Viewer Email Group
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-third archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 43
> results were nailing the next target to be run. In other words, my > session one results recorded target #2, #2 session results identified #3, > etc. <snip>
Thanks for the reply Greg,
It seems that with RVing, just as you start to get some feel for one part, a little bump come along and gives you a new twist to deal with. Never a dull moment with this.
Thanks for having your teacher's hat on, when writing the undeclared AI can stop a session cold, and jogged my memory. I have been doing some targets solo (since Gene is away) and I found myself stopping cold and unable to get any more info at all even after a break, so I ended there in both instances since I had already gotten considerable amount of information about the target.
In the second case, I did have an AI break, but could get nothing else anyway. My question is, when something like this happens, and you are unmonitored, obviously you have not declared the "correct" AI, so what do you do? Keep probing your AI and declaring what comes up until information starts flowing again?
Thanks to you and all of the RViewers for the benefit of your collective experience and wisdom, and also your much appreciated senses of humor, and to PJ for providing the conduit for the stuff to get from the jugs to the mugs as it were.
Sarah... Read the reply I gave to Mary this evening... essentially I told her to quit worrying about what the target is and just go view it... If a Police department tells you they want to find a missing person... well OK... they have already given you seven truck loads more information than you need but remember "missing" means just that... a "missing prisoner", a missing husband, a missing corpse... whatever... quit worrying about what "they" want and go to the target you are SUPPOSED to go to... trust in the magic... (and it is magic you know... no other explanation holds a candle to the fact that it all boils down to magic...) ...Feedback is given in the fact you will know you are on target and if you do what you are SUPPOSED to do... you will get enough data to positively answer the questions... what more feedback do you need... (remember, don't confuse "feedback" with clues to the puzzle or cues during sessions...) ...Feedback should not come until the session(s) are totally over and you are moving to a new unrelated target... IF THEN!!!! Regards...Gene Kincaid..
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
In the second case, I did have an AI break, but could get nothing else
What is an AI? Artificial Intelligence?
Pleeeeeeeeeeease don't use acronyms, for us poor newbies are seriously challenged trying to make sense out of these posts.
Moderator's Note: When it comes to CRV, alas, one of the problems here is that much of it is not just a matter of acronyms used for convenience when writing. These acronyms ARE what is used in CRV (sometimes students can't even remember what the heck it technically spells out to). I'm sorry, I spaced out and let this one slide right by without defining. Please do just what you did -- ASK if you see something you don't recognize.
AI means "aesthetic impression." This in general means when a conceptual aspect of the target's nature suddenly makes an impression on you, and instead of getting neutral data, you suddenly get something "in relation to" yourself or that really "strikes you suddenly" about it. For example, you might be saying, "warm... reddish-orange... brown... flat... rocky... really big!.... hard..." -- that "really big!" was your AI. In CRV, an AI on the Viewer's part marks the border between stage/phase 2 and stage/phase 3.
Unlike some interesting new teaching ideas though, this has to happen NATURALLY... you cannot to my knowledge just "write down an AI" at that point based on some handbook of listed AI's. ;-) There are parts of the structure that are designed merely for the structure, and there are parts of the structure that are designed as reference points to what is going on inside a Viewer during their experience in session. Faking it so you've got something written down would be far more harm than help. These "indicators" may be for an analyst, or they may be something that helps the monitor recognize 'where the Viewer is' and then work with them at that level. AI is an indicator in basic level CRV, and then becomes a type of data in the higher levels (and in some respects can function as a "doorway" to other levels of or aims of CRV/RV).
I hope this is complete... I'm sure Lyn or Paul or Liam will let me know if it's not... Knowing Paul as a stickler for literal Swann theory I shoulda dug out my class notes and quoted him verbatim to make sure I got it down here correctly... ;-) -- PJ
>...What if you were working for a police dept. and they >tasked you with "Locate Person". Wouldn't the tendency be to >subconsciously assume that the target was a victim of a crime possibly? >Wouldn't that make some AOL? I know that there are methods for sorting it out... But...
Yes, and you would have just fallen prey to a whole herd of STRAY CATs. Here's where self-discipline comes in. Experience helps, too, in that after many, many taskings from police departments, you come to learn that the target person may be a victim, may be a criminal, may be a next-of-kin or a witness they are trying to find. If the tasking is done correctly, there is no way for the viewer to know. If you go into a session thinking "this is a victim of a crime", you may as well not go into the session. You have to sit down and talk yourself out of such a preconception, then set it aside. If you don't, the session is ruined before it ever gets started. This is one of the things meant by "self-discipline".
