firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 026
.


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-sixth archive.

Mostly EEG discussion in this archive.


September 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 26

>>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.

Aaahhh! I knew there was that certain. . .something. . .about you. That pained look in bright sunlight. . .

>>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. <

Oops! Didn't mean it to sound like that. The "Tools for Transformation" catalog has a full write-up on it. Do you get that? Anna has a new book out, *The High Performance Mind*. THe Mind Mirror can help train one to create an EEG profile for such a "mind". 'Nuff said for now. Check this stuff out. Might be useful.

-=d=-


>>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. <

Targ & Puthoff said in their article that the CIA said it was okay now for them to write and talk about the part of their research that was done under CIA auspices. That's what I meant by "muzzle off".

And thanks, Joe for the rest of the info.

BTW, it wasn't "state" as in "Alpha" or Theta" I meant to imply. Nothing so crude. Much more: What is this individual's EEG *profile*, across the usual EEG spectrum when s/hes doing well? (And maybe even adding in measures up to 40hz, since these have become quite interesting to some ENFers recently.) One can learn a lot on this from the more recent Mind Mirror eqpt and software which displays such an ongoing profile.

-=d=-


>BTW, it wasn't "state" as in "Alpha" or Theta" I meant to imply. Nothing so >crude. Much more: What is this individual's EEG *profile*, across the >usual EEG spectrum when s/hes doing well? (And maybe even adding in >measures up to 40hz, since these have become quite interesting to some ENFers >recently.) One can learn a lot on this from the more recent Mind Mirror eqpt >and software which displays such an ongoing profile.

Unfortunately, most of what we know about RV is that the "act" of information reception is probably on the order of milli-seconds if not faster. That most of what is going on is the mental processing (digesting) of what was received post hoc reception. Which I know isn't going to set very well with all those out there who think they have a handle on AOL.

So the kinds of monitoring provided by normal EEG profile or Mind Mirror (M&M) imaging is going to probably suggest a lot about the post hoc processing, but not much about the actual PSI function itself (transfer of informtion). It is going to take MEG and SQUID technology in muno-metal shielded rooms, a considerable amount of luck, and a lot of data collection and analysis (translate years)--and cost a pile of money.

I think there are some interesting things that EEG and M&M technologies can bring to the table; but identifying where or how PSI functioning might be taking place might not be one of them.

We did do a considerable amount of work with bio-feedback equipment, and trying to replicate what was subjectively sensed as being a general "frame of mind" that might have been taking place (EEG wise) during sucessful RV's, versus unsucessful. What we were sucessful in deciphering from all of it was; generally speaking, the remote viewer cannot tell when they are going to be sucessful or not; the general frame of mind is not consistent with good or bad remote viewing; but, remote viewers in general, are pretty good at replicating bio-feedback states (although that too was not valuable in deciding ahead of time who would eventually be or not be a good remote viewer).

regards,

Joe

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


>(and maybe even adding in >measures up to 40hz, since these have become quite interesting to some ENFers >recently.)

I should have also added that you are right about the 40hz, and there are even higher frequencies which seem to suggest interesting areas of study.

regards,

Joe

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


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

My consultant, Dr. Ritchey, informs me that baseline freq. for carrots is 2.00354hz, and that only rutabagas have a baseline freq. of 2.000000. He questions the veracity of your putative Mensa membership if you are incapable of distinguishing a carrot from a rutabaga.

Yr. obdt. svts.,

Dave and Dave and Dave


Ahhh....I didn't make that explanation very clear Lyn.

During my stage one training session with Paul Smith I used this mental pendulum technique to verify signal inputs I wasn't sure about. For example on the odd occasion when I wasn't sure whether the target structure featured 1 smokestack (chimney) or 4, I would simply ask "is the correct answer 4...yes or no". If the answer was yes...I simply wrote down (or verbally told Paul) that the target probably had 4 smokestacks. By using the process when I felt it was necessary, I was able to plough through each and every target Paul threw up with a passable degree of accuracy. As I mentioned...the accuracy of this mental pendulum technique appears to be 80% or better on an average. This is NOT part of the CRV training process. In fact I'm not even sure I mentioned what I was doing to Paul....but on the occasions when I used this additional information confirming technique...I recall that it steared me in the right direction.

