firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 055
.


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-fifth archive.


November 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 55

Joe, Gene, Liam, Lyn, Paul, Greg --

I'm putting together a worksheet and instructions for Session and Viewer Profiling on my Firedocs web site, and I wanted to get your feedback on the below dilemmas, which I call "arbitrary scoring issues." How a Viewer makes a decision on these things will dramatically impact their final "accuracy %" and "scorable data" percentage, and I see a lot of this with students, so this is important.

It is my opinion that most of these questions depend on proper tasking (includes a time reference, such as "at the time the feedback photo was taken") and proper feedback, both of which when done correctly answer a lot of these questions with the obvious, "Was it in the feedback?" But there are other issues. I'd like to get some response from you and compile it into answers for the file. Thanks guys. -- Palyne (questions follow)

What if you describe something, and when you get feedback, it is clear that what you described is involved in the target - or could be - or has been - but you cannot see it clearly in the feedback photo or visit to the site?

Here is where "arbitrary scoring issues" begin.

Q: If you have "revving motor sounds" in your data, and the target feedback is a photograph of a yacht, is that data accurate? The yacht does have a motor. However, there is no indication from the photo whether or not that motor is revving or even on at that moment. Maybe the revving is one of many motors that could be assumed to be near the boat in dock. Or not.

Q: If you say there is a biological or human at the site, and there is not, can you include as feedback the fact that a human almost had to be at the site in order to take a picture of it?

Q: If your target is one object or structure, and you describe both that item and another behind it, are the accurate descriptions of the item behind the intended target considered correct?

Q: If you describe fire and burning, and the target turns out to be the cold, charred remains of a house, can you count the fire/burning data as accurate?

Q: How can you say you have feedback for anything like a smell or sound or temperature or direction etc. from photo feedback?

Q: Where do you draw the line between "Proven accurate," "almost certainly accurate but not in the feedback," "probably accurate," "possibly accurate, could go either way" and "inaccurate?"

Q: How do you decide which of those "in-between" determinations should simply be called "no feedback for scorable data" instead?

PJ


> Here is where "arbitrary scoring issues" begin. <snip>

EXCELLENT QUESTIONS, PJ!!!! Yeeaaahhhh! We use Lyn's data sheets to score our sessions, and it is the hardest part of the whole thing! It is the whole "scoring" issue that I am asking about in the question I asked prior to this posting.

Lori

---------
Moderator's Note: What's interesting is how people's personalities and approach to RV becomes obvious in their scoring. When I score one of my sessions, it is ruthless. It doesn't matter how obvious it is that certain data IS in the target, if I can't SEE it visually in the photo, it's not scorable in my book. Lyn and I have gone around on this more than once. He'll finally throw up his hands and say "Fine! If you'll feel better being wrong, be wrong!" and give up. Usually after that I get a little more reasonable. ;-) Some other people, if there is ANY WAY they can stretch assumption to include that their data might be in there somewhere, they'll do it. For this reason, even scoring as P>S>I does it -- with feedback and databased -- is pretty arbitrary; it really does depend on the Viewer's personal take on the issue.

Also, there are targets that are just bad targets that can dramatically affect scoring issues. Like one target I had that was an overview picture of a city. Other than a "splayed wooden bridge" over at the side, I had zero information about the target that was useful -- just a simple descriptives list. Yet, it got called 100% right -- why? Because it was a picture of SO MUCH that no matter WHAT I listed, it was in there, I mean it was rural and woodsy-park and city, it contained everything. (Bad target.) So that as well can make scoring arbitrary.

And remember, in the "modern" RV world (e.g., the internet and the many 'new' versions of RV), scoring isn't generally done this way (or if it is, that's a recent thing); usually scoring is more like, "If you get data elements that clearly indicate you're on target, then you've nailed that target!" (A sort of pass/fail measure.) So, if every session gets items making it appear you're on target, you're "100% accurate" because you've "gotten every target you tried." Clearly this is a dramatic difference from how Lyn's CRV is scored (CRV would likely score dramatically lower even in better sessions). Which in turn is a dramatic difference than how lab-RV is scored (which would also score much lower even in better sessions).

(Side note: You don't get to BE a long-term lab Viewer unless you're unbelievably, demonstrably good and reliable. So comparing scores to people from the lab whose "accuracy %s" get heard in the media -- like Joe McMoneagle's for instance -- is pointless anyway. A true comparison would probably be demoralizing for the other Viewer.)

