firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 041
.


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 forty-first archive.


October 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 41

> 3) For the pros: I sense that there's some relationship between lucid > dreaming and RV'ing, but can't seem to put my finger on it, aside from the > apparent fact that they're both similar, having conscious awareness of > other places/times/events in common. I don't recall this being addressed in > any of the literature I've seen. Comments?

Hi, George - Several years ago I was involved with lucid dreaming / dream control. I'm not an RV'er but I hope I can be of help.

It's stuck out in my mind that remaining in "structure" in Remote Viewing does share something with the process of learning how to be conscious during dreams and OBE's. For some reason though, I haven't seen too much on it either. I tend to equate lucid dreaming and OBE's with bilocation. Hence the nature of my response to your question.

It seems, at least on the surface, enviable as a viewing tool. With lucid dreaming, the more conscious we are, the closer we come to our goal of full participation in another world. I see the same with bilocation. However, because of logistical problems, it's discouraged. I've seen little interest in establishing "the next frontier" in the sense that many in the RV community just seem to accept it as a given thatcommunicating within bilocation is just simply not do-able. Either the information cannot be recalled after the session or the session is lost if the viewer tries to speak. Perhaps that explains the dearth of material relating RV'g to lucid dreaming.

I can certainly understand their position. I have never tried to communicate while being lucid. It's hard enough just getting there. To use computereze here for a moment, I suspect that one of the "defaults" (humour me here) is a form of an "either / or" setting. As soon as you try to bridge the gap (an "and" setting) between the two worlds by talking (ie.: vocalizing - a physical process) the link fails. You can be "either" there "or" here, but not there "and" here. If I recall correctly, one of the community's teachers, a woman, I believe (Angela?), deals with bilocation by simply remembering what went on in the session. Apparently she has good recall so, for her, bilocation doesn't seem to be an issue. Personally, I lean heavily toward exploring bilocation further. As a potential viewer, once I've mastered the protocols, I certainly would like to continue with bilocation as a sort of "post-doc" endeavour or specialty.

Take care,

Rick L

ps: by fluke, I just came across a text file I'd saved from the email group . . . by Angela! That should fill out some of the gaps in my own answer.

-------
Moderator's Note: The file you refer to came as an encoded attachment. Attachments aren't permitted on the list as it messes up some people's email. Perhaps you could refer them to it somewhere online. I offer to put documents online via HTML/FTP for list members, if you need that. Otherwise, you can reach Angela's web site at:
[formerly innervision, site now closed - archivists note] -- PJ


The question has been posed on tips for a good Monitor... NEUTRALITY NEUTRALITY NEUTRALITY..... Do not fall prey to monitor AOL... "Oh, I know what the Viewer means when they say big white marshmallow on the corner taking on passenger... they mean a white bus on corner...."...then you find out that the Viewer doesn't know crap about colors and the big white marshmallow on the corner is in fact a small black submarine about 1,000 feet underwater in the Atlantic Trench near a rock outfacing that leads to a valley ("corner??)... Don't presume on the Viewer ... you asked them to describe the object / target... well damn it... let them do it... Other tips... don't use Viewers for Lottery tips, tips on the horses, or tips on the stock market unless you are a tremendous philanthropist.... Regardz...Gene Kincaid...


>..............I have a question about >the monitor's role. What should the mindset of the monitor be? It >would seem that subconscious intent would influence the viewer even >in a "I want you to succeed...I want you to fail" type of way.

The monitor should have two aspects: to stay out of the viewer's session, and to get to the truth - no matter whether it makes sense to him/her (the monitor) or not. Any purpose the monitor has beyond those two just gets into the viewer's way, and causes the monitor to try to take control of the session from the viewer.

>..... Also, any good tips for improving our performance as a monitor?

Lots!

>Thanks again.

Good to hear from you.

Lyn

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


Nancy - I would have quoted some of your text but my Netscape 4.03 blew your post to smithereens. I'm going by memory. I just have to respond to your remarks about nutrition.