I think it was Joe McMoneagle who pointed out that what works best for an individual...is what works best!!

It seems likely that I will add this "tool" to my methodology as it appears to work FOR ME.

Ingo would probably shudder at this.......but I guess in those days some of his unique innovations made others shudder -:)

Basically this mental pendulum process is a shorthand version of dowsing. The yes/no answers requested manifest themselves as twitches in my left and right thumb muscles. I think they call this "deviceless" dowsing. The advantage of this process is that it is extremely rapid...and nobody can see what you are doing. For example, you can stand at a roulette table in a casino and twitch away with your hands in your pockets.... 'cept if you start to get strong responses and your trousers start lurching all round the casino...people point and stare. I found that this "response twitch" can be transferred to other left/right body muscle groups, such as the toes, eyebrows and even the testicles. However I gave away the testical responses as I felt "scientific" research should not be so enjoyable.

OK buddy...I'm sitting here in my armchair with a fire extinguisher in each hand waiting for the next "flame" -:)

Cheers

Jim F.


<< >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.

>It is very interesting and all that but is a very left-brain analysis >>

We totally agree with the above. Actually, all this discussion about zeroing in on brainwave activity sounds more like a viewers hoping to find a way out of practicing! ;-)

Besides, even if you were able to zero in on the frequencies most ideal for rv, we can't see how it would help a whole lot. In our experience, "getting in contact with the target" doesn't seem to be as much the problem as is knowing how to report the data one receives. Often, the subconscious will communicate in symbolic terms, so the challenge for the viewer is to understand the symbolism. This is a very subjective process. Other times, the subconscious will communicate by using the physical body, through the use of sensories, airgrams, micromovements, etc. It is only through practice, experience, and observation that one learns to become a good remote viewer. Remote viewing is much more subtle a process than just hitting the "correct" brain frequency and outputting the desired answer. The "art" of remote viewing is truley an art.

As a second point, let us say that in our experience, viewers are much too afraid of AOLs. First off, a viewer's fear of AOLs is in itself an emotional distractor, and if not declared and set aside, will greatly hinder the session. In addition, AOLs can many times contain important information about the target. By asking themselves what the AOL means to them, viewers can often "pull out" the good info that is encoded in the analytic overlay.

Hope this helps,

Brent and Lisa


>In addition, AOLs can many times contain important information > about the target. By asking themselves what the AOL means to them, viewers > can often "pull out" the good info that is encoded in the analytic overlay.

Would you please elaborate a little on the "pulling out" of information from an AOL? At what point in your viewing is this done and how do you manage it without creating another AOL?

Thanks,

Vickie


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

You will be pleased to hear that Skip Atwater has just had an research article published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Autumn, 1997, Vol. 11, No. 3., pp 263-275, entitled Accessing Anomalous States of Consciousness with a Binaural Beat Technology. He speculates on the neuro-physiological model underlying that explains their work but does mentioned that in the mind awake/body asleep state, " a greater proportion of lower frequency brain waves (theta and delta) have been recorded in the EEG."

Kind regards

Angela Thompson


Lyn, I am surprised at you! I thought flames were not allowed on this list? I, for one, don't want to hear them. Please direct your personal flame at the person involved. Anyway, let me jump in in Jim's defense. Jim does know the definition of CRV - we took Paul Smiths's basic course together and Jim was a diligent and intelligent student. He plans to continue to learn - as we all do. Flaming a CRV student-in-progress is not a good way to encourage people to express their views and ideas on this list. Also, Jim is not teaching CRV (he can't do that until he has advanced and passed Paul's Teacher Training course) What he is doing is bringing qualified teachers out to Australia to teach CRV and other techniques. I believe he invited you at one time, Lyn? Anyway, I thought PJ had amended the rules to include other than CRV points of views and ideas?

