firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 025
.


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 twenty-fifth archive.

Mostly EEG discussion in this archive.


September 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 25

>>You may have thought I was joking, but I wasn't, and my email was not >>addressed just to you, but implicitly to the entire list. I am *genuinely* >>interested in any EEG work that may have been done with RVers. There may be >>none, but it occurred to me somebody might know if anything related to it >>that might be generalizable was ever done at, say, the Monroe Inst.

It just now occurred to me that EEG data with an RVer who's experiencing episodes of psi-fear might be very useful. Hmmmmmmmm?

-=d=-


I'd be most interested in hearing of EEG work in the RV field also. If you manage to dig some up..I'd be delighted to hear about it.

Jim


David--

>At 03:29 PM 9/18/97 -0400, you wrote: >>addressed just to you, but implicitly to the entire list. I am *genuinely* >>interested in any EEG work that may have been done with RVers.

From what I understand, Ed May did some work involving EEGs and remote viewers; he also tried SCUIDs (however the heck that's spelled)--though ancillary noise turned out to be too great to identify any E-M signatures associated with remote viewing--and I'm thinking maybe even PET scans. Joe would know more about this, though the data may still be embargoed...

Paul

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


>and I'm thinking maybe even PET scans. Joe would know more about this, though the data may still be embargoed...<

If Lyn sez the MEG stuff is available, then it seems unlikely the PET scans would be still embargoed. Especially since the CIA took the muzzle off Targ and Puthoff last year. Do they have any data like this?

-=d=-


David,

From my opinion, two persons could react to that directly. Skip Atwater (he told me he monitored -wired- guys in the Monroe Institute isolation booth, but I'm not sure he's on that list now), and Joe (McMoneagle) as a possible subject of some of these experiences. Lyn Buchanan could also, probably, comment on what was done at Ft Meade on QEEG, ECG, EDR,..and other polygraphs.

Hope it helps,

Jean-Luc


>If Lyn sez the MEG stuff is available, then it seems unlikely the PET scans >would be still embargoed. Especially since the CIA took the muzzle off Targ >and Puthoff last year. Do they have any data like this?

Just talked to Hal. The only EEG work they did was with Hella Hamid remote viewing a distant room that contained a strobe light. The results showed suppressed alpha when the strobe was being viewed, which returned to normal otherwise. The effect was only statistical, and not robust enough for any kind of practical application. These same results were later replicated by Hal and Targ for the Office of Naval Research, again with Hella as subject. The data can be found in the March 1976 IEEE journal, and Puthoff and Targ's "Mind at Large" (Praeger, 1979).

It seems PET may not have been employed after all; but as a matter of fact, as far as I can tell the MEG data is NOT available, except in summary form in Jessica Utt's evaluation of the SAIC experiments, which (I believe) can be found on her webpage and also in the AIR/CIA report. Again, Joe (or an e-mail to Ed May) could tell you better about availability of the data.

Paul

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


It's SQUIDs (Sub-Quantum Interface Devices) which in conjunction with other equipment is the only method I'm aware of that can see electrically deeper into the brain than 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch, or show more of what's going on than general brain wave activity.

And no, ancillary noise isn't any greater than found in other techniques. And yes, some of what we found is still sensitive to our own activities, but only from a research standpoint. Sensitive in that most scientists don't like saying something until they've completed their research, as what they think might be altered by the studies they are doing.

Thanks,

Joe

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


>>and I'm thinking maybe even PET scans. Joe would know more about this, >though the data may still be embargoed...<

Puthoff and Targ left the lab in early 1986 or before. The MEG data collection was done much later. The MEG data is still being reviewed and additional studies are being done. There are no studies available that would satisfy anyone's interest at the moment as they are still being evaluated for meaning.

>If Lyn sez the MEG stuff is available, then it seems unlikely the PET scans >would be still embargoed. Especially since the CIA took the muzzle off Targ >and Puthoff last year. Do they have any data like this?

