firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 029
.


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-ninth archive.


September 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 29

>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).

What you are actively encouraging is the evolution of the super-psychic mosquito - the one that will operate with tactical psi-radar abilities sporting advanced Homo sapiens-evasive capabilities - and lead to voluminous cries of aggravated anguish world-wide. What impeccable impudence!!

So lets do it! We'll select la creme de la creme of the mosquitoes - the ones that try to escape at the very first lethal thought of a human being - and we'll breed millions of them. Just to be certain it really works, let's find a way to slip a few hundred into a test site - say, Senora PJ's bedroom - maybe after she has so thoroughly (and properly) castigated everyone for dumping trivia on the site. [Sorry Joe M., it looks like a good lab research project to me!! so it's time to change paradigms again.]

However, is what I am saying irrefutably irrelevant? It brings up questions about the evolution of RV as well as other 'psychic' abilities not only in our own species but in others. And it brings up parallel concerns about just what really does constitute psychic communicative ability. Comments anyone? On another track, if we were to target terrorists using RV methodologies, are the ones that manage to slip the net and pull off their dastardly deeds likely to have been more psychic (or psychically aware) than the 'failures', the ones that were stopped?

I hear your inaudible incantations to get off fast! Maybe the term 'psychic mosquito syndrome' or whatever could find some takers in xRV terminology (maybe for 'fear of PJ'). Sounds great - just find a worthy application because it seems to generate a lasting 'buzzing' in the mind!

Excuse my indolent indulgence,

William


>[Sorry Joe M., it looks like a good >lab research project to me!! so it's time to change paradigms again.]

Actually, it is a good idea. I'm not sure I'd use mosquitos however. I believe I've heard more than one scientist say; "It's time to lose the human subjects and move on to more primative animals." Simply because their display of PSI is far less complex than ours.

>However, is what I am saying irrefutably irrelevant? It brings up questions >about the evolution of RV as well as other 'psychic' abilities not only in >our own species but in others. And it brings up parallel concerns about >just what really does constitute psychic communicative ability. Comments >anyone?

Not irrelevant at all. It's part of what started the whole investigation into PSI. It also says a great deal about why PSI can be found in just about everyone walking the planet, but in varying degrees of talent--autonomic response.

>On another track, if we were to target terrorists using RV >methodologies, are the ones that manage to slip the net and pull off their >dastardly deeds likely to have been more psychic (or psychically aware) >than the 'failures', the ones that were stopped?

I'm not sure RV has reached the level of techno-capability to determine this. It is still only one of many tools that supports the more mundane techniques of anti-terroist pursuit. I suspect in the long run it will have to do more with the degree of "survival" desired--being caught, versus being killed as a political or irrational statement.

Sounds like you're thinking.

Regards,

Joe

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


Hi viewers;

I was wondering if anyone has experienced any side effects from Remote Viewing, other than crashing or altering belief systems. Many years ago we thought that there might be some short term memory loss with prolonged RVing. I seem to be experiencing some short term memory loss. Have I mentioned that before? Of course that could be because I am getting older or maybe it could be the millions of brain cells I drowned in rivers of Irish Whiskey. No problem with long term memory. I can sit around and tell "war stories" forever. I do seem to forget how many times I have told the same story to the same people.

Is anyone else having similar problems? Has anyone seen my car keys?

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


>No problem with long term memory. I can sit around and tell "war stories" >forever. \...\ Has anyone seen my car keys?

There is rumor now of an Irish strain of Alzheimer's --- where you forget everything but the grudge... <|(:-)

Me grandmither's name was O'Shaughnessy -- (I remember that much.)

Tom C


Tom

I will get even with you for that. I just can't remember why. The nice thing about Alzheimers is that you meet new people every day, you sleep with a strange woman every night, and you can hide your own Easter Eggs.

