firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 044
.


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-fourth archive.


October 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 44

>agreeing up front to have or allow themselves to be influenced. The >exception to this are experiments using naive 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."

Larry Dossey, M.D., who is interested in the nonlocal effects of prayer, cites several studies in the U.S. and Europe involving the remote influencing of bacterial and fungal growth in his current book, "Be Careful What You Pray For...You Just Might Get It" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1997). The book's subtitle, "What We Can Do About the Unintentional Effects of Our Thoughts, Prayers, and Wishes" seems germane to several discussions now current within this list. While those who were tasked to attempt to influence the fungal/bacterial growth were aware of the object of the experiments, the assumption was made that the subjects - the fungi and bacteria - remained unknowing.

One experiment, performed at the University of Tennessee circa 1980 seems particularly interesting, in that the influencers, distanced up to 15 miles from their targets, were shown several pictures pertaining to the target area, such as the outside of the University's Plant Sciences Building and a photo of the room and incubator containing the target and control petri dishes. They were instructed to utilize "any technique available to them" for at least 15 minutes per day for three days. One group of influencers, who were deemed to have a high expectancy of a positive outcome going into the experiment, were extremely successful in influencing fungal growth: "the likelihood of explaining their result by chance was less than 3 in 100,000," according to Dossey.

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.

Bill


>Larry Dossey, M.D., who is interested in the nonlocal effects of prayer, >cites several studies in the U.S. and Europe involving the remote >influencing of bacterial and fungal growth in his current book, "Be Careful >What You Pray For...You Just Might Get It" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1997). The >book's subtitle, "What We Can Do About the Unintentional Effects of Our >Thoughts, Prayers, and Wishes" seems germane to several discussions now

Filled with some interesting hypothesis, but as yet still unproven. However, you are right about the fungal/bacterial targets. A bit "different" perhaps from cognitive beings...or in the case of some I know, probably not. I'm not sure you can rule out "intellect" at the fungal and bacterial level. If you can't, then you can't rule out the fact that they may be trying to communicate with us and this may be the only way they have of doing that. (Which would demonstrate free will and intellect.)

>One experiment, performed at the University of Tennessee circa 1980 >seems particularly interesting, in that the influencers, distanced up to 15 >miles from their targets, were shown several pictures pertaining to the >target area, such as the outside of the University's Plant Sciences >Building and a photo of the room and incubator containing the target and >control petri dishes. They were instructed to utilize "any technique >available to them" for at least 15 minutes per day for three days. One >group of influencers, who were deemed to have a high expectancy of a >positive outcome going into the experiment, were extremely successful in >influencing fungal growth: "the likelihood of explaining their result by >chance was less than 3 in 100,000," according to Dossey.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this experiment was replicated by anyone else, anywhere else. Which makes it hard to rule out something within the environment that meets with the expectancy--other than remote influencing. Also, I presume there were other fungal growths in the same area that were used as controls and were not specifically affected?

Although admittedly, there are probably more than a few "issues" within this experiment that were beyond the experimenter's control. Also, I have to reiterate; that one might say that the reaction by the fungal (supposed target) may in fact be deliberate to the type of targeting done; e.g., maybe plants chose to interact with humans, versus humans affecting them against their will. Maybe that is their only way of communicating with us and are jumping on the chance to do so. Since we in our wisdom and ignorance have never credited plants with being much more than decorations or food.

>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.

I believe this would be a huge leap of faith (pun)<smile>. Prayer by its nature, at least within the context of the way it's being used, probably implies a good or positive result. If prayer works, and again, I have to say that I have yet to see anything in print that shows that it does (that is tested within an experiment in which by design there are unwitting targets (people)), then what has been proven is that people will agree to being influenced in a positive way--but not necessarily in a negative. It seems to me that such a one sided effect would (again) imply pre or tacit agreement to be influenced by the targets. In other words, because some people "believe" in prayer, they are effected in a positive way by it. There is nothing wrong with this by the way.

However, I'd love to see a group of athiests targeted with prayer, under an effective protocol. I'm betting that if they are naive to being targeted, it won't work. Of course, most who believe in prayer won't agree to such a test, probably because they are afraid of the outcome.

I would note as well, that knowing Larry and his work, if anyone proves it one way or the other, he probably will be the one walking through the door first. :)

Regards,

Joe

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


>e.g., maybe >plants chose to interact with humans, versus humans affecting them against >their will. Maybe that is their only way of communicating with us and are >jumping on the chance to do so. Since we in our wisdom and ignorance have >never credited plants with being much more than decorations or food.

