firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 027
.


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-seventh archive.


October 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 27

I think that Pursglove's message (another entry in this thread) needs to be noted here. When people say "theta", most of them mean "sleepy" or "zoned" or something like that. When they say "alpha", they mean "the waking state". The actual fact is that people are in all these "states" at all times, since the brainwaves are always there for all frequencies. The dominant brainwave is what is measured by the EEGs. People want to sound scientific, so they use these scientific terms, when in reality, they aren't being scientific at all. It is a lot better to simply be honest: that is, to say something like "sleepy" or "wide awake". They are non-scientific terms, so they don't sell as well to the people in the grandstands, but I can't help but believe that in the long run, the people in the grandstands would rather have the honesty, anyway. There is a scientific side to all this ?RV stuff, and that side is being very adequately handled by the scientists. As for the popular and applications side, I much more prefer to be honest with people than to sell them something by using pseudo-scientific terms. Let's call "sleepy" and "wide awake" what they are: layman's terms. People have been sold the sizzle for too many years now. Now it's time to give them the steak.

So, why don't we just say that CRV is done sitting up and wide awake, while ERV, QRV, XRV, ZedRV, etc. are done in varying states of being more or less zoned out. Let's just tell it like it is.

I'm still rather vague (as I guess a number of people on this list are)as to what happens to the viewers brainwaves when they "cool down". Maybe you're the right guy to set this to rest once and for all.

Nothing on this list is ever set to rest once and for all, I'm sure, but I have done quite a lot of brainwave monitoring during CRV sessions... mainly my own. Here's what I tend to find: As for the "cool down", I work best without one, so haven't measured that aspect. This process repeats for the duration of the session. As for first getting into the session and "on target", I have yet to find a pattern to it at all. However, 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. I was a participant in the MEG (magnetoelectroencephalograph) studies done on the military CRVers, done at Los Alamos. Unlike the regular EEG, which takes an "overall average" picture of the brainwave activity, the MEG can be taken down to monitor the electrical synaptic activity across individual cells. The MEG study was a very revealing one. I don't know where copies can be found, but it is well worth reading, if you are into this kind of thing.

Lyn

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


PJ I think that the issue of brain frequencies when RVing has more to do with: a-understanding ourselves during the Rving process . b-finding the logic of the process c-advance in permanent development (new findings /RVing) It is true that for everybody is different the approach towards induction process It is also true that beyond the apparent differences underlies basic general characteristics of the process. Rving has its laws,structures. Which made it accesible to be scientific validated . Not all the brains/physiology are exactly the same in their functioning but there are similarities that create the pattern . Brain frequencies and authonomic nervous system are intrinsecally related. Yes, some people might need go dancing disco or runn for a while( joe quotation).The answer is that the inmediate response to a sympathetic function(acceleration) is the counterpart: parasympathetic function (which we use when relax or asleep). Dancing gives a brake through to activate the parasympathetic and relaxation.Its a fast , easy access to a sudden (created)alter state. I think -=d=- (good ideogram!) knowledge and interest in taking or accessing to different EEG in diffeent stages of RVing is something to be backed and supported. Any and all info is valuable,the more we know the more solid the process will be and the more we will keep on emerging/evolving. Regards Txu


How can we access to more info about MEG tests?

I don't know. Locating the files and requesting copies have been in the back of my mind for a long time, but always gets put off for other things. If you find it somewhere, please let me know.

About RV clear and awake:

There's actually nothing to find out. CRV is done, like Jim said, sitting up and in the wide awake state.

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.

Sure, but I would advise against trying to define CRV in terms of some other discipline or belief system. It just doesn't work. Until you have learned CRV, you don't know what it really is, and all attempts to explain what it is to others just makes you look foolish and like an "armchair expert". CRV is not hymispherical sychronization. It would be nice if it were that easy, but it just isn't.

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.

Please don't take this as a flame, but I seriously doubt that your experience was similar to Ingo's, and that you are so accomplished in CRV as to be making a judgement about all CRVers (real or plastic), or that you are qualified to make rules with which we can judge all CRVers. The actual, documented fact is that CRVers are individuals, each with his/her own rituals, methods, habits, etc. I don't cool down because I have kept and analyzed the data and found that, for me, a cool-down tends to lower the final score. A cool-down makes me feel better, usually makes me feel that I did a really "wow" session, and also makes me end up with a lower score. Therefore, as much as I like a cool-down, I don't use it. If you are making the rule that REAL viewers don't need the cool-down, I'd like to see your data. Anything other than that is just "armchair expert" philosophy - which is basically worth what it costs.