So, these numbers -- I don't call them scores except when talking with Lyn's students, I call them "session profile numbers" or "your Viewer Profile," because to me it's not a contest, it's just a recording -- cannot be compared to each other between Viewers (very much even of CRV) and certainly not between Viewers in different schools or situations. You can only use it to compare against yourself, and to provide input to your teacher and your tasker. Which it is _invaluable_ for. It completely amazes me that even in CRV Lyn is the only one who teaches this -- there is so much learning value in it when done right, learning about your internal processing, not to mention keeping real track of yourself, I can't imagine NOT doing it. (On the other hand, Paul is the only one in CRV who teaches formal Swann theory, and there's certainly value in that. So maybe it balances out.)

Btw, per an earlier comment you made, Lyn should be available (far as I know) for more training in just a few months at the most, if you can hang in there. -- PJ


I have a question... how do you manage to just get impressions.. (hot, wind, whatever)... how do you manage to keep the identity of the whole thing... whatever you're viewing ... from just being there?

Trypper

---------
Moderator's Note: Doesn't seem to be something we "keep away" Trypper. It would be much easier if we all just immediately knew what the target was, and in detail. Since people seldom do, a method of describing their impressions, eventually -- maybe -- building up to a full picture -- was developed. In some cases, the Viewer DOES immediately have the identity of the thing itself. And that's okay too. Though some detail is still required, if the session -- in applications other than dowsing -- is going to be useful. -- PJ


>>Anyhow, this scientist noted the Earth resonates at a specific >>>frequency caused by the fact the globe revolves faster than the >>blanket of atmosphere surrounding it...at the friction point, ><snip>

I think this might be the Schuman Resonance frequency....around 7.83 cycles per second. I seem to recall that Angela Thompson's upcoming new book White Crow covers OBE experiments while using this specific frequency.

Has anyone experimented with remote viewing during siderial-time peaks? Apparently meta-analysis indicates that ESP may be up to 4 times more effective during specific daily siderial times. There is an interesting recent summary on this at -

http://www.jse.com/PR_Spottis_96.html

A net site for finding siderial time in the USA can be found at -

http://www.sidwell.edu/~pkelly/astro/time.html

Outside the USA go to -

http://mti-usa.com/siderial1.htm

You need your local geographic longitude for this latter site. I got it by phoning the Governement mapping office.

Believe it or not the above information took two of our staff members nearly 7 hours combined internet searching time to uncover. Thought I'd pass it on to PJ's list before it gets totally lost in the morass of our computers innards -:)

Jim

[Archivist Note: Dr. Spottiswoode's papers on Local Sideral Time and psi effect size, and other findings, can be found at his web site: http://www.jsasoc.com/. Dr. Spottiswoode is associated with the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, web site: http://www.lfr.org/ .]


> ... good way to ground other than those mentioned is to listen to one of > several TMI (Monroe Institute ) tapes, which I will List. After I came out of > Lifelines I could barely get my car door open (after barely being able to even > find my car) and had a 3-4 hour drive home. I put "Remembrance" on the tape > player on auto-reverse and made it to my door without a mishap.

Whatever works for you obviously is okay for you. IMHO, it might be better for most folks to move away from the artificial approach particularily when you are doing something like driving. Here are a couple of natural alternatives in addition to the exercise mentioned.

o Sleep. Even an hour's worth can make a big difference if it is done after exercise or protein. Doing it right afterwards can lead to a relapse and not really help bring you out of it.

o Protein without carbohydrates. Try cheese, jerky, protein shakes, or hard-boiled eggs. While the general process of digestion will ground you, the protein has a stabilizing effect on your blood sugar and gives you a steady energy burn. It does stop the walking into walls problem if you give it about 20 minutes to start working.

Rusty


Rusty,

The morning in question (after Lifelines) I had had a full 8 hours of sleep and a breakfast of ham and eggs around 8:30 AM and still had trouble finding my car at 10:30. At that point, I needed to go home and the tool was available.

There are many approaches to grounding and I like to have as many tools as possible since different things work for different people, and what works now, may not work another time...so If we all share what works for us, there might be things we can all learn from each other's experience. I think this is called the synergistic effect...and I think that this is probably at least part of the reason we are all part of this forum.

Leveda


Dave and Mary wrote: (snip) >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?

Problem is that so far, there are no methods available for blocking either remote viewing or remote influencing (The existance of which has yet to be proven, as Joe says). They can be slowed down greatly, but a good CRV "hacker" will find a way to get past it. There is no known defense at the present time.

