firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 030
.


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 thirtieth archive.


Septepmber 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 30

> 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.

That's just like a statistical test that was run on me in the late 1970s. I was working in a phone factory and finding short-circuits by dowsing, and there was a temporary works manager who got interested. I suggested he could speed up assembly inspection by about a hundred times and I could show him how.

He produced 60 unexamined line amplifiers and I wasn't allowed to do more than handle them and look at them in his office. I was still using dowsing at that time but was branching out into dowsing concepts so I could short-cut to the question needed. I passed 54 units as OK in all respects, and failed one for an unknown electrical problem, four for mechanical assembly faults which I described (these were within the units and invisible) and one for a strange assembly fault I couldn't properly describe. A nut was in the wrong place on a bolt but nevertheless tight.

The "good" ones were run through the factory tests and were good.

The one "bad electrical" one was put aside as the test facility wasn't available and I never got to hear what the result was.

The four "bad mechanical" units had the faults I had described, and no others.

The one "unknown mechanical" one had a nut which had a washer with part of another washer plated onto it - so the nut was out of place but tight.

At the end of the day, we met in his office. "What do you want to do ?" I asked. "I could pick one of the women off the line who could do this."

"Jesus, no," he said. "It'd be more than my job is worth. Let's just forget this test ever happened, shall we ?"

The world will be ready when it's good and ready - and no earlier !

Dan W


> That is the best you can do - report what you get.

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? What if you can actually 'see' the potential impact on the future of what you are reporting in the present.

I don't know... seems like a cop-out though.

Trypper


There are some moral assumptions here that probably need questioning. Exactly what is wrong with a member of the military following his/her orders if/when their actions can be justified under the standards of the Just War Tradition? After all, if you push on most moral systems, they logically collapse into a simple question of power. That sounds strong but it is this observation that has made such a mess of philosophy. So, why even bother asking the military viewers such questions? After all, what appears to be high morals to one person may prove to be spiritual bankruptcy in the larger picture.

Charles D


>That sounds suspiciously like, "I was ordered to, therefore I'm not >responsible." I'd suggest that if you can't trust the people you're >providing info to...perhaps you shouldn't work for them.

You may disagree with me on this, but over the course of the almost 9 years I was in the unit, I came to believe exactly that. It may have been a cop-out - or maybe just a way to live with myself- or maybe it was the knowledge that the only way to get the info to them which would be used to do good things was to also provide some info with which they would do bad things. There was no way to know which was which. There were not nearly enough times when information which could save lives was used to do so. It was often ignored. There was one time when information I provided appears to have been used to kill someone (the story of this will be in the book, if I ever get it written). Should I discount the sessions which were responsible for saving many lives because one was used to kill someione? Was that my fault? I don't believe so, because it wasn't my choice. I had a job to describe what was at certain coordinates. I did my job. If what was decided after that was against my moral values, I had no control over it.... which leads to Trypper's next question.....

>What if you can actually 'see' the potential impact on the >future of what you are reporting in the present.

You can, if you task yourself to do so. CRVers answer questions which are tasked to them. If the question of future outcomes of his/her work isn't tasked to a CRVer, he/she won't get information on the outcomes.

So should we have sat down and done a pre-session session every time we got military tasking? It would have been nice if we could have had the opportunity to do that, and then tell our boss whether we would do our assigned job or not. Anyone who judges us on the basis that we didn't do that doesn't understand the first thing about the military. Choice was not an option. If our information was used to kill someone, does that make us worse than the normal soldier who actually aims a rifle and pulls the trigger, or the pilot who actually presses the button to drop the bomb? It certainly doesn't make us any less so, but the real question is whether or not there is guilt there at all. Those who believe that we should all sign conscientious objector cards and head for Canada don't like to project a little further and realize that both the US >>>and<<< Canada would now be speaking Russian and would have no religion or morals to bother us about whether we killed people or not. Problem solved. We should have just walked out on the military and refused to do our jobs. Sounds good to me.

>I don't know... seems like a cop-out though. >Trypper

So I'm open to alternatives. Got any?

