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-ninth archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 59
I know that "me too" messages are taboo on the list, but I would like to send a rousing "YEAH!!!" to Gene's advice.
The "Vulcan Mind Meld" stuff not only violates privacy rights, has dangers for the viewer, gives you emotional problems, and makes the milk in your fridge curdle, but it also provides you with information which you can't normally use. What a person is thinking they would like to do is rarely ever what they actually wind up doing. If you have sent out the troops on what Hussein would like to do to the US this very evening, you will find the troops out in the desert alone. It's in his mind, but not in his orders to his forces. The "deep mind probe" stuff is pretty largely a waste of viewer's time. Like Gene says, there are too many more usefull things you could be doing.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Then why oh why, has Liam this week actively invited the list to do it! Are we talking different schools of thought here? She asks innocently, strolling into the minefield.
Moderator's Note: Small (small as Jupiter, maybe) misunderstanding here Mary. If Liam said that he was joking. His invitation was for list members to use him as an outbounder beacon. The idea is that you describe his surroundings at any of the date/times he specified. You might say the target is "wherever he is" in that case. -- PJ
Would someone please explain the difference between beginners, intermediary and advanced targets, giving examples of each.
How does the beginner know when to move on to the next level. Thankyou.
MaryD wrote: > How does the beginner know when to move on to the next level.
Since there is no end, it really doesn't matter where you are in the process of learning. If you can always remain a beginner, that is highest accomplishment.
>As one progresses deeper from Alpha to Theta going towards the point >of bi-location is there an auditory vibration sound that can be >either heard or perceived. In my own limited number of >bi-locations,I heard a cracking sound prior to my showing up at the >targeted site. I am interested to hear other people's experiences on >this topic.
Ya sure it isn't like the sound of ripping velcro? Sounds like the makings of a novel (or nonfiction book about remote viewing)! ;-)
I'm having fun with you. There IS a book by a former military RVer that includes descriptions somewhat like this -- the reason for my analogy.
To answer your question. I have heard a distinct "pop" sound when going OBE, of the sort where I have the experience of leaving my body and being in the vicinity of it. I do have OBE's where I'm suddenly elsewhere and in those cases I don't get the "pop." During my experiences with bilocation I was also suddenly somewhere else with absolutely no warning or fanfare.
Psi and the paranormal can be very nontheatrical sometimes, despite what some may write in wanna-be best-sellers. ;-)
Stephen said >Subject: [VWR] Re: Bilocation and Perceived Sounds >As one progresses deeper from Alpha to Theta going towards the point >of bi-location is there an auditory vibration sound that can be >either heard or perceived.
I have never experienced Bilocation during CRV practise targets...which I occasionally do....however these sounds that you mention stephen...I have experienced (if we are talking the same language that is ) when I'm in an altered state and move between one mental plane and another.....the first time it happened...was weird....since then Ive explained it to myself as.. going thru' the mental planes 'equivalent' of the the sound barrier....for me it had a 'rumbling wave kind of quality to it...dam difficult to describe though.... and I'll be interested in hearing other comments on this .
> I have never experienced Bilocation during CRV practise > targets...which I occasionally do....however these sounds that you > mention stephen...I have experienced (if we are talking the same > language that is ) when I'm in an altered state ...<snip>...
This experience that is being described is called the hypnogogic state. It occurs in theta and can be a number different experiences from the ripping sound of velcro between the ears to the most buetiful sounds ever heard and anything else auditory like your name being called or a conversation. DM speaks of this during the beginning of an ERV session. I'm sure some of the intel guys can enlighten us a little more on this.
I have never experienced the cracking sound, but then again clairaudience is not my strong suit.. I am highly visual. One odd thing I have noticed though is an effect like everything gets crushed down to 2 dimensions, and then expands exponentially, much like shifting through dimensions or getting stuck in a veil. Anyone else have this experience?
<< I do, however, feel that it's not necessarily a hynagogic state if there's sound. >>
Rick: If you are truly in the "hynogogic state" - and I am not sure you were by the way you are describing things... you can smell colors, hear pain, see smells... things get a bit screwed up but are still discernible from different aspects... the "snap" you think you "heard" could just have easily been a small flash of light you actually were seeing... Give it some thought... Gene...