Before a lot of people send back email talking about protective balls of pure, white light, etc., let me add this: The protective balls of pure, white light (I'm using that as a generic for all kinds of things like "reflective shields", Bob Monroe's "reballs", etc.) are used to protect you from all kinds of spiritual entities and spiritual invasion. From what I have seen and experienced, they are great for that purpose. However, they don't do anything as protection against >>controlled<< remote viewing (while they may be very effective against other kinds of remote viewing). When a target person has put up such a defense system against siritual attack, that person is usually guilty of thinking that the protection works for everything. In fact, that "I'm now safe against ALL forms of attack" belief makes them drop their mind's natural defenses against other, non-spirtual forms of mental invasion. It makes them sitting ducks for CRVers. The best defenses I have been able to find so far against CRV is the one you're born with. Your subconscious mind will naturally resist being invaded. When you try to replace that with manufactured, self-devised methods, you only make a CRVer's job that much easier.

Please note that I didn't address remote influencing, which, as Joe has said, has yet to be proven (and I don't think will ever be proven).

I'll bet this message starts a long thread!!!

Lyn

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

-----

Oh, no....... -- PJ


Joe, Gene, Liam, Lyn, Paul, Greg --

As part of the RV FAQ I've been working on for my web site, I was hoping some "experts" would be willing to provide me one-paragraph descriptions of the major types of RV.

I would like it if Joe in particular would address the first set, since those are more common from the science side. Just a brief description of these, and I'll integrate the multiple descriptions and use that for the FAQ. Please add any I don't have. Thanks ever so much!

1. Types of Remote Viewing

"Ganzfeld"
"Outbounder"
"Associative"
(other? Please add them)

2. Methodologies often used in conjunction with Remote Viewing Protocol

"Controlled" remote viewing (CRV)
"Extended" remote viewing (ERV)
(other? Please add them)

Thanks guys!

Palyne


Please excuse my ignorance, but could someone elaborate simply on what dowsing is, and how it relates to RV? Not having much of a background in "psychic stuff," I am not familiar with it.

Thanks!

Lori

-------
Moderator's Note: Paul Drummer and Joe McMoneagle are probably the two most experienced with dowsing that I know of on the VWR list, although it is a tool in Stage 6 of the CRV methods as well... so anybody trained to that level ought to have some familiarity with it. My understanding from communication with people about the subject is that people may be good or bad at dowsing -- and the opposite of RV -- although actually, psi talent tends to be apparent across the board, there are still some areas of strength that people have or don't. -- PJ


Hi Lori

Dowsing in using tools to get information from the Universe that is not available to the five senses. We use "L" rods, "Y" rods, Pendululms, and Aurameters. This way we get information at a distance, for example using a pendulum and a yard stick to get the location of a well giving substantial amounts of potable water in a distant state. We direct the pendulum to point in the direction of the well from all four corners of the map getting a small diamond where they intersect. Then the owner can go out to the site with "L" rods etc to determine the exact location to drill. I use my pendulum primarily to do health readings on people all over the world, clear them of entity attachments, and send my Angels to heal them from their sicknesses. I know it works because of the word of mouth recommendations people give out after they have been healed.

Love and hugs

John V


> Dowsing in using tools to get information from the Universe that is > not available to the five senses. We use "L" rods, "Y" rods, > Pendululms, and Aurameters.

So far so good. But dowsing as taught these days nearly always moves on to deviceless dowsing. As it happens I conducted a second day (of three days, two weeks apart) course today concentrating on this aspect. The class tried blink, finger-thumb, body response, double-pinch, opposed-thumbs, hand-jab and point-and-sense dowsing: everyone was successful in at least one of these, including one person who couldn't operate any tools. We also had a go at psychokinetic dowsing for fun (no-one touches the tool) - without success this time.

So dowsing is the obtaining of information (not available, etc) by means of question and answer, using tools or a body reaction or sensation.

In Day 3 I get off dowsing into other faculties like clairaudience, clairvoyance (would someone like to define the exact distinction between this and RV? RV has to be of a non-symbolic, actual scene ?) guided writing and psychometry. But people accept these as having a smooth and easy frontier with dowsing, which makes a handy beginner's route into them.