I'm involved with something called Instinctive Nutrition. I saw your post and, yes, I agree fully that it DOES have everything to do with this list. I believe that one of the reasons people have so much difficulty remaining in the ether, as David Morehouse so aptly put it, is because they are diverting energy to maintaining sick bodies. A rough day in the ether can even prevent you from driving home safely, apparently. I would imagine that attention put onto the corporeal self, in the way of aches and pains, etc., is, by definition, contradictory to maintaining a good fix or hold onto the other side. The pull back into the "here" is strong. I have had some interesting things happen to me while struggling with this new way of eating. Talk about altered states! I can't get into it at this time of the morning. Suffice it to say that any human being that is "there" will have more energy to project themselves, protect themselves and maintain themselves while viewing. Concentration would be vastly improved. I'm aware of one thing: that Viewers' psychological profiles would be completely different and certainly more resilient to the vagaries of floating around as a ghost if they ate raw food chosen instinctively, i.e.: by smell and taste.

Empiricism sits at the right hand of God, in my opinion - and I'm a fallen Catholic! Go figure. I have a fantasy and it goes like this: I've eliminated all physical pain and discomfort from my body by remaining on my Instincto way of eating. No cooked food, no dietary philosophies, etc. My food is chosen by smell and taste. Keeping in mind the empirical nature of the results of the few thousand "Instinctos" who have gone before me, I gleefully jump into a full immersion tank feeling alive and strong. Wearing nothing but an oral/nasal mask with a built-in mike and a source of diving air [hookah], I float in this warm tank without so much as a misplaced arm or uncomfortable fold of clothing under my back. There is no clothing. My body feels little if anything - and that's BEFORE I even try to reach theta. Sensory deprivation is, I would imagine, one HELL of a head start on sinking into the ether. I would want one thing in that tank: to eliminate as many sources of distraction as humanly possible. I already have spent long dives underwater; to me a 4 hour immersion is a soothing and gentle environment. I crave what Lyn Buchanan strives for: strict empiricism. Theory is great over a few beers. But in that tank I would want results of a purity that only a deep detachment of my physical self could provide: the next best thing to not having a body is to not feel it!

I wrote in one of my earlier posts that once I get into Viewing on a long term basis [I have a young family that keeps me busy right now] I would concentrate on bilocation as a sort of post graduate project. I feel it coming from here even without the benefit of seeing into the future :-) "Here I am Floating In a Tin Can, Far Above the Earth . . . "

It's very late and I hope the above is coherent.

Warm regards,

Rick L

--------
Sounds interesting Rick. No cooked food. Hmmn. That does make it difficult to be a carnivore, since much has to be cooked before it's safe to eat it. I'm sure there's logic to eating what your body says it wants rather than what your mind/convenience feels like stuffing into it. In any case. Structured RV doesn't include much floating around the universe... that's either OBE or conscious projection... but that doesn't mean you couldn't use it for RV, and maybe combined with your nutrition ideas you'll learn something that hasn't been learned before in that area. (I wonder what relevance it may have that the tank environment is very like the womb.) -- PJ


Hello all,

Linda and I finally got away from the house (to our son & new daughter-in-law's relief, I'm sure) around noon on Saturday. It was good to know that our plans are still important to God, since the minute we headed for Denver, He buries the place under enough snow to make the polar ice cap jealous. We kept hearing the weather reports and at one point, said, "It might be best if we take the southern route instead of the northern one. We were on Hwy 64 heading for St. Louis where we would pick up Hwy 70 and head straight for Denver. We looked at the map and saw that if we took Hwy 81 south, we could connect with Hwy 40 and go across TN, AR, OK, TX, NM, AZ, etc. Now, if we could find Hwy 81 to do that, we would be all right. At the very moment we made the decision, we looked up and saw that somewhere miles back, 81 had joined with the highway we were on, and turned south about 1/4 mile ahead. We turned south and saw some of the most beautiful country we've seen in a long time. The trees are all turning fantastic colors, and making for some outstanding scenery. Last night we had reached some very beautiful little town on the western side of the Blue Ridge mountains where gas was .99/gal and every says, "Y'all". It was great. The only thing negative has been that it has rained without stopping all the way from Mechanicsville. While I'm sure it's nice for the farmers, enough is enough of that.

