firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 028
.


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-eighth archive.


October 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 28

Brent

Visual communication,(figurative or abstract) has its laws,its a language and yes its one of the more clear languages through which the subconcious comunicates. It is used in therapy with psychiatric patients with which no other way of comunication exists. I have studied for this (jesuit Univ/granted) and have more than 20 years of research done.

Any visual image needs to be read in its context. Allways

The subconcious is very direct and clear when comunicating through visual language. What it might look for you as a "total flat line" it might not be so,and less reviewing it in its context. Maybe the issue hear is to expand our knowledge and learn little bit more of the other trends related to RVing.

For the beginner associating a wave line to water it would be the most normal and accurate thing to do,it is already part of the collective mind signals(has been for..quite a looong time). Of course ,humanity is evolving,as language as anything alive,like a chamaleon it adapts itself.

Relax ..! ...explore ..&..enjoy

Thxs Txu


<< A phase 3 sketch looks first like a sketch. In fact it's generally an ideogram often composed by several ideograms together (but in its essence, it contains the related reality you're RVing).

This is true, but the word "generally" very much applies here. Sometimes, a sketch is just a sketch. The way to tell is to probe it in the same manner that you would probe a phase 1 ideogram and see if you get any further impressions. If you do, it's an ideogram. If not, it's a sketch.

Hope this helps,

Lisa and Brent


<< An ideogram is the escencial graphic idea of something. The simplest (childlike designs) expresion of something. It is precise. No more lines/strokes can be added,no less lines/strokes can be taken.It is simple and precise. Example: If a waving line means water If you take out the curves it will no more mean water but flat ground. I

Actually, an ideogram composed of a line without curves can indeed still mean water to the subconscious mind. As a matter of fact, many remote viewers ideograms are composed of nothing but a straight line, regardless of the gestalt ( land, water, motion, etc.) However, this line will "feel" like water or land or whatever the gestalt is. The point is, the viewer's subconscious is who decides what is what when it comes to ideograms and their interpretation.

Brent


Charles-- Appreciate your contributions--you've made some quite cogent observations. I did want to expound a bit on some things you said here.

At 09:16 PM 9/17/97 +0000, you wrote: 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.

Digging back into the hazy past, I can tell you that Ingo adamantly rejected the notion of "describing the ideogram"; he insisted that the viewer not even pay any attention to how the ideogram looks, since looks can be very deceiving in this case. Rather, one experienced the target's gestalt in executing the ideogram, and that is what one describes. In effect, one goes *through* the ideogram to the target itself. Unless Ingo has changed his position on this (and I have not heard that he has), then anyone teaching the notion of describing the ideogram itself is (only technically speaking of course! ;-) a CRV heretic! As far as no.s (2) and (3) above, Ingo taught both procedures (assuming I'm correctly understanding what you mean by them).

Last, in all fairness to Ingo, it has to be pointed out that of the viewers he trained, few actually finished the training program.

This is generally true, except as far as ideograms are concerned, it is generally irrelevant. Virtually all of one's understanding of ideograms is developed in the earliest stages of training anyway. Enjoy!

Paul

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


charles d wrote: 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.

Charles,

Thank you very much for sharing these infos. BTW does your source say something concerning the correlation between (1) the time spent in each phase/stage of the RVing process (2) and the *best resultats* ? I was told once a good session takes, let's say around 40 minutes (without the ending summary). Have you statistics concerning the optimum time put in each phase/stage by the best viewers ?

Thanks,

Jean-Luc


Probably the best way for me to answer this is to cut into two parts. First, there is a very big difference between training and application. This is nothing really new until you realize that what is somethimes meant by different has to do with what the viewer is actually doing. For example, I have seen sessions done by viewers (some of which are now trainers) in which they would spend 10-15 minutes and two or three (or more) pages on stage two. In training this is okay (maybe) but in real sessions, stage two is actually over in a matter of seconds. For example, last spring I was in New York and someone asked me about the missing A-10. My whole session lasted probably about 45 seconds. That was from stage 1 to a sketch. Of course, I did not have everything that could have been known but it was enough and the session later check out. I wish I could claim this as someting special but I have seen other viewers do the same thing (and better). This brings up my second point. Not everyone works at the same pace. There have been studies on the relationship between time and stage but, to spend too much time talking about that is to invite just about everyone out there to try to force their remote viewing into that pattern. (Notice the recent uproar over the time you do your viewing.) While in the beginning, learning set ways to approach remote viewing is probably a very good thing, real world demands often make change necessary. This may be one of the areas where some training formats could actually do more harm than good. For example, if you feel that two pages are necessary for your stage two (which it most certainly is not), how are you ever going to learn to get out of that pattern when that pattern starts holding you back. BTW, I would like to add something on stage two and word lists. Lists of descriptors have never been intended to serve as preset patterns. If your working vocabulary is so restricted that you have to pause, then your stage two is pretty much dead (and although your may still be remote viewing, you are out of CRV structure). Later, something as simple as the meaning of words can kill you. If language is about 50% noise (you can check this through the works of Shannon or Pierce) then you can imagine how much worse this is if the language you are using is fuzzy.