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
Even the un-intell "guys" can enlighten...at least a little bit. This experience doesn't always happen from the hypnogogic state, and doesn't necessarily involve any sort of SFX at all. Of my two experiences one was from the full waking state and the other *was* from a very altered state. I didn't get any sound effects at all.
As has been pointed out ad nauseum, DM speaks of many things...but not all of them are accurate, according to those who knew him fairly well. Get the drift?
As one progresses deeper from Alpha to Theta going towards the point of bi-location is there an auditory vibration sound that can be either heard or perceived. In my own limited number of bi-locations,I heard a cracking sound prior to my showing up at the targeted site. I am interested to hear other people's experiences on this topic. Thank you.
>Moderator's Note: Liam, I doubt you'll remember every detail of every > second you're gone. ;-) Did you want to assign a few specific times > you can keep track of while you're out there? Sounds like fun! --
You are right PJ. I keep forgetting I have alzheimers. How about 1500 hours and 1930 hours Central Europeon Time (CET) 16 to 21 Nov. CET is, I think, six hours ahead of New York and nine hours ahead of Seatle/LA. It really does not matter . Just use the time and CET as your tasking.
I will be back in contact next week.
Best wishes to all
May the force be with you
[Archive Note: Liam, former U.S. Intell RV]
I've lurked for quite a while and didn't dare join in, but Liams' comment about "First Time Effect" came at the right time.I have read all the "wrong" books and am now half way through Joe McMoneagle's Mind Trek.
My first RV attempt was weird. I had placed 6 photos in manila envelopes. (Yes, I know it wasn't enough.) I put them aside for 2 weeks. I did the AOL thing on the first one. I knew it was a golf course so I put that thought in a box, shut the lid and moved on. I suddenly knew that the sand trap was bright blue, there were 2 palm trees in the foreground, and a line down the right side of the photo. I drew vague lines and wrote a few words. Then I knew that the green grass was dark green, almost black, and jaggedy. That word doesn't exist, but I wrote it anyway. The photo was of a bright blue swimming pool, with a side walk on the right, 2 palm trees in the foreground, and dark green, tropical foliage around it. It scared me. All the lines I drew fit the golf picture too.
In the second photo I got the crossed arms of a windmill correct, even the right angle and position. (I really didn't remember selecting that picture.) I also got a letter "A" with the crossbar up near the point and tried to draw it backwards. It was a weird Dutch roofline. I saw it as though I was inside the picture looking out, and completely reversed it.
I haven't tried again, but will in a day or two. The "First Time Effect" has prepared me for either success or failure. Yes, I'm keeping notes.
I have about 200 photos that I cut out & glued on the colored paper for a class that I took on teaching English as a second language. I haven't looked at them for 2 years. I plan to start with those.
I have been busy relocating an aged relative and haven't had any time to try RV in several weeks. Things will calm down in a few days.I will also go to Firedocs and explore some more. I am delighted that I found the right place at the right time. I will explain that another day.
A wee bit of Irish whisky for everyone.
>near the point and tried to draw it backwards. It was a weird Dutch >roofline. I saw it as though I was inside the picture looking out, >and completely reversed it.
Excellent! Congratulations! Looks like you've found a home with the rest of us strange folk. Welcome aboard!
>If that ain't "remote influencing" -- *with* feedback, big-time! -- I >dunno what is. I couldn't resist bringing it up here in light of all >the protestations in the list that no such thing as remote >influencing has ever been demonstrated.
It's been demonstarted, and we have got a reasonable "handle" on it. My point is that it is not reliably replicable...and as such....not easily teachable. Also I am starting to have personal misgivings about passing on what I have learnt. Remote viewing could cause enough harm in the wrong hands without even starting on the subject of remote influencing. If you want to get into mild remote influencing investigate the Siva method of Subjective Communication. We sell a course on this. Its a harmless and sometimes mutually beneficial process.
