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-sixth archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 46
Doorknobbing doesn't have a Swann term that I know of; although, AOL Peacocking is kind of a similar thing in the sense that it can apply either to getting the same AOL over and over and not being able to get out of it -- even if the AOL is on the signal line. -- PJ
It should probably be pointed out that "AOL Peacocking" is also not an "Ingo" term, but one made up as a derivitive to Ingo's system. More people make up their own terms than care to admit. The members of the unit made up the term "doorknobbing". I don't remember hearing the term "AOL Peacocking" while I was in the unit. Must be an addition which came later - perhaps made up by Paul. At any rate, it appears to accurately describe what happens, and therefore, seems like a good term. If it works, use it. BTW: so does SCWERL (STRAY CAT, Wrecking Everything, Running Loose).
The "Ingo" terminology, it seems, is a developing one on many fronts. I am glad that we have a central place to come to so we can learn what these mean.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Moderator's Note: The newbies will be ironically amused to note that even those trained and experienced need a dictionary to figure out what is going on. -- PJ
>The "Ingo" terminology, it seems, is a developing one on many fronts. I am >glad that we have a central place to come to so we can learn what these mean.
I would be keen to know the stages of maturation from Ingo's intially "popping out" to see the lady in her orange coat in the snow, to the fully developed CRV methodology, as used today. The stepping stones of development, as it were.
Moderator's Note: Interesting Mary... there is some assumption in your phrasing that if CRV has changed, it has improved. I've seen some of the changes and I like them. (Though, I may not be fully aware of the reasons for the original.) Others, I'm not so sure. What Ingo developed and what the military did is said to be the same thing -- at least for the first three stages; and maybe to a lesser degree the remaining three stages of six. I don't know how literally true (that they're the same) that is in reality. (I've always wondered what the heck Ingo's been doing all this time if he hasn't developed anything since then. Rumors say he has, but of course Ingo doesn't know me or talk to me, so for now they're only rumors to me.) (Funny, I was just hearing about this subject this morning...) I don't know that we can assume that changes in methodology are improvements. I think I'd probably want to see it all tested against each other to tell... -- PJ
>How many sessions did I write off as total flops that could have been >door knobbing?
If you saved those sessions (which you ALWAYS should), you can go back and see whether doorknobbing is something you were doing or not. I'd be willing to bet you will be pleasantly surprised.
>It must be a greater problem when going only as far as S3.
That's right, because you are still getting a lot of general and gestaltic information. When you get into later stages, with greater detail, doorknobbing is easier to spot.
Of course, in order to spot doorknobbing, you have to have a monitor. The only way to dentify doorknobbing is to realize that the viewer is only viewing a part of the target site. To do that, you have to know what the site is. Since the viewer isn't supposed to do that, you need a monitor.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
PJ wrote: >Before I post this, just want to ask.... >How can the monitor know what the target is? >That violates protocol. >Only in initial training sessions (and debatable then). >Or did you mean it differently than how I thought?
Lyn replied: It violates protocol, maybe, but not good practice and training principles. I don't care how much the guys tell you that the monitor must be blind to the target in order for it to meet protocol, the fact is that there were VERY few times in the unit when practice targets were not known to the monitor during the session. In fact, it was usually the monitor who selected the target from the safe, anyway, and it wasn't done by a random grab, but by going through the targets looking for one which would give the viewer practice in his/her weaknesses. How are you going to select a target to train the viewer in his/her weaknesses if you don't know what the target is? In actual practice, the monitor usually knows the target, in spite of all the high ideals and discussions of theory.
Moderator's Note: I thought the above explanation was informative, so I added it to this email. -- PJ
>I would be keen to know the stages of maturation from Ingo's intially >"popping out" to see the lady in her orange coat in the snow, to the fully >developed CRV methodology, as used today. The stepping stones of development, >as it were. MaryD > >----- >Moderator's Note: Interesting Mary... there is some assumption in your >phrasing that if CRV has changed, it has improved.
PJ, the Q was meant to be more basic than that. Ingo popping out to see the orange coat in the snow, happened spontaneously, yes? The CRV manual, I presume, does not say, pick up the pen and spontaneously pop out, it says draw an ideogram. One does not seem to pertain to the other. How did he get from the pop to the id. MaryD.
>George K wrote: >> 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?
Just thought I'd throw this out:
Back in the early 1990s, we did a series of controlled remote viewings while in the lucid dream state (study was done with the help of Stephen LaBerge at the Stanford Sleep Lab). The results were quite interesting. But, statistically and observationally, there was no indication that RV quality was any better or any worse while done in the Lucid Dream state than outside of it.