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


> I was wondering if anyone has experienced any side effects from Remote > Viewing, other than crashing or altering belief systems. Many years > ago we thought that there might be some short term memory loss with > prolonged RVing. I seem to be experiencing some short term memory > loss.

I'm new to the list and hope I'm not going over old ground, but a good chunk of my business is advising stable owners on ailments, injuries and potentials of their horses and riders, giving advance readings on prospective horse purchases they're considering and doing general read-outs, from names and locations alone, on new business contacts they have just made, for ethics and possible usefulness. Most of this, but not all, is done immediately over the phone. I started 15 years ago laboriously dowsing the answers and taking my time over it. Needless to say, the practice has been verified many times over by the outcome of previous transactions.

A unhelpful characteristic of this activity is that I forget 90% of the content of what I have said ten minutes after putting the phone down or leaving the premises concerned, so nowadays I use a hand-held computer (or the machine I'm typing this on) to take notes as I go so that at least I have some record at my end. This is also handy for getting down the finer details like values and dates direct from the unconscious to the hand - I really don't like the term "channelling" so call this "clairscrivence" !

Dan W


Liam, hello

Short Term Memory: One of the reason is important two keep on researching about brainwaves in relation to Rving,is this problem.

Shifts of polarity (rumors,quoted by Joe month 8) related to rving have to do with authonomic functions of the nervous system.This sudden shifts can create and stabilize a different brain wave pattern,and yes, it is related to short term memory loss. I am reaching a german pioneer Dr George Bonis (neurologist,very well respected )who has done research in this. there is very little written in medical science he has more than 20 years of research but to present it to the medical scientifical community it has to be validated and the problem is that part of the characteristics have no stable reproduceble pattern(at list not found yet).

It is also important to note that epilepsy is not only the grand mal (convulsion/notorious) there are levels .That I know through Dr George Barrenechea (neurosurgeon/Columbia Univ) Doctorate Thesis (done overses); I high percentage of the population has epilepsy in very slight form not been able to be register in an EEG because the incapacity of the equipment to register deep zones of the brain.We are advancing creating more sofisticated equipment ,but still we are far away.

I think -=d=- is right and it will be extraordinary helpful if he finds a general reliable patten in the brain to access RVing safely through this shifts of polarity. So it will be accessible to everybody and not only to the few.And also will help with any further long term side effects.

I don't know if I may contact you Liam directly I would like to know some more info related to your spatial apraxia,at the lab-research they should have advice you about what is stated above,but probably they didn't.

Everything is possible,its just finding the right way.

Thxs for your time. Maritxu


<<Since I had no control over my possible targets (was blind to them), I was also victimized--or eulogized by those controlling my targets. They of course also have no control over what I might perceive.>>

Nor over what you report (or don't). Ethical question: Is the RVer required to report EVERYTHING? I think not. An anonymous American patriot said it best: "In order to improve psychically, you have to grow philosophically. Then you take your morality very seriously, and to hell with what the government wants." ;-)

Best Wishes,

Nancy A


>Joe, >In a message dated 9/13/97 10:03:30 AM, you wrote: > ><<Since I had no control over my possible targets (was blind to them), I was >also victimized--or eulogized by those controlling my targets. They of >course also have no control over what I might perceive.>>

Very good. Of course the implied portion to the end of the above is "I report what I think should be reported, and don't what I know shouldn't be."

>Nor over what you report (or don't). Ethical question: Is the RVer required >to report EVERYTHING? I think not. An anonymous American patriot said it >best: "In order to improve psychically, you have to grow philosophically. >Then you take your morality very seriously, and to hell with what the >government wants." ;-)

The above "anonymous" is absolutely correct. Can't remember exactly where I heard it.

Warm regards,

Joe

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


> Very good. Of course the implied portion to the end of the above is "I > report what I think should be reported, and don't what I know shouldn't be."