Reading back over this, I see that it looks like a flame at you. I don't mean it to be, but I do think that it's important to get good and valid information to the readers of this list. [edited] People are different. For you to say that anyone who is really accomplished at CRV (like YOU and Ingo) doesn't need a cool-down period is just foolish and misleading. Paul Smith, a VERY experienced and proficient viewer, wouldn't do a session without a cool-down period. Joe McMoneagle uses the cool-down period. To insinuate that that makes them somewhat less quality of viewers than YOU and Ingo is sort of - actually is very - pompous and demeaning. I would like to ask you to reconsider your statement. It just isn't true. Over 20 years of practice, databasing, and learning in real world situations have proven that. It may not hold up to the armchair philosophist test, but in real life, that's the way it is.

Like I say, this is not a flame at you. I just don't want people believing that they have to do things your way, or according to anyone's singly-defined philosophy, and if they don't they will somehow fail to be a REAL viewer. It is an important point, and I just wanted to make it.

Lyn

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


Liam, Brent & Lisa,

Thanks for the two wonderful examples in your two recent posts. For whats its worth, here's feedback from a "viewbie".

Brent & Lisa : "remote viewing is sometimes like playing charades with your subconscious mind" What a perfect, beautiful metaphor! So in a sense CRV is learning protocols, tools, and techniques in order to become more efficient at understanding & decoding the "gestalt" or whole target that has been brought forth into our subconscious, clue by clue, into our conscious.

Liam: the "Masada/Alamo" example was great. It definitely worked for me in explaining AOL in greater understanding.

Thanks to BOTH!

Blessings from a "viewbie",(or is that "cluelessbie")

Vic


Hiya all I got a question about target cues. There has seem to be a lot of talk about bad cues for targets for different rv groups, such as Psi tech and Farsight. My question is this, I understand that you can not give the same number to more than one target without possibly getting some overlay,but can a target have more than one cue. Example: I give a friend a target that I got out of a magazine with a particular cue and some one else down the street gives some one else the same target with a different cue than mine. The point I getting at is that with all this talk about bad practice targets( targets with bad cues or tasker overlay), can't we just assign our own cues to the targets and work from there.

Thanks in advance

John


Actually it isn't even necessary to assign a "cue." The time and date you are requiring it to be targeted is sufficient; e.g., "Tell me something about the target picture which I will give to you at 11:00 hours on the 22nd of May, 1997." The date and time of feedback then becomes the "cue." If that's too precise for you; then "between the hours of 11:00 and 12:00."

What is not appropriate would be something like a target cue of:

"Tell me something about the Comet I don't know at 09:00 hrs on the 22nd of May, 1997."

Since, what usually drives the RV is intent...worrying so much about cuing is not usually a problem. Although it is a good excuse for simply missing the target or appearing to have reported on some other target, etc.

Just study what went wrong and move on. Remember, you can learn as much from a failure as you can from a sucess.

regards,

Joe

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


<< My question is this, I understand that you can not give the same number to more than one target without possibly getting some overlay,but can a target have more than one cue.

John,

Your question shows a good deal of insight. The answer to this question, in our experience with CRV, is yes. As a matter of fact, this is exactly how we go about targeting different viewers on the same target. For example, when we do work on a missing person case, the procedure that is employed is to task each viewer with a different question. One viewer might be tasked with the location of the missing person, while another might be tasked with that person's physical state of being (alive or deceased). Still others might be tasked with the description of the perpetrator, where he/she lives, etc.

The point of all this is to break up the tasking in order to avoid the overlay of other viewers, by assigning each viewer a slightly different tasking.

Brent and Lisa


>about targeting different viewers on the same target. For example, when we do work on a missing person case, the procedure that is employed is to task each viewer with a different question. One viewer might be tasked with the location of the missing person, while another might be tasked with that person's physical state of being (alive or deceased). Still others might be tasked with the description of the perpetrator, where he/she lives, etc.

We will all assume that cuing in this example is blind to the viewer and you aren't actually asking the viewers these questions directly. Right? Otherwise it is called front-loading and not cuing.

Sorry, I just had to ask, as it can be assumed either way. If you are keeping the viewers blind, then this would be a preferred way of tasking as you are assuming each viewer will be as accurate as the last--which is a good practice. It also does not prevent any veiwer from drifting into another viewers response area.

regards,

Joe

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


Gene!

Since you just got back from your sojourns and have two weeks of email to catch up on, you aren't yet aware of all the hassling we've done about sticking to remote viewing (and being rather glad for the passing of such topics as Reagan's presidency if you ask me).