Charles D


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.

I would like to throw my support in here. Wading through the material is tough going and deep wading. Ingo's is much easier, but may still be too much for many readers. The understandings presented, however, are really interesting to the wader. If you want a much more basic and MUCH easier-to-read book, try Ornstein's "The evolution of Consciousness". (BTW, Charles, I still have the book ready to return to you.) I'm presently sitting at about 27K feet on a flight into DC, so don't have the book information, but can get it to anyone interested. It is good reading for understanding what goes on inside your head.

Lyn

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


David Ritchey, Ph.D, DCH, CHt, RHy, Lt. USN (ret.) is looking at this computer screen over my shoulder (Huh? Ritchey in the same room as a computer?) He has declared me incompetent to formulate a reply but is utilizing my services as a punch-card operator only. And he he expounds as follows:

Sgt. Buchanan, just because you are a member of Mensa's Mensa does not imply that you are capable of dealing with statistics. If you were capable of understanding, however, I would inform you that said Pursglove tests out as 5.7329 s.d. above the norm in linguistic noise.

That is a p< .000000342792.

Your obdt. svts.,

Dave and Dave


If language is about 50% noise (you can check this through the works of Shannon or Pierce)

B. L. Whorf had some real insights into language and the constraints it imposes not only on one's thoughts but on an entire worldview. Esp. his essay on the Hopi language -- in "Language Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf" ed. John B. Carroll; MIT Press. ISBN: 0262730065

Seems like ideograms have to be a step in the right direction, and setting up "dictionaries" of them a step back.

Tom C.


To All,

Forgive me for sharing this insight.

After, reading the last 3 days, 50+ messages, of this group it is absolutely awe-inspiring to me to realize the incredible ramifications of the Web to human knowledge and evolution. It is absolutely incredible to be an observer watching the interaction on this list. The whole is certainly is greater than the sum of its parts. Kudos to all!

The co-creation, cooperation, and constructive interchange that is occuring in this group must be occuring in other groups just like this one in other cutting edge endeavors. The cross -information flow is phenomenal to comprehend. Maybe a new era is dawning!

Would whoever earlier that mentioned Michael Talbot and THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE identify themselves. I forgot. Thanks for the seed.

Blessings, Vic


[Archive Note: I included the next [edited] message not because it's relevant to RV, but because it's a good footnote for the many people who join the Viewer list after reading these archives.]

FROM THE [VWR] EMAIL GROUP LIST OWNER:
The Official Duck ala PJ says:

Every post that goes to this list ought to be something that, whether it is opinion, reference, or recount, is worthy of putting into a permanent archive about remote viewing. (Sometimes brief comments are worth that. Usually they're not. Just think about it.)

I am interested in any form of mental, neural or psychological research myself, but I think all that EEG discussion is beginning to go past remote viewing per se. Try to keep your posts to the topic at hand, one way or another.

I brought up the Fear of Psi thread to see the response. The list promptly got bickering and humorous (and humongous), which I thought was worthy data, not that I want that to continue. I did not mean to bring up (a) why fundies or scientists are afraid of psi, who is a fundie by definition, et al., or (b) why anyone afraid of psi is useless -- these being threads that resulted from my initial posts. I just wanted to talk about the challenges a person faces when their belief system really begins to lose components.

Few posts actually responded to that aspect of things, which to me makes it clear that people are far more comfortable addressing why other people are wrong than addressing their own potential issues or beliefs. (My apologies to Courtney Brown, who told ME this rather pointedly once. Geez I hate it when people who annoy me are right.)