I decided to use the trip for everyone's benefit, if you'd like. I took two pictures yesterday, and have taken two more already today of some really good targets. I will continue to take feedback pictures, record and give them target numbers. When we get the film developed, I will have them scanned in and post them for anyone who wants to do the sessions. That means that you won't have immediate feedback, and, MaryD, you will have all kinds of inadvertent frontloading to deal with (Oh, joy!) However, I have been picking targets longer than most people have been guessing about them, so let me give you some warning: You know from the above note that I went through the Blue Ridge mountains. Does that mean that I would take a picture of mountains, or does that mean that I would intentionally take a picture of something specifically non-mountainous, just to show you that your pre-guessing doesn't help? Heh, heh, heh!

Three things you can be sure of are that the targets will be: 1) real world 2) interesting enough to make them entertaining and easy to work 3) a wide and unpredictable spectrum of things, not just shots of this and that out the car window.

Feedback will hopefully be provided within two weeks.

[Archivist Note: Coordinates and feedback are available on the Firedocs target practice page.]

Lyn

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


>I can understand how this is possible whilst using ERV, but am confused >how it can be done using CRV methodology, can anyone explain? Is open >searches a standard prctice/procedure?

In my personal opinion, this isn't possible under any form of RV. If you have a proper (blind target) starting point, you could certainly wander off from that location if you wanted to, but you would need a point to start. Just opening your mind to anything (open targeting) may produce data, but I'm not sure you could ever connect it to anything. Nor would you want to trust it if you could.

Regards,

Joe

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


> go on open searches. I can understand how this is possible whilst using > ERV, but am confused how it can be done using CRV methodology, can > anyone explain? Is open searches a standard prctice/procedure?

"Open search" was a term used by one of the project's directors (and training officer at the time) to denote a type of practice session in which 1) there was no frontloading given (except "this is an open-search session") and 2) the viewer was given some coordinates for the session, which did not have a specific site attached to it. Sometimes, there was a reason for it, as in the time when we were told to see what would be in the newspaper the following Monday morning that would be of interest to us. Many times, however, there was no specific tasking. In general, we never got "open search" targets unless there was no official tasking and we were being given targets for practice. Some times, we weren't even given coordinates and there was not even any other reason than to put some viewing time on the record books to look like we had been doing something. At times, it was the managerial equivalent of throwing three quarters into the yard and telling the kids that there is a dollar's worth of change, and whoever finds it can have it. It kept us busy and out of mischief.

Lyn

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


>Re open searches: >One thing that strikes me, having listened to the intell guys talk about >this for a couple years now, is that the so-called "open searches" they >did were seldom, by my own definition, actually "open." So I think the >term may be causing some confusion.

I use this open -search method most nights after going to bed and often in the morning after waking up. I don't understand some of the targets I end up with though. All I do is cue my mind to "give me a target that I will find fascinating". The reason I do this is merely for the practice. I am trying to get my mind to accept the matrix/unconscious/conscious connection. My aim is to get clear holographic images of the target, including the emotion associated with it. In other words I am exercising my mental process to learn this process of "mental bungy-jumping"....also known as remote viewing. This is obviously not as satisfactory as a full-on CRV exercise but it's causing me to "stretch my mind muscles". Anyway it uses up otherwise wasted time when I would think about such useless subjects as sex, etc -:)

Jim F.