Lyn

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


The whole point developing here seems to be that moral questions abound, and every answer is contingent. E.g., the Just War: maybe "Tradition" is not the most appropriate guide to the future.

Maybe out there in the 'everywhere,' broader perspectives appear.

Tom C


>The whole point developing here seems to be that moral questions >abound, and every answer is contingent. E.g., the Just War: maybe >"Tradition" is not the most appropriate guide to the future.

The Just War Tradition is exactly that...a school of thought. It was actually sited almost word for word when Bush outlines the US's position during the Gulf War. There are several alternatives to this set of moral guidelines. Problem is, not many politicians are paying much attention to them.

>Maybe out there in the 'everywhere,' broader perspectives appear.

The is as long as you are willing to simply let the other side run over you. You can claim (perhaps correctly) that you are answering a higher calling. Of course, your higher morality will quickly be selected right out of existence. Perhaps that shows the problem...moral philosophy generally does not have much of a place in the real world. Being trained in philosophy, that's not a conclusion I like but it is fairly accurate.

Charles D


>But... doesn't it seem as if the viewer is the only one who actually >does have control over it? Just wondering....

Actually, yes. There is a little known thing in the intel community which started, I think, with the SIGINT (signals intelligence) community. It is called a "nil heard". It is used as a protest against poor leadership, bad working conditions, or whatever gets so bad as to cause the troops to want to rebel. In effect, the people turn on their radios and at the end of the day, turn in their work report saying only, "nil heard". After a day or so of doing this, the brass come out and inspect the situation to see why the troops are rebelling. The intel side of the military is the only side which has ever successfully gone on strike.

Problem was that in the unit, we could only suspect that the things we provided weren't being used the way we wanted. All we got for tasking was numbers, and usually, all we got for feedback was "You did well!" - which totally sucks as feedback.

(snip) >In the Ether there is no hierarchy, no military, no governments, no >guilt, .... just the viewers... and sometimes the choices they make.

But in the real world, there are, and like it or not, it was the real world which hired us, trained us, and gave us our tasking.

(snip) >Hope I didn't give you the wrong impression. I didn't mean to come >across as critical. Just can't help wondering about the 'other side' >of the whole remote viewing issue.

Hope I didn't give you the impression that I was attacking. To be honest, you struck a very tender nerve - made tender by the years of going through this very same quandry on a daily basis. What are they doing with the information I provide? Some days, we'd get feedback which showed that it had been used for good. Sometimes, not. What I wrote was the set of defenses I have used for all those years in order to get by and continue working, sometimes. They are a cop-out. That was a very correct call on your part. There is a very complex set of feelings, appreciations, resentments, etc. about having to cop out day by day - compounded with the absolute wonder and thanks of being allowed to be a part of such a great project. That set of feelings probably reaches into every deep part of the makeup of all of us who worked there. There's not an easy answer. I don't know if there's an answer at all.

Lyn

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


I may be over stepping my bounds here but I feel I have to add to the conversation. Life, from at least the time we're born to at least the time we die, is one big class room of learning. Not learning so much book knowlege such as what causes gravity but more so wisdom such as why war is detramental to man kind. The point being life is about learning a process of learning. What Lyn and the other ex-military RVers learnt as far as what is ethical info and what is not is as important as learning RV itself. They've made the mistakes or unwise dessions, if you will, as far benefiting mankind. And had the experience of learning what is ethical info and unethical info. As far as doing their jobs, or doing what they were told, I don't think any one can condenm them for that. I think we should let the past go and see what these experts have to say about the present.

Didn't mean to bore anyone.

John


>The is as long as you are willing to simply let the other side run >over you. You can claim (perhaps correctly) that you are answering a >higher calling. Of course, your higher morality will quickly be >selected right out of existence.

This seems to assert broadly that new information should not be permitted to alter one's previous views. Surely all of us have violated this rule while growing up. "When I was a child, I thought as a child,..." etc. Wouldn't applying it to an adult be counterproductive?

Why should we assume that "broader perspectives" inevitably would eliminate the wish to survive? One might instead learn more effective ways to survive.