Dan W

-------
Moderator's Note: Far as I know, RV is defined as ESP (or psychic functioning) performed within an officially approved protocol (a set of rules). The ESP part itself -- psychic, clairvoyant, whatever -- has lots of words depending on the method you use and your aims. "RV" as a term however is not related to either the single type of data or the single method you attempt to gain it with; the term refers to the controlled situation that your chosen method is used within. So, gazing into a crystal ball would qualify as RV -IF- it was done within the RV protocol. While established "RV methods" -- those sold today as 'RV Training' -- actually only qualify as "real RV" if they are used within the protocol. (Note: Protocol is the science rules. METHODS are the "means of going about getting data." Many methods teachers refer to their methods as protocols -- just to thoroughly confuse everybody!) -- PJ


Greetings All -

Is there a sample available of the viewer worksheet that lists the CRV phases and the resulting impressions (for lack of a better term, and which I'm sure there are several existing official ones ;-> ) that one is receiving while RVing?

In lieu of a sample, are there some sort of directions as to how to construct the columns in the worksheet and what topics they should cover (eg. color, smell, texture, etc.) so that I can document and compare to the feedback? Boy, a picture IS really worth a thousand words...

I've been to the Paradigm site, but I am embarrassed to say that I can't seem to find anything but the "Anomolies" board. Where is the CRV information that is often mentioned to the list located within the website?

I'm sorry, but I truely can't find it.

Now, take me by the hand...

Sidenote: I've been lurking for some time now - and I know there are many others out here hiding with me - but I have only attempted a few quick RV sessions (C-RV, I doubt) with a few targets I found some time ago (the group in the pool, the ski-lift, etc.) I'm not certain where I found them, but my sessions were quite brief and lost accuracy as I continued to do them. So I, in turn, lost the patience I needed to have in order to learn (read: practice) something this new. But I still want to do it, right down to my toes.

On yet another note, it sure does seem that Mary D. is a "natural", doesn't it? Mary, I don't know what you aspire to do with CRV, but you most definately are "getting it"! Its amazing to watch you progress so quickly, and although I don't know you, I'm proud (for you) of your accomplishments.

Please continue to provide us with your excellent questions.

Fellow lurkers, my father always said, "There's no such thing as a stupid question", so come on out of the shadows and gather the pearls of wisdom being offered by all these wonderful teachers. Knock and it shall be opened unto you, yes? You are all so intelligent, and talented with the pen, a person becomes tempted to keep their mouth shut, for fear of looking like a dummy.

Teachers, remember that we newbies are very inexperienced and grateful for your assistance and the time that you take to help us. There probably are new people joining the list every week, and we realize that going over the same subjects may get redundant for you, but believe me, what you are doing for us is appreciated. (This is not b-nosing, I hope to tell ya.)

Properly Sandra, but I prefer :

Sam

--------

Moderator's Note: Howdy Sam. Paradigm is the SPONSOR of this list, it's a business (web design). The Firedocs site -- my personal web site that sort of supports this group -- has the URL listed on the bottom footer of every message on this list (see below -- it's the URL next to my name). You cannot possibly visit Firedocs and not be overwhelmed with RV stuff, so you clearly haven't found it yet. :-)

I'll address your other questions in a separate post. -- PJ


Hi Sam,

>>Is there a sample available of the viewer worksheet that lists the CRV phases and the resulting impressions (for lack of a better term, and which I'm sure there are several existing official ones ;-> ) that one is receiving while RVing?

That is a number of questions. Is there a sample of the Viewer worksheet? What Buchanan's CRVrs would call a worksheet would be the session profile sheet -- the one you enter your final data results into for databasing. Other than that, there is no such thing as a worksheet in CRV. Even the "matrix" you hear about -- that just means, a list of columns -- is written by the Viewer at the appropriate time... not preprinted. And there is more than one... depends on what stage you're in.

"That lists the CRV Phases:" I can give you a very generalized overview of what they include. For details, you'd need to take training, it's too much to cover at once. Buchanan calls each section a Phase; Swann and Paul call the sections "Stages." Stage 1 is basically your ideogram work, which has been discussed on this list previously. Stage 2 is basically descriptives; points of data often seeming to be randomly flitting around the site; usually one word descriptives. Stage 3 is for preliminary sketching, usually not 'sketch' as you would think of it in a full-visual sense, but the basics of pieces of the target. Stage 4 brings in concepts, and this stage is where most CRV is actually done. In Stage 4 you can use proper names and define things, you include your own responses to the site and the emotions or responses of living beings at the site; purpose, and many other conceptuals. Stage 5 is an analytical stage, used only as a tool if you need it and not always gone through in a regular session. It breaks down/out the data and helps you get through some things so you can go back to Stage 4 and continue. Stage 6 is also a tool phase to some degree, and includes 3D modeling, advanced versions of the sketching, dowsing, mapping, timelines, etc. There are other stages and other applications of CRV but they are not currently being taught to the public.