The CIA have not taken the muzzle off of anyone. They disclosed the existence of the program by publishing the unclassified version of the AIR study. Much (if not most) of the information surrounding the program is still classified.

None of the MEG studies is, as it was done to answer a scientific question. But, I'm sure no one will publish this data until all the facts are in surrounding it. Most people would be bored to death with the data to begin with, since it isn't going to add much of what Lyn calls sizzle to the subject matter.

Only very minimal EEG studies were done, most surrounding trying to establish specific general states that someone might be in. To my knowledge over the years, there is no specific or general state of mind that you need to be in to do RV. In most cases, people will generate some general alpha activity over others, simply because they have their eyes closed while thinking about the target. Also to my knowledge, there is no general or specific state associative to any of the specific "forms" of RV that everyone is talking about; ERV, CRV, SRV, etc., etc. Never have been.

Warm regards,

Joe

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


> >>>after I'm well into the session<<<, I tend to "dip" quickly into and out of theta dominance for perceptions, then come right back to alpha dominance to report. That is with using two probes, one at CZ (top center of the head), the other on the ear lobe, for ground ref. This is still very far from being scientific. What is actually needed is something like a Lexicore, with at least 24 channels, etc.<

Yep to that last sentence. The most interesting thing would be to see the distribution: How much frontal Alpha, etc. CZ data can be neat and at the same time not very informative.

Lyn have you ever been hooked up to a Mind Mirror? Do you know Anna Wise's work? Especially the recent work with the new software? I'm impressed. It seems to me that her four sites, close to FP1-FP2 and O1-O2, cover enough of the waterfront to get usable patterns and recorded data for RVing, both for research purposes and to be potentially a help to the practitioner as they hunt the cognitive/feeling "place" where they do the best work. And the gear is far cheaper than a 24-channel Lexicor. And portable! We might not need such a man to do what may be a boy's job. . .??

Jim F. from that island down-under-something-or-other says in another email that somebody hooked him up to a Mind Mirror. What he reports sounds like a very informal session. I wonder if anyone's done a more formal study, controls and all, of RV with the Mind Mirror.

Can you dig out the ref to the MEG work you and/or others did at Los Alamos? I'd love to see it. MEG is *hot* and seeing that work might either provide focus for a new research study with the Mind Mirror or obviate the necessity for one.

(BTW, also see my response to Jim F. re 2hz (two!!) dominance. Boy, I'd love to look at the file of that session! (I have access to the MM eqpt. and software.)

-=d=-


>Skip Atwater (he told me he monitored -wired- guys in the Monroe Institute isolation booth,<

Skip won't release any data at all. I know 'cause I tried, and I know people close to him. No way. Not yet.

-=d=-


>Both hemispheres appeared to be ticking over in alpha (wide awake) <

Hate to come on once again like a nit-picking stickler for detail, but Alpha isn't "wide awake" in any lexicon of EEG I'm familiar with. I don't think Anna Wise (Mind Mirror -- see my email to Lyn today), with whom I've done a wkshp and with whom my associate, Jean Wallis, is now training, speaks that way about it. And I know the EEG Spectrum people don't. It's very relaxed, mellowed-out attention, with roughly 8 - 10hz dominant especially in the central and frontal parts of the brain. Alpha is "meditative", at least in some lexicons.

"Wide awake" is with Beta (between 15 and 20-30hz, depending on the model of brain activity you use) dominant in those same areas. This is where I am as I write this: Cognitive details, tight-focus, clickety-click stuff.

>. . .and also 2cps delta.. . .<
>It's taken me nearly 30 years of practice to be able to get down this far. I've got the feeling I'm dropping even lower now. <

Lower than 2hz!?!? Wow! Much below that and they zip up the body bag. <g>

But seriously: Can you distinguish via some sort of kinesthetic or other proprioceptive signal when you've dropped below 2hz? I'd truly *love* to hear the way you can do that if you can articulate it. Get that guy to hook you up again to the MM and train for 1hz dominant, *and*. . .you stay awake enough to report your experience either at the time or later. Phew! What a trip *that* oughta be!!