My copy of "The Secret Life of Plants" (Tompkins/Bird) has been loaned out to persons unknown, but I clearly remember the story of Cleve Backster hooking up plants to a lie detector. Were his claims of human/plant mental interaction ever validated? If so, would that not be fairly convincing evidence of remote influencing? -- Rex H


>My copy of "The Secret Life of Plants" (Tompkins/Bird) has been loaned >out to persons unknown, but I clearly remember the story of Cleve >Backster hooking up plants to a lie detector. Were his claims of >human/plant mental interaction ever validated? If so, would that not be >fairly convincing evidence of remote influencing?

Could be. But, as soon as he hooked them up to a machine he blew the protocol. He never showed conditions re; control plants, nor were most of the environmental issues dealt with (what else is going on within the green house.) Maybe one plant was observing what he was about to do to another plant and they were communicating. Something akin to someone seeing I'm about to burn someone who is blindfolded and then yelling out to them "hey, he's going to burn you." Hardly remote influencing.

Much of his work was very intriguing however. It would be interesting to pursue this to some extent experimentally. Wish I had time.

Regards,

Joe

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


>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- Regards, >Joe >

I found many years ago as a stage hypnotist that remote influencing effects were very real. Sort of a reverse form of remote viewing...instead of signal in.....it's a case of signal out! I've been aware for some time of studies in this field being researched privately....my own company included. It's a touchy subject and we keep our research very low key. However, the following email from a physicist friend (who shall remain unnamed) just about sums up the basics. Like myself, he suspects that resonance may well be the fifth force...and that resonance between minds is responsible for remote interaction phenomena.

Jim F

--CLIP FROM RECENT PRIVATE EMAIL -


This is all nice, Jim, and I don't want to be a turn off or anything...but...

...when someone starts saying they are "remotely influencing" someone, that will generally raise fear in others. One of the small but catchy problems is that you must prove it. That means a fair and honest experiment, for which you have declared the rules and expectations up front, which has been run within specific controls and is then published and evaluated by peers for leaks, faults, holes, or problems. It appears to me that your friend sent you a number of interesting annecdotes, and I'm also very familiar with all of the rumors about specific Russians (none ever proven I might add), but until it is taken logically out of the arena of what is normally called superstitious anchoring, and into something a bit more concrete, it proves nothing.

I might add that while I happen to believe that anything could be possible, I have to confess that I have yet to see it (Remote Influencing) demonstrated--by anyone. So I will have to remain open.

So, for any of you out there that believes you can be remotely influenced without your tacit approval for it...relax. I don't think it has happened yet.

Regards,

Joe

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


Fair comment Joe. Initially my awareness of remote influencing came about when I was involved in stage hypnosis. When I was having an above average night and felt "resonant" with the hypnotic participants I noticed occasionally that one or more hypnotised subjects would respond to hypnotic commands before I had actually voiced them. That is, they appeared to have picked them out of my mind. This happened infrequently but nevertheless often enough to convince me that direct mental transfer was taking place. Now this was many years ago and I had more or less forgotten all about it until I came across the term "Subjective Communication" in a Silva mind book. This was about the same time I came across the term Remote Viewing. According to Silva an individual was able to influence another while both were in the alpha state.

Furthermore it was suggested that an individual could influence a group of people while catching them in their alpha state...usually while asleep. Now this captured my attention, as I had just started the Australian Lateral Thinking Newsletter and was struggling financially. So with some trepidition I embarked on a series of very loose protocol subjective communication sessions by instructing my mind to wake me up during the night when I was in contact with the "group mind", etc. etc. (I'm sure you're familiar with the process).

And I appeared to be getting results. Nothing I could quite put my finger on, but after some weeks of this process I seemed to be able to pay my bills. After about a year of intermittant effort I decied to try a series of A/B tests ...that is, I would do subjective for a month...then lay off for a month.

Over a 6 month period it became somewhat obvious that the subjective periods resulted in a product sale increase of around 30%.