However, you said: >>Is there a sample available of the viewer worksheet that lists the CRV phases and the resulting impressions (for lack of a better term, and which I'm sure there are several existing official ones ;-> ) that one is receiving while RVing?

There is NO OFFICIAL data that you are "supposed" to receive. There is no list of data you should or could receive, there is no list of words or descriptives you are supposed to use. That would take it out of being remote viewing and make it an analytical choice. Within the context of what I mentioned above for the phases, ANY data that qualifies within that stage is appropriate -- and frankly, even any data that is NOT is appropriate -- the point is to acquire data. If you were in formal CRV training it would be hopeful that you could train yourself to acquire it in the desired order, but hey, whatever works. If anybody tries to tell you there is any acceptable list of data, or any list of officially approved basic descriptives, run, don't walk. That isn't remote viewing.

>>In lieu of a sample, are there some sort of directions as to how to construct the columns in the worksheet and what topics they should cover (eg. color, smell, texture, etc.) so that I can document and compare to the feedback? Boy, a picture IS really worth a thousand words...

This reminds me -- I've had a CRV Session Profile sheet online for a year, and I just forgot to make a link to it anywhere. :-) Whoops! Hmmmn. Well I tell you what. I'll get it up within the next week on the Firedocs site, I've been working on site stuff the last few days anyway. I'll announce here when I finally get all the updates complete. This is basically just a copy of Lyn Buchanan's session profile sheet, except without his company's information on it -- I made it so it's easily printable from the web page. This has categories of data on it. Mind you, do NOT assume that your data HAS TO fit in those categories. Most sessions, trying to decide which (if any) category data fits into is a bitch! But this is what he uses for databasing Viewer Profiles, and I wanted some consistency, so I used what he had... it covers things pretty well. The sheet has you spell out how many impressions you obtained of a certain type of data that the feedback says were accurate; how many were inaccurate; and how many could not be judged (no feedback). (Also has you spell out your "AOLs".) Of the "scorables" (those that can be judged), you then have a % for that type of data, for that session, of your accuracy. If you database this stuff over a number of sessions, you get your "Viewer Profile" -- which will tell you important information about your Viewing, such as

1 - How many perceptions you tend to get overall, and in any data category 2 - What % of those perceptions tend to be accurate, both overall and in any data category 3 - What categories you are NOT getting perceptions in, and/or are not very accurate in And more.

This is important information for a project manager or tasker to have. Who they give what tasking may depend upon who demonstrates a real ability in that particular area; and tasking can be designed to utilize a Viewer's apparent strengths. (Memory of 'what a person is good at' has proven to be useless. Database it!)

This is also important information for a teacher. You cannot provide targets or task toward a student's weaknesses so they learn unless you know what they demonstrate skill at obtaining and what they don't. Sometimes you can help them learn to draw their attention toward a type of data by providing many targets that are heavy in that data type, or have no other data type. And so on. The overall Viewer Profile is in my opinion a very important part of structured remote viewing.

And it forces the Viewer, at the end of the session, to really sit down and go over every data point in detail. This has two effects: 1) it makes feedback very literal and detailed, and 2) it forces the Viewer to recognize many things, such as (a) how did they really mean that word, that could be put in three different categories depending on concept? (b) they realize in detail what they didn't record, but did get the impression of, and so on... it really forces a much more detailed feedback on internal processing effects.

>>On yet another note, it sure does seem that Mary D. is a "natural", doesn't it?

Yes. :-) Actually, everybody is a 'natural' -- it's a matter of degree.

>>Fellow lurkers, my father always said, "There's no such thing as a stupid question", so come on out of the shadows

Recently a friend of mine said that at a conference someone had joked, "There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." I think that's what everybody's afraid of, haha!

>>There probably are new people joining the list every week

Every day sees subscriptions and unsubscriptions. The number of people in this group generally averages between 170-200. It's growing, very slowly.

>>and we realize that going over the same subjects may get redundant for you

It might, but, the point of the Viewers being here is to help the public understand RV, and help people working on their own, or entry-level students, or students of "new methods," either work within or understand the CRV context. It's a duty to the world that has to be done if we ever want to get a decent number of people qualified for more advanced work.