>I'm not at all certain that the mind is designed to operate in this twin dominant frequency mode at these low delta frequencies. <

Maybe it depends on how tight the "bottleneck" is in the intervening freqs. If it's *all* high amplitude Delta, with almost no Theta and some high amp. Alpha, there could be a problem. If the Theta's not too low amp., then the goodies can "flow" and not get "stuck". (Complex issue; too long to get into here.)

Also, I'd like to know the kind of nasty side effects you refer to if you're willing to share that in general terms.

-=d=-


Alpha/Delta schmelta. For what it's worth, I think we can get too hung up on the whole emphasis put on brainwave measurement criteria. It is very interesting and all that but is a very left-brain analysis of what is going on and subject to individual differences as well as age differences etc. etc. You really need a lab and a ton of data to be able to draw any conclusions. I agree whole heartedly with Lyn about this subject. To rely on brainwave measurement as evidence of a subjective state is, in general, pretty silly from my point of view, especially in the context of this list. How is knowing what brainwave state you are in going to help you to remote view? Would it make your data more accurate? I don't think so ; - )

Vickie


>>Both hemispheres appeared to be ticking over in alpha (wide awake) < > >Hate to come on once again like a nit-picking stickler for detail, but Alpha >isn't "wide awake" in any lexicon of EEG I'm familiar with. I don't think

Yep...you're right. I re-read my post while wide awake this morning and realised I should have typed BETA....not Alpha. My error.

>Lower than 2hz!?!? Wow! Much below that and they zip up the body bag. <g>

You're getting VERY close to the truth here...and that was EXACTLY the concern I shared with Angela Thompson about this process.

> >But seriously: Can you distinguish via some sort of kinesthetic or other >proprioceptive signal when you've dropped below 2hz? I'd truly *love* to >hear the way you can do that if you can articulate it. Get that guy to hook >you up again to the MM and train for 1hz dominant, *and*. . .you stay awake >enough to report your experience either at the time or later. Phew! What a >trip *that* oughta be!!

OK...I'll tell you exactly what I'm trying to do here. I am manouvering myself down to the 1-2cps delta range.....with the Beta process still "ticking over" with the intention of then giving myself hypnotic commands to shift consciousness state "sideways". I am visualising a disembodied voice acting as a hypnotist. That is, I'm using the mind awake/body asleep process in delta to encourage "third party" hypnotic commands back to myself. When I succeed at this then I will, over the months, train myself with a post hypnotic trigger command to be able to induce this specific altered consciousness state without having to induce delta first. The reason for going to all this trouble is that I have slowly gained the impression that there are some strange anomolous experiences available in controlled altered consciousness states. The usual methods of achieving altered conscious (such as hypnosis, breathing exercises, drugs) do not appear to give the practitioner the precise personal control necessary to achieve individual and replicable altered consciousness states. The problem is that there has been very little work done on the "mysterious" delta state...so this line of research might be categorised as a "pioneer effort". Hence my nervousness about the side affects I've experienced. At this point in time, I have found that once I drop down to a 2 cps delta state then I can use hypnotic commands on myself. At this point in time these commands have a "weak" effect, but no doubt they will improve. Once I have the process under control I will experiment in locking on to an RV target signal line to see if I can reliably induce a full-on holographic "picture" of the target. That is, I will attempt to find the precise conscious state required for this, by using hypnotic instruction. I know this is possible because I occasionally get these holographic pictures while rving. The trick here is to hypnotically replicate the exact mental state on command. I'm also using "mental pendulum" techniques during the CRV training process to let me know whether my gestalt data is correct. This has helped enormously in my accuracy. The mental pendulum produces an autonomous nervous system yes/no response within 0.5 of a second and appears to be hitting at least 80% accuracy. The line of research we're doing out here is basically to take all these leading-edge mind anomalies and tie them together in one workable package so that the human race can make a quantum leap in consciousness progress.