Kind regards

Angela Thompson


<< Would you please elaborate a little on the "pulling out" of information from an AOL? At what point in your viewing is this done and how do you manage it without creating another AOL? >>

As we said before, we believe that viewers should not be so afraid of AOLs, as many times they contain useful information about the target. The method for "breaking out" this info is contained in Phase 5 of the CRV method. We will try to explain the basic method without going into all of the specifics of Phase 5.

We generally use this method when a viewer continually gets hung up on the same AOL. What we ask the viewer to do is to write down what the AOL "means to them". Another way to say this is "Describe what seems to be the important aspect(s) of the AOL." In this way, the viewer gets off the idea that the target is the AOL (identifying), and gets into how the AOL is like the target (describing).

As an example, lets say that the target in question is a red fire truck. The viewer continually comes up with an AOL of "apple", which he/she can't seem to get out of their head. The monitor can ask the viewer to describe what "apple" means to them, or "what stands out about the apple". The viewer might come back with responses such as "red" or "shiny". These are both observations that apply to the fire truck that were obtained by examining the viewer's AOL. Now, you may ask, "what if the viewer comes back with additional perceptions that don't apply, such as "edible" "? The answer to this is that this is o.k. at this stage, for the viewer will later have a chance to come back and review his/her perceptions before writing up a summary of perceptions. At this point, the viewer will have much deeper site contact and will most likely choose to throw out the perceptions that do not apply.

Remote viewing is sometimes like playing charades with your subconscious mind. You ask it to tell you about the target, and it reaches into it's bag and pulls out the first thing that has any relationship to the target. With regard to the fire truck example, the subconscious is saying to the viewer "See, it's red and shiny, like an apple". If the viewer says to his/herself, "Oh great, I'm getting an apple", and then tries to ignore it, they will most likely get stuck in their session. This Phase 5 exercise is one way to deal with the problem.

Now, it is true that there are some AOLs that are just AOLs. They usually come when the viewer gets one or more perceptions and then tries to put 2 and 2 together and comes up with a "guess" as to what the target is. In CRV, we call this "castle building", because the viewer takes a couple of legitimate perceptions (hard,grey,solid) and says hey! this is what it must be! (it must be a castle!)

To sum it up, (too late for that, I'm afraid!) the basic idea is to get the viewer to describe rather that to identify. As far as the fear of creating more AOLs, we have found that this method actually trains the viewer to do just the opposite, as it puts them in the mode of describing, rather than, that's right, you guessed it--identifying.

We hope that we explained this in an understandable way.

Take Care,

Lisa and Brent


><< Would you please elaborate a little on the "pulling out" of > information from an AOL? At what point in your viewing is this done > and how do you manage it without creating another AOL? > >>

Hi All;

My experience is just a little different then the other answer you got. First I do not recall being taught this as part of the formal RV training, but than as Tom pointed out, I have Irish Alsheimers. At times, when Skip Atwater was monitoring me,Skip stopped me after an AOL in stage 4; had me write the word I had called AOL; place my pen on the paper imediately under the word and start writing. A whole string of information came, which proved to be correct. For example; if the target was Masada 70 AD, and my AOL was the Alamo (Thats for Paul, who is now a texan). I wrote Alamo, and imediately below information such as surrounded, cut off, hopeless, dedicated, fanatic, blood, death, invasion, etc would come in. The information was correct only the AOL was misinterperted. I have trained family members and have had the same results with them. I always make it the monitors call when to do this, except when working alone. As I said I do not recall this being a part of the formal training. I expect Skip did it to Lyn also, and Lyn incorporated into his CRV training.