I have to agree with the statement while viewing it from a different light. Ethically, viewers, readers, etc. are not responsible for the actios or the choices of others. In my personal (and perhaps just mine), ethic, I would go nuts trying to be take on the monkeys from everyones back. Not all information is helpful to the goal, there is much that I read in a situation that I choose not to reveal. My choice is not based on desired outcome and over path of the person's choices, but based on whether it is appropriate for me to but into another person's business. Most of the time, it's none of my business. So the choice is individual and should be relegated to the decision as to what harm or good can be done by such a report. Even then your bound to choose wrong once in a while. Good Luck with the wrestling match as there is no right or wrong answer, only options that may or may not fit, based on experience and circumstance.

Rob A


I was wondering if someone would address in session flashbacks to previous targets. I have been getting these off and on during sessions for the last month or so. For example I will see the feedback photo for another target in my head in the middle of the session I 'm working. This kind of throws me off balance. Is this just AOL or noise, or is it time for an oil change?

Paul F


Paul,

I get these too. Especially when working a target that is by a tasker I use frequently (you for example). I will get flashbacks to your previously tasked targets.

I'm also curious about an answer to this. Is it overlay, or just imagination?

Mike CT


>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.

But for the "newbie", there is still the danger that the associative process will soon take over the perceptive process. There is a rule I give my students that says, "There is no session above the line you're presently on." While this has to be relaxed for the process of breaking out an AOL, it is still good advice.

>There is a feeling of correctness which you can learn to recognize as >well.

This is a great help, but again, it takes experience to learn to recognize that feeling.

>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.

After 15 years of doing CRV, I find it still helps me do the same. Like Ingo says, when everything else fails, the structure will carry you through.

Lyn

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


>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 (associated >words) (snip) The information was correct, only the AOL was >misinterperted.

This is about the same as a "mini-Stage 5", and is usually very successful. In actual practice, the only problem is that the viewer has to not "push the rope". That is, you give the first impressions which pop into your mind, and then quickly stop doing associations and get back to working on the actual target. If you continue doing associations too long, you really get surrounded by Stray cats (AOLs).

>......I always make it the monitor's call >when to do this, except when working alone.

That is OK, but an agreement between the monitor and viewer MUST be set up ahead of time and outside of any and all sessions that the monitor won't do this to lead the viewer. If the viewer gets the idea that one or a series of AOLs is worth more investigation, an AOL develops surrounding the AOLs. That isn't good. Both the monitor and the viewer must see the request to "break out" an AOL as a totally neutral request.

>.......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.

Skip and others did teach me to do this, but I knew that it wasn't part of the formal CRV training, so I haven't encorporated it as an official thing. However, it works for most people, and if properly controlled, gets a lot of good information.

>I was reluctant 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.

I would second this advice. People really want the AOL to mean something. Usually, the subconscious mind has just rummaged through it's mind for something "red", and held up the first picture if finds for you to see. It holds up a picture of an apple and says, "SEE??? RED!!!!" Your conscious mind looks at it and says, "OH!!! The target is an apple!!!"

>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.)

Not to sound like a stuck record, but you should also remember that "what works for you" is found in the data, not in what feels good. You can't document too much.

Lyn

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


> But for the "newbie", there is still the danger that the associative > process will soon take over the perceptive process.

Can you explain the associative process compared to the perceptive process? I believe I understand what you mean by perceptive process but I don't understand what the associative process is and how it compares to the perceptive process.

> There is a rule I give my students that says, "There is no session > above the line you're presently on." While this has to be relaxed for > the process of breaking out an AOL, it is still good advice.

What do you mean by being above the line?

