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 fifty-first archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 51
A student wrote and asked some CRV questions, and I thought that all of you like to see the questions and answers. They touch on a basic aspect of the CRV process: that the viewer is the only one who is in touch with the target, so >>>the viewer absolutely has to be in charge of the session<<<! When you read a message on the board in which someone who would be/was a monitor or project director starts telling you how he/she did this or that to help (control) the viewers, how he/she manipulated them in such and such a way, how etc.etc.etc., you can know that the absolute first rule of CRV was violated, and, as a result, why wierd things occurred. Just trying to add to the understanding.
>Dear Lyn: (big snip) >.....I have had chance to do a lot of viewing in the last month (I >was in England and Ireland during August) and I have a whole bunch of questions to ask you now. (snip)
Dear S, I realize that you are also teaching students (not for money, I hope), since some of your students have already contacted me with questions. I've been glad to help. I'm glad you asked these questions, and if you don't mind, I would like to post them and the answers to the web page and to PJ's mail list for everyone's benefit.
>Question: If the viewer does not make any ideograms that the monitor >can see correspond to the target, can the viewer go to P2 anyway, if they want to?
Answer: Remember that when you were in C.'s course, he taught you exactly how you would do each ideogram, what its shape would be, what speed to do it, etc. That's because he was taught to do ideograms that way by E., who originated the practice of deciding for each viewer what his/her ideograms would look like. It was never important to anyone before E. decided - for some reason - that it should be, and started teaching it. I think it may have been some kind of control thing, since E. has never believed that the viewer should be in charge of the session, and even argues against the concept. Who knows, maybe it was an attempt to try and standardize the work of all viewers. Any way, in standard CRV, the ideogram language is a private language between the >>>viewer's<<< conscious and subconscious minds. The monitor doesn't need to recognize the viewer's ideogram, or to even know what it means. The viewer, after getting the ideogram, will go over to the right side of the page, write "A:", and then list the ideogram's motion(s) and then the ideogram's feeling(s). He/she will then write down "B:" and list what the ideogram means. In other words, the viewer will tell the monitor what the ideogram stands for. It is not the monitor's job to judge the viewer's ideogram, based on its shape alone. How many times have you seen a viewer do one ideogram, then get down to the "B:" and say, "I know that's the ideogram for XXX, but it sure feels like YYY".
Besides, if you have the monitor making the decision of what the viewer's material means, then why have a viewer?. To give the monitor control over the viewer, even to the point of when to go into P2 is an absolute no-no - and even worse, you are actually >>>training<<< the monitor to be in control. Even worse than that, you are training the viewer to be dependent on the monitor's leading - and the monitor is NEVER supposed to lead.
Any time the monitor is "helping" the viewer to view, the monitor is not helping. That is what is taking place whenever the monitor is the one who decides when to go to P2. Very bad situation. You should train the viewer to decide when to go into P2. If they screw up, you let them learn by the experience of screwing up. If they decide correctly, they learn by the experience of doing right. But it is your job as monitor/trainer to let them learn by their own experience. Above all, you should never have the monitor in charge of the session in any way.
>Question: Also, can the monitor instruct the viewer to go to P2 >without telling them to write, "Describe the (manmade/natural/etc.)" first or must the data in P2 always have to refer back to specific ideograms?
Answer: Well, again, you don't want the monitor in charge. However, to answer your real question: The monitor can >>>ask<<< the viewer if he wants to move on into P2, without referring to an ideogram. It probably isn't a good idea, because then the viewer moves into P2 without having decided on a good direction. However, if the viewer is getting flooded with sensories so badly that he/she can't finish P1 properly, the monitor could >>ask<< the viewer if he/she desires to just go on into P2. After all, something within the viewer has already made the decision to do that, anyway. It would be one way the monitor could help the viewer >>>get himself<<< out of the situation. It would be a lot better for the monitor to >>>suggest<<< that the viewer slow his mind down and finish P1 properly, but that can sometimes be very hard on the viewer. It would be a monitor's call as to whether to >>>suggest<<< they go back and do it properly, or just move on. The deciding factor would probably be how fragile the viewer is and how much >>>self<<<-disciplining the viewer could take.
