believing" types who have no time for anything they can't understand thoroughly.  You must also bear in mind that in the last few years the program itself was essentially self-destructing.  Due to introduction of some less effective "technologies," the accuracy of the data provided was considerably degraded from what it once was, and there was a great deal of disaffection and low morale among the viewers.  If you haven't already, you really ought to read Jim Schnabel's book "Remote Viewers," as well as portions of my own 4-part series attacking the AIR/CIA "Report" on the remote viewing program.

>David Morehouse in his book talks about lectures and talks during the
>training, what were theses about? Was it the theory behind the
>technology?

What Dave was talking about were the theory lectures that preceded practical exercises in each stage of CRV training.

>Do any notes and material on these lecture still exist and are they
>available?

They do exist, but they are not unconditionally available.  I and a number of the other people offering CRV training still have the DIA CRV manual, but we don't generally make it available.  (I know some cynics will say, "Yeah--that's because you want to corner the market on CRV information so that you can keep up your teaching monopoly!" ;-).  The reason is because first, you can't really learn to do CRV well from that manual--and perhaps ANY manual (since it's a little like learning to play the violin from a book); and second, because of the way it's put together it might actually do more harm to the beginning student than good as far as learning remote viewing is concerned.

>Was or is it possible to use two remote viewers ( who would be in
>seperate locations) at the same time in a target but getting them to
>approach the target from different perspectives, so that the viewers
>can subconciously work together within the target area? Or does the
>viewing sessions have to be seperated by an amount of time?

First, you can't control targeting of a viewer well enough to know what particular perspective any given viewer is going to approach a mission from.  Different viewers do have different "preferences" as to what aspects of a target they tend to address.  Hypothetically, separation in time isn't a prerequisite for multiple viewers working a target; but recently there has been some discussion that temporal proximity may contribute to telepathic overlay in RV situations.  The jury's still out on that one, I think.

>Do you have any indications on the percentage of data from targets
>that was influenced or involved "Subspace",paranormal/weird
>phenomenoa or data?

Don't know where this "Subspace" stuff comes from--I've heard it alot lately, but it was never an issue or a consideration during CRV operations at the Ft. Meade program.  As far as the rest of your question, given the nature of the technology, 100% of the data was derived from "paranormal" means.  And I apologize--I'm not sure what you mean by "weird" phenomena.

>Are there any indications on approximately how many countries are
>applying remote viewing type of technology?

There are a number of labs around the world experiementing with the phenomenon, but to my knowledge only the Russians have had/do have an official program (it's status as an intelligence collection program is a bit tentative right now--they don't have a lot of rubles to fund stuff like that).

Well, I guess this is a good start!

Paul

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


A question for the viewer group:

I have shared this experience with one other privately, but feel it could have some interesting feedback from the more experienced of this group. Lyn assigned me a target for intermediate work that spanned almost 10 days of 30-45 minute session work. Right from the start I had grief. The TARGET was moving! This was different than movement at target site. I would work along with technical type descriptors and then I might jump to a roar with white, yellow, hot, molecues coming apart. Then I might go back to the peaceful and still minor motion at the target site. Next I went to a point on a timeline that made my pen feel I'd fallen into an abyss. Empty, cold, dark, NOTHINGNESS. What's going on? I had to stray cat for all these disjointed pieces. Lyn only chuckled and said 'Yes, go - describe". When I finally received feedback, I was stumped - for a moment. The target was the space capsule UNDER CONSTRUCTION inside a NASA facility! What were all those other complete and powerful feelings/descriptors?

His statement 'Entropy'. I was pulled into the significance of the satellite journey. Is this to happen more as I go on? Have others experienced this? Let's talk.

Thank you,
David


>...NOTHINGNESS. What's going on?
>His statement 'Entropy'.
>I was pulled into the significance of the satellite journey.
>Is this to happen more as I go on? Have others experienced this? Let's talk.