Simple...aint it??? -:)

Jim


>Just talked to Hal. The only EEG work they did was with Hella Hamid remote viewing a distant room that contained a strobe light. The results showed suppressed alpha when the strobe was being viewed, which returned to normal otherwise.

Hmmmm. This sounds like 1970's vintage EEG work. The times they are a-changin'. It's possible to get much more sophisticated than that now with the capabilities of modern gear.

Also, this sounds carries resonances of Honorton's "ganzfeld" work, which is related, but. . .well, kinda. . .long story.

>as far as I can tell the MEG data is NOT available, except in summary form in Jessica Utt's evaluation of the SAIC experiments,

Hmmmmmm, again. And she's got the proverbial burr up the proverbial place, n'est-ce pas? A debunker, unless I miss my guess. Plays ball in the same court with Ray Hyman who accepted at face value the CIA's back-of-the-hand-wave that there had been no value found in RV by the military. [Holy ideograms, Batman!! Who was that masked man with a silver bullet up his. . .oh never mind.]

Or am I recalling wrong. . .??? Some little tweak in my gut says maybe I am. . .but. . .OTOH. . .

And if it's not available, where'd she get it? Hmmmmmm.

-=d=-


>Hmmmm. This sounds like 1970's vintage EEG work. The times they are >a-changin'. It's possible to get much more sophisticated than that now with >the capabilities of modern gear.

Actually it IS 1970s vintage (note the publication date I provided for "Mind at Large"). But I was responding to your question as to whether Targ and Puthoff had done any of EEG stuff at SRI. It HAD to be early stuff, since Targ left SRI ca. 1983. Hal gave me the impression that nothing else was done during his reign at SRI, which ended in 1985. It was Ed May's baby from then on.

>Hmmmmmm, again. And she's got the proverbial burr up the proverbial place, >n'est-ce pas? A debunker, unless I miss my guess. Plays ball in the same >court with Ray Hyman who accepted at face value the CIA's >back-of-the-hand-wave that there had been no value found in RV by the >military. [Holy ideograms, Batman!! Who was that masked man with a silver >bullet up his. . .oh never mind.] > >Or am I recalling wrong. . .??? Some little tweak in my gut says maybe I am. >. .but. . .OTOH. . .

Uh, here. Let me wipe that egg off your face, Dave! (just a little friendly ribbing... :-) Actually, you should have listened to your intuition--your misgivings were standing you in good stead. Jessica's riding with the good guys. Her discussion in the CIA/AIR report in support of psi was far more thorough--and scientific--than was Hyman's against psi. Had the judges at AIR not been in the pay of the enemy, they would certainly have thrown the decision to Dr. Utts in favor of psi being reality, and against Dr. Hyman, who did a pretty slipshod piece of analysis based on old data and even older presumptions.

>And if it's not available, where'd she get it? Hmmmmmm.

The CIA allowed the SAIC (May's) data--to include the MEG study--to be provided in the form of finished reports to Utts and Hyman (that's right--neither of them saw the raw data). Against orders, Utts went out and got further data from Honorton's and others' work to bolster her defense. Hyman's response is such that it could have been, and probably was written without even examining the SAIC data. All the mention he makes of the SAIC experiments could easily have been gleaned from Utts' report (which he mentions frequently)--and probably were. Hyman seems to have simply based his response on "psi doesn't work, and I've said it all along." In any case, even though (some? most?--hard to tell, since many of the titles are a bit obscure) of the source documents are listed in the AIR/CIA report's bibliography, as far as I've been able to determine they are still not available in the public domain.

And the war goes on...

Paul

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


>It is very interesting and all that but is a very left-brain analysis of what is going on and subject to individual differences as well as age differences etc. etc. You really need a lab and a ton of data to be able to draw any conclusions. <

Yes, the *analysis* can be very left-brain-ish. The practice is not. Have you ever done any EEG neurofeedback? If you have, you know the only way to "achieve" any results is to give up trying to achieve any. EEG neurofeedback pioneer, Les Fehmi's aphorism is lovely: "Anything worth doing is worth doing effortlessly."