Thanks again

John


Not only are kids wonderful but they are born with lots and lots of talents that we parents (and nature) tend to take away from them and then give them back in the years to come but in a different package...babies born into the world are natural swimmers...They will close their throats to the incoming water, paddle like dog and with just a little help from Mom or Dad, actually stay on the surface with no apparent fear. They know how to walk but lack the muscular development to accomplish it alone...take an infant and let them grasp your fingers tightly (they do this naturally)...stand them up on your lap and gently move them up your stomach and breast/chest. Watch how neatly they put one foot in front of the other in a perfectg walking action. They suck naturally, will avoid crawling off the edge of tables, and if you stare at them while they are sleeping - they will wake up (just like I think they must have in a more primordial time - when the beast (whatever beast it was) looked up at the tree, into the cave or whatever, the baby (and the adults incidentally) must have known of the presence before the smell or the sound of the beast signalled its presence. There is no way we could have survived without the ability to at least know that there was danger around the corner even if we could not positively identify the danger...pre-cognition had to have been our edge since we were singularly ill prepared to live in the savage world of that time with only our "wits" about us... Just my opinion. Gene...

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


>I would bet the percentage of children who display talent is about >the same as the adult percentage.

Hi Joe and everyone;

As usual Joe, you are right, at least IMHO. I have six children. That does not mean I am an expert on children. It justs means I am really a) dumb b) unlucky c) careless d) all of the above. Several of my children are viewers. The problems with training children (14 to 18) are the same as training adults. In a previous post Joe listed the three things it takes to be a "good viewer." A little natural ability. A strong desire to learn. The willingness and ability to put in a lot of time, effort, work, and sweat to develop your craft. My children were always busy with soccer, football, cheerleading, the opposite sex, homework (not really, my kids always told me their teachers never gave them any homework.), TV and friends. Even with the distractions, some of the kids became good viewers. If they want to put the time into it in the future they could be great viewers. Did I mention our last child left home in August to go to college. My wife and I experienced a very severe, devastating case of "empty nest syndrome" which lasted at least 15 minutes. We then went out, bought a new Camaro, and have been traveling at high speeds up and down the roads of Europe, with the top down and the stereo blaring in a valiant, but alas vain attempt to ease our sorrow.

A word of caution about exposing children to RV at a too early age. Do we really have the right to decide for a 10 year old that they want to be a psychic? Children need to learn how to live in, and deal with, this world before they start living in the "other world." Once they are anchored here and express a strong desire to learn RV, and are old enough to make a rational deceision, then by all means teach them.

Sorry PJ. I apologize. It must be a relapse in this "empty nest syndrome." I will be alright in a second. I will just climb down off my soap box, jump in my camaro, and attempt to ease my grief.

BTW PJ it is great to have you back, I do not care what Gene says. All the talk about EEGs and Mthz really got me excited. You know how mechanical I am. I thought those were the names of two new sports cars from GM. I tried to put one on order.

Best Wishes

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


>....Various Military RVers (Lyn and Ed are two >that I've seen make these statements) prefer teaching children >because they are more open to learning (PJ, correct me if I'm wrong, >but I know I saw something about teaching children on Lyn's page). >According to Silva, anyone can do this.

My strongest and most effective "psychic" experiences came in an almost uncontrolled fashion beginning about age 12. Because of bad experiences and being made fun of, I suppressed them as hard as possible for the next 30 years or so. Wish I had known better than to do that. Anyway, it is my belief that such training as CRV would be most effective during the formative years. I think that it is proper to teach a child that the use of their natural talents is not a sin - but that like any and all of our other talents, it is >>>how<<< it is used that matters most.

There is a problem with teaching children, however, that most people don't think of. That is the legal problem. Ed has taught and encouraged his children's natural talents, and I have done the same with mine. However, when it comes to training someone else's child, the trainer is immediately faced with a legal minefield. Intuitiveness training works with the child's mind, his/her outlook on life, self-image, etc. Children are both impressionable and willing to follow someone's lead. Therefore, the trainer is, and I think should be, subject to moral responsibility and even legal liability.

That, in turn, brings about all the evils and woes of social and legal controls. Who makes the laws and defines the limits of responsibility and freedom when it comes to teaching children the "psychic" sciences?

Surely, some politician who doesn't even know the first thing about it will be more than willing to make some kind of law just to break new political ground. You can also bet that the law will contain all controls and no freedoms.