Since I participated in this study, I can say that I had a sense the lucid dream state was more akin to an out-of-body state, however, it is still significantly different in my own mind. In other words, there are significant differences that I at least noticed. Others are of a different opinion; e.g., LaBerge essentially believes that all states of consciousness are variences or extentions of a dream state. One of the observables that I noticed, is that while in the lucid dream state, you can be quite inventive, which means AOL is as big a problem in lucid dreaming as it is in the waking state. There are some similarities between lucid dreaming and out-of-body states, but what is experienced in the OBS is probably not going to alter or change reality. And some other differences which I won't bore anyone with.
Hope this helps.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
> 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.
That's my goal, certainly. For those of us who are more comfortable in the FF methodologies, RV processes are using the same general mechanics. After all the brain is the brain and the mechanisms are all using the same stuff. However, I and many other like me like the structure of RV to help us to eliminate stuff that is not related to our reading target. In this way, our information can be even more accurate and direct. Those of us Free Form Psychics are really all that different, we just learned to do it in a different way. I refuse to believe that I or anyone else are anomolies. Instead, I think we just learned to recognize impressions in a different way. I do think that everyone is just as capable.
Moderator's Notes: 1 -- Remember, it's only "RV" vs. "psychic work" if it's done within the RV protocol -- regardless of method. 2 -- "Freeform methodologies" is almost an oxymoron. A person may have their own way of going about it, but that doesn't mean there is no planning or structure to it. Anybody who does psi work regularly is usually highly mentally organized and structured. It's just theirs as opposed to something somebody else officially established. -- PJ
PJ is absolutely correct in the statements below. You do have a way with words PJ. One additional piece that may be of help. Many of the questions that we ask and the information recieved doing psychic work, is all the same and based on the mental processes. Tarot Cards, pendulums, and other junk isn't really necessary. Some folks use them as a distraction tool and at the same time a focus object. However, the information transfer is between the subconscious (my vernacular) and the conscious mind. Even when dowsing, the sensor is you the indicators are the dowsing rods. All a person does is train themselves to perceive it in different ways.
> 2 -- "Freeform methodologies" is almost an > oxymoron. A person may have their own way of going about it, but that doesn't > mean there is no planning or structure to it. Anybody who does psi work > regularly is usually highly mentally organized and structured. It's just > theirs as opposed to something somebody else officially established. -- PJ
>Tarot Cards, >pendulums, and other junk isn't really necessary. Some folks use them >as a distraction tool and at the same time a focus object. However, the >information transfer is between the subconscious (my vernacular) and the >conscious mind. Even when dowsing, the sensor is you the indicators are >the dowsing rods. All a person does is train themselves to perceive it >in different ways.
Good observation, Rob, and probably true. And I would add one more reason for using such tools...
It permits someone to be psychic without having to challenge the basic belief systems by which they live; e.g., religious beliefs, personal perceptions regarding reality, etc. And they don't have to be changed.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
> Tarot Cards, pendulums, and other junk isn't really necessary. > Some folks use them as a distraction tool and at the same time a > focus object. However, the information transfer is between the > subconscious (my vernacular) and the conscious mind. Even when > dowsing, the sensor is you the indicators are the dowsing rods. > All a person does is train themselves to perceive it in different > ways.
The Scientific Group of the Theosophical Society concluded in 1938 that dowsing was unconscious influence on tool-holding muscles "in service of the belief that" the thing sought influenced the tool directly. This was hotly refuted by dowsers but I doubt if many would disagree today.
Moderator's Note: Back in the days of my mezmerian Hollyweird days, we called it "ideomotor response." I think that's the term... -- PJ
As a dowser of some years experience, attendee at many ASD regional and national conventions, I do not believe the statement in the Subject message is correct. Most dowsers I have ever spoken to , or heard speak, would not agree to believe that the thing sought speaks to the dowser's muscles/nerves or whatever... There is no one concensus, IMO, but generally acceptance of the idea that the superconscious "realm" knows all, past, present, non-local, and this is accessed by the dowser's intention, and non-investment in the outcome.