>Question: When we did a session together in Denver you told me I >could go to P4 straight from P2. In SRV, the viewer has to go through P3 first.
In CRV, the viewer is supposed to go through P3, just like in SRV. The reason for going through the stages that each stage's structure is there to help the viewer, once the viewer reaches a certain level of site contact. The "barrier" of the AI break needs to be passed properly, and that is what P3 is for. In Denver, when I said that you could go on directly into P4 from P2, it was because I saw that that's what you were doing, anyway - and that you were doing it successfully. Like in the answers above, it was a teacher's call. I would not have allowed a beginning student to do that. With more experience, you get a little more freedom, and I just gave you the freedom to do it. I knew that if it didn't mess you up, you would learn something, and if it did, you would learn something, as well. :-]
>Question: Does the order of the phases matter so much in CRV or can >the viewer choose to go in any order they want?
the order of working in CRV is strict and should be observed. Like I say, with experience, you get a little more freedom, but "use two hands when learning", and especially, when teaching, stick to the lesson plan. Like I say, the structure of each stage is there to allow the viewer to declare his/her perceptions according to the depth of site contact. To suppose that a viewer could go immediately into such close contact as to need, for example, the P4 matrix, without every having beginning site contact is just not logical. I know that E. has trained people in the past to believe that they can just jump directly into P4, but in actual practice, it just doesn't work. Stick to the structure - and teach others to do the same.
>Question: Can the viewer go from P4 back to P2 if it feels >appropriate?
Answer: Definitely. What? Does this sound like it refutes what I said above? It doesn't. The viewer should acquire site contact in the standard manner, proceeding through the phases normally. However, as you move through each stage, it becomes a tool you can use later, if needed. There are lots of times when you will be in, say, P4, and an ideogram will come out. When it does, do an AB sequence to identify it and then drop back into the phase you were working. There are times when you are in an advanced stage that the tool you need is a new P3 sketch. It's a good tool - do it.
[PJ's note: going from Stage 4 to Stage 2 is sort of an odd question, actually. There is a Stage 2 column WITHIN the Stage 4 matrix. You would not have to leave Stage 4 to work with Stage 2-type data.]
>Question: What is the difference between the P2 sketches and P3 >sketch apart from having an AI first before going on to P3?
Answer: Surprisingly, there is a lot of difference. I thought for the longest time that there wasn't, but one day realized that I could probe the P3 sketch for more information, while the P2 sketch was usually just a quick graphic to explain some shape I didn't have a word for. If I probed it for more information, nothing came. After the depth of contact has been reached >>>which will cause<<< an AI (the AI isn't just generated on demand because you happen to have given so many dimensionals, as E. & C. teach - it has to come naturally from the subconscious and only happens when a certain depth of site contact has been achieved.) Anyway, after the depth of contact has been reached which will generate an AI, the "sketches" are no longer just graphical explanations of shapes we don't have words for, but they actually become 2-dimensional ideograms. That means they can be probed for more detailed information.
>Thanks again for your help.
Any time. Hope things are going well.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Moderator's Note: Editing of names to initials has been done in the hope that it will divert some 'political' ramifications of comparative methods discussions. (Yeah. Sure...) -- PJ
Gene, I believe Pat Price occasionally came up with names. Ingo may have done the same every now and then. The question is, what has been done (if anything) in an effort to develop a "method" for this type of information? Might it be that even good viewers could become more consistent with these targets IF the proper method was discovered?
Charles D wrote: >>The question is, what has been done (if anything) in an effort to develop a "method" for this type of information? Might it be that even good viewers could become more consistent with these targets IF the proper method was discovered?