Tom C


>This seems to assert broadly that new information should not be >permitted to alter one's previous views. Surely all of us have >violated this rule while growing up. "When I was a child, I thought >as a child,..." etc. Wouldn't applying it to an adult be >counterproductive?

It asserts nothing of the sorts. It does point out the problems implicit in preset moral systems. I don't think quoting Paul out of context helps either although it certain is a good example of what philosophers call "poisoning the well". BTW, the quote you are using WAS directed at adults. This same morality was also deal with by Nietzsche (The Genealogy of Morals) as shown to be the power play that it is. Sure, there are moral questions in remote viewing and everyone seems to want to apply the standard new age morality to them without really bothering to examine the assumptions that they go into the project with. For example, I have had the same remote viewers lecture me on the morals of remote viewing and then true around and out right lie about their training and remote viewing activites (and even training in some cases). Maybe pointing out that some remote viewers are relativistic about their ethics is rude...so be it. It still does not change the fact that there is no logical basis for one moral system over another and basically all anyone in this area is talking about is their own bias (regardless of how expanded your claims to higher perspectives is).

>Why should we assume that "broader perspectives" inevitably would >eliminate the wish to survive? One might instead learn more effective >ways to survive.

Generally speaking, take any group of adults, have them outline their own ethical judgements and then push their position to its logical conclusion and you will find them changing their judgements.

Charles D


>There is a very complex set of >feelings, appreciations, resentments, etc. about having to cop out >day by day - compounded with the absolute wonder and thanks of being >allowed to be a part of such a great project. That set of feelings >probably reaches into every deep part of the makeup of all of us who >worked there. There's not an easy answer. I don't know if there's >an answer at all.

I am a newbie, compelled to delurk and write. IMHO your responsibility was to do your job. You did it well. To attempt to evaluate the whys, wherefores and what ifs, beyond that, is a no win road to nowhere. It may sound trite, but you cannot blame the manufacturer of the gun, for what it gets used for.

Why not look at this from a broader perspective. As a result of the project and the person you are, you are here, now, helping, teaching, advising. Look how much value you are creating. Don't you realise how the skills you have learned and are now teaching others, will create a far greater benefit to mankind, than any harm you *feel* you may have done. You are doing more good than in the greater scheme of things, you can possibly ever imagine. So stop beating yourself over the head with a stck, you don't deserve it. Everything is unfolding as it should.

MaryD


> Problem was that in the unit, we could only suspect that the things > we provided weren't being used the way we wanted. All we got for > tasking was numbers, and usually, all we got for feedback was "You > did well!" - which totally sucks as feedback.

They must have been trying to control your 'sight' by limiting feedback.

> (snip) > But in the real world, there are, and like it or not, it was the > real world which hired us, trained us, and gave us our tasking.

Did you ever 'see' spontaneously? Without tasking or training or pay? Before you got into the program, I mean?

> That set of feelings probably reaches into every deep part of the > makeup of all of us who worked there. There's not an easy answer. > I don't know if there's an answer at all.

You know what? You'd probably feel the same way ... even if you weren't in the program. I think a lot of natural viewers feel that way anyway... "Should I do something... what could I have done to stop this... to change it... to help or protect those people... " those feelings are always there... numbers don't hide them and buzz words like "tasking" don't hold them at bay either (I imagine).

And if you were the guy at the top actually making the decisions.. would any of us choose any differently? ... Who knows... talk is cheap..

Trypper


Tom C wrote: > The whole point developing here seems to be that moral questions > abound, and every answer is contingent. E.g., the Just War: maybe > "Tradition" is not the most appropriate guide to the future. Maybe > out there in the 'everywhere,' broader perspectives appear.

Which leads to the subject of remote influencing... where mutual trust is absolutely critical because decisions are made on the spot out in the field (so to speak). Where there is no time for information to be relayed back and forth in traditional methods. It's like communication moving from typewriters and post office systems to high speed computer networking systems. It's a whole new level, a whole new future... and we're heading straight for it.

New ways of being require new ways of doing.