> I've lurked for quite a while and didn't dare join in, but Liams' > comment about "First Time Effect" came at the right time. I have read
Marilyn, do you know about the Serial Position Effect? The PEAR Lab at Princeton has studied, this in depth, in relation to their PK and Remote Perception experiments. Basically, they found that viewers typically did well, overall, on their first try, often dropped of in performance with the second, and sometimes the third, effort. Then, if they persisted their later scores recovered and stabilized. This pattern is not only seen in human effort (including learning curves in children) but in animal studies and even in engineering (ignition transients). The effect was first discovered by a psychologist Ebbinghouse in the late 1800's. Princeton has a paper on this (Series Position Effect)that you can obtain from the lab or their web site.
>It's been demonstarted, and we have got a reasonable "handle" on it. My point is that it is not reliably replicable...and as such....not easily teachable. A<
Eileen, the feisty 80-year-old, can get good results a *lot* and has been teaching others to do this work for many years. As can the two other major practitioners and proponents of "spirit releasement therapy", Bill and Judith Baldwin. Recent nice segment on "Strange Universe" with them working.
I was trying to point out, in a clumsy backhanded way, that remote influencing seems to work quite nicely, replicably and all that, if it's done *in the service of the community*, and not for personal gain -- unless that gain happens to facilitate the person doing more or better service for the community. (And here, I must add that this "community" may not be confined only to humans or "all living things" or even just this planet. Gets to be a high-stakes game, often demanding a profound egoic surrender.)
> Some Reiki practioners say that this absentia method works better than actually being physically present with the subject, but I have yet to see that.<
A colleague of mine, Shirley Winston, did a great study on that in the early '70s. Seems that the healing *experience* is more intense for the healee if the healer is unknown to him/her. What wasn't clear was how effective the distance healing was overall.
But it's sort of parallel to the medical dictum that you don't do brain surgery on your own kid.
> That is...the outcome must be acceptable to both parties. > "distance healing". A prime .. illustration of "remote influence"
I may be fiestey but Im not 80, out side of the realm of RV, I am a Reiki Master, and regularly do distance healing. Generally with the permission of the person, but some times at the request of a loved one, and relating to resolving conflict or problems with others, or in Hospice situations where I am not allowed to mention Reiki, I ask silently for permission. I have had many remote confirmations of both healing and comfort resulting from Reiki's healing influence.
There is also Kinesiology (sp), muscle testing experiments where one person will project either a positive or negitive thought or emotion toward another, and it will make them dramatically either stronger or weaker respectively, and distance does not diminish the effects of the test. There are many examples of remote influencing in the alternative healing community brought about through thoughts, emotions and a variety of energy projections.
As regards RV, remote influencing is a very volatile subject, for obvious reasons. I doubt you will get a straight answer out of anyone because security restrictions as well as general hysteria.
The fact is every time you think about a person you influence them by the quality of your thoughts, the more focused your thoughts and intent the more powerful the influence, the more highly trained an individual is the more responsibility they have in the use of this ability, but this moves into an area of individual ethics, because it can not be policed by any organization, it moves at the speed of thought and for all intense and purposes leaves not trace, unless an expert viewer was alerted to look for a trail.
If any one doubts this impact read up on the receint illness of Dannion Brinkley, and his ability to convert the loveing thoughts and prayers of millions via Art Bells radio show, into a miraculious healing, or email me and I will give you specific instructions to do the muscle testing experiments with thoughts and emotions... if you have never seen it, or experienced it, it is a powerful awakening to our influence on everyone we think about.
> she has a hell of a > successful track record of people having sudden "inexplicable" > healings, big reliefs, and such. > I couldn't resist bringing it up here in light of all > the protestations in the list that no such thing as remote > influencing has ever been demonstrated.
I think the e-mail group is divided between there is no such thing, such a thing is difficult to verify (the elimination of the placebo effect or psycho-genic releases is hard to separata and that it definately exists (but has little to no validation statistics as experimental design is difficult). For me, I have used a method very well and had some rather good successes with it. However, to build a blind or double blind study to collect enough statistical data is difficult to do and as our friend in Australia mentioned, rather expensive and difficult.