I was reluctent to write this as a little knowledge may be harmful. If you start looking for patterns or meanings in your AOL during the session, you run the risk of creating more AOL and so on.My advice is if you are not an experienced RVer, particularly working alone, treat AOL as you were taught. When you review your sessions look for patterns in your AOL. It may be a help in interperting your data.

In the end whatever works for you works for you (profound). In the beginning IMHO you are best served by sticking religiously to structure. (I just had the feeling Ingo was looking over my shoulder.)

Lyn glad to see you finally got on line. I knew those computer classes I gave you would come in handy someday.

Best Wishes

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


Hello Brent & Lisa:

>Other times, the subconscious will communicate by using the >physical body, through the use of sensories, airgrams, >micromovements, etc.

Do you happen to have a full list of means by which the subconscous can communicate by using our physical bodies? I am familiar with micromovements but wonder if they fall into a number of categories? I know nothing about airgrams at all. I've tried map dowsing on some of Lyn's targets but in spite of instructions to psyche, I've so far not picked up any tactile sensations (prick, tingle, stickiness, roughness) that would pinpoint the target site.

Maybe you could explain (a) what are the common impediments to subsconscious-physical body communications and along with it, (b) what exercises can be done to try to enhance it (eg - repetitive suggestion?). I suspect my beer-drinking, fun-loving psyche may just be being lazy. If that's the case, just what can be done to train or encourage one's psyche to tackle these things? Is there such a thing or concept as a 'psyche-reward' (other than a cool case of 24) that would really spur the subconscious onwards to doing great RV?

Thanks,

William


>>..... 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.<<

I meant "monitor", not record. Of courssem the recrding part is imnportant too. A monitor can change thresholds for training bands and inhibit bands on the fly in EEG neurofeedback eqpt, and it may be important to have somebody else do exaclty that to see what works to find that *individual* profile that is the one to replicate the next time you try a CRV session.

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

I say amen to that statement as worded. It is, however, another misunderstanding, even the *reverse*, of what I said, and I've already corrected that in another email.

-=d=-


>>We totally agree with the above. Actually, all this discussion about zeroing in on brainwave activity sounds more like a viewers hoping to find a way out of practicing! ;-)<<

I have no idea how you got that idea from my posts and suggestions about trhe possible use of EEG gear, especially the Mind Mirror, as a tool. I've already been on correcting other misapprehensions related to this one. What I was suggesting was an *aid* to this practice that might potentiate it.

Mercy, there seems to be passel of Luddite fervor about EEG gear use among participants here! I feel sometimes as if I were catching a big ration of flak for suggesting to baseball coaches that the use of a radar speed gun to clock a pitcher's fast ball was useful. And they all pooh-poohed the idea as if it were in some way a device to corrupt the pitcher's workout or cause him to slack off or swallow his chewing tobacco or something. Goodness!! One guess I have is that very few of you have any contact at all with the past 20 years of development in EEG neurofeedback [ENF], and are knee-jerking at the wrong thing entirely. (PJ: I read your post in which you question the relevance of this EEG discussion. I respectfully request a determination here as to the relevenace of what *I'm* saying in this and the other posts I've put up here about how ENF might be useful to CRVers. I truly believe it to be a potentially useful tool, and I'm quite sure I'm not alone in that view. After all, why did the military unit deem it important enough to get MEG scans [a *much* more powerful analytical tool of brain activity!] done on their RVers? Not to mention that apparently the results of these scans are still classified despite the CIA's claim that RV is of little or no value as an intelligence gathering tool. . .hmmmmmmmmm.] Seems to me this list has explored without objection subject matter considerably more obscure and even more tangentially related to the practice of CRV. Eh?])

>Besides, even if you were able to zero in on the frequencies most ideal for rv, we can't see how it would help a whole lot. In our experience, "getting in contact with the target" doesn't seem to be as much the problem as is knowing how to report the data one receives. <

Again, I didn't mean to imply anything about which *specific* aspect of the process might be aided. . .Maybe all of them, maybe only one or two. That's why one would need to do the research (which research may already be in the works as we write, despite your declaration that EEG is of no importance). Nor did I say, "zero in on the frequencies". I said "profile". This is quite a different matter, but if you don't know that important distinction, and this topic is to be declared off limits, I'm sure as hell not gonna go into it now.