-------
Moderator's Note: What you are describing is approximately 7.2 light years from being anything like CRV or in fact most forms of RV and psi I know of. Could be holographic _imagination_ (I can get awesome visuals in daydreaming -- you've no feedback to know it's otherwise after all). This is what I should be doing. Stretching my mind muscles. But usually I prefer to think about sex. ;-} -- PJ


I have just printed out the SRV manual, (as its the only one I can find!). I am sitting quietly, attempting to get my head around the various phases, before I attempt any more targets, to hopefully avoid jumping straight up to my neck in it again.

It is often easier to learn from example, but, I cannot find anywhere on the net, any examples of targets with actual line for line, complete documentation, through all phases, as actually done by an expert. I can find "The viewer went on to describe..." etc. Does anyone know of such a "carbon copy" source.

I have noted that when I attempt a phase 1 ideogram, I get instead a symbolic image vaguely related to a target. eg. A statue of Buddha, for the Drupas, a red cross flag, for Di's accident. Should those be probed?

And if I am suddenly up to my neck in it, should I and if so, how do I, stem the flow, and go back to earlier phases.

MaryD


> So, should we be analyzing (afterward ;-) what our subconscious is > trying to tell us? > Have the experienced viewers had any luck developing a kind of "sign > language" with their subconscious or am I just doing some wishful > thinking? -- Vickie > Moderator's Note: Hiya Vickie. Seems like it'd be hard NOT to do > that after-session analysis when you're breaking it all down for > accuracy doesn't it?

Hi, you guys - an opinion here. From my own experience outside of Viewing, it may be to everyone's advantage to actually "analyse" less and just "observe" more. By observing, we use the most of what we all lament about having lost, oh, so long ago. Namely, our child's mind. We are using different parts of our brain when we observe. Analysis is a higher order function and certainly does force us to have to bypass little nasties like ego, social concerns, indoctrination/dogma, etc. Eliminating the AOL hoops may be do-able by making an effort to say "OK, this is what happens when I . . ." versus ""Now, I wonder what the meaning is behind . . . ". Notice the difference? One is an acceptance of whatever IS which is what we as children used to be good at. The other is an EFFORT to mold the "what is" into a "what we would like it to be". Hence the never ending struggle with having everything make sense.

I'm not saying that everything WILL make sense immediately. For example, anyone with a modicum of electrical or nuclear knowledge, say the Ph.D. level :-) will readily admit that understanding electricity is nonsense. It can't be done. When someone says they do, what they are really saying is that they have an understanding of HOW or WHAT electrons do when you try to stuff'em down the pipe. They understand the RULES, not the electrons. WHY is, in reality, a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. HOW is a scientific enquiry.

Analysis is obviously necessary, but I believe that's it's merely done too prematurely in the evaluation process.

Rick L


Mary,

You wrote:

"... any examples of targets with actual line for line, complete documentation, through all phases, as actually done by an expert"

IMHO, (from a viewbie perspective), you have vocalized a HUGE key to teaching what CRV is all about. The one example by Lyn of your view "line-by-line" was invaluable to my limited understanding and comprehension of CRV. "One picture is worth a thousand words," and one excellent example is worth a million words. "Learing by example": right up there with "learning by doing" in educational theory. Thank you. It brought home to me the huge amount of time, discipline, and hard work involved in learning CRV and employing CRV.

I suspect some of the more "free-form" pyschics investigating RV will opt for their own individual methods which may be easier and quicker, but not necessarily less effective. But perhaps CRV methods will be incorporated into their "psychic" methodologies as well, and enhance their results.

When you see "line-by-line", fully contained examples of CRV structure in action in PJ's archives and in the teaching curriculums of the V-rati, you will see your great contribution to the dissemination of CRV to the world. We are all BOTH the teacher and the student.

That said, I also appreciate Lyn remarks about structure being there for the viewer and not vice-versa. As Joe Mc-, Lyn, Paul, Liam, Gene PJ and others have alluded- "the proof is in the pudding".