Trypper


I think you just supported what I said. The assumption I was attacking was the "new age" addiction to muddled thinking. As per AOL drive, most CRV people out there are no longer using that term..ditto for AOL peacocking, matching vs none matching AOL and several more terms viewers had to learn (and use) under the original methods. Reminds me of the old Sufi story of the "soup of the soup".

Charles D


>Liam here, just thought I would throw in my two cents worth. As far >as viewers (at least CRVers) are concerned I think the question is >academic. Fun to talk about but not realistic.

If the "cue" you are referring to is a coordinate number - there is nothing that prevents you from using literally any number you wish provided you know what the number refers to - make it a matter of record in your tasking books etc... if someone else down the street accidentally uses your same numbering system for a different target - so what... its your target and your numbering system which will be viewed by your viewer... they should not "accidentally" slip off to someones elses target or get yours mixed up with someone elses. If on the other hand, your cue is in fact a "clue" i.e. OK, Mr./Ms. Viewer, todays target is a (building), (person), (famous site), (not of this world), (a past/future event) etc., then you are not really conducting remote viewing, you are playing 20 questions. The trained viewer needs no prompting to get to a target. They may need prompting to "turn them around" at the target so they can view the proper item, or to get them to "step back" a bit to get a better view, or to tell them to stop viewing something that has personal interest to them. Liam, another member of this net, went to a site for me several years back to look for Russian missiles in Afghanistan. When he got there, he smelled soldiers boiling some very pungent tea over an open fire..He really liked the smell and tended to "hover" around the fire until I told him to move on... It did offer a great "cue" during subsequent sessions.... all I had to say was, "Liam" lets go back to the tea pot... bingo... he was there and from there we continued our hunt... BTW... he found the missles and our government was very happy with the results... Gene...

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


My, it's quiet out there. Perhaps we should introduce a "Fear of PJ" thread...

I'm posting this comment long after the conversational thread about it has dissipated; just haven't been able to get to it 'til now. Awhile back, the "Fear of Psi" topic got quite a bit of play, and in the process someone (I think Joe, perhaps) suggested that fear of failure might actually be a bigger issue in remote viewing than fear of psi. Later on, a question was asked about cool down--i.e., was it necessary, how did RVers do it, etc. Lyn responded, among other things, that I cool down by taking a short nap before a session. Those who have read Schnabel's book also are aware that I listen to "heavy metal" music before doing a session.

All this back-and-forth got me thinking about my "cool down" process, and what really is going on, and it finally dawned on me why I was doing what I was doing (see, even old dogs can learn new things!;-).

Here is the mechanics of it: I find a place to lie down for 15-20 minutes, and listen to fairly rowdy music until time to do the session. This music is usually some tape or other I've mixed myself, and does indeed often consist of at least some heavy metal--plus other rock music, plus New Age, plus occasional country, Celtic, and classical. The criteria for a musical selection to be put on the tape is that it has to give me some feeling of exhiliration (Hah! Legal drug addiction? I am, for example, listening right now to "30 Days in the Hole," by Humble Pie--an antique by today's music standards, perhaps--but boy does it get the blood racing! :-). I often do nod off for a few minutes, though not always. The point is, in fact, not relaxation--at least not mentally.

What I've been doing all along--but have just now figured out--is not "cooling down" at all, but rather "psyching myself up." I suppose it's the musical equivalent of the pep talk a coach gives before a sports event, or soldiers sometimes get before going into combat. It works as a confidence builder. As has been noted, many of us, even the experienced ones, encounter doubts and fears before we launch into a new RV session. And these fears come not from "fear of psi," but fear of failure. We may wonder, almost unconsciously, "Gee, what if it doesn't work this time?" It doesn't really matter how often it HAS worked in the past, this could be the time it DOESN'T. And, since even veteran viewers have at least occasional failures, this uncertainty is always there (I suppose I should add the obvious caveat that I speak here mostly for myself; Joe or Lyn or Liam or somebody else might say they never have a problem with it...). I guess it's something like stage fright, or pre-performance butterflies. I suspect that listening to exhilirating music riles up the beta-endorphins in some way, and gets me to feeling like I can "whip the world" (whewee! Good thing I DON'T play football--this sense of confidence and enthusiasm, when coupled with my natural lack of sports coordination, would certainly get me prematurely killed!). Ideally, this overwhelms the doubts, and allows me to launch into a session confidently.