Those bastions of religion who feel it is their devine obligation to decide that all children will be raised and trained according to their line of beliefs would more than welcome a legal battle. Failing success there, they would be more than willing to take the battle to societal levels, anti-societal levels, etc.

Even "psychic" children will be children. Should one child who is trained in such a "psychic" discipline do even one thing which could make for sensational (negative) news, the entire field would suddenly be under attack.

I have only accepted one student so far who was not an adult, and that was because he was accompanied throughout the course by his father, who gave prior permission in writing, and was in attendance every time the boy was in training. I hate to be so paranoid about this, but it would be very foolish not to be, both for my own sake and for the sake of the entire field of CRV.

It is frustrating, sometimes, to know that the people who are probably the best potential students are the same ones for whom the way is so fraught with potential disaster that I can only accept them as students under the most stringent conditions. At the same time, when I see all the people out there who are teaching different kinds of craziness and calling it "remote viewing", I get the feeling that the system we have in place is probably the best one, after all. In the final analysis, I guess the system works to protect the children, if not always to benefit them.

Lyn

[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, 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

The answer is a qualified "yes" (someone probably can). Until they do, I'll attempt to give a REALLY oversimplified answer. This is going to be short, since it is very late and I'm heading for the bed, but:

CRV is a set of protocols in which the "viewer" remains in a wide-awake state and establishes a line of communication between his/her conscious and subconscious minds using a set of meaningful and trained physical responses by the autonomic nervous system. For the viewer, the process is very logical and proceedural in nature, and feels more like doing a long math problem.

ERV is also a controlled situation wherein a "monitor" (who is the trained one) keeps watch over the "viewer" (who doesn't necessarily need to be trained) until the "viewer" reaches the hypnogogic state. The "monitor" is trained to keep the "viewer" in this state while asking questions and receiving answers. The monitor's job is to interrogate the viewer while all the time, maintaining the hypnogogic state, neither allowing the viewer to wake up or go to sleep. For the viewer, the process is more like a trance-like state, and is very experiential in nature.

Now, for the other 16 kinds of RV...

Lyn

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


> CRV is a set of protocols in which the "viewer" remains in a > wide-awake state and establishes a line of communication between > his/her conscious and subconscious minds using a set of meaningful > and trained physical responses by the autonomic nervous system. For > the viewer, the process is very logical and proceedural in nature, > and feels more like doing a long math problem.

Hiya all

Thanks Lyn for all the insightful info. What exactly do you mean by meaningful and trained physical responses by the autonomic nervous system. Is that in the same ball park as deviceless dowsing? And if so, do you have any references of info on the subject?

Thanks

John


At 09:24 PM 10/1/97 -0400, Curran wrote: (snip) >...just note that Liam was called upon, completely >unsolicited, to act as an intermediary in relaying a message to me >and my family about a spiritual crisis we were going through...Go >figure...huh?? OK..net buddies take your best shots... Gene..

About a week after coming back from my father's funeral in Texas, I was over in the ops bldg doing a sesson (in the map room), and was getting REALLY sleepy. Suddenly, someone stuck a finger in my ear. That was something my father had always done to tease me when I was little, because he knew how much I hated it. Needless to say, there was no one in the room but me. Purely anecdotal story. I am completely open to the idea that Dad was on my mind - at least unconsciously - and in the hypnogogic state, my mind could have done that as a way to wake me up. I'm also open to the idea that Dad was telling he was still around, if I needed him.

Lyn

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


At 12:51 AM 9/24/97 BST-1, Dan Wilson wrote: (snip) >Unreliability occurs when some aspect of the target or the process of > accessing it activates an unconscious fear within the viewer.

We have an acronym called "STRAY CAT" (The Subliminal Transfer of Recollections, Anxieties, and Yearnings to Consciously Accessible Thought). In effect, it notes that the things which prevent the process are not only caused by fears, but also by recollections and yearnings (imagination gets in there, too). It isn't just what we fear that messes up the process, but the desire to quickly identify will cause us to grab related memories, what (n dowsing, where) we want the target to be, and a host of other factors. Fear is just one of the many things which retard the process.