>>but believe me, what you are doing for us is appreciated.

I appreciate it too. Glad you like it. Glad you're here.

PJ


>time ago (the group in the pool, the ski-lift, etc.) I'm not certain >where I found them, but my sessions were quite brief and lost >accuracy as I continued to do them.

Hi Sam, Liam here.

Welcome. I think you have encountered what is called "the first time effect." The theory being that the first time you try something psychic you use that chanel I talked about in a previous post. The information works. It comes in on the right side of the brain, sneaking past the left side which has no idea what is coming. After a couple more times, the left side (analytical side) says, ah yes, now I understand. I will make this better by analysing it. And of course everything goes to Hades in a hand basket (what the heck does a hand basket have to do with the place of eternal damnation). It is much like getting a new boss, who is a control freak.

>So I, in turn, lost the patience I needed to >have in order to learn (read: practice) something this new. But I >still want to do it, right down to my toes.

The answer to your last sentence was in the sentence before it.

>On yet another note, it sure does seem that Mary D. is a "natural", >doesn't it?

I agree MaryD is a natural. But that certainly does not make it easier for her. We un-naturals ( what a word) learn the process stage by stage or phase by phase. We know it works because we have seen other un-naturals do it. The natural takes an ideogram and gets three or four stages/phases thrown at her/him at once. My wife is also a natural (mixed marriage native american natural married to an irish un-natural). It took a lot of work and discipline and me being called a lot of un-natural names, to get her to go thru stage one and then stage two and then on to stage 4.5. (I do not want to confuse anyone but stage 4.5 is not Ingo doctrine. When I saw Sandy doing Stage 4.5 I talked to Skip and started using it myself.) Botttom line is stage 4.5 is un-natural.

>Fellow lurkers, my father always said, "There's no such thing as a >stupid question",

Everyones elses fathers say such neat things. My father told me "Liam never marry a girl who carries a meat cleaver in her purse." and "Liam never marry a girl who has dated the Dallas Cowboys or the US Navy."

>Teachers, remember that we newbies are very inexperienced and >grateful for your assistance and the time that you take to help us. >There probably are new people joining the list every week, and we >realize that going over the same subjects may get redundant for you,

Not for Gene and I. We both have Irish alzheinmers and can not remember what we wrote last week. I can't wait to see what I got me for Christmas. Last thursday Gene sent a flame to himself about something he wrote the previous Sunday.

>Properly Sandra, but I prefer : Sam

Welcome aboard properly Sandra. I think you will enjoy the journey. The trip is what is fun, not the destination.

Best wishes to you Sam and everyone else

May the Force be with you

Liam

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


>........So often, our >AOLS are actually literally in the targets, and we know that in the >later stages of CRV, there is SOMETHING that one does with AOLs.... >and I'd sure like to know about that. What I've been doing, just by >instinct, is to describe them, then set them aside. If I get a >strong visual of a brick wall, I'll write it down as an AOL, but then >I'll list "rectangular, rust-colored, multiple" etc. and set it >aside.

Lori, I hope by that you mean that you set aside the "Brick Wall" as an AOL, but that you keep the >>descriptors<< (which, after all, is what you are after) of rectangular, rust-colored, multiple, etc. Think of AOL's like this: your sunconscious, being the totally non-linear wild and crazy guy it is, gets the impression of, say, "rust-colored". It tries to tell you the impression "rust-colored", but you miss it (I am convinced that the AOL usually comes just after a pure impression has failed to get through). The subconscious, in an attempt to show you more clearly, looks through the jumbled pile of old photos on its desk and quickly pulls the first one it finds that has something rust-colored. It might be a brick wall, a junk car, an adobe pot, or anything - doesn't matter to the subconscious - it's rust-colored, and that's all it cares about. It flashes that picture to you, and yells, "HEY!!! RUST-COLORED!!!" You get the visual impression and your conscious mind says, "Hey! Brick Wall!!!"

The subconscious mind rarely ever identifies... it describes. In order to gain valid information from AOLs, you need to do the same. When you get an AOL, set the AOL aside, but not the descriptors of it. Those tend to be very valid information.

>......... More >often than not, there IS a correlation between the descriptive parts >of the AOL & the target.

Remember what I teach as the >>>2nd<<< rule of CRV: that "just because it's an AOL doesn't mean it's wrong!"

Lyn

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


END ARCHIVE 55
November 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.