For me, this procedure was much more important during training and the early operational days. It didn't directly improve viewing, but I think contributed indirectly, since I find even now with students that lack of confidence is one of the great inhibitors to remote viewing performance. For me these days, it doesn't seem to be as essential--I've done perfectly good sessions without this "cool down/psyche up" preparation. But whenever I get the opportunity, I still do it. I suppose it's my version of a "security blanket."

Paul

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


Joe,

1/Was this state a "classical Focus 10 or 12" or a personnalized focus point aside TMI F10,12,15,21,23,27,35 ?

2/Did you use classical hemi-sync tapes to induce the above meditative state or an individualized one ?

3/I know TMI proposes in its catalogue one "standard" tape dedicated to an RV exercise. But is it possible by now to buy a >>personnalized<< tape for *Remote Viewing purposes only* from TMI (for example with (1) a 5 minutes hemi-sync music introduction, followed by (2) a ten minutes going to Focus X monitored process, (3) the proposal of remembering the target ('s code), (5) 30 minutes of pink sound without comments or guidance... (6) the proposal of recording your datas, (7) the get back procedure) ? If yes, who has to be asked for at TMI ?

BTW is it possible, at your opinion, to buy monitored individual RV sessions in the TMI isolation booth at present time ?

Thank you very much. Regards. Jean-Luc.


>1/Was this state a "classical Focus 10 or 12" or a personnalized >focus point aside TMI F10,12,15,21,23,27,35 ?

Closest to a classical 10 state.

>2/Did you use classical hemi-sync tapes to induce the above >meditative state or an individualized one ?

Individualized by Bob for me.

>3/I know TMI proposes in its catalogue one "standard" tape dedicated >to an RV exercise. But is it possible by now to buy a >>>personnalized<< tape for *Remote Viewing purposes only* from TMI >(for example with (1) a 5 minutes hemi-sync music introduction, >followed by (2) a ten minutes going to Focus X monitored process, (3) >the proposal of remembering the target ('s code), (5) 30 minutes of >pink sound without comments or guidance... (6) the proposal of >recording your datas, (7) the get back procedure) ? If yes, who has >to be asked for at TMI ?

No. TMI does not want to be in the remote viewing business. They believe their tapes are tools which can be used for many many purposes, RV being one of them. And they are correct in that assumption.

>BTW is it possible, at your opinion, to buy monitored individual RV >sessions in the TMI isolation booth at present time ?

Yes. You might even be able to talk them into structuring it to be a remote viewing session. But, be advised, you are responsible for the remote viewing part. They will not teach you anything you cannot teach yourself.

I reiterate; Hemi-Sync is good for supporting RV but cannot in itself make someone a remote viewer.

Warm regards,

Joe

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


"As an example of the effect of assumed limitations on human performance, take the myth of the four-minute mile. For many years, it was believed impossible to run that fast...until someone did it and the impossible became possible. Almost immediately, many others were able to do the same. A conceptual barrier had been broken." LUCID DREAMING, p112

Are we our own worst enemy? How many "barriers" exist simply because we have been conditioned to "believe" they are real? They say in noetics, awareness precedes intentionality. Therefore, an awareness of our fears precedes our intentional release of our fears. I would rather be a dreamer who was wrong than a naysayer who was right. What's the worst that will happen- sail off the edge of the flat earth?

Paul, thanks for sharing. Think of the conceptual barriers ya'll have already broken down! The only anecdote I know of for our fears is love, in all its forms. Therefore, I propose another way of dealing with our fear of failures in RV is with a "love" of the potential that RV can contribute to all humanity.

Blessings, Vic .


Hi Paul

Yes I think fear of failure is significant and I do little routine to tell myself that it is not important....but it does not seem o contribute.

At this time I seem to have totally random results....sometiomes "on"....sometimes "off"...a lot of "generic" fits........very few "wows".

Your last homework was a big plus session after a couple weeks of terrible results.

On another front..............