Just so there is no confusion here. Entropy as it's being applied to RV means that the remote viewer is drawn to "change" taking place at a target and not the target itself. As you might apply it to sight--one can get blurred vision staring at a field of snow and essentially see nothing till the rabbit moves. It's the movement of the rabbit, not that we see it clearly, that causes us to say "I see a rabbit." There are varying degrees of change within a target. It can be generated by a picture on a computer screen--dependent upon the spread of pixels, changes in the RGB, and refresh rate of the screen; or it can be generated by an elephant--all the way up from molecular decay through pushing over a tree. There is some suggesting that the higher the level's of entropy in a target, the more information that's being passed. I will add that this hasn't been proven unalterably yet, it is hypothesized.

In your target's case. I would suggest that you are having a great deal of time with your sense of time. Either you have not learned to control it yet, or the function of time was not addressed in setting up the target. I cannot tell you how to deal with the former, but I can tell you how to deal with the latter. If you are targeting a picture of a space shuttle under construction then part of your targeting instructions (comments that go with the target in the envelope) should have been--"Describe this at the time the picture was taken." Otherwise, it cannot be assumed that you will do this. More experienced RV'ers, knowing the target is a picture, will usually mentally assume that they are going to answer whatever the question or statement might be that goes with the picture. If there is none, then your are starting the session with a strike against you already. Inexperienced Viewers sometimes slip around time-wise quite a bit. Practice eliminates the problem, as well as good targeting proceedures.

Regards,
Joe

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


Hi Joe,

>>Entropy as it's being applied to RV means that the remote viewer is drawn to "change" taking place at a target and not the target itself.

Have you found (personally, if not in the lab) that some targets seems to be easier than others to view, notwithstanding their rate of technical entropy?  For instance, the great pyramid, the moon, or the Eiffel Tower -- vs. a barn in Kansas, or something like that.  It seems to be the case with many students I've encountered, yet I've never heard anything about that from other quarters.  I haven't figured out "high-impact" targets as I call them seem to inspire more detail.  Do you think (theoretically) it could be the amount of consciousness invested in them (consciousness being energy... one guesses)?

>>As you might apply it to sight--one can get blurred vision staring at a field of snow and essentially see nothing till the rabbit moves. It's the movement of the rabbit, not that we see it clearly, that causes us to say "I see a rabbit."

Do you think if someone views a target that doesn't have a time specified, they may be drawn to a time-point that contains entropy -- change, movement of some kind?

Do you think chronic targeting against either "interesting" events or "high-entropy-points" of targets (instead of mundane stuff) might create a tendency on the new Viewer's part to... view what's most interesting around what's targeted, instead of what's targeted?

PJ


>Have you found (personally, if not in the lab) that some targets
>seems to be easier than others to view, notwithstanding their rate of
>technical entropy?

Yes both personally and scientifically. Usually they are high in entropy.

The Great Pyramid may appear to be a low entropy target, till one takes into consideration its mass and how long it's been sitting in the same spot deteriorating--which gives it considerably higher entropy than a new house on fire.

>Do you think if someone views a target that doesn't have a time
>specified, they may be drawn to a time-point that contains entropy --
>change, movement of some kind?

That may be in fact what happens. However, I don't recall any experiments designed to look at that specifically. I believe that would be a good hypothesis.

>Do you think chronic targeting against either "interesting" events or
>"high-entropy-points" of targets (instead of mundane stuff) might
>create a tendency on the new Viewer's part to... view what's most
>interesting around what's targeted, instead of what's targeted?

Not sure I understand this question. I would say that there is no "point of entropy" with regard to a target, but any given target has an "overall entropy" which cannot be separated out into specific points. Since overall entropy is the sum of the target, then it may or may not underscore what's critical about a target. You could just as well describe the boring parts of the target as the exciting. I suspect it would be determined by the likes and dislikes of the viewer more than anything else.

Warm regards,

Joe

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


END ARCHIVE 20
AUGUST 21 1997 TO SEPTEMBER 05 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.