After a further year or so (after I had evolved to mind-awake-body-asleep in theta) the effectiveness became much more apparent. The theta state produced much more "power output" or whatever it was that induced buying responses. And this is where I started to sit up and take real notice. After one particularly heavy period of subjective communication in theta (after a rest from the process for a month or so) I found sales of the newsletter package had picked up enormously. And this is where things started to come unglued. Having sold around 60 packages that month I suddenly had a batch returned under our 30 day money-back guarantee. Which was unheard of before. I normally only had to do one odd refund a month. And several came with apologic letters ....one of which more or less summed the rest up. The customer said..." Please find enclosed your product which I am returning for a refund. I have no interest at all in this subject matter and I have no idea why I purchased it"...etc.etc.

All this happened several years ago and since then I ALWAYS use subjective (in either theta or alpha) when launching a new product. Alternatively when sales die away I use subjective to boost them again.

The point of all this rambling Joe is to give the background of the 6 odd years of "research" into this field. (The term research is probably the wrong word here).

The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that this mild remote influencing enabled financial survival. Likewise with our psychokinetics research...it makes money for us by applying PK to the commercial world.

As always the bottom line with a small business like mine is the positive cash-flow. Nothing else is as important. And being a "zero-bulldust" lateral thinking New Zealander I go for processes that help achieve this aim. (Same attitude that won us the America's Cup -:)

I expect the process of remote viewing to further assist in this "bottom line"....eventually.

So....remote influencing a group of people...yes...it works. Remote influencing an individual.....well...in military terms "laser-light up the target and fire the missile". And that works too....if done in THETA.

Finally (I can hear P.J. breath a sigh of relief) I produced the results of all my subjective experiments in the form of a program which I sold as part of my Mind-Surge programs. We have sold around 1500 copies so far and have attracted a large number of positive testimonials regarding the effectiveness of this basic mind-to-mind influencing method.

The next batch of experiments will involve using this process in delta. But delta is a tricky state to work in. Stray thoughts of a strange nature keep creeping in.

So I need a geographicaly displaced test subject (volunteer) who is feerless, mentally aware and will see the funny side of suddenly leaping out of bed in the middle of the night to cluck like a chicken.

How about some help here Joe -:)

Jim


> According to Silva an individual was able to influence another while both > were in the alpha state.

Charles Tart wrote a semi-famous article on this subject, titled "Psychedelic Experiences Associated With a Novel Hypnotic Procedure, Mutual Hypnosis," which appeared in "Altered States of Consciousness" edited by Charles Tart (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1969). Since then Tart has moved on to more speculative (but in my view) more rewarding research in the noetic sciences. I believe PJ has a listing of what he's up to these days on her Firedocs site.

> The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that this mild remote influencing > enabled financial survival. Likewise with our psychokinetics research...it > makes money for us by applying PK to the commercial world.... > I expect the process of remote viewing to further assist in this "bottom > line"....eventually.

A question from a lurker on this site to those here who know what they're talking about: assuming that remote influencing is real (questions have been raised on this point), would this be considered ethical behaviour in RV circles?

Bill

-----
Moderator's Note: Charles Tart's Home Page can be found at:
http://www.sciencehorizon.com/cttart/ there are many of his research papers available online, and even out of print books available for ordering through him. Good stuff. Re: Remote Influence: that all comes down to intent, doesn't it? Anything more sentient than a slot machine brings up moral questions. I can sell you something and 'influence' you. Where's the line? I'm reasonably sure that cow I just ate a piece of at dinner tonight had to, uh, "influenced" to give its life for me. Where's the line? In the end, the only one to determine how we feel about us is us. I doubt ethics can be transferred onto other people. (Despite millenia of religious attempts...) -- PJ


Gurdjieff kept saying that most people are "asleep" even when they're awake. A friend of mine is into Christian Science pretty deeply and I've heard a good deal about Mary Baker Eddy from him. She apparently said outright that people in general are in a hypnotic state in their daily lives.

If so, Joe's requirement of "tacit approval" might be the default condition for a lot of people.

Tom C


>> According to Silva an individual was able to influence another while both >> were in the alpha state.

Not too much tacit agreement to be remotely influenced there!!!!

>Charles Tart wrote a semi-famous article on this subject, titled >"Psychedelic Experiences Associated With a Novel Hypnotic Procedure, >Mutual Hypnosis," which appeared in "Altered States of Consciousness" >edited by Charles Tart (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1969).

I am familiar with this one, Jim. It has no bearing on the subject at hand.

>A question from a lurker on this site to those here who know what >they're talking about: assuming that remote influencing is real >(questions have been raised on this point), would this be considered >ethical behaviour in RV circles?