Anna Wise's work with the Mind Mirror is *anything* *but* left-brained.

And you no longer need a lab. A table top will do. Sounds like you're thinking of the old stuff.

>I agree whole heartedly with Lyn about this subject. <

Huh? he seemed to agree the thing was worth looking at. What are you responding to that he said? Lyn's *very* experienced with EEG neurofeedback work. He just said he hadn't had an opportunity to explore the business far enough. It'd take some time and a practitioner to work with you. Very hard to monitor yourself on EEG neurofeedback gear *and* do an RV session. Nay, not hard. . .impossible! <g>

>To rely on brainwave measurement as evidence of a subjective state is, in general, pretty silly from my point of view, <

That's not what I suggested. What might be possible (or maybe has already been done. . ??) is that a person could get a "snapshot" of his/her EEG situation when things are going swimmingly in the RV session. It's then possible, using various operational conditioning protocols, games, visualizations, etc. to train the brain to re-access that special, *individually tuned* frequency and amplitude profile repeatedly and reliably, and thus optimize the RV. . .only for *that* person. It's not a generalized thing at all. More along the lines of "peak performance" work with EEG neurofeedback, a set of highly adjustable protocols that have been done very successfully with athletes, golfers, writers and businesspeople.

Any research goal would be very different from this idea, though some of the data gathered here could be useful in research.

-=d=-


>OK...I'll tell you exactly what I'm trying to do here. I am manouvering myself down to the 1-2cps delta range.....with the Beta process still "ticking over" <

Hmmmm. And again: To what are you hooked up that's giving you (or a "confederate" <g>) the info that you are indeed getting those freq's?

>hypnotic commands to shift consciousness state "sideways". <

Don't understand "sideways" here. (But whatever it means, it'd probably be a good idea not to tell Jack Kevorkian about it.)

>. . .locking on to an RV target signal line to see if I can reliably induce a full-on holographic "picture" of the target.<

A- - -*HEM*!!! Warning! Warning!! Non-CRV protocol/method/etc. in its early-blooming phases here. <GG>

>The line of research we're doing out here is basically to take all these leading-edge mind anomalies and tie them together in one workable package so that the human race can make a quantum leap in consciousness progress. Simple...aint it??? -:)<

Yeah, simple like Astrophysics and psychiatric differential diagnosis rolled into one. Sure. Right.

-=d=-


Hi Dave,

> Yes, the *analysis* can be very left-brain-ish. The practice is > not. Have you ever done any EEG neurofeedback?

No, I haven't. Although I was a polysomnographer and am more familiar with the sleeping brain.

> Anna Wise's work with the Mind Mirror is *anything* *but* > left-brained.

Thanks, I have heard of her but have not read her work. Sounds like an interesting read when I get the time.

> And you no longer need a lab. A table top will do. Sounds like > you're thinking of the old stuff.

In our lab we used a 12 channel Grass (to get the analog reading) hooked up to a Sensormedics computer (for the digital). There was still controversy at the Stanford school where I trained whether the new computerized programs would filter out too much and not pick up some of the nuances the old analogs like the Grass would. But then we were also using it for a different purpose.

>It'd take some time and a practitioner to work with you. Very > hard to monitor yourself on EEG neurofeedback gear *and* do an RV > session. > Nay, not hard. . .impossible! <g> > > big snip... > Any research goal would be very different from this idea, though > some of the data gathered here could be useful in research

I may not have stated my thoughts clearly. I think any research with RV is great and much needed. In fact that part of it fascinates me and I know I would enjoy playing with my own EEG machine ; - ) I guess my thoughts were of a more practical nature in that it's easy to get hung up on the technical side and it seems like an awful lot of work to go through to learn remote viewing. Now if a person is so inclined...more power to them.

Thanks for your comments.

Vickie


> What might be possible (or maybe has already > been done. . ??) is that a person could get a "snapshot" of his/her EEG > situation when things are going swimmingly in the RV session. It's then > possible, using various operational conditioning protocols, games, > visualizations, etc. to train the brain to re-access that special, > *individually tuned* frequency and amplitude profile repeatedly and reliably, > and thus optimize the RV. . .only for *that* person.