A friend saw a rerun of the TV special on remote viewing ...Swann/Schnable/Dames/etc....

He said there was a lot of talk of "seeing" the site. Not describing...but seeing....

I seem to remember this as a common factor in the various books and web discussions. RVers "SEE" rather than "DESCRIBE".

Would anyone like to discuss RV "seeing" vs "describing"??????

Rich


>I'm posting this comment long after the conversational thread about >it has dissipated; just haven't been able to get to it 'til now. >Awhile back, the "Fear of Psi" topic got quite a bit of play, and in >the process someone (I think Joe, perhaps) suggested that fear of >failure might actually be a bigger issue in remote viewing than fear >of psi.

Hi Paul;

Thanks for proving my point on short term memory loss. It was I who made that statement, however I think Joe also had a comment on it. I also said it might have been helpful if we had been able to talk about the doubt. I could not obviously bring it up because I knew you, Joe, Gene and the others were afraid of nothing. Paul if you remember (if my theory is correct you won't) when you and I and the others were going through training I always volunteered to go first. That was so I could psych myself up to the exact second. Besides I found waiting around while every one else went before me and encountered great success, to be unnerving and confidence draining. It does not matter how good the last session was, or how many sites I've worked, the doubt still creeps in every now and then

>What I've been doing all along--but have just now figured out--is not >"cooling down" at all, but rather "psyching myself up."

Paul, I think you have it. For me ritual is real important. Sometimes I wear my lucky socks for months. A set time to do the session, so I can build up for it is also important. I find I get a shift in my mental state as the time gets closer. This happens more with ERV, but also with CRV. I do not know if the mental shift has anything to do with the session itself but it does help to build my confidence prior to working the site. When I feel the shift, I know I am going to prpbably be on target.

Thanks again for the input Paul. It helps to know that I am not the only one with occasional doubts.

warmest regards and of course

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


> I seem to remember this as a common factor in the various books and > web discussions. RVers "SEE" rather than "DESCRIBE". > Would anyone like to discuss RV "seeing" vs "describing"??????

Seeing and describing tend to merge with me. I don't go out of my way to help in location of missing objects or animals because the "map coordinate" aspect is weak with me - it only works if the circumstances of the object/animal, which come through well, are unmistakeable. A month ago, a friend asked me to find a watch he had mislaid for several years. Was it in the house ?

Place ? No response. But (internal question) in the house ? (Zonk in head =) yes. OK, give me a picture. Immediately: pitch black, warm, stuffy, no air, nothing to be seen except (gestalt unworded description) there are books crowding in. Suddenly, a vague picture: a small wallet or bag, no, a wallet but thinner than usual. Leather ? Kind of. We are (feelings) inside a wooden drawer as well, at the back where you wouldn't think to look.

I start the report without having all the detail, because I can often top the cake by spontaneous speech: "You've put it in a wallet, but not a usual type, maybe a bag. It's down the back of some books in ... (internal question: chest of drawers ? Zonk = yes) a chest of drawers, (spontaneously said:) upstairs straight ahead from staircase. (Picture:) A pine chest of drawers. Left top drawer."

Muttering he never put watches in wallets, he looked in just such a chest and there were no books and no watch. A week later his wife wrote. I had said "upstairs". There was a third floor which I didn't know about. Ahead from the stairs was a pine chest of drawers, with books in the indicated drawer. Behind them, a fake leather spectacle case with his watch in it, put there some 15 years earlier.

Dan W.


I should jump in here a bit..Paul was also one of my folks in the old military unit when I acted as a monitor... What Paul told you was absolutely factual - heavy metal and all... what he forgot was another little ritual he went through... just before entering the room where the session was being held or at the table right before he began his phase 1s... he would take out a little piece of paper and jot down a note or two... sometimes only a letter or a number... no one else could read what he wrote... it was his and his alone... It was his own little "briefcase" where he would "leave" distractors behind so they would not interfer with the session.... It worked for him... Gene...