I should have temporarily unsubscribed you and saved you the heartache of all that in your email box (and of us two weeks later trying to figure out where your comments come from). Glad to have you back. Hey! I'm going to hold you to your earlier posted comment about being better behaved. Lyn was trying to fill in for your Grand Curmudgeonness while you were gone. Honestly, you guys need a leash. (Well now, that would be interesting. If either of you have the time, I have the leash...)

Palyne (the LeashMistress)


Since brainwaves seem to be the topic of the day, has anyone experimented with a program called CoolEdit96 available as free demo shareware at http://www.syntrillium.com/cool.htm

Choose Save... & Echo... on setup. Select: Generate/Noise/48000, sterio, 16 bit, Ok.Generate pink noise. Select: Transform/special/brainwave synchronizer.Set up frequencies and amplitude ramp. Ok. Record. Play or Loop (options).

The program has a brainwave synchronizer which overlays brainwave frequencies on pink noise or anything else you desire.

You can select various sterio brainwave frequencies from .01 to 30Hz, low delta to high beta, which can be ramped at selected intensity levels.

This seems similar to Monroe Institute's Hemi-Sync.

I would be interested in those familior with the effect of these frequencies on brainwave states to try the program and give preferred setups so we can try it ourselves and discuss the effects.

Charles C


a program called CoolEdit96 available a<

I think I can tell from your description that this software does entrainment of some kind, either audio or visual (flashing) or both. If yes, it's to be avoided by anyone who has the slightest tendency toward seizure activity. That warning is probably included on the site, but just in case. . .

Also, entrainment is so very different in principle from feedback that the results one gets, the goals one has, are so different from one another. . .well, I just don't have time to go into it now. Suffice it to say that in prior posts here I was not talking about entrainment at all. I have many suspicions about it; with any kind of extended use, it can have negative consequences even for folks who have no seizure history...'Nuff said.

-=d=-


Cool Edit is a audio editor. It has a "hemi-sync" like feature called Brain Scan that allows you to generate complex audio "hemi-sync" wave forms at any frequency up to 30Hz over pink noise or any other sound you choose. It seems perfect for "viewer" experimentation in this area.

There is the following warning for seizures in the help file.

DISCLAIMER By using this program, you agree that Syntrillium Software Corporation and the author of the program will not be responsible for any damage as a result, direct or indirect, of using this program.

WARNING Sounds generated by the wave function are not suitable for epileptics or persons undergoing psychiatric treatment since it does alter ones state of consciousness.

I don't think this is an entertainment package. The program is full featured and aimed at professional audiofiles. Brain Scan is just one of its many features.

Why don't you try it first before giving a negative opinion?

Charles C


WARNING Sounds generated by the wave function are not suitable for epileptics or persons undergoing psychiatric treatment since it does alter ones state of consciousness. I don't think this is an entertainment package. The program is full featured and aimed at professional audiofiles. Brain Scan is just one of its many features.<

They'd only put that warning on it if it *is* an entrainment device. And what you described about audio signals coming at you from the computer is entrainment.

-=d=-


What is "entrainment?"

Lori


Charles--

At 01:41 PM 9/20/97 -5.00, you wrote: I don't think this is an entertainment package. The program is full featured and aimed at professional audiofiles. Brain Scan is just one of its many features.

Don't mean to be pickey, but Hemi-sync DOES involve entrainment; it just using binaural beats rather than some other technology to effect the entrainment. If the signal is "Hemi-sync like," there's a good bet that it is some sort of entrainment technique. The fact that the warnings were included is also a good indicator. Of course, there's probably nothing wrong with giving it a try, as long as you don't have some sort of condition that might cause problems.

Paul

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


I was not talking about entrainment at all. I have many suspicions about it; with any kind of extended use, it can have negative consequences even for folks who have no seizure history...'Nuff said.

Anyone have any experience with an entrainment product called Mindware???? If so is it useful? I have noticed that I get a feeling of pressure in my chest when I use it so i stopped....

~Sarah


Charles C wrote: Since brainwaves seem to be the topic of the day, has anyone experimented with a program called CoolEdit96 available as free demo shareware at http://www.syntrillium.com/cool.htm

Yes, I have and it is very good even as a two function Demo. Choose Save... & Echo... on setup. Select: Generate/Noise/48000, sterio, 16 bit, Try Save and Amplify, you can play with embedding Beta waves over or under Theta or Delta. Save or copy at this point and you can construct some real cool noise mixes( pink over white with just a touch of brown) or Loop (options). The loop option will last much longer if you are using a 10 sec plus snip The program has a brainwave synchronizer which overlays brainwave frequencies You can select various sterio brainwave frequencies from .01 to 30Hz, low delta to high beta, which can be ramped at selected intensity levels. This seems similar to Monroe Institute's Hemi-Sync.