I fully agree with this. BTW look at what happened at The Monroe Institute once again (Yes I'am a member of the club;-) It's close, from my point of view David, to what you propose...just in order to send people to *explore* various targets in the so called "There" (it's a sort of RVing exercise too...)

See : 1/ The QEEG was done 2/ on an individualized basis 3/ protocols were set up to facilitate the replication of the experience 4/ "visualization games" were found ("go now to your Energy Conversion Box, raise up its heavy lid,...") 5/ re-access to certain states of consciousness were -and are still- encouraged ("Go now to Focus 10")

And...last, but not least... They've translated (Thank you Bob!) all the stuff in simple/common/very understandable words, -as Lyn Buchanan suggested (what is very important for everybody's access to such experiences)- :) "One, one, one, You're now fully awake !...or..."Mind awake, body asleep"....or...etc."

I encourage you, heartily, David to do the same research in the RVing field (till TMI unlocks its specific-to-RV-research treasures box).

Regards, Jean-Luc.


>Uh, here. Let me wipe that egg off your face, Dave! (just a little friendly ribbing... :-) Actually, you should have listened to your intuition--your misgivings were standing you in good stead. Jessica's riding with the good guys. <

Ahaaa! Robbers in the memory banks again. Damn! And egginess is next to RV-ishness. . .isn't it?

Thanks for setting me straight, Paul. Yes, now I remember. . .a little better. I even have the articles somewhere. Too lazy to look. (Laziness is next to. . .??)

>Hyman seems to have simply based his response on "psi doesn't work, and I've said it all along." <

Sounds like you and I together could tear Ray out a new one, eh? I've seen him do some, er, highly offensive stuff. And if you've ever heard John Alexander tell Ray's *incredible* assault on the eqpt. in Cleve Backster's lab when the NSF folks had been brought over to check things out. . .well, we might be moved to more than just a "probing" action.

>. . .AIR/CIA report's bibliography, as far as I've been able to determine they are still not available in the public domain.<

Hmmmm. So, maybe Lyn, who mentioned this inthe first place, has access to or possession of just *his* results. I'll see what I can do to connect there.

Gracias, again, Paul. This could get innerestin'.

-=d=-


>it's easy to get hung up on the technical side and it seems like an awful lot of work to go through to learn remote viewing. <

Akshly, it's a piece of cake as I conceive it (lotsa blue sky and arm-waving, of course <g>) and, if it works at all, could help the RVer learn to do well much faster.

And I can;t believe I'm the first one to have thought of this. Betcha Skip Atwater's doing stuff like this and maybe much better. Or maybe somebody(s) else. Anybody got any hints?

-=d=-


>Lyn have you ever been hooked up to a Mind Mirror?

Since I started drinking blood, my mind doesn't show up in the mirror. Actually, no I haven't. The only reason being lack of access to one.

>..... Do you know Anna Wise's work? Especially the recent work with >the new software? I'm impressed. It seems to me that her four sites, >close to FP1-FP2 and O1-O2, cover enough of the waterfront to get usable >patterns and recorded data for RVing, both for research purposes and >to be potentially a help to the practitioner as they >hunt the cognitive/feeling "place" where they do the best work. And the gear >is far cheaper than a 24-channel Lexicor. And portable! We might not need >such a man to do what may be a boy's job. . .??

This sounds like a good place to plug a product. You have my interest up, at least. Got any info to share?

(snip) >Can you dig out the ref to the MEG work you and/or others did at Los Alamos? >I'd love to see it. MEG is *hot* and seeing that work might either provide >focus for a new research study with the Mind Mirror or obviate the necessity >for one.

As replied in another msg, I' don't know. That is one of those things I'm going to do "next Saturday"

>(BTW, also see my response to Jim F. re 2hz (two!!) dominance. Boy, I'd love >to look at the file of that session! (I have access to the MM eqpt. and >software.)