Maybe the ability to perceive and/or interpret different sorts of data rests -- in some areas -- more on the innate talent of the individual than a paint by number practice? Like music. You can teach anybody to count, to learn to play piano. You can't teach just anybody to improvise, or to do it by "feel" vs. structure. The reason I wonder this is because those Viewers credited with being able to come up with formal names, numbers, etc. (at least some % of the time -- but then, coming up with ANY data type is only dependable some % of the time) are without exception some of the most phenomenally talented documented psychics of our time. Were it method-based, it seems like even by chance, some number of far less talented individuals should have basically tripped over how to do it, by accident if necessary, just as a statistical probability borne of practicing psi work. Instead, other than the very rare occasion -- and even those dominantly when the sound means little to the Viewer so is 'foreign' in one sense or another -- this ability seems to be seldom found except in those with an extremely pronounced psi talent (high above average, including above "trained" average). As if it is somehow reaching in deeper, or reaching THROUGH the actual data itself -- energy is only conceptual -- and through to the other side, to see/read the facade on the front (sort of inferring that psychic work is 'going in through the back door' so to speak). Just a thought that passed me by....
Was it the Sony Corporation who had some success in teaching children to RV words?
There are times when the Yes response from the pendulum, instead of clockwise, (if thats the usual yes) instead becomes anti clockwise. Does this about turn happen in RV.
Also has any one RV'd Lethbridges 40"- 80" spiral rates for death/time related issues. MaryD.
Hi Mary D
I teach the to and fro method for yes and the side to side for no. I demonstrate in my classes why. I will stand facing north and swing my pendulum in a clockwise motion while saying, "Is my name "John Van Drie" repeating it as I slowly turn to my right (east). When I get to what is called my plantetoid "null" line, the pendulum will stop and start to swing in the counter-clockwise motion. I then start over and utilize the to and fro method and when I pass the "null" point there is no change in the motion of the pendulum. This is very convincing to my students.
Love and hugs
>There are times when the Yes response from the pendulum, instead of >clockwise, (if thats the usual yes) instead becomes anti clockwise. Does >this about turn happen in RV.
Occasionally the pendulum response reverses itself. Happens with the mental pendulum....quite often after I've asked a very pertinant question that the pendulum doesn't want to answer. But the funny thing is I can also evoke this "reversal" by simply telling my mind (several times) to "reverse polarity". I wonder if this is connected with the polarity reversal in CRV?
>This kind of stray response is one of >the bugbears of dowsing but with practice it is possible to tune it out.
This makes a lot of sense to me. So far as I can recall I was (consciously) being very curious as to whether anything at all would happen. Definitely not neutral! My intent was, let's say, directed "To Whom It May Concern." Which is about as broad band as one can get.
Following this list for the past few months I have come to realize how pointless that approach is. Probably imprudent as well, given my complete inexperience. And I've gotten a new slant on things I've read on related topics over the years.
> To be honest, if I had to choose between skill at dowsing vs. >RV, I would take dowsing. But maybe talent is either strong or it is not... PJ
By a strange coincidence when I left the Gateway Course at Monroe Institute (where we had been introduced to L-Rods) I was wandering thru a bookshop in nearby Charlottsville and managed to buy their only copy of Sig Lonegren's Dowsing Rod Kit. Think it cost me $29. It contains a set of L-Rods and the best laid out instructional manual I have seen in years. It covered all sorts of things including why rods twitched when walking thru a doorway (think it was in that manual??) I can thoroughly recommend this kit to any beginner. The ISBN is 0-8048-3049-5.
>I wonder if this is connected with the polarity reversal in CRV? >------- >Moderator's Note: I doubt it, Jim. The polarity reversal as refers to RV (not >really CRV) seems to refer to a response from the body when it changes a state >of consciousness -- [snip]
The polarity reversal would also be dependent upon where on the body and how on the body you are taking the measurement. Since it is commonly found while passing through the hypnogogic state in route to sleep, or when entering a deeper form of self induced meditative state, etc. I've never been convinced that it represents other than a signal that consciously one has passed into an early stage of the sleep process. In other words, it probably has nothing to do at all with RV, but more to do with how relaxed one gets in the process.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
Hi Again to All:
Paul Smith wrote 03NOV97: >>I didn't explain the reason, which was that we were >>trying to solve the search problem in RV, and it seemed that dowsing >>held the most promise.