Moderator's Note: Sorry if I implied that. I use as a base assumption that dowsing is psi work. (The fact that you can dowse a concept would certainly demonstrate that. Dowsing can even be used for much of what RV is, if tasked properly.) The effect on the body/subconscious mentioned would be a result of its response to the psi information IMO; the SC/body responds more truly, usually, than the conscious mind, which has a lot of other stuff in the way of 'hearing'. At least, this is my view on it. By agreeing with the subconscious and/or body's participation in dowsing, I wasn't trying to invalidate the psi involved... only move the conceptual framework from "psychic power moves the pendulum" (like PK) to "you allow your inner-self" to move the pendulum (like psi). Hope this made sense. Dowsing is directly related to and part of RV, so I'm happy to have more discussion on this if you like. It sounds like your experience would be educational for everyone including me. -- PJ
>The Scientific Group of the Theosophical Society concluded in 1938 that dowsing was >unconscious influence on tool-holding muscles "in service of the belief that" the thing >sought influenced the tool directly. This was hotly refuted by dowsers but I doubt if >many would disagree today.
A few years ago I made a simple set of dowsing rods from metal coathangers, nothing fancy, not even handles. I just held them in my hands, long legs horizontal, parallel, pointing straight ahead. And walked around our apartment (3 floors up in a wood frame building.) Nothing happened (why should it?) till at one point when passing thru a doorway the long legs VERY abruptly swung apart to point away from each other. It startled me no end. Another step forward and they went back to the original position.
I tried to replicate this elsewhere by relaxing my grip -- no way they move that fast. I did NOT rotate my wrists -- tried that too and could not duplicate the speed. I have no idea what was indicated, if anything -- there is no plumbing or wiring where this happened.
The 'ideomotor response' certainly may be an element in dowsing but this instance suggests that on occasion there's more to it. I am not a dowser, and this is not exactly a refutation.
Moderator's Note: Actually Tom, that's something I hadn't thought of. Dowsing with the dowsing rods I once used in a class, I couldn't get the darn things to move the direction I wanted even when I overtly tried. Yet they seemingly responded well and in tandem to my intent. Unless there was some subconscious movement that was more effective at controlling them than my conscious attempts, maybe that aspect of dowsing brings in a whole 'nuther aspect of psi than mental effects on the body. In that case we were also using hangers (though with these little handle-things that the hanger turned freely inside), so maybe it's a case for the not-psi but not-apparent category, such as body EMs affecting the metal. OK, it's a stretch and a skeptical one, I admit... -- PJ
>Back in my mezmerian Hollyweird days, we called > it "ideomotor response." I think that's the term... -- PJ
I agree that the ideomotor response is appropriate and I am a dowser, in fact I am currently the President of Northwest Society of Dowsers. The person is the sensor, the tool is merely an indicator. My point was that it is important to remember that this is a "Human Response" working with the perceptions of the mind, not the body, not the inanimate object and not the five physical sences. It works on the premise that we indeed are more than our physical bodies and that we are all connected in some way through the and to the matrix. Technology, experimental design and the sharing of information has made the study of psy phenomenon even more valid than it has ever been before. However, the information transfer occurs, the subject has required a different study paradigm and it is constantly evolving.
Wonderful discussions folks.
> Moderator's Note: Actually Tom, that's something I hadn't thought of. Dowsing > <snip> maybe it's a case for the not-psi but not-apparent category, such as body > EMs affecting the metal. OK, it's a stretch and a skeptical one, I admit...
Actually, there has been a lot of research done on this subject in the past few years. In some cases, the Zeeman effect was credited for the action - and thought to have been constructed in the auric field by the mind to ensure the response. The other aspect was indeed the effect of muscles in the hands to subtle changes. Sort of a muscular reflex action. Recently, I did a television appearance on the Fox program Strange Universe and demonstrated moving rods held by another person, uphill and against gravity. This influence was filmed as part of a demonstration that the electro-magnetic field could indeed be manipulated by an outside force. Therefore, all three is possible. The key is the intent and the connection that you have for the traget you are trying to locate.
Recently, the German government has undergone a study of dowsing success in locating wells in Africa. Current score, Hydrologists 62% success and Dowsers 93% success. Go figure. The experiment will last another couple of years and the german government will continue to publish the results. For further information contact the American Society of Dowsers in Danville Vermont.
>A few years ago I made a simple set of dowsing rods from metal coathangers, >nothing fancy, not even handles.... >I tried to replicate this elsewhere by relaxing my grip -- no way they move >that fast.
I couple of years ago, a friend who is a dowser was visiting, and hi did the old willow branch dowsing (the Y shaped branch that you hold with your arms inverted in some weird way). He gave me the willow rod, and held my arms, to 'transfer' the ability to me, or some such thing.