It is totally "unethical" which is precisely my point. In order to do an appropriate "remote influencing" experiment and demonstrate that is what is happening, the subject (target) has to be totally nieve. To target someone in such a case is "unethical." Which is why most of the experiments done in the Western World are open to question as to whether or not they are actually doing a remote influencing or not--again my point. Trying to find out (by the way) does not imply approval for unethical targeting of humans. That would be putting in the same class with the Atomic Bomb experiments of the 50s and 60s.

regards,

Joe

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


> Re: Remote Influence: that all comes down to intent, doesn't it? > Anything more sentient than a > slot machine brings up moral > questions.... In the end, the only one to determine how we feel > about > us is us. I doubt ethics can be transferred onto other people. > (Despite millenia of > religious > attempts...) -- PJ

Thanks, PJ. I asked that "those here who know what they're talking about" respond, and one who not only knows but also can express herself succinctly set me straight. Of course, you're right... I guess the intent of my question was to determine whether there exists a set of ethical norms, commonly agreed to by those who practise RV, similar to the ethical norms prevalent within other professional regimes, such as engineers, architects, etc. (This question has been touched upon here from time to time, in the context of the viewer's responsibilities regarding reporting what is seen.)

On reflection, I realize it was somewhat nanve of me to assume that an external code of conduct can be applied to what is essentially an internal activity; in the end, as you say, "the only one to determine how we feel about us is us," a caveat applicable to all activity whose results may not be immediately known. As my parents used to say, "Let your conscience be your guide."

Bill

---------
Moderator's Note: Actually the core assumption was that "the RV field" was half that organized to begin with. ;-) --- PJ


>I guess the >intent of my question was to determine whether there exists a set of >ethical norms, commonly agreed to by those who practise RV, similar to >the ethical norms prevalent within other professional regimes, such as >engineers, architects, etc. [large snip]

Like everything else in life; we are required to rely on the ethics within the Remote Viewer (as in the Engineer, Architect, Doctor, Lawyer, etc.)

I've observed that there are some very ethical people who have been involved in RV and that it has generally been the majority. While I'm sad to report there are some very unethical people involved in RV as well, which lucky for us, are usually fairly easy to spot.

Ethics--regardless of subject--is an on-going problem within all walks of life at least as far as I can see. I think because of its invasiveness, or the possible misuse of RV without controls, it perhaps requires more vigilance than other areas of concern. And, like being half-pregnant isn't possible, I believe it is impossible to be half-ethical. You either are or you aren't from the outset.

Good questions.

Regards,

Joe

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


All well and good Joseph...but neer ye forget...the very word Oishta..(pronounced Wish-ta) mean dew from the mountains and is an Irish word...which you Scots later bastardized into that throaty and harsh word Whiskey...But it all right laddie...we forgee ya..ye were hard to teach... Gene..


Ahhh...me laddies. The very best is au me awun hoose wue a brand of singe Islay Malt usguabaugh-- awu Lagavulin. Which brings honor to to the motto Dura Virum Nutrix (A hard nurse of men).

Others nar de good are; Glenkinchie, Dalwhinnie, Cragganmore, Oban, and Talisker.

Sorry Palyne, deserved a Scottish answer.

Warm Regards,

Joe

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


Remote viewing deals with information. No one is even sure where it comes from (one hypothesis being that it is generated from a lot of sources simultaneously). I would not call it non-invasive however. It can be used in a way that produces some very invasive results.

The military was tasked with using it against an "enemy," however, you might like to envision that. Since the prime directive for the military is "close with and destroy the enemy," the more invasive the better.

The use of RV for anything else (against criminal activity, etc.) requires a complete knowledge of US Law (or the law of the country in which it is being used). Within the US, the only acceptable code of ethics is to conform with the law.

There are many laws, most of which vary, and some of which apply to private citizens, some of which apply to public operations, corporations, business, etc. ...and ignorance of the law is no excuse. :)

regards,

Joe

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


After a brief holiday in Newport, OR., I arrived home anxious to find out what had been happening on the list. I was stunned! The list members may find it odd that I feel compelled to say thank you. Isn't this part of what the list is all about?

Well, for some reason, both the bilocation and the Catholicism-type queries triggered an avalanche of responses. But, what struck me was not so much the quantity, but the quality of the replies.

The feedback was fabulous - everyone contributed enormously to my restructuring or sense of where I now stand within an RV context [in my own mind, of course - hell, I may not even be any good at this stuff when I actually get to take a course]

The sensitivity and seriousness of all of your answers was truly outstanding. I have to admit that making my experiences public on this list, after having lurked for a few months, was akin to coming out of the closet. I felt VERY awkward, and, to be honest, expected at least one or two wisecracks. None of that happened. You all allowed me to feel safe.