I took a short coffee break this AM and brought along a stack of unread viewer mail. Paul's posting grabbed my interest so feel compelled to respond to it and in so doing, perhaps elicit some further response from RVers who may have more practical experience in what I will pose.
I've tried my hand at map dowsing on some of Lyn's targets while being attentive to any tactile sensation (in finger, wrist) that may come, be it prick, heat, stickness, roughness, etc. My success, in spite of some discussions with my psyche, has been nil to date but I'm hopeful that more practice will yet yield results. But what am I really dealing with here?? I am dealing with only one sensory - that is the tactile sensory. It may just be that another one, such as smell, taste, sound or color is more amenable to being utilized by my psyche to communicate locale to my mind. I just happen to be an intensely visual person so I ask, Why not use color in dowsing and call it COLOR DOWSING if the term is not already in existence? Let me give a possible example of how it could be used in a CRV session. Here we go:
Let's say we are going to task CRVers to do an open search for an individual. We are going to try to find Mr. T. For excitement, we will say Mr. T is one of the world's most successful and elusive terrorists who is constantly on the move on at least 6 continents. We want our CRVers to locate him in present time T1, and at future times T1+24hours, T1+48 hours, etc. so we can track his move- ments in the hope of intercepting him. However, our CRVers have terrible results on dowsing - say ~50% - but are really good on colors - say 90-95%. So, for present time, the tasking enveloppe has a map of the world with the continents (and maybe ocean areas) color-coded and the tasking asks the CRVer to determine the color associated with Mr. T in present time. Say it is orange (Europe). The second enveloppe is brought in (orange) which has European countries color-coded again. The CRVer this time sees purple (France). The third sealed enveloppe for purple (France) is brought in with major cities and regions color-coded again. The CRVer sees the color green for Paris. So we find out that in present time, Mr. T is likely to be in Paris. We use other CRVers to determine T(n+1)=T(n)+24 hours and find the sequence Paris-Bonn-Bonn-Vienna area?-Rome-Ankara-Ankara-Damascus. Now we know roughly where Mr. T is, his travel plans and with a little check of airline schedules, may even be able to narrow down his air carrier and flight numbers to one or a few possibilities. Let's calculate our crude probability of coming up with a successful route for the elusive Mr. T: (crude because there may be other factors to incorporate)
For tactile dowsing: P=(0.5) X (0.5) X .... (0.5)= 0.0039
For color dowsing: P=(0.9) X (0.9) X .... (0.9)= 0.4304
So if we can use color dowsing, the CRV team is about two orders of magnitude (100 times) more likely to accurately determine Mr. T's route. Five days later, Mr. T, heavily disguised, is intercepted boarding a flight in Rome and is now in custody.
Am I being fanciful or giving too much credence to an unproven CRV process here?? Maybe a few viewers would know if this has been tried before and what the results were. If it has not been done, maybe a good team of CRVers could take a crack at it (with proper protocols and surperb monitoring) and report back at some point as to its usefulness. If someone whats to try it and needs a globe-trotter for a target, I could try to come up with a suitable candidate who will be travelling in my own Department.
Moderator's Note: Good thinking William, and congratulations -- you have unknowingly just "re-invented" what is called "Associative Remote Viewing." :-)
This is basically a means of dowsing via RV, where you assign certain things (such as different targets) "to" each of the literal target options, and then have the Viewer describe the target -- describe the associated target, not the literal target. You can use colors if you want. Or sounds, or smells, or entire target sites, or anything else. Since Associative RV functions as dowsing -- meaning, obtaining data to answer the question within a *known set of choices* -- it can also be used to work predictive/future targets. -- PJ
Mary wrote, >>Although dowsing and RV are both a means of gaining information psychically, IMHO, they have very little else in common.
- Dowsing can also be, "where is this?" and simply opening to wherever of 500 possible areas on a map something might be. Yes/No is not the only use of it. True, methods may differ. However, the main difference in dowsing is not the psychic work but the data itself. In dowsing, you know your options. In RV, you don't. You would think this would make dowsing easier, but noooooo.... ;-)
>>If you are seeking a concept, you have to think your way through the various concepts, ie analyse the Q in advance, to get to a yes/no answer. In RV, that is the very thing you don't do.