I would like to get into the personal and spiritual development involved in any work like this, but that's tough to do when nobody shares a religion, and I don't want to see that sort of thing going the road it has already in the RV field, where the religion becomes the most popular alien or whatever a teacher believes. So, that's important to the subject, but I don't see how we can include it without wandering off into either flames or fantasy. Oh well.

By the way, remember I offered to make an email [PSI] list that would talk about applying psychic (like RV) methods to "anomalous targets" as I've always called them, like psychology and aliens? I require 35 sign ups. So far I have 11. Guess it's not a popular subject. Gee, you'd never know it, to see Farsight's humongous BBS areas. If you or someone you know would like that list AND PARTICIPATE enough to get it going (because I probably won't be involved), send a note to psi@zmatrix.com.

Notes of trivia re: RV, especially for newer people on the list who are always emailing me about this kind of stuff going by.

1. There are only three people from the former U.S. government anomalous cognition program (dominantly RV) teaching: Paul Smith, Lyn Buchanan, and Ed Dames. They all have web sites, links available through my firedocs site. None of the other intelligence personnel, including four others who participate on this list (three still classified) offer training. Other people who are students of one or more of those individuals offer training as well. At least one of them has a link from my firedocs site.

2. I know of only one book that has information about the proper protocol for RV and suggestions for people working alone without formal training. That would be Joe McMoneagle's 1993 book (rev 1997) MIND TREK. More info on the firedocs web site 'Featured' page.

3. Methodologies training is not the same as the scientific "protocol" which defines the term 'Remote Viewing.' The science protocol is what is required to say you are doing remote viewing (RV). The methods are what are required to say you are doing a certain method of remote viewing (CRV, SRV, TRV, ERV, WRV, etc.).

The methods of choice have to be used WITHIN the science protocol to technically qualify for the term RV, which means, ESP within a certain situational setting -- data collection within a certain set of rules. The methods is "how you collect the data" -- step here, step there. The protocol is "how you set up the situation for collecting data" -- the rules in place for anyone involved in the session, for the targets and the end result.

If you want to know what you're talking about, I strongly suggest reading some of the documented research on this subject. You can find reference to a lot of it, and to people who are experts and web sites with more info, on my firedocs site. There is no point in everybody reinventing these wheels, I have worked my butt off to figure some of this out and put it on the web, you guys may as well take advantage of that.

I think I'm done now.

Happy Viewing you guys.

PJ (the Weary)


That got me to thinking, though. I wonder if the military folks ever found themselves having to create sessions for targets that were already known (or almost known)? Wonder if it was expedient/wise/PC or otherwise a good idea to not give the real session data to "the customer" and instead create a slightly altered version? Then I wondered that if that had ever been done, could any of them admit it? Probably not.

Interesting ethical issue, one that I think Joe touched on this past week.

Lyn has discussed with his students the fact that "customers" and "taskers" don't always tell you the truth. They may try to lead you or trip you up. You may catch them at it. Then what do you do?

Point being...I think the viewer is responsible, to the best of her ability, to be cognizant of how their information will be used and to control this information flow. This sounds like a straight forward issue -- one that Paul Smith and his fellow Philosophy students would delight in -- but in the real world (whatever that is), I suspect these issues may not always be so clear cut.

Any examples or stories?

Skye


Heh Folks..."Gene" has vented all he is going to "vent" on the subject of psi/fear...from now on I will just routinely zap out the topics when I come to them...good luck in tying up the system with this sort of thing but you won't get my dander up anymore - honest...(amazing what two weeks in Europe with real food, real service, real people and old traditions can do to mellow a man... regards..Gene...(the apparent bad guy of the system...)


Is there a direct correlation between the 9 levels in Joe Mc's MIND TREK and the stages in CRV?

Also, "First it can send an overall gestalt, that is, all the information possible in one huge package, or it can send bits of information a little at a time until an entire gestalt or overall picture has been delivered" (MIND TREK 97 p.192).

Does this "bandwidth" discrepancy vary with viewer maturity, stage of information, session, viewer personal style, target, other, randomly, or all the above? Do "wide" gestalt bursts increase or decrease the possibility of ego overlay?

V-rati???

Blessing, Vic


Is there a direct correlation between the 9 levels in Joe Mc's MIND TREK and the stages in CRV?

No correlation. My nine levels and stages are distinctly different and are explained outside of function.