I tried walking around, and at very specific spots, the branch abruptly pointed straight down. I tried relaxing my grip and tightening my grip. When I went over the hot spots, the branch turned in my hand, no matter how hard I held on. My friend told me that he has held on so tight that the bark has actually peeled off the branch, under his hands.
I don't see how this can be an involuntary muscle response. To be honest, I don't know how it works, or what is going on, but the dowsing rod seems to move on its own.
Moderator's Note: You see? That is SO interesting. There is clearly more than one dynamic at work in dowsing -- maybe many, as Rob mentioned. I have always been hesitant to explore the PK angle of it unless the instrument was something that could _not_ easily be moved by the dowser 'accidentally' or subconsciously. In some cases though I guess there is no mistaking it. On a quantum or consciousness level, that tree knows water as its life, and maybe the tree limb has its own 'desire to find water,' directed by your intent. That would bring a whole new meaning to why wood may be the tried-and-true instrument for many water dowsers. Just a thought. -- PJ
Linda and I just entered Texas about 30 minutes ago. I can feel God's presence, as I type. He lives here, you know. (He used to live in Waco until the ATF burned him out.) We are driving through miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles, after leaving Oklahoma, which is just miles and miles of nothing. (Don't get angry, people, it's a Texan's duty to say bad things about Oklohoma - it's a duty we're born with.)
We did, however, stop in eastern Oklahoma for a rest stop, and while there picked up a real estage paper. There is a 1,100 acre ranch with a 4-bedroom brick home, two barns, a silo, several acres fenced for horses, etc. Ready for this? Price: $220K. Linda didn't want me to look at it because she knew I wouldn't look further and would probably never leave.
We have had good weather for two days now, and are making very good time across the states. We will stop in Amarillo (which appropriately means "yellow" in Spanish) to visit some students before continuing on.
We have been seeing a lot of great scenery, but it has been just that: scenery. Very little has really jumped out at me and said, "LOOK AT ME!!! I'M A TARGET!!!" I have tried to be very descriminating for you.
I do have two more targets for those of you who want them.
BTW: if you are wondering where I am getting the numbers, the first 6 digits stand for the date and the next 6 stand for the time of day (0630, 1725, etc.) in military time, and the next two digits stand for the number of the picture I took at that time. For example, yesterday's target, 971027 / 172501 was the only picture I took at 1725 hours (5:25 PM) yesterday.
Therefore, for tasking, you can tell yourself to access and describe my surroundings at, for example, 5:25PM (my time) on 10/27/97. As you can see, the target time has been encoded into the coordinates.
[Archivist Note: The tasking and feedback are now available on the Firedocs practice targets page.]
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
After much thought, and digging myself one of Liam's foxholes, before I say this, I think that working out my own methodology is going to be the way for me, but nailed down tight with the protocols, and by developing my own disciplined structure, based on CRV and feedback as I go.
I have come to the conclusion, (albeit right or wrong in the eyes of others), that instead of me imposing a set of rules for my subconscious to follow, I will learn to follow _it_, but within, a workable structure. My subconscious, after all knows all there is to know and it has been communicating with me pretty darn well, through my life up to now, one way and another. I think I shall learn _its_ language, rather than asking it to learn mine.
I attempted the SRV protocols. Every fibre of my being told me it was wrong. I couldn't centre, and my results were non existant. I experienced no fun or joy, in the doing. Yet, having done a couple of targets, allowing my Self to do my own thing, the joy is back, the results are making sense, and I feel certain "we" will learn to work well together, albeit in a peculiar way.
The bottom line is for me, that as long as it works, is accurate and repeatable, I'll be happy. To one's Self be true.
Moderator's Note: Sounds good to me, Mary. -- PJ
>I attempted the SRV protocols. Every fibre of my being told me it was >wrong. I couldn't centre, and my results were non existant. I experienced >no fun or joy, in the doing. Yet, having done a couple of targets, allowing >my Self to do my own thing, the joy is back, the results are making sense, >and I feel certain "we" will learn to work well together, albeit in a >peculiar way.
What are the differences between the SRV protocols and, say...CRV? Why do you think the differences matter?
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
>What are the differences between the SRV protocols and, say...CRV? >Why do you think the differences matter?
Joe, I honestly don't have an answer for either Q. I know diddly squat about CRV methodology.