The joy I felt at finally being able to just release what had been happening to me and somehow thread all this "psychic stuff" together was wonderful. Like leaving the confessional - ya know?

Again - thanks for real answers; thanks for the meaningful responses that obviously took time and a great deal of thought; thanks for leaving me with so many handles on which to grab; and thanks for making your support crystal clear.

Rick L


>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).

PJ,

Thanks for putting this answer onto the list. There is such a tendency on the part of students (and some "teachers") to say that the viewer has to follow the structure of CRV. That just isn't so. The viewer isn't there for the structure - the structure is there for the viewer. When you are in a shallow phase, say Phase 1, you work simply. As >>>you<<< gain more contact with the target, more complex structure is provided in order to allow you to express the more complex perceptions. That's what the "stages" are all about. To teach a student that he/she has to write down three descriptors of color, then three of texture, then yadda, yadda, yadda, misses the point of CRV all together. It makes CRV into little more than a chinese food menu (One choice from column A and one from column B, etc.) The structure is not provided to be a viewer's master, nor even as his/her guide. It is provided to be a box of tools so the viewer will have the proper equipment to express what he/she is perceiving at any moment during the session. The viewer doesn't follow a structure in CRV.... the structure follows the viewer.

Lyn

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


I am working my way through 40 targets off www.remoteviewing.org, they use the 2x4 random Nos. One target turns out to be *Originations of Drugpas.* I've never heard of it, and can find no reference to it. I was wondering if anyone on the list may know what it is. I wrote and asked if I could browse their SRV BB, but as I have not had SRV training, they won't let me in to the club. I presume (although I haven't asked) that they would be equally unhelpful explaining their target.

If there are any SRV people on the list, would you be willing to share information with me about Drugpas it if you know. It is very frustrating not to have feedback. I am enjoying doing their targets very much, even if they are somewhat esoteric. I noticed with targets set on PsiHands by Mike CT, he provides a reference, which is most helpful.

MaryD


>I am working my way through 40 targets off www.remoteviewing.org, >>Yes, that has bugged me about those targets too. And some of the >>targets are not very specific, and difficult to narrow down if you >>actually saw the target. I've never heard of Drugpas either. Have you >>searched the internet?

My husband Lu's "Anomalies & Enigmas Forum" has had some stuff online about them for a long time. Go to http://www.sciencehorizon.com/ae/ Go to the Library, Search on UFO, and it'll give you some info. Dropas, is the name. An archeological/anthropological find that appears to be related to a small group of now-extinct crash-landed........ aliens.

Of course.

PJ


>I am working my way through 40 targets off www.remoteviewing.org,

Yes, that has bugged me about those targets too. And some of the targets are not very specific, and difficult to narrow down if you actually saw the target. I've never heard of Drugpas either. Have you searched the internet?

>I noticed with targets set on PsiHands by Mike >CT, he provides a reference, which is most helpful.

Thanks for the compliment! I would say, that, in training, the reference is vital, or at least the feedback is vital, but it's better if the tasker provides the feedback. It gives you a better chance of getting the right target. But once you get good at this, you can probably run around and do non feedback targets for non-training purposes. (Beethoven played the piano while he was deaf, but he didn't learn to do it while he was deaf, which, I think, would be impossible.)

Tell me what you think of the targets on the Psi Hands on BBS. Are there enough? Are they good beginner targets? Paul, Sheila, and I have been posting tonnes of targets over the last few months.

Mike CT

---------
Moderator's Note: That comment about Beethoven is actually a great way of putting it Mike. You, Paul and Shelia have been the few to really take advantage of other people new to Viewing and interested in sharing targets and conversation about the sessions. Of all the conversations about RV around, yours is some of the only stuff that is 90% DOing it. If I ever make a Firesite BBS (been planning for eons, just never get to it) I'll drag the Psi boards from the Anomalies & Enigmas site to it (they only went there because I hadn't got around to my own board), hope you guys will come with 'em. I'd be interested to see what you've come up with as theory from your own experience.... the best teacher. -- PJ


Mary,

Once again, I would suggest that you might be learning something the hard way. It would probably be best to get your targets elsewhere. Real targets are preferable.

Lyn

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


END ARCHIVE 44
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.