Also, "First it can send an overall gestalt, that is, all the information possible in one huge package, or it can send bits of information a little at a time until an entire gestalt or overall picture has been delivered" (MIND TREK 97 p.192).

I may not have been expressly clear here or you need to go back and read this again in full context. I believe you get everything you will ever need to know about a target in the first few seconds of the RV. It all comes in one huge thought ball, which we may "first" unravel as an overall gestalt. But, you then have to pick the thoughtball to pieces and discover how all the bits and portions go together to form the larger detailed picture. You can re-visit the thoughtball at any time by the way, but I sincerely doubt it will change in either content or informational structure. (This would now also seem to agree with James Spottiswood's comments regarding Sidereal time--that may imply that what you get on a target will probably not improve over time (short period) that you may be working on it, but may change over time (long period) if you cook on it.)

The other word of caution that I would add. My book comments are meant to goad people into thinking about what is going on. At the time I wrote the book I said that I was not the world's expert on RV and I still believe that I am not. I am always subject to change in the next five minutes, or whenever I might find myself confronted with a word of wisdom. My fourteen years in research with CSL has taught me that we probably know far less than we think we do about the whole subject and it takes a lot more to make a statement of fact than one would normally suppose.

Does this "bandwidth" discrepancy vary with viewer maturity, stage of information, session, viewer personal style, target, other, randomly, or all the above? Do "wide" gestalt bursts increase or decrease the possibility of ego overlay?

There is no bandwidth discrepancy--it is variable and will probably remain so, or at least this has been my experience. This jells very well with the lack of dependability that RV is so renown for (contrary to whatever anyone else has ever told you about RV targeting expectations). RV ability is probably affected by; viewer maturity (how long they've been doing it); stage of information is argumentative--since most people mix stages anyway; session--doesn't matter; viewer personal style--will always vary (like the wind); target--probably has the most to do with the result; and randomly--it will always be.

I don't know what you mean by "wide" gestalt bursts. A gestalt is a gestalt. You either get a lot from it or you don't. Anything that makes you "think" will have ego overlay within it. The "ideal" suggests that "format" or religiously sticking to one will alieviate you from the problem of thinking (ego interference); but it won't. By virtue of the fact that you are human (and you are I hope) means that you are a cognitive being and therefore are automatically thinking about whatever comes into you mind (whether you like it or not). To suggest that format relieves you of this problem is like saying you can live without breathing. All format does is make those around you "think" you are not "thinking." In other words; there may be no such thing as AOL, unless you are willing to say that there are varying degrees of AOL, as in; that's probably got just a tiny bit of AOL in it, or "whew" that's nearly all AOL; depending on how much cognition you allow yourself in recognizing information.

None of the studies in the lab (any lab that I'm aware of) have established that a viewer (any viewer) is able to distinguish when they are "inventing AOL" and when what they are saying "has no AOL" (if that's possible). The entire idea behind following a stringent format and ideograms was to "reduce" the probability of introducing a large amount of AOL to whatever analysis was going to be taking place anyway. Learning through format or by stages was meant to hopefully aid or assist someone in learning what and how they might be operating between their ears (which is hopefully different with everyone). It was never meant to lay down iron clad rules that everyone was supposed to fit within the borders of.

I appologize for coming across as lecturing. I hate to lecture, which is probably why I hate to teach anybody anything. It's hard to learn anything that way.

V-rati???

How about; "RVestablishmentarianism."

Regards,

Joe

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


There is no bandwidth discrepancy--it is variable and will probably remain so, or at least this has been my experience. This jells very well with the lack of dependability that RV is so renown for (contrary to whatever anyone else has ever told you about RV targeting expectations). RV ability is probably affected by; viewer maturity (how long they've been doing it); stage of information is argumentative--since most people mix stages anyway; session--doesn't matter; viewer personal style--will always vary (like the wind); target--probably has the most to do with the result; and randomly--it will always be.

Something of an idea is being gained these days by advanced dowsing tutors of what is causing unreliability in these matters. The British Society of Dowsers has for the first time ever got tutors into a group so we have been sharing ideas. There's a specialist meeting this coming October 3rd at the BSD Congress in Cirencester where no doubt a lot of ground will be covered.