All I can do is go by my experience, so far. And rem, Ive only attempted eleven targets. When I started, it was a "Hey, I wonder if this stuff works" kind of attitude. Having proved to myself that it does, by personal experience, I then decided to "learn how to do it properly". I went with SRV simply because it was the only available detailed methodology/documentation of any type I could find.
All I know is that when I allow things to flow spontaneously, its pictorially there in an instant, yet when I say to myself, OK, lets do it precisely, by the book, I can't even put pen to paper. I get Zilch. But even when working spontaneaously, my sub conscious seems to give me the answers either pictorially, or in a highly convoluted way. It is as if SC is looking through my memory files, finding a symbol, or analogy, and giving me that.
An example, Joe, if I may. Sorry, but its mostly nouns and AOLs. Though I did my best to work using descriptions. (Lyn will shriek) Target is fd004. I wrote down everything. I drew 2 spirally vertical lines side by side. I probed the right hand spiral. I felt Moving downwards, I nouned stairs, I felt the sensation of going down in a lift, I nouned lift. I saw a parachute. I felt giddy, spinning. I nouned helterskelter. I felt motion sickness. (I can't stand heights.) Nowhere, did "tall" or "high" click in. I moved to the left spiral, but was pulled back to the right one. I thought, Ok, you want to stay there, we'll stay there.
Now it gets really flaky.
Attempting to be descriptive, I wrote, creamy, white, lumpy, wet, nouned porridge, thought Ha, an AOL, I'll let it go. Went back to id, and got spiralling downwards, sinking, dropping. OK. Thats like before. So I ran my pen over the RH spiral again and I got a glop sound. Then I saw steam. glop. Warm, grey, mud, glop. Its a hot mud spring!! Draw it, says the voice. So I drew 3 ovals, like the pattern the mud would make, just after it went glop. I realised that porridge cooking does the same thing. I _love_ watching porridge go glop! I _make_ porridge, so I can watch it go glop! My SC gave it me in a manner I could relate to, and when I let it go, I had it given it to me again, but in a different way.
I don't know if this can fall under the CRV banner, it certainly isn't going by the SRV book, as far as I can tell. Yet, the 3 ovals, _are_ there, as if traced, but... via porridge!?!?..... and how on earth, can I possibly present that kind of info, to Lyn, for one of his targets? Umm... Help.... MaryD
>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.
The whole concept behind ideograms is that you give the subconscious mind a physical language by which it can tell you something. To do that, you have to let it first learn the language. That is done by practice. In practice, you develop ideograms for only a few concepts such as "land", "water", "manmade", "space", "motion", "natural", etc. Then, you practice them for truely boringly long lengths of time. What happens is that your conscious mind drifts off to more important things. Guess who's doing the ideograms then - that's right, your subconscious mind. Once you have done these drills repeatedly for long periods of time, they get to be automatic in nature, like knee-jerk reactions. That is when your subconscious mind can make them happen. Then, one day, someone says, "The coordinates are yaddea / yadda." Your hand suddenly jerks out a series of graphic representations which you can look at and identify. You look at it and say, "The site contains water and something manmade." The practice of ideogram drills is tantamount, and until you have relinquished the ideogram to the subconscious, you aren't doing ideograms - you're doing drawings. Mental martial arts, like physical martial arts, requires LOTS of practice.
>.....Should those be probed?
It might help to probe them. The physical contact may stimulate mental impressions. That is the purpose of probing an ideogram, so if it works, do it. The thing is to try it and see if it works. Give it a go.
>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?
Don't try to stem the flow. Keep working, and try using what you have. The important thing is to postpone all analysis (for instance, trying to determine whether a scribble is a drawing or an actual ideogram) until >>after<< the session. During the session, your job isn't to analyze. During the session, your job is to - get a perception and write it down get a perception and write it down get a per.... etc.
If your attempts at ideograms aren't producing the right things yet, it's not a big deal. In time, it will happen.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Moderator's Note: The above is Lyn's description of part of Phase 1 (as he calls it), which works very well for me. Paul Smith's version of Stage 1 (as he calls it, using original Ingo methods) uses somewhat different conceptual logic and operation. In the long run though, it looks the same when you're done, and students from both instructors seem to do very well at it. -- PJ
I am out of the net for a few days, duty calls you know. If it would be helpful, when I return this weekend I could do a step by step (stage by stage) example of a CRV session. Let me know if it would be helpful. I will return 31 Oct in time to put the whiskey out for the wee folk.
Enjoy the journey.