>I guess it is great to have an idea of what your task is... you know, to >narrow it down, but it seems to me that in a situation like that the >frontloading would be a potential problem, at least for newbies such as >myself. ( Although we newbies would probably not be given a target like >that!!))
Frontloading is very much a problem for newbies. However, an experienced trainer has had more years of picking targets than the newbie has had at guessing them. When a trainer sees the newbie getting AOLs from the frontloading, he/she either stops the frontloading, or starts developing targets which will show the newbie in no uncertain terms that you can't have any faith in your AOL's at all.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Sorry Allen, about the acronym AI (aesthetic impact). I used it, since Lyn had just spoken about it in the message I was replying to, so I didn't think I had to redefine it, but I realize that the threads of messages are not really easy to follow from one to another.
I also did not mention that I was in an advanced state of the session, several pages in to a Stage IV matrix( as PJ clarified, where AI appears as another kind of information) at the time. Perhaps it would have been better to ask it privately, but, as I said Lyn had just mentioned that undeclared AI was one of the things that can stop a session cold and I was grateful to be reminded of that. (It was one of those things when you are wondering about something and the answer suddenly appears (MAGIC).
And I had a question about how to deal with a situation in which I had already declared an AI and was still stopped cold, so I was wondering what one did at that point, since my left brain (monitor) happens to be in Germany right now.
> her to quit worrying about what the target is and just go view it... you > need but remember "missing" means just that... a "missing prisoner", a > missing husband, a missing corpse... whatever... quit worrying about what
Yes! I recently did a search (similar to rv) for a "missing person" but came up with information that included one thing that I considered weird/ridiculous for a missing person - girls dancing in spotlights. It ended up being 100% right - missing person turned out to be an man who had gone to New Orleans and sampled the local entertainment. The information that I thought was off-the-wall turned out to be the most useful.
>In the second case, I did have an AI break, but could get nothing else >anyway. My question is, when something like this happens, and you are >unmonitored, obviously you have not declared the "correct" AI, so what do >you do? Keep probing your AI and declaring what comes up until >information starts flowing again?
Actually, there is no need to probe the AI, since it isn't the right one, anyway. The emotional which hit you might also be totally separate from the AI. What you do is start at the line where you froze up and probe each perception (not AOLs or AIs), going backward through the session. On each one, you try to "relive the moment" when you got the perception and find out if there was an emotional reaction to it. Once you find the emotional reaction, you go back down to the place where you froze up, make a note, declare the emotion, and then continue on. Writing it down objectifies it and frees you up to continue.
>Thanks to you and all of the RViewers for the benefit of your collective >experience and wisdom, and also your much appreciated senses of humor, and >to PJ for providing the conduit for the stuff to get from the jugs to the >mugs as it were.
I just got back from giving a talk at the Rockville, MD chapter of the Institute of Noetic Science. I was told ahead of time that most of the people there probably had never heard of CRV, and might not be too interested. The group was so open and interested that the meeting ran much longer than usual. I think I can speak for all of "us RVers" in saying thanks to everyone who is interested in the work we did and do, the things we learned and are still learning, and the efforts we made and make. If there is anyone who gets the warm and fuzzies out of all this, I think it is us. When I was in the unit, and after I retired, I always envisioned that someday in the far distant future I might be able to tell my grandchildren what I had done in service, but that when I did they would say, "Great, Gramps! Can I borrow the car?" It feels good to find people interested in the same things I'm interested in. I never expected it to happen in my lifetime, and now it appears to be happening all over. It's great, and I personally want to thank each one of you.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Thanks Leveda, you jogged a forgotten question out of my memory.
The talk of monitor importance has got me wondering. Can we, as trainees or newbies, without the luxuary of a monitor use or left brain as the monitor? I know in a formal CRV scenario that wouldn't be acceptable, because of the constant switch from right to left brained thinking (correct?). Or are there other options one can use to create a monitor?
Patiently waiting training
Write 100 lines. Beginners Targets must have feedback.
As an enthusiastic beginner, I just jumped in the deep end. I only saw the in-fighting of the different schools, and related that to different methodologies and personalities.
I did not link that to the need to be discriminating in source of targets.