(snip) >The techniques for bypassing these blockages are only just beginning >to be discovered: you have to know they're there to start with.

And that is the main purpose of determining what is an AOL (Stray cat) and labeling it as such during a session. It allows you that first step in controlling and correcting the process.

Lyn

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


>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)?

Yes. We were often told what the target was. We were also told that the aspect of the target we were looking for was an unknown. That is, if there had been any other way to find it besides CRV, they would be using that way, instead. Therefore, neither logic, knowledge of surrounding facts, background knowledge, etc. was going to help get the answer, or someone else would have already gotten it and been taking credit for it. As it was, we needed to do a session so they could take credit for it.

>... 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?

(Where is that soapbox of mine?....) I have very strong feelings about what is called "concensus analysis and reporting". That is, you take what all the viewers find, and then write up what you (the analyst, report writer, or director) think should be reported to the customer. I don't know how much very correct and valuable information never made it to the customers because our director wasn't about to sign his name to the bottom of a document which contained something he didn't want said. Any such report is, as you say, an altered version of what was found by the viewers. In my reports, if 5 viewers say the car is red and 1 says it is green, guess what I report... that 5 viewers said the car is red, and one said it was green. Anything different is bad analysis and reporting. If the analyst, the report writer, or the director who signs the report is going to decide what the answer is, then why have the viewers? (I'll get off my soapbox, now).

>Then I wondered that if that had ever been >done, could any of them admit it? Probably not.

It was done constantly. Once, we did a very lengthy study to determine how efficient we were. It was tasked by Congress, so we had to do it. We had the entire office working on single perceptions in sessions for weeks. At the end of it, we typed the data into a database and found that we had proven to be a little over 72% "accurate" over the time of the sessions. The director at the time saw the report, came back to my desk, and stood over my shoulder while I randomly changed data in the database to lower scores so the total showed 24% accuracy. He said, "I'm not going to report to Congress what we can do - they'll expect us to do it all the time." This is a true story. The report we were commissioned and ordered to do, and the results we turned in to Congress were, in their final form, nothing more than the reflection of a director's personal fears. How many times we turned in information which could have been used to save lives, rescue hostages, intercept drugs, etc. - only to have the information blocked because a director or his superiors didn't want to report it, I shudder to think. It was often. I would say that most of the good and valuable work we did never got to the customer, and if it did, it only got there after the fact. (Someone please hide this soapbox).

>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.

They aren't, but I would tend to disagree with you if you make the blanket statement about the viewer controlling the information which results from his/her session. You report what you get. After that, what is done with it is someone else's responsibility (and fault). That is the best you can do - report what you get.

Lyn

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


You report what you get. After >> that, what is done with it is someone else's responsibility (and >> fault).

That sounds suspiciously like, "I was ordered to, therefore I'm not responsible."

>What if what you report causes the deaths of others. Do you feel >that the viewer has no responsibility for the manner in which his or >her ability is being used... for what purpose or intent the >information is gathered? I don't know... seems like a cop-out though.

I'd suggest that if you can't trust the people you're providing info to...perhaps you shouldn't work for them.

Skye


You guys are getting all carried away here. Wouldn't want to get all wrapped up in some kind of generalization.

Most viewers, myself included, report what we want to report and don't report what we feel shouldn't be reported. It's like any other kind of job; you decide what you can live with and what you can't and make your decisions accordingly. Most viewers I know, have a high sense of integrity. There are a few who don't--just like any other job. Good bankers and bad, good cowboys and bad, good cops and bad, good priests and bad, etc., etc.

If you are expecting remote viewers to be better than, or worse than, any other human being--you are in for a rude awakening.

:) Joe

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


END ARCHIVE 29
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.