May the Force be with you,
[Archive Note: Liam, former U.S. Intell RV]
Joseph McMoneagate wrote: > 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.
So Joe... *if* there is such a thing as remote influencing... and *if* the folks with the most money are the folks who are researching it... then ... wouldn't one be safe to assume that different governments are involved in it and using it (ethically or not depending upon the government) to their own advantage.
And *if* that is happening then doesn't it make sense for the other interested parties to be prepared to defend/protect themselves?
Oh gosh... I know I'm just being silly... us newbies come up with some pretty stupid questions... :-) (sorry)
>I don't remember saying that remote influencing "wasn't possible," I >distinctly remember saying that I've never seen it demonstrated >(appropriately and within controls.) I know and have said the Russians and >Chinese have been exploring the area for twenty-five years. The fact that they >haven't been able to demonstrate anything in that arena for those twenty-five >years speaks volumes with regard to the probability of it being possible >doesn't it?
It occurs to me that had any group found success in practical application of remote influencing, it is unlikely that they would make that fact known to the world through peer-reviewed journals. And any such success would be difficult for non-participants to recognize.
Obviously other modes of information gathering are available, as this list demonstrates.
Moderator's Note: Not like you started it Tom, but here's a good place for me to opine: To be honest, I would rather not discuss RI here. Not because it isn't interesting to me (it is, so keep those Evil Mind Control posts coming everybody), but because it does little to promote understanding of RV, while doing a lot to promote fear, paranoia, confusion, doubt, and other responses in the public, and those are already far too prevalent in all psychic arenas. That makes open sharing about RV more difficult (and focuses more weird suspicions at otherwise innocent people doing RV). I'm sending this post through because I think you have a good point [which is to say, it was brilliant because I agreed with it of course! ;-)]. Maybe when I get my firesite BBS up we can make a whole project out of mind control discussion. Heh. Heh. -- PJ
> And *if* that is happening then doesn't it make sense for the other > interested parties to be prepared to defend/protect themselves?
I would like to comment on this post, as my focus of practice and research is in the use of influence in the application of healing work.
1. Manipulation of the electromagnetic field that then effects the physical body, is a reality and has been studied by both the Mind Matter Unification project at Cambridge UK and the Bio-Emmissions Lab. in Japan. The Ozarks Research Institute has also been very involved with it.
2. Their are many philosophies about negative applications of these types of techniques. Energy is energy and if we can influence for good, can we also influence for harm? I believe that it is not only possible, I have personally been involved in cleaning up folks who have had this happen. Although rare, the source of this is still undetermined most of the time. However, occassionally I pick up a finger print or two. The key is that we have choices as to what level of existance we wish to live within. We just need to choose wisely.
3. As far a protection is concerned, I would hope that I would not live my personal life (by choice) looking over my shoulder. It is my belief that if the government or anyone else wanted to eliminate me, traditional methods would be much easier, very effective and cheaper (high velocity lead poisoning).
4. Our best defense is education and becoming a good consumer of information. If we are educated, then we will know and will be able to correct and avoid difficulties when they begin to present themselves. Your worst defense is a few statements of advice, with out any relation to applications, recognition or techniques.
Just my opinion. If it helps great. If not -DELETE-
Joe McMoneagle wrote: >>I don't remember saying that remote influencing "wasn't possible," I >>distinctly remember saying that I've never seen it demonstrated [snip] --Then-- Tom wrote: >It occurs to me that had any group found success in practical application of >remote influencing, it is unlikely that they would make that fact known to the >world through peer-reviewed journals. And any such success would be difficult >for non-participants to recognize.
There are probably as many studying this area inside closed systems (classified areas) as there are within outside systems (non-closed areas). My experience is that when something is done within an outside system, it grows faster and things are learned and spread much faster than when done within closed systems. This certainly is the idea behind the research done within our and other's universities and colleges. If such research is done within a business research lab, it would be announced and sold, faster than you can say "profit."
Aside from this, there is a large list of ways that we (that is government, business, research, etc.) keep track of what people are trying to do in other countries. Historically, I've never known of a single area of investigation within the borders of China or Russia which we did not eventually know at least something about. In other words, they may be able to hide success in "remote influencing" for a short period of time, but by it's very nature (to remotely influence from the norm) they probably would not be able to hide it for very long.
>Moderator's Note: Not like you started it Tom, but here's a good place for me >to opine: To be honest, I would rather not discuss RI here. [snip]
Neither would I. --for all of your reasons stated, Palyne.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
END ARCHIVE 46
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page