I see the difference now between the National Geographic and the National Enquirer <G>
I learned the hard way. However I _have_ learned. I have learned where not to go, as I am learning what not to do. And all feedback is positive feedback, if looked at correctly. And I really did enjoy my walk on the Moon. Oooooohh. ;-o)
Actually talking about the Nat Geo, a monthly computer mag here in the UK recently gave away a CD containing all articles and gifs in the '94-96 issues, with the ability to bookmark any page, with any title. I now have suitable 450 piccies bookmarked with random letters and numbers. I also have PJs targets and Angelas plus Mike CTs. So...
Trust everyone's having a lovely weekend. Esp Lyn - be happy. Enjoy the adventure.
Warning: This long post contains my personal opinions which are best considered "political" in terms of the RV field. Though it addresses theory and practice, it is probably controversial. You may want to skip this message. -- PJ
So glad you saw that -- and say that. When you write, "...I only saw the in-fighting of the different schools, and related that to different methodologies and personalities. I did not link that to the need to be discriminating in source of targets. I see the difference now between the National Geographic and the National Enquirer." You really hit on something important. This kind of thing is really the core of much of the current 'debate' between people who consider themselves doing RV.
I have restricted "methods politics" from this list, so we could focus on talking about theory/practice. But it's difficult to talk about theory and practice without eventually running into politics -- by way of people like you who innocently do what you're told, only to end up confused. Because as you have seen, practice is done a certain way based on the underlying theory or understanding, and the issues that cause the politics tend to be the source of, or result of, the theory.
So, I'm back where I began. Methods aside -- I will just ignore whether or not methods themselves could be an issue -- I will try to address some of the issues that cause this conflict -- focusing on those which have already begun to affect you (and others, I know, as I hear constantly).
First, I was serious when I said, if you're going to follow a certain path, consider how the approach and conceptual beliefs of the leaders appeal to you. There are some people who really do prefer to work in the more... "creative" modern derivative methods, those that tend to put a much shorter time-to-expertise label on their process, and have more interest in psychically tuning into "anomalies" and such, and that's fine, more power to them. They're honest with themselves.
If hard work, a lot of discipline, a lot of documentation, and years of applied study turn you off, don't seek out CRV. You will NOT be an expert in a week. You will NOT be an expert in a month or even a year (probably). You will work and get gradually more understanding, and if you do it nearly every day and take it very seriously and document things like crazy, you'll probably be decently dependable within about two years. (That isn't to say you won't have good sessions before that of course, even right away.) If you have no interest in learning to be psychic except as it applies to aliens or government conspiracies, don't seek out CRV. If you're not interested in having to face up to real world critical analysis of your sessions, eventual real world applications of your skill, etc., don't seek out CRV.
As you saw by Lyn's response to you, he told you very flatly what was what and why. No coddling you. "Real" RV supports that no-nonsense approach. Maybe because it's "from" the science lab and military, you're expected to be able to handle direct feedback. (It's for the big boys... so to speak.) If a hard focus on the facts scares you, avoid CRV.
When it comes to the various derivatives which have their own methods some consider "competition" to CRV, be aware that some media-prone persons calling their psychic work RV have even publicly admitted that their main interest in RV isn't even RV -- it's to get in touch with aliens. (This is good, since their own training and knowledge of RV is ... well, suffice to say, I hope they know more about aliens.) Yet still, they sell RV Training as if they are an RV expert. They even go into international media and explain why they are an expert and others with 20 years of experience are not.
What are these expert credentials? Go ask the scientists who founded and have studied RV for over 20 years. Ask soldiers like Paul, who was a Viewer in the intell RV unit for seven years, or Lyn, for nine, or Joe, who between science and the intell work was a Viewer in the program from beginning to end. Read some of the scientific papers that have been published about the remote viewing subject. Really educate yourself about it. DO it. Practice it.
Then ask yourself why you think there are so many "politics" in the remote viewing field. Take a second look at what is really available, and who is arguing with whom about what.
The main root issues that cause 'surface' politics in this field are related to training. Some "new" people to the field, with their own methods (based remotely on CRV), began offering what they called RV Training. (The habit is to make up a first word that sounds great and prefix that to the "RV.")
The "new" trainings didn't contain many elements considered necessary for the CRV method, zero of the actual RV protocol that qualified anything as RV, and little of the conceptual understanding of _why_ the methods are designed a certain way in the first place. Still, that's just a difference of opinion, right? Who knows. Other methods could be just as good, even better. I won't get into any debate about methods on the list. I'm the person always saying that methods are great, but anybody can do it to some degree even on their own. Methods aren't my argument.