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


At 05:20 PM 10/1/97, Paul Smith wrote: (snip) >All this back-and-forth got me thinking about my "cool down" process, >and what really is going on, and it finally dawned on me why I was >doing what I was doing (see, even old dogs can learn new things!;-). (snip) >What I've been doing all along--but have just now figured out--is not >"cooling down" at all, but rather "psyching myself up."

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who can go for over 15 years doing CRV and still learn something new about it. I was doing a session a few months ago and got to the B: in Stage I, and all of a sudden, learned something new about CRV. I won't go into it, but it amazes me how you can follow the stucture for years (or not follow it) and finally it dawns on you what is going on and why it has to be that way. Neat stuff!

(snip) >......And these fears come not from "fear of psi," but >fear of failure. We may wonder, almost unconsciously, "Gee, what if >it doesn't work this time?" It doesn't really matter how often it >HAS worked in the past, this could be the time it DOESN'T. And, >since even veteran viewers have at least occasional failures, this >uncertainty is always there (I suppose I should add the obvious >caveat that I speak here mostly for myself; Joe or Lyn or Liam or >somebody else might say they never have a problem with it...).

Yeah! Right!

Lyn

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


Hi all. Wellcome back Gene;

A point to ponder about the reversed polarity test. This was not part of the training (at least not overtly). Skip never explained how to do it.He never explained why we were doing it or what the use of it was. The fact that I did not think of this until now, shows how much trust we had (and still have) in Skip. The only instruction Skip gave us was "See if you can reverse your body's polarity." I believe all the Viewers were able to do this, although it took some of them a time to figger out the procedure. I would bet everyone of us used a different system to accomplish this. Nobody ever asked or told anyone else how they did it. This is a bit strange, as we talked about RV and RV theory almost continously. From what Gene said in his post, his method was completely different from mine. I still do not know what the significance of reverse polarity is, but I have been friends with Skip for over 20 years, and I know he had a reason for everything he did.

> (snip)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.. >.

Don't worry Gene, even though you passed your test I have not lost any respect for you......If I thought there was a snowballs chance in hell that you had passed it honestly, then I would lose respect for you.

BTW Gene. You refered to the polygraph as a machine. This termenology is tremendously upsetting to the examineers. The correct word is apparatus, as in bloody, worthless, apparatus.

I admit you went me one better by breaking your machine. Next time I am tested on the bloody, worthless, machine I will try and top you by making the examiner explode.

Best Wishes

May the Force be with you,

Liam

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


I thought I read somewhere that Joe used the reversed polarity (at TMI) as an indicator of when he was in the most ideal state for RVing.

Skye


I used the reverse polarity to know when I was at a specific place in my meditation which was "conducive" to remote viewing. I learned to do that at the Monroe Institute.

In fact, I have since learned that the reversed polarity issue isn't one at all. Nearly all people who are falling asleep will usually produce an electrical shift in their body fields at some point during the process. It has absolutely no meaning that I can determine, other than to say "you are really reaching a very very relaxed state" of mind and body. The way you do it, is by going to the edge of sleeep without actually going to sleep. (Remember Mind Awake, Body Asleep.) So, it is probably a form of self-controlled hypnosis.

Somewhat akin to centering in martial arts. Does nothing to improve your ability to fight, but does lend support to it.

There is not a lot in the literature, but you can find quite a bit on body fields and polarity shifts in any fairly complete medical school library.

regards,

Joe

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


Skip is still at the reversing polarity business at the Monroe Institute...or that seems to be what happens to folks from doing some of the advanced programs there. In the Guidlines program which I did last year, one gets the opportunity to spend an hour in the lab hooked up to monitors floating on the water bed in the sealed off chamber that they have there. Skip happened to monitor my session. At the end we got a printout and tape of the session, and sure enough, a few minutes into the session, one passes thru the zero point and the body polarity reverses. It felt to me like I started floating at about that point, and found myself in what I call the void.

He wasn't doing much feedback, but now , after taking CRV training, I realize he was being a good monitor.

Apparently, this polarity reversal happened to lots of folks . We were comparing our charts after it was all over. We were asked not to talk about it until everyone was finished with their lab session. There was one person who was skipping back and forth at will...his chart looked zig-zaggy.

Leveda


END ARCHIVE 30
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.