>Remote viewing is much more subtle a process than just hitting the "correct" brain frequency and outputting the desired answer. The "art" of remote viewing is truley an art. <

This sentence further confirms that you have little or no familiarity with ENF, most especially that it, too, is largely an "art", and once again you misread and misinterpret what I said. I was at some pains to point out there's no "correct" brain frequency. That's obvious nonsense, and I'm rather annoyed that you'd set up a straw man of that sort in light of what I wrote. Please re-read it, and do me the courtesy of replying to *my* statements, and not to constructs in your heads about what you think I meant, or to the comments of others who also misread and are misinformed or uninformed about what I wrote.

-=d=-


Liam and Others,

One of the unique aspects of our minds is the ability to create and remember by association. This associative ability is an important aspect of all PSI work and many of us old styles readers spend a great deal of time obtaining information in an associative manner and then trying to define the reality that is surrounding it. One key I use often is to fit the AOL association into a context and then look at the associative characteristics, much as Liam has described. There is a feeling of correctness which you can learn to recognize as well. The beauty of the RV protocol is that it provides a great structure to keep guys like me on track. Although I find that I tend to run information mostly on a free form basis, the structure keeps it in an order that forces me to not jump to conclusions. Now, if I could only learn to draw well enough or even lean to play music. Well, maybe not.

Rob


>Unfortunately, most of what we know about RV is that the "act" of information reception is probably on the order of milli-seconds if not faster. <

So, someone already made a QEEG or other study of the profile in a particular RVer that *precedes* and facilitates the rapid repetition of those milli-second "acts" of information reception. Yes? And found that there was no correlation anywhere?

I'd really wonder at that. Like: If you have an RVer showing 45ucv of Beta from 22 - 30hz at *any* head site (usually a sign of uncomfortable and significantly distracting anxiety), is that person just as likely to do well in an RV session as someone not showing that picture?

Or someone with 20ucv of Delta dominant in the forebrain during an RV session?

These are crude and extreme conditions, yes. However ENF practitioners run into them frequently in various clients, some of whom report accompanying problems which seem to fit with these extremes, and some of whom don't.

(And please, all of you arguing that I'm talking "just" about finding "correct" brain frquencies, don't take my mention of specifics here as evidence for your case. I'm citing *extremes*!! Only!! To make an entirely different point than is raised in the questions I've asked elsewhere!)

>(although that too was not valuable in deciding ahead of time who would eventually be or not be a good remote viewer).<

Right, I'd guess not. I wasn't suggesting that.

>I think there are some interesting things that EEG and M&M technologies can bring to the table; but identifying where or how PSI functioning might be taking place might not be one of them.<

Then what *is* Skip Atwater's research paper about. Angela quoted the title in a prior email. Sounded like it's right on the topic I'm discussing here.

-=d=-


>trying to replicate what was subjectively sensed as being a general "frame of mind" that might have been taking place (EEG wise) during sucessful RV's, versus unsucessful. What we were sucessful in deciphering from all of it was; generally speaking, the remote viewer cannot tell when they are going to be sucessful or not;

Quite right. I wasn't suggesting the RVer would even know, initially, what profile worked better as a precursor for him/her, even if it was, let's say, quite obvious to any monitor, and could be set into an ENF routine and fed back to him/her in, say, up to ten or more game-type sessions to train him to "create" (or "re-access" or. . .[your choice]) that profile. In that training, the RVer may very well come across subtle, proprioceptive events that tell him/her when she's "in the Zone." After that, s/he may not need the ENF gizmo as an assist. And some RVers may always need to be hooked up to the ENF during an RV session. Teasing that kind of thing out would be part of the research study.