It's the "theory" and concepts which drive the methods and training in the first place which are in conflict. Some of the 'derivative' trainings incorporate vast quantities of what amounts to religious indoctrination into the process, to the point where you can't just do the RV without that, they are intertwined. It provides tasking that forces people training with them to accept their ideas and beliefs, and to irreparably tie their own belief in themselves, their RV ability, and even RV in general, TO those beliefs. It's hypnotic; if an enemy did it to you, they'd call it brainwashing; if somebody pulled out a bible they'd call it a cult; there is a great deal of hypnotic modality involved in any psi work and teacher-student relationship, much moreso when you involve an active peer group.
In CRV this is well known and teachers are expected to be experienced, recognize the vulnerability of students, and NOT take advantage of it for their own ego or pocketbook. They are expected to be something of a role model for taking the subject seriously, and for discouraging students from diving into things they are not experienced enough to deal with in a constructive way. As an absolute, they are expected to only provide (or even allow) new students targets with feedback.
I get the fallout from the "new training ideas." I get emails and phone calls from people who did XYZ with so-and-so, and who are reacting to it in one way or another. They don't need me -- they need a psychologist. Their head is so screwed up from the many issues that their training and experience provided that they've undermined their faith in themselves, even when they're seemingly "over it." And then people wonder why I am so slicingly brutal about the 'cult' aspect that some self-titled RV experts have brought to this field. I get to mop up the lost lambs, that's why.
What's worse is, the people most affected by these issues in training are the people *_most likely to be good Viewers._* Because those who were just happily willing to accept anything they were told without question, the sheep so to speak, had no problem with it. It was those who were really serious and really questioning and unable to accept internal inconsistency who eventually realized they were in a stew, and in the process of climbing out, realized they had paid a lot of money for what amounted to enough psyche issues to greatly interfere with their actual success at real-world RV for a long time. (Of course, on occasion there is a person who is able to write it all off without suffering too much. They seem to be rare though. Or maybe those just don't write me.)
In CRV, it is generally accepted that most people have enough issues just to deal with themselves. (A lifetime of not having that communication going on, and the subconscious with 20-60 years of stuff it would like to tell you NOW that you suddenly are communicating with it!) Just learning CRV based on mundane targets and facts and feedback and documentation is hard enough. It's really a lot of work, though it's a work of love for most people.
Nobody in CRV is going to tell you that you'll be an expert after a few days. CRV, unlike the various derivative methods, isn't even taught all at once. It's taught in separate sections, as the instructors insist that the students have practice and "time to integrate" during the process.
Dragging in a whole circus of religious cosmology and so on, and targets and tasking and monitoring and feedback that doesn't prove anything and that invokes a big basket of problems in the RV itself, on TOP of the learning effort which is already work, is just not sane.
Like most groups of that nature, the people are kind to newcomers and the level of enthusiasm-hype verges on foaming in excitement. It's easy to get caught up in. Fortunately, people who are serious about educating themselves eventually find other information, other people and groups, and begin to realize that maybe the seemingly dull folks who aren't waving cosmic banners or making a bazillion dollars off the subject might be the ones actually taking it seriously.
It's not FAIR to students to do otherwise. Students of some of these new methods pay a helluva lot of money thinking they could become "nearly omniscient" in a week because somebody told them so. They took RV seriously because the gov't did it, and then they learned something totally different they were assured "was the same thing except better."
With me, it causes what you might call "politics." I've had incredibly intelligent adult executives -- we're not talking about simple kids -- crying on the phone about their confusion and frustration and even fear brought on by some of this religious stuff (aliens and doom I put in that category too). There's no excuse. I was brought into RV through CRV which is so no-nonsense, level-headed, facts-only that this other stuff just blows me away. (It makes me feel like, "Who are these people, and what are they doing calling their stuff RV? How dare they screw with people's heads -- for thousands of $$ -- and humiliate and denigrate the field of RV altogether -- with their religious obsessions?")
Then there's the rub: people selling this 'training' didn't get major media and tons of attention because they said they were another guy with a religious idea and a psychic method. No.... they got their doorway into it because they said, "I do remote viewing, that thing the government did." Yet as you're probably figuring out, everything that remote viewing IS, inherently, the things the term was literally coined in a lab to describe, are not even included in the methods derivatives. Yet then they go into the media as the "example of RV" and "educate" the world about what RV is. People in "real" RV hear these interviews and basically want to throw up on their radios.