Also, your experience you shared helped us other viewbies to understand the problem of "no-feedback possible" practice targets while learning. Thanks for your enthusiasm and courage.

The Ozarks or the Moon, what's the difference?

Blessings, Vic

- viewless in TX


>Although Dossey discusses this work in the context of "prayer," which >carries unfortunate connotations for many, it seems clear from these >results that directed intention, whatever it may be labelled, can affect >other entities significantly, either for good or for ill.

Dean Radin, in his new book THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE details some somewhat remarkable experiments whereby individual and combined consciousness(es) reduce the randomness of physical systems - i.e. - psychokinesis. For example, the universal consciousness expectance at the time of the handing down of the O.J.Simpson verdict reduced the randomness of physical order in general so that a series of RNG (random number generator) machines at various universities suddenly produced readouts which peaked in line with the simultaneous human interest in the trial outcome. The power of the combined consciousness on the weather pattern was also investigated. Sort of gets back to praying for the rain to go away.

I've suspected for many years that the original basis of prayer was a quantum scientific process couched in a generalised dogma cunningly designed to transcend time, language and belief systems.

There is some comment on remote viewing in this book also, but I haven't got to that part yet.

The book is a slow read because the implications of some of Radin's findings and resultant analysis are quite awesome......and require lots of re-reads and deep thinking.

Jim F

-------
Moderator's Note: You can find out more about Dean Radin and his book by visiting:
http://www.psiresearch.org/


>Dean Radin, in his new book THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE details some somewhat >remarkable experiments whereby individual and combined consciousness(es) >reduce the randomness of physical systems - i.e. - psychokinesis.

That is correct. But, Dean would be very upset if you implied that he was saying this example was proof of PK or remote influencing. Something he takes great care in not saying himself (at least yet--since the proof is not in).

>For example, the universal consciousness expectance at the time of the handing >down of the O.J.Simpson verdict reduced the randomness of physical order in >general so that a series of RNG (random number generator) machines at >various universities suddenly produced readouts which peaked in line with >the simultaneous human interest in the trial outcome.

It was not a "peak in power", it was a "reduction in peak" which simply stated, implies a reduction in the chaos or unpredictability of the system.

>The power of the >combined consciousness on the weather pattern was also investigated. >Sort of gets back to praying for the rain to go away.

Don't remember reading that in his book.

>I've suspected for many years that the original basis of prayer was a >quantum scientific process couched in a generalised dogma cunningly designed >to transcend time, language and belief systems.

Or vice-versa.

I would point out, Jim, that there is nothing in his book that counters any of what I've been saying. :)

Regards,

Joe

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


>That is correct. But, Dean would be very upset if you implied that he was >saying this example was proof of PK or remote influencing. Something he >takes great care in not saying himself (at least yet--since the proof is not in).

Dean would probably be rubbished by the scientific world if he mentioned PK in connection with these findings. But nevertheless the events as described come across to me as either PK events or some sort of equivalent resonant event.

>It was not a "peak in power", it was a "reduction in peak" which simply >stated, implies a reduction in the chaos or unpredictability of the system.

Correct...I was probably holding the book upside down when I read this chart -:)

>>>The power of the combined consciousness on the weather pattern was also investigated. Sort of gets back to praying for the rain to go away.
<<<Don't remember reading that in his book.

Detailed on pages 171-172 > >I would point out, Jim, that there is nothing in his book that counters any >of what I've been saying. :)

You're right there Joe. I have just finished your new book and I must say it makes for a very thought-provoking read. Well done mate!!

Jim


I have some more questions if someone could help!

If I frontloaded with the info that a boy named John Smith had been murdered in a location, but set myself the target cueing of "describe the event, and all participants". Then when and if they catch the murderer/s I compare the emerged events to my rv session (feedback) can this be classed as remote viewing. Because although I have frontloaded, the actual target I have no info on, so it should be valid.

If not is there any way of tasking a target that you are personally interested in but by targeting an aspect you know nothing about then awaiting feddback from a future source?