The questions in RV *are* thought out in advance, in great detail, with far more complexity, often, than in dowsing. It's simply that in RV (a) that is the tasker's job, not the psychic's and (b) the questions are open ended, because the available options are not known (or that knowledge is not utilized). Still, RV questions are often very specific, and could not be come up with without knowledge of either the site/situation surrounding the target, or the potential outcome of the information, or the desired use of the information.
(Note we are talking here about "applications" RV -- such as its use in intelligence gathering -- not science RV. I won't bore you with why.)
It is critical in RV that the question is designed by the tasker -- not the Viewer. This prevents a huge quantity of 'analytical overlay' (etc.) in the Viewer. Dowsing operates as a form of frontloading in a way, which like most frontloading can often be more harm than help.
Dowsing is not a good tool to use to 'narrow down' something out of the universe. It would take a zillion questions and the probability for error would go through the roof. Worse, being limited in options (sometimes even binary), one error in the chain and you are *dramatically* off course. And the biggest problem is that if you are searching for information you do NOT have -- you do not always know what questions to ask.
RV is a good tool to use to describe "whatever is there." If you can define a general set of options, then dowsing is good to use on those options. Or, if you can define a general circumstance (e.g., the Russians are building a ship) you can use dowsing on the rest of the data (when will that ship be launched?).
Dowsing is included in the currently-taught advanced CRV Stage/Phase methodologies mostly because it is a wonderful tool/adjunct to CRV, and depending on the tasker -- if they are familiar with CRV -- any given session may actually include both CRV and dowsing and other "tools" that are part of the structure. Stage/Phase 5 and 6 are mostly tools of one sort or another, and they are all intended to be used as an adjunct to (not replacement for) the rest of the methods.
>>This puts my mind to the new RV system which gave nothing but a list of answers to choose from. That IMHO is dowsing. Not RV.
I'm afraid it doesn't have either of those honors. It could only be dowsing if there were a very small number of options and all of them, very specifically, were ON that list.
In dowsing, you *know the options available* because they are defined by your question. E.g., either it is blue, or it is not. It is either on the map, or one of those options, or not. So while you are limited to options, true, you are at least guaranteed that the options in fact cover all the available answers you need to deal with the question properly.
However, in an RV session, you likely do not HAVE the options available to actually answer the question -- or answer it completely. Even all the words in your vocabularly are probably not enough to do a target real justice. Let alone on somebody else's list. In RV, you are not saying "yes blue or no blue," because (a) there may not BE blue at the site, and (b) if there IS blue at the site, that may not be nearly enough, or proper, data. You are saying, "What color is it?" -- in which case, having the option to say it is blue, or not, has only a bare association to actually saying what color it IS, such as "deep cobalt" -- or, "deep sky blue." Or --"magenta." Sorry, not on the list! "Okay.... uh...... uh..... red. Purple. No -- wait --"
I have no doubt that people can -- *when* the list actually includes some of the data available at a given site -- choose what is "closest" to the data. But in the time they spent thinking about which one it was, they missed a lot of psi information probably, and shifted themselves back into left brain mode, as they deliberately analyzed and sifted the optional words. (Though this is done at some level anyway, it's a whole 'nuther story done consciously from a limited number of options.) Which in addition to not helping their session at all, may in fact create more tendency to error even in that little piece of data.
Worst of all, the #1 issue that structured RV methodologies attempt to deal with is AOL. Analytic constructs, overlays, filters and assumptions, all over the place. Now, this is hard enough when you are merely saying, "Feed me data" and getting impressions. Now imagine, you get a very subtle, fleeting impression, and instead of writing it down, someone goes, IT IS BLUE OR GREEN OR RED? Suddenly, your mind is focused on blue or green or red.
If it WAS one of those three options, this would be bad enough, to put them all in the Viewer's mind like that. But it's far worse when either (a) the answer is NOT on that list, or (b) the answer is only sort-of on that list. Maybe it's teal. Is that blue or green? In CRV, it is NEITHER. It is TEAL. If you were limited to a choice (such as in some of the current TRV 'choice lists' of descriptives) you would in fact be forced by the process to give an inaccurate and/or misleading response -- or no response at all.