This last scenario happens all the time with ENF training of all kinds. Happened to me.

-=d=-


It sound to me very clear what -=d=- stated since the beginning, and it is, to my understanding, important. I agree completely that ENF can be of valuable help. I think that many of us stay at this website because its possibility and openness to answer to our questions AND because its PROYECTIONS. This, if I am correct, is a website that has shown its capacity to be a tool not only for merely practicing and informating but to UNFOLD further possibilities of RVing.

And the latest will be the work done by the collaboration of " all of us." Regardless if you are a master RVer or not. Knowledge comes from all sides.

It would be painful to see all the work done through this website dissolve in nothing because we do not join forces to find answers. I agree there is too much literature to read,but I know that solutions can be found in the way so that the possibilities above mentioned keep on working and developing.

We all make mistakes,and some times due to strong temporary personal problems/stress we might get of the road. We can understand,and we have,but for the good sake of this place ,we can not justify mistakes that endanger the confidence already built, of the people to ask questions or to (through their proficiency/speciality) expand answers related to rving.

Power and need of control do not have demostrated to lead to knowledge

Sorry for having expand myself so much but before I throw the towel and decide to leave this website I thought to give it a try again.

Thxs Txu


>I should have also added that you are right about the 40hz, and there are >even higher frequencies which seem to suggest interesting areas of study. >

I am aware of one individual involved with the Monroe Institute who has a brain-wave pattern predominantly in the Gamma range......which as I understand it is up toward 500cps. As I understand it he has no trouble dropping down to the lower multiple frequency states as induced by the Hemisync process. The human brain seems infinitely flexible...like an intergalactic airbag -:)

Jim


-=d=- ,

Didn't mean to totally trash what you were saying. In fact, we are interested in any new research that can aid the rv process. We just didn't want people to get the idea that you could just hook yourself up and start to rv. Again, we apologize if there was any misinterpretation of your posts.

Brent and Lisa


>If the answer was yes...I simply wrote down (or verbally told Paul) that the >target probably had 4 smokestacks.

I understand now. Sorry for the flame. I have the question, though, about whether or not going "left-brain" to ask the question might be a deterrent to getting good information. I think that the answer to that must be.... (see next)

>By using the process when I felt it was necessary, I was able to plough >through each and every target Paul threw up with a passable degree of accuracy. >As I mentioned...the accuracy of this mental pendulum technique appears to >be 80% or better on an average.

....must be found on the bottom line - the results. If it works there, it works.

>This is NOT part of the CRV training process.

Thanks for making that clear. There is so much confusion out there, we need to prevent it wherever possible.

>In fact I'm not even sure I mentioned what I was doing to Paul....but on the >occasions when I used this additional information confirming technique...I >recall that it steared me in the right direction.

Again, the bottom line...

>I think it was Joe McMoneagle who pointed out that what works best for an >individual...is what works best!!

That's true. Everyone tends to learn the "proper" way to do CRV, then adds their own individual style to it. That is one of the things which has fascinated me so much about it: how it can be so rigid, but so individualized, and how a viewer has such well-defined protocols to contend with and still has the freedom of the universe to play with.

>It seems likely that I will add this "tool" to my methodology as it appears >to work FOR ME.

That's again, the bottom line.

>Basically this mental pendulum process is a shorthand version of dowsing. >The yes/no answers requested manifest themselves as twitches in my left and >right thumb muscles. I think they call this "deviceless" dowsing.

The same works with ideograms for "red", "black", etc. You don't need a pen to do an ideogram.

>OK buddy...I'm sitting here in my armchair with a fire extinguisher in each >hand waiting for the next "flame"

Once again, sorry for the flame. I've become very concerned over this period of time, by the things which are being passed off to people as CRV, RV, _RV, etc., by an "Association of Remote Viewers" which isn't an association at all, but a private company, and you can only belong if you go to them for training, etc. I've become too much of a mother hen about it.