I feel I may upset some people here but someone has to mention it...

I know that the trained CRVers say that there is no manual publically avilable becuase it is best learnt with a tutor, but surely it would be best for the rving community to allow public access especially as the CRVers do seem to feel that CRV is probably the best methodogy. I don't want to be negative but I feel that this is a bit strange for CRVers to try and help the rving community all around the world, but then say you can't learn CRV unless with us, and on a course for a sum of money. I am not trying to cause conflict I just find it frustrating knowing that I am in England I am unemployed so the chance of learning CRV (which seems to be the best methodology) has got to be virtually Nil, and my only hope is tit bits of information I can gratefully glean from this great email service.

I would appreciate any comments on this.

Thanks in advance...

Darryl


Hi, all - I have a question that could be answered by Liam or Gene. But the field is certainly wide open.

I experienced an extreme emotional reaction a little while ago. I grew up as a Roman Catholic in Quebec, but, left the church intellectually and in my heart about 27 years ago, when I was 14. That background - that I no longer subscribe to the tenets of any church or follow any dogma is important to my query.

A couple of weeks ago I posted a question regarding what I referred to as "bleed-throughs" or intrusions into my day-to-day reality of what felt like someone else's experiences. There's always a direct sense of "being there" but they were, until this episode, always contemporary. PJ was of the opinion that they MAY have been a sort of "beginner's" opening up of my abilities and that's why they remained contemporary - almost as a default setting for lack of time-line skills. Currently, I am not a Viewer.

That was the prologue. Here's what happened. I was having breakfast (the family was out) and listening to either "Ordinarium Missae" or Mozart's "Requiem KV 626" (sounds like a new Mazda). This is very "churchy" music. Without warning, I felt a sudden and powerful upsurge of sadness and loss, imagery of being in the aisle at the back of a European church (i.e.: the Old World) being consoled by cloaked and caped clergy and parishioners. I was most definitely a woman (I was looking out through her eyes; I "knew" - somehow - that I was a woman) being ministered to for some sort of great loss. What gets me is what followed: I burst into tears and, as I sat down between the speakers to immerse myself in the experience (things like this don't spook me out - I quite enjoy these altered states) I started to sob. You know, the wracking, gut wrenching Academy Award winning shoulders bouncing SOBS.

Either there was somethin' funny in thet thar grapefruit or . . . I mean, when it comes to reincarnation, I'm an agnostic. Genetic memory? Could I have been border-line RV'g some other extension of one of my "other" selves? Any comments from religious or otherwise people out there?

One interesting side note: despite great anger at the Catholic church in the past, for some reason I am very drawn to Catholic icons and imagery. Architecturally, I love cloisters, churches, stained glass windows, etc. Love incense, robes, etc. Which is truly weird because I'm ASIAN oriented.

Thanks for your patience on this one folks. The deep background was necessary.

Rick L

ps: and I accused the Irish of being verbose. Good grief.

----------
Moderator's Note: Rick, this is SO interesting. You've unknowingly hit on a number of relevant subjects here.

First, when you query a group of students in an RV class, nearly all of them will tell you that they began having "interesting experiences" after they started THINKING of RV -- hadn't even gone near training yet. Many of might be called "spontaneous RV" which is really not RV at all since it isn't controlled, but sounds great. :-)

Second, I think this lends some 'logical' (if that should be used in this sense) construct to the idea that your 'modern' experiences were because you were either focused in the now or defaulted to the now, whereas listening to old music of a certain type 'tuned you into' something along those lines.

Third, it's not unheard of as you know. I've had a number of experiences, from "flashes" to full revivifications of "other lives." I cannot explain what it means theologically. My assumption has always been that it was not necessarily "your" life in terms of reincarnation, but rather, was a life you "tuned into" -- as if all life is energy, and all energies are available like library books -- maybe because God wanted you to find something in that experience. In every case I have seen (and I've seen many, as I used to be heavily involved with hypnosis), the subject finds something in the experience that addresses a feeling or issue they have in this life.