There are infamous "tasker jokes" that skeptics have used as weapons against Viewers at times. Such as tasking them to describe something that doesn't exist, or to find something that isn't on the map dowsed. ("If you were really psychic, you would have known!") In addition to proving their ignorance about how psi seems to work, it also does not endear people to them -- to say Viewers consider this the lowest underbelly of behavior in psi work is putting it mildly. In a way, the whole situation of providing a "descriptives list" that Viewers have to choose from is one monstrous tasker joke.
In Buchanan's CRV training, there are a number of exercises, including some vocabulary exercises -- you can find those on the Firedocs site "Misc RV Stuff" page. You can sit down with a picture of a simple daisy growing in the grass, and come up with a helluva lot of data that _potentially_ could be said, accurately, about that daisy. And for the exercise, it's best if you do; the point is to sort of train yourself to open your awareness to as much detail as possible. Most of us are not trained to "see" and be aware of the amount of information that even a simple target actually contains. Doing these so-called "vocabulary exercises" really brings that kind of thing home, how much we miss even when clearly looking at something, how many things we have no words for, and so on.
There is no list small enough to functionally work with that could cover all the possibilities inherent in that daisy-in-the-grass target. Let alone in a target that could be anything -- and any combination of things (site, event, etc.) in the world.
Since half of performance in CRV is obtaining quantity of data (the other half --the first criteria of course! -- being the quality [accuracy and usefulness] of that data), especially DETAIL data, you have pretty much just seriously limited your useful performance in CRV right off the bat, were you to use some kind of 'descriptives list.'
Add that to the fact that you have created monster AOL and confusion in your Viewers by forcing them to pull OFF the signal line and analyze, comparatively, what they sensed compared to the list. Add that to the fact that if they're forced to use what's on the list, they may be somewhere between "not totally accurate/incomplete" and "totally wrong" -- or, as a preferable alternative (!), they just won't be able to answer the question at all.
RVing from a "list of possible options" is not only the worst idea I ever heard, but I think some scientific study has been done on that which demonstrates it being a stupendously bad idea as well. Could be wrong, Joe would probably know the answer to that.
Actually, RVing from a list has one rather interesting similarity -- it is kind of like making your entire RV session a Stage 5 exercise.
Stage 5 is a tool set used "off the signal line" to analytically break down your potential target data. There are a few different ways of using it as a tool. One way is making a list of everything that COULD potentially be valid data and then going through the list and deciding, yes, no, yes, no, etc.
Stage 5 is not remote viewing. It is an analytical tool that is part of the advanced CRV structure. It is not designed to obtain psi data. It is designed to break out the potential data processing inside your head so that you can kind of free yourself from blockages or open up a bit -- and then go BACK into actually doing RV (usually moving back into Stage 4).
Maybe I should not be surprised that this bright 'choose from the list RV' idea was birthed by somebody with a little Analyst experience and not much Viewer experience. It reads like that.
The most important point of the last subject you brought up, Mary -- that being the new "choose an option" list that Ed Dames has created for his TRV training -- is something that isn't even addressed by the 20 other great reasons why from an RV or CRV point of view, it's just... not wise. The biggest issue is that the most unique and useful data obtained in an RV session is usually something spontaneous. It will NOT be on a list.
For example -- and I hope she doesn't mind -- on a target Skye was recently doing, she popped up with "suspended." This is hardly going to be found on your "descriptors list." The target, as it turns out, was a large piece of something hanging suspended from a helicopter (part of a bridge being put in place? - I don't remember). If she were working from a list she would *never* have gotten this. And so on. (She tends to get a lot of very unique conceptual data, so she's a good example.) Viewers have been known to, in the midst of a session, say something like, "Verde." As in green, in spanish, with the overtones of lush and so on (a slight conceptual difference between the english "green"). Or stuff just truly out of the blue.