Try putting 100htz on one side (left or right) and 115htz o the other. This will give you a binural(spelling?) beat at 7.5htz. Then overlay a relative Beta to the beat at 107htz, like 120htz(mind awake). Overlay you noise and sit back and REEELLLAAAAXXXX!! You can get some good signal line contact with this at cool down if you like to, or listen while in session.

I've been useing this for a long time. Also you might still get a Writewave Program from The monroe Inst. page. for cleaner signal.

would be interested in those familior with the effect of these frequencies on brainwave states to try the program and give preferred setups so we can try it ourselves and discuss the effects. Charles C

I have found that if I center my concentration on the beats, I can busy my C so my SC can talk more clearly. There's my cent and a half ;)

PaulF


Since brainwaves seem to be the topic of the day,

I do not know an Alpha state from a Zulu state, however I did have an interesting experience. At the project we had a device for measuring body polarity (I think the technical name for it was a Gizmo). Skip Atwater had Paul Smith, myself and several others practice reversing ourbody polarity. Going from a plus five to a minus five or whatever. I got pretty good at it and could do it in about 10 seconds. Years later I was taking a polygraph (lie detector) exam. By the way I passed my polygraph exam. No I didn't. Yes I did. Never mind it is not important. On the third day, after about 12 tests, the examineer was sure he had discovered "the mole" and had visons of receiving an impact Legion of Merit Medal. I, on the other hand, was sure I had discovered a chowderhead and had visons of wrapping my hands around his skinny neck and choking him until his beady eyes bugged..... never mind. I decided to have some fun, and maybe, if I was lucky, drive the examiner insane. Next question he asked I reversed my body polarity. He jumped up and demanded to know what I was doing. Telling the truth I replied. After several more reversals he went out and got somebody to come in and check out his machine. It is through these small victories over the system that we maintain our sanity. I hope this demonstrates the practical application of science and how RV can be beneficial in everyday life.

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


I hope these demonstrates the practical application of science and how RV can be beneficial in everyday life.

Thank you! This is one of the funniest things I've read all week...all month...all year....never mind. And I receive plenty of funny -- both haha and strange -- email.

Still ROFL (Rolling on the Floor Laughing).

P.S. What were you ingesting when you wrote this? Or just prior to writing it? Can I have some?

Skye


Heck, Skye--Liam's ALWAYS like that. He's only serious when he IS on something!

Paul

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


Care to share the technique for doing this Liam. It is of particular interest to me in our research on PK/luck cycles.

Jim F


Wow!!! I have to learn how to do that!! that would be a blast and a half!!!!!!! Anywhere I can find info on it??

Sarah


I was one of Skip Atwater's guinea pigs for the reversed polarity test and like Liam I got pretty good at it for reasons I still don't know... drop down in the body asleep/mind awake thing and bingo +5 to - 5 from left side to right side in about ten seconds... Skip went so far as to record one of my sessions because I tended to do it so quickly... Like Liam, I gave it a go on one of my recent polygraphs and unlike Liam's experience... I was being tested on one of the new computerized "Axion" models... I didn't cause the thing to show strange results... I blew out a circuit... and were they pissed... I still deny it was me and since they don't know any different they tend to think it was an "anomaly" but told me to cut out the BS when they brought in a new machine... oh yeh... BTW way Liam... I did pass my test believe it or not... I guess it is simply one more indictment on the veracity of the polygraph. Ha Ha.... Regards... Gene

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


Joe,

Concerning *stats*

A/in the military RV practice field.

Has the mili RV unit ever evaluated and noticed *statistical differences* in RV success by using 1/ the very strict CRV protocols compared to other types of RV methods 2/ like ERVing 3/ or personnal methods ?.

A/in the civilian RV practice field. Are there, at your opinion, stats published/availlable on that subject in the civilian RV practice field ?

Thanks,

Regards Jean-Luc


There have been comparisons done between most of the methods of Remote Viewing at CSL over the years. Certainly CRV formats have been studied.

When compared to any other method of RV, there are no differences in stats. or expected accuracies, etc. In fact, to be honest, they were lower.

Now, before everybody jumps out of their skin, I should add--the reason they were lower in some cases is because the same care taken to "select" people with more of a Pyschic bent, prior to their exposure to a "method" of RV, was NOT made with regard to CRV, versus any other method of RV.