Unreliability occurs when some aspect of the target or the process of accessing it activates an unconscious fear within the viewer. The mechanism of activation has almost no relation to what might logically be expected. The fears can in fact be dowsed (preferably by someone not sharing that particular one !): they are savage, primitive organismic fears of abandonment, fire, crushing, falling, attack, strange creatures, the unknown (fear of psi is a specialist form of this). Etc, etc. The really interesting thing is that once a person is tense because of one fear - say they're near a drop - the occurrence of a second but mild stressor - a wild cat, maybe - creates a prime-fear-strength fear of the combination by association. After that the cat fear is raised as well. So we are all bags of fears all stacked by history on top of each other and interfering with our peace of mind - and our particular combination determines how we react to our environment, including our thought environment.

So for example I have a fear of unseen attackers, but my psychic history has added colour to it by way of possible attack within buildings. So buildings disturb me, but wholly unconsciously, and I cannot locate anything accurately (look beyond the walls) unless I am out of doors. I have found stolen vehicles, but had to do this by describing their situation in a non-topographical way. In fact it helps if I _don't_ know where the robbee lives or where the vehicle went from.

The techniques for bypassing these blockages are only just beginning to be discovered: you have to know they're there to start with. It may be that it's simpler and more effective to clear them by using healing. And there are far, far more of them, great seething mountains of them, that drop on you as soon as you start work! The more you learn, the less you realise you know. The green mountain with the fairies on it in your meditation is your pile of crap, stopping you seeing the rest of the world !

Dan W


Is there a direct correlation between the 9 levels in Joe Mc's MIND TREK and the stages in CRV?

Joe is much more of a natural psychic than the rest of us were, and much more accomplished, so didn't need the highly structured discipline that the rest of us did. Remember, CRV was designed to help people who don't have an overabundance of psi-ability to develop and control what we do have. Joe's main reason for working within the structure was because his employer (the US Army) sort of likes to have things "uniform". In my job there, I often saw Joe's sessions, and listened to the tapes made of his "ERV" sessions. Impressive beyond belief! Because of his natural abilities, he was not trained in CRV, but instead, carried a lot of the unit's load while others were in NY getting trained. His adherance to the stages or levels, is probably more of a polite nod to the rest of us more than a heavy belief that such things are needed. Of course, he should speak on that point. Joe? You listening?

Does this "bandwidth" discrepancy vary with viewer maturity, stage of information, session, viewer personal style, target, other, randomly, or all the above?

Absolutely. In my opinion, though, it varies most widely (and most dependably) with individual levels of one thing: self-discipline. That's self-discipline in practicing correctly, self-discipline in practicing regularly, and self-discipline in working correctly during the session.

Lyn

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


None of the studies in the lab (any lab that I'm aware of) have established that a viewer (any viewer) is able to distinguish when they are "inventing AOL" and when what they are saying "has no AOL" (if that's possible). The entire idea behind following a stringent format and ideograms was to "reduce" the probability of introducing a large amount of AOL to whatever analysis was going to be taking place anyway. Learning through format or by stages was meant to hopefully aid or assist someone in learning what and how they might be operating between their ears (which is hopefully different with everyone). It was never meant to lay down iron clad rules that everyone was supposed to fit within the borders of.

Amen! It is sometimes a very hard thing to teach that the structure is there for providing the viewer a means to express perceptions according to how much "site contact" (whatever that means). It is not there as a means of structuring the viewer. AOL is neither dissipated nor prevented by labeling it - it is merely labeled. Setting it to the side and labeling it as AOL (or STRAY CATS) is merely a means of identifying information which the viewer can't trust. That's all it is.

People want to have a step-by-step set of rules for remote viewing. Adherence to the structure provides that long enough for them to realize that the structure is there for them - they are not there for the structure. After that, they realize that the structure is just a set of tools which allow them to get the information which is already available in the subconscious mind out and onto paper in a more uniform and dependable fashion. Once they learn to use these tools with efficiency and proficiency, they gain a freedom of working which becomes more of an disciplined art than a mere discipline.

Lyn

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


animals do very well at primary perception, example: when i'm about to smack a mosquito (sitting on a wall inside my bedroom) i have to concentrate to a spot nearby the mosquito. if i focus the mosquito directly with the pure intend of killing her she would fly away, even if i was 5m away from her. some mosquitos do better some not (sudden death).

[smile] You have observed what almost every scientist has observed in doing paranormal research. Which is:

"Sudden Death" is usually enough to make anyone display paranormal behavior.

Good they haven't discovered a way of bringing the study into the lab. :)

Regards,

Joe

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


END ARCHIVE 28
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.