I hooked a subject up once and got a 2 Hz dominance, but a rabbit came along and ate it.

Lyn

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


>>I agree whole heartedly with Lyn about this subject. < > >Huh? he seemed to agree the thing was worth looking at. What are you >responding to that he said?

I think she responded to me saying that people who don't know the proper terminology shouldn't use it. This is a common circumstance where brainwave "technology" is bandied about by people who get the one-page summary of the subject and then act like experts (myself included, there - I have studied it and worked with it, and am still not anywhere near "expert" status. "Somewhat proficient", maybe, but that's all.)

>..... Lyn's *very* experienced with EEG neurofeedback >work. He just said he hadn't had an opportunity to explore the business >far enough. It'd take some time and a practitioner to work with you.

And I would like to reinforce that. Sitting at home with a computer program and two electrodes does >>>not<<< qualify someone to speak as an expert on brainwaves.

>..... Very >hard to monitor yourself on EEG neurofeedback gear *and* do an RV session. >Nay, not hard. . .impossible! <g>

Well, actually, the modern ones do record data. While you can't monitor yourself real time, you can look at the results afterwards.

>>To rely on brainwave measurement as evidence of a subjective state is, in >general, pretty silly from my point of view, <

Amen, again.

Lyn

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


>Alpha/Delta schmelta. For what it's worth, I think we can get too >hung up on the whole emphasis put on brainwave measurement criteria.

Amen.

>......How is knowing what >brainwave state you are in going to help you to remote view? Would >it make your data more accurate? I don't think so ; - )

Well, yeah, but even if spending endless hours studying and discussing brainwaves doesn't rescue any missing children, there's always the hope that sounding scientific will get girls.

Lyn

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


(big huge snip) >OK...I'll tell you exactly what I'm trying to do here. I am manouvering >myself down to the 1-2cps delta range.... (snip) >....giving myself hypnotic commands to >shift consciousness state "sideways". >I am visualising a disembodied voice >acting as a hypnotist. (snip) >.......strange anomolous experiences available in >controlled altered consciousness states. (snip) >........ once I drop down to a 2 cps delta >state then I can use hypnotic commands on myself. (snip) >..........I will experiment in locking on to an >RV target signal line to see if I can reliably induce a full-on holographic >"picture" of the target. (snip) At the end of which, Jim says: >...using "mental pendulum" techniques during the CRV training process

Excuse me, Jim ... [edited] ... If you can say all of the above then it indicates that you don't have even the slightest understanding of what CRV is. How can you purport to teach people something you don't even know the definition of? Read the literature, man! Read the web sites! At least look up the *&#$ing definition!!!

(snip) >The line of research we're doing out here is basically to take all these >leading-edge mind anomalies and tie them together in one workable package so >that the human race can make a quantum leap in consciousness progress.

I think that what you are doing is very necessary work, very cutting edge, and will probably someday produce good benefits for mankind. It looks like you are trying something scientific, and as such, it should have a name. But "CRV" is already taken. I'm not trying to detract in any way from what you are doing. But PLEASE don't try to sell it to people as "CRV". There is not a single line of your post which is in any way even remotely (no pun intended) related to CRV.

I sincerely apologize for flaming you, and will probably regret sending this as soon as I press the Send button. But there are always new people coming onto the mailing list who are interested in finding out about CRV, and are seriously looking for answers on CRV. You write well and obviously know a great deal about many of the more esoteric disciplines of mental growth mechanisms. But your post is a glaring indication that you don't actually even know what CRV IS! If that's the case, then I just think that it is necessary to make certain that the new people don't read your posts and get the mistaken impression that you actually know anything about it. If what you call "CRV" is the stuff you wrote in your post, then it's obvious to the rest of us that you don't. It must be that I'm reading the text of your message incorrectly.

Again, sorry for the flame, but this is important. What you describe is in no way, shape or form related to CRV. I'm glad to see that you are doing some very good work. Now, do your homework.

Lyn

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


END ARCHIVE 25
September 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.