For instance, your having left the Catholic church surely has a number of... emotional results, or causes, or side effects. Yet in your experience, you had first-hand one of the things that is good and wonderful about the Church -- they are there in times of need, they console and sometimes provide shelter, such as in times of war when men are killed and women and children are left helpless, and the whole theology and setting is "larger than life." (I myself am intensely drawn to Catholic music, icons, etc., and I wasn't raised Catholic and don't agree with the religion. I'm from an Irish background, so maybe it's genetic, who knows.)

As for the massive emotion, when people tend to have these flashes and hypnotic regressions, they usually 'tune into' one of the most intense experiences of the life. In most cases this is the death. Which does not make regressions fun. In other cases it is just some heavy-duty experience/emotion. You do seem to be on the track of the traditional in that sense.

But, those experiences are awe-some. Unique and intimately personal. Sometimes the effects even last long beyond the actual experience itself. Once I revivified having just had a child, the second one, and I was marveling over how much easier it had been than the first. At that point in real life I'd never had children and adamantly insisted I never would. My back ached in the strangest way and I had to do stretching exercises for some time after the experience to make the ache go away. And it altered my feelings on what was a big issue for me: I felt like I'd already done it. I'd had a kid, I'd lived... some part of my biology actually picked up the experience and put me at peace with it. Without that experience, I am pretty certain I would not NOW have a child.

Sounds like you had a fascinating experience. Might be interesting to 'tune into that' when you're feeling rested and comfortable some night, and see what all details you can pick up about your surroundings there. -- PJ


>If I frontloaded with the info that a boy named John Smith had been >murdered in a location, but set myself the target cueing of "describe the >event, and all participants". Then when and if they catch the murderer/s I >compare the emerged events to my rv session (feedback) can this be classed >as remote viewing. Because although I have frontloaded, the actual target >I have no info on, so it should be valid.

Lots of stuff can be valid in hindsight. But, the question is concerning "front-loading." There are some things a person can know and it can still be considered remote viewing. There are somethings a person should never know or it won't be remote viewing. In your case, since you are asking about this, it implies you don't know which is which, which means you are learning--in which case you should never be front-loaded. Given a choice, most good viewers do not want to be front-loaded either.

>If not is there any way of tasking a target that you are personally >interested in but by targeting an aspect you know nothing about then >awaiting feddback from a future source?

In most cases no. You have to either put the target into a sealed envelope and mix it in with a larger pool (large enough that you can't hope to guess what or which target you may be working on), or have someone else give you the target when you least expect to receive it.

>I feel I may upset some people here but someone has to mention it... > >I know that the trained CRVers say that there is no manual publically >avilable becuase it is best learnt with a tutor, but surely it would be >best for the rving community to allow public access especially as the >CRVers do seem to feel that CRV is probably the best methodogy. I don't >want to be negative but I feel that this is a bit strange for CRVers to >try and help the rving community all around the world, but then say you >can't learn CRV unless with us, and on a course for a sum of money. I am >not trying to cause conflict I just find it frustrating knowing that I am >in England I am unemployed so the chance of learning CRV (which seems to >be the best methodology) has got to be virtually Nil, and my only hope is >tit bits of information I can gratefully glean from this great email >service.

I happen to agree with you, and I've been viewing for 19+ years. The truth is, there is no manual available--except for the one's which one or more viewers have written. Since they have written them, they have the option of how they would like best to use them. If you obtain a copy of MIND TREK from Airlift Books in London, 26-28 Eden Grove, London N7 8EF tel: 0171-607-5792, you can read about a lot of this stuff in it.

If you believe that a manual or written information will make it easier, or shorten the time (3-5 years) required to generally understand what you are doing--sorry...ain't going to happen.

Hope this helps.

Joe

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


END ARCHIVE 41
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.