The whole point of this is that it is YOUR mind, your psi, your psychology, your intuition, and those often seem to work in conjunction with creativity and humor and other talents. You are unique. You have to figure you out. RV practice is aimed at the end goal of you figuring out how you work in your own head. How you process and interpret and communicate. ANYTHING which detracts from this goal is to be questioned with suspicion. People become dependent on 'gurus' to give them answers, to spoonfeed them their perspective on the universe and RV. I'm sure you won't. (Thank god.*) Anything that you think affects those issues even mildly -- question. Even the very process of collecting data affects it. Good Viewers are the people who are able to be ruthlessly honest with themselves, and be open to awareness of anything affecting the process.
RV methodologies are training. In some approaches, they are attempting to quash the way your mind works normally and replace it with how someone else apparently thinks your mind should work. If the people designing the methods are experts, very well studied in advanced psi work and learning theory and so on, they may actually do a great job at improving your approach, and 'bring you home' to what you might have done naturally without so much cultural conditioning. Some are not. But depending on the degree to which you take any method, even a good one, this can be a pruning-sort of improvement -- or it can be a total invalidation of your inherent talent, replaced with somebody else's dictates.
Watching a bunch of people "learn to RV" by basically stage 5ing the universe makes me feel like burying my head in my hands. I fail to see how anybody familiar with RV could miss the 500 reasons not to do that. It's like trying to describe a woman's beauty with math or something. It is just the wrong tool. It is THE VERY THING that remote viewing is designed to AVOID.
I see this whole trend as some kind of cosmic joke being played on the RV field. You could not do it more damage to RV as an understanding if you tried. I'm reminded of childhood church sermons where my preacher explained that the devil would seldom show up looking like the devil. That would be too easy. That he would probably be just slightly to the left of what you thought was right -- he wouldn't seem like the opposite, he would seem like another alternative and interesting path to the same thing. Yet, like any path that is only 3 degrees off, by the time you've traveled some distance, you're in a whole 'nuther territory.
As a final note, this taps back into something that Buchanan is kind of vehement about. THE VIEWER IS IN CHARGE OF THE SESSION. For anybody to give you a list of "what you can say" is to, in effect, render you completely powerless (and completely dependent on their Vast Wisdom to make you that list). You're not forging into the universe and bringing back treasure -- you're just using somebody's grocery list. We could skip boring people with the detailed structure of CRV and just give them scantron cards and a list of 20 questions. Even by chance they'll be right 25% of the time -- and totally amazed with themselves... ANY decent Viewer I know would damn near have hives over the idea of limiting anybody's data to someone else's list. It would be considered both intrusive and repressive. (And frankly, not very functional.) Good Viewers have been known to walk away in the middle of a session and refuse to "be the monkey" when subjected to conditions less insulting than that.
William e: >Let's say we are going to task CRVers to do an open search for an >individual. We are going to try to find Mr. T... [large snip] >Am I being fanciful or giving too much credence to an unproven CRV >process here?? [snip] PJ wrote: >...have unknowingly just "re-invented" what is called "Associative >Remote Viewing." :-)
Palyne is correct. There is no reason to even test this as it's all been done and proven under lab conditions already. Of course, we now also know that: ...if you select a more appropriate associative target pool, you can increase your probability of finding him by a factor of six...then if you have him carry a small amount of nuclear material in his pocket you can further increase your probability of finding him by a factor of nine again...add to this the emotional desire of a viewer for needing to help in locating a known terrorist who has previously hurt people, and you can increase it by another factor of four. Finally, add some of the analysis techniques that have been developed within CSL and the RV unit over the past twenty-five years and you can probably further increase your probability of finding him by a factor of at least two again; etc., etc.
I guess the point I'm getting to here, is we've already done all this...and it's proven...and it's been used...and it's worked...and it's...
Unfortunately, there is such an "black reputational scourage" that surrounds the use of "Psychics" (translate--remote viewers) within the Government, that no one who gets their position by vote or appointment will touch any of this with a ten foot pole. LARGE SIGH! At least until the first suitcase bomb goes off.
Good idea though.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
END ARCHIVE 51
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page