Lyn

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


I will reiterate what I said earlier. The "speed" at which the information probably arrives and the background pattern of EEG is so diverse, it is probably going to make any general or specific EEG study useless at this point in time. That is, unless there are significant jumps in technology. Aside from the MEG, or MEG in combination with other technologies, I don't believe any other form of electronic measurement currently in use, shows anything more than overall brain power ranging or patterned backgrounds within what is essentially the upper dermal layer of the brain case. These certainly have their advantages for replicating many general or specific conditions of mental or functional value but historically speaking, they have been useless (at least from the research I've seen to date) with regard to capturing general or specific conditions related to RV. To include--and I emphasize--replication RV or improving it.

As PJ said, I think there has been enough said with regard to brain waves and RV. There is twenty-five years of literature out there, which essentially says "it's all still up in the air." Unless, you can produce some dramatic research that's new in this arena (that is aside from just interesting or a unique hypothesis that might be fun to chase down), then we are (as PJ puts it) wasting everyone's time, as most people don't care.

As regards the question or current point of argument, which you guys seem to want to pursue. The range is somewhat higher than 500cps, which is actually kind of slow. I believe the article was posted in the "Scientific American," and is about two years old. Again, nice to hypothesize about, but useless to a discussion about RV.

Although I can understand your personal interest in such, David; as well as your's, Jim.

Our MEG data is not classified by the way. We have been crunching the numbers from the data we collected for the past couple of years. (As you can imagine, we collected an enormous amount of data). The results are interesting to say the least. However, since it was a pilot study, we will probably want to do a few more (studies) and check our data, before anything is seriously published for critical peer review or comment. Hope you guys are young enough to wait for us slow and foot dragging scientist types.

One of the problems we most encountered was the technology for evaluating what we did collect. It has only been recently that sufficient computer power has become available to evaluate the data on a desk top in the lab. Prior to this, your computer power requirements required leasing some very expensive machines to do the number crunching. I'm sure you can appreciate this. If you know of anyone who would be willing to donate $25K worth of computer equipment to support our work, we would certainly like to speak with them.

Regards, Joe

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


<< The one thing that trained Viewers know that for reasons beyond me, nobody thinks to SAY to explain this to the public, is that the reason CRV doesn't require a certain brainwave state is because -- excuse me for shouting -- THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF CRV IS ITSELF AN INDUCTION TO TARGET CONTACT. >>

Well said P.J.!! However, readers of this post should not misunderstand what you are saying. The structure of CRV is indeed a method that is designed to induce target contact, but not by bringing the viewer into any sort of altered state. Rather, the CRV protocols were designed to distract the logical conscious mind by giving it something to do ( i.e. making sure that the viewer is in structure) so that the subconscious mind is free to communicate. Perhaps "free to communicate" is a bit strong. In reality, it is really more of a dance between the conscious and subconscious, where the CRV structure distracts the conscious mind just long enough for the subconscius to get a piece of information through.

The main point that P.J. was trying to communicate is that CRV is done in a waking state and that it is really a matter of the structure being a peacemaker between your conscious and subconscious minds so that they may work together doing the task that each is best at.

Lisa and Brent


Hi Buchanan

Your info is clear and direct, thank you.

How can we access to more info about MEG tests?

About RV clear and awake:

Some individuals have maintain since childhood this psy ability in their normal everyday functioning.It should be like this. A "balance" activity between both hemispheres.

It can be regain.

In fact all artist (real ones) work this way.That is what makes the difference between a potrait and a photograph. Diving into the models inner core nature,beyond any external characteristic, "knowing it" like itself knows it .

As for my experience (similar to Ingo) everyone in the training will regain the point where (after a while /depends on each one) they will RV with out any cooling down.It becomes natural,because it is so. You just Flow.

We artist have been doing it for thousand of years,children do it. Don't feel is complicated, it is not.

thxs Txu


END ARCHIVE 26
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.