This is because of the myth that CRV expertise can be trained into someone who didn't have a natural ability or talent level that was measurable to begin with. But, understand, that since most people do have a reasonable level of talent to begin with, the differences were not sufficient to drop the stats very much.

Whichever method one chooses, it appears the desire to learn and willingness to spend a great deal of time and effort in doing so is what usually makes the difference. That when coupled with natural talent will usually produce a measurable result that will range from moderate to exceptional. Everyone, usually winds up using their own "method" or "technique" eventually. Whether or not they are willing to talk about it is another matter.

A/in the civilian RV practice field. Are there, at your opinion, stats published/availlable on that subject in the civilian RV practice field ?

None that I'm aware of. The reason being, I am assuming by "civilian" you are implying done outside of a lab; which means they are not done within a research series that has been published and open to peer review and criticism.

Regards,

Joe

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


Could someone either give descriptions of each type of RV in order to assist one in a choice, or can someone refer me/us to a book or other source which makes the distinctions? I get the impression that factors such as one's assessment of his/her "natural" abilities, as well as the intended use, would figure in to making the choice... Also, giving the names of teaching sources for each would be helpful...

Paul D


Joe, Can you please tell us by, approximately, how many ideograms your "basic/everyday/current/usual" expert RVer vocabulary is constituted ? Is it around 50, or rather 100, 500 items ? Have Ed May and his crew, at CSL, some datas on the correlation between the number of ideograms you deal with and the performances of the Viewer ?

Regards, Jean-Luc


Can you please tell us by, approximately, how many ideograms your "basic/everyday/current/usual" expert RVer vocabulary is constituted ?

There is no way to count the numbers of ideograms that are familiar to me personally. Probably in the hundreds for sure. But, it's not just ideograms. It's also; smells, colors, kinesthetics, movement, sounds, etc., etc.

Have Ed May and his crew, at CSL, some datas on the correlation between the number of ideograms you deal with and the performances of the Viewer ?

Negative. Years of testing in the lab shows there is no direct relationship between the numbers, quality, repetativeness, or similarities of ideograms and performance on any given RV. In fact, ideograms aren't even necessary in some cases, or in some cases can be done in the head and never written down. While we are on it, I might add that no amount of testing within the lab or elsewhere has ever proven the use of ideograms as improving anything. Over the long run, it's the persons ability to recognize what is being communicated (however it's being communicated) that improves the performance. All the really good viewers eventually develop a style of their own for doing this, and eventually abandon sections and portions of the format--if not abandon the format nearly in its entirety. The format is really good for teaching someone to get in touch with what's going on inside their mind while cutting out a great deal of the garbage that isn't functionally relevent. However, it like everything else in RV isn't meant to be the end-all to continued improvement. Remember the format isn't the protocol. Think of the learning part as being something akin to the Martial Art of the Mind. You sort of pick up the basic moves through replication (which takes some form of format). But, in order to really be good at it, you have to develop your own style--style that works, and works well that is. The proof is in the pudding.

regards,

Joe

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


I would like to add a point to what Joe is saying. During the research done at SRI, attempts were made to match the different stages of the CRV method to the amount of time it takes for the viewer to "get" the information. In the case of stage one, the amount of time between the viewer hearing their targeting and the first movements of their hand was something less than 5/100 of a second. Of course, the viewer was not aware of the movement and it took special equipment to take the measurements. But, my point here is simply this, ideograms are not nearly as easy as they have been made out to be. I would also like to add that the methods of figuring out what an ideogram is (in terms of a gestalt) has also changed over time. Broadly speaking, you can find instructors who tell their students to (1) describe the ideogram (2) trace the ideogram and (3) probe the ideogram. Which of these methods is actually the one discovered by Swann/Puthoff can be left up to the reader to find out. Last, in all fairness to Ingo, it has to be pointed out that of the viewers he trained, few actually finished the training program.

Charles D


Claude Shannon was one of the early writers on modern information theory. Most of his writings have a little too much math for the average reader. John Pierce has also done work on information theroy and some of his works are a little less heavy on the math. The works I am talking about concern problems of signal, noise, etc. etc. Some of Ed May's published works on RV use information theory terms. In any case, one can remote view without a grounding in the math of information theory. However, the more you understand about the theory then (maybe) the more you can see things about the working of RV. Recently Ingo posted an essay about information theory on his web page so you might want to check there. His essay is much more user friendly if you are not up on your math. Oh, if you are up on your math, check his page anyway. There are many hints buried in his articles.

Charles D


END ARCHIVE 27
October 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.