So, people actually doing what the government did (including some of those same gov't people) kinda resent that what they really do is being used to market something and someone else. Their name-quality is selling the product of a competitor that they wouldn't even use for free. Something that at best is simply not the same thing; at worse, may be downright harmful to the individual. (Even if it's not, there is NO doubt it has seriously harmed the credibility of remote viewing with the public, which is also a very important thing.)
Thanks to the high-profile popularity of alien-based psychic work people call "RV," using pieces of the CRV methodology, people like you who are really serious about learning remote viewing, end up getting sucked into what amounts to a highly influential personal social group (don't say "cult"). Everything you'd learn about RV would be designed around the beliefs of the group, creative tasking/targeting, etc., all of which are interesting, but few of which are "real" RV. And, most of which can cause serious psychological issues if you accept them as encouraged to.
You might learn something interesting. You might learn something valid. But if you leave that group and go out into the "real world" of remote viewing -- scientists and psychic soldiers -- you wouldn't be taken seriously. You would tell them how much money and time you spent training with XYZ and instead of impressing them, it would make them look at you expecting you to know nothing. You would say things you thought were facts only to have them respond as if you were an idiot. You'd find out the people you were literally educated to believe were bad guys are in fact the most ethical humans you ever met. And, you might eventually call me saying you felt it was extremely unfair, after all the work you put in, and after you finally ($10,000 later) felt like an expert.
And I'd say, as I do, that's the way it goes. Study first... pay later. I have worked my butt off to put information on the WWW -- for free -- so that people are able to learn about this subject, and the people in it, especially the instructors, PRIOR to going off and paying for training. I can't do anything more.
As for the offbeat targets or spiritual perspective, this is not something people in CRV lack (as often accused). As a matter of fact, nearly every CRViewer I know has a strong interest in spirituality, in all forms of consciousness including potential entities or archetypes or other realities or aliens, in the future or the distant past, in anomalous targets, you name it.
But, this is "personal stuff." It is deeply moving personally, and it is fascinating, but to put it one way, it's something that you do "on your own time." CRV is "work." It is serious. You are not expected to have conversations with aliens when you are remote viewing a missile silo or missing child or murder weapon or whatever. It is totally irrelevant to the issue, whether or not aliens really ARE hanging around the silo. What is relevant is that your target is the silo. When you're doing CRV, you had better describe that silo and not be distracted, or your worth as a Viewer is zero. On your own time, of course, you can go target those entities hanging around and have a party.
I think the point is well summed up by something Lyn Buchanan once said in response to a question I asked. He said, "It's important to have the courage and creativity to draw outside the lines. But remember, 'outside the lines' does not mean 'all over the walls.' "
>Warning: This post contains my personal opinions .... \snip\
Well put, PJ. Thanks.
Maybe this will clear the air. At least it draws lines in the sand. No one reading your overview here will be able to say, "I didn't know what I was getting into."
I would like to thank PJ, and Joe for their time and effort in replies to my last few questions. It must be hard at times for you to keep going over the same questions. Thanks for the clear answers, it kind of helps clear some of the haze I have about this subject. As you can tell most of us viewbies are floundering in the dark somewhat.
The reason why viewbies want so much to do the targets like murders and aliens/ufos etc are because we are almost in a high at seeing the possibilities of no limitations to what we can see and where we can go. Even though we know it works, we at a deep level still need to reinforce this and I guess this is another reason why the frontloaded targets are chosen by us. This whole field could really be called PSIcology. When I first got into this stuff I never realised how my makeup and psychology would be an intergral part of the rv process.
Does anyone know of any possible interest from archeological or medical organizations in the possibilities of rving in their fields? Is there any development of possible remote influencing? As it is well known that we can and do influence our surroundings.
Thanks for any help...
>Does anyone know of any possible interest from archeological or medical >organizations in the possibilities of rving in their fields?
I've done a considerable bit in both. Probably twice as much in the Archeological. Since I always promise my customers total confidentiality I'm sorry I can't share any of it.
>development of possible remote influencing? As it is well known that we >can and do influence our surroundings.
Remote influencing was primarily done by the Russians. While there are one or two very intriguing experiments they've published; none have been replicated anywhere that I'm aware of. The experiments done within the United States have nearly all used subjects who were knowlegable about the fact they were participating in a remote influencing experiment--which means they were (by participation) agreeing up front to have or allow themselves to be influenced. The exception to this are experiments using nieve subjects which involve prayer. I have not seen any of those completed or published yet, so don't know yet how they might or might not work.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
END ARCHIVE 43
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page