As far as the silva method being the standard to measure by. Although it is a method and the mechanics are the same, there are many different techniques that can be used in healing. The key concepts are:
1. Resonance matching (getting in direct and complete repore' with the subject).
2. Lowering yourself to a brainwave state that is appropriate.
3. Gaining cooperation from the subject (many times requiring contact by phone at least).
4. A good understanding of the problem area and the desired fix.
5. Clear an affliction energy out of the site and many time initiating a new more beneficial prodominant program, attached via a thoughtform.
Good luck playing with this one.
>remote influence stuff, I'm sure you must have checked further than >just the Silva gang re what's usually called "distance healing". A >prime illustration of "remote influence" about which there's a >substantial documented literature.
I don't know if this relates at all, but in my 2nd degree Reiki training, I learned "Absentia Healing". It is an effective method of making contact with an person via a surrogate object. Something that might serve as a symbol of the person you want to give healing energy to. You make contact by visualising a connection of 3rd eye chakras, and then you are supposed to ask permission to continue with the healing. The hands work on the surrogate object while visualising the person. I know this works from experience. Some Reiki practioners say that this absentia method works better than actually being physically present with the subject, but I have yet to see that.
My name is Eric and I am a graduate film student at Columbia University and have recently become absolutely obssessed with remote viewing. Fortunately, I feel that I'm in good (and from what I've read by subscribing to this newsgroup, knowledgeable) company.
I may not make myself very popular by doing this, but I want to take this oppurtunity to thank PJ for her effort and dedication.
Because I read the rules for subscribing to this newsgroup, I am well aware of the guidelines regarding the droning on of things that may hinder, if not outright bore, some of the regular members of the group.
For those persons, I apologize. But, I can say with great certainty that without PJ's (near inhuman) time and effort, people like ourselves would still be, in many ways, out on "the edge."
I'm sure to a large personal degree that this is her labor of love, but it still provides the rest of "us" a place to feel comfortable and at home. Thanks.
PJ strikes me as a woman not prone to aggrandizement. I doubt that this message will be presented in its entirety. It's not that I feel that any omission made would be of a censorship nature, but that it would be an omission made of humility. Humility is well served in most cases, but sometimes one needs to be made known the importance that the singular has to the many. This is why I ask that this message be printed in full.
I don't think that I'm the only one to have these feelings and I know that I can speak for an untold number of people that may or may not be willing to speak for themselves.
<< PJ strikes me as a woman not prone to aggrandizement. I doubt that this message will be presented in its entirety. It's not that I feel that any omission made would be of a censorship nature, but that it would be an omission made of humility. >>
Actually a lot of people are unaware of the fact that PJ is not real at all but rather a carefully programmed simulated AI responder on the net. The answers she provides are the result of a "gestalt" psychic response from all the RV'rs out here... we think about the answer and this wonderful machine known as "PJ" comes on line with the answer gleaned from all of our pychic energies... Apparently she had a lot of you fooled but not me... I could tell when she started bouncing some of my flames... since my personal flame was not in keeping with the entire psychic gestalt it got bounced... that was the first sign... The next big giveaway was the changing of the private and public BBS every two weeks ... only a machine could accomplish this task in such a short period of time and in a manner which could so confound the entire psychic gestalt out here to the point none of us knows where the hell our responses are going... Finally, the dead give away was when I asked her out for date and she gave me Bill Gates' telephone number and said to call her later.... Anyhow Eric... welcome aboard... looking forward to your input and questions.... Gene Kincaid...
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
>Actually a lot of people are unaware of the fact that PJ is not real >at all but rather a carefully programmed simulated AI responder on >the net. The answers she provides are the result of a "gestalt" >psychic response from all the RV'rs out here...we think about the >answer and this wonderful machine known as "PJ" comes on line with >the answer gleaned from all of our pychic energies...Apparently she >had a lot of you fooled but not me.. snip
Gene, you are absolutely brilliant. Tell me did you figure this out all by yourself or did you have help. A mutal friend of ours RVed PJ and is convinced she is a grey. A good grey, but a grey never the less. I think I like your theory better.
>Finally, the dead give away was when I >asked her out for date and she gave me Bill Gates' telephone number
Gene you never did tell me what Bill Gates is like on a date. I know gemtlemen don't kiss and tell
PJ. You know I still believe in you. I know you are real. But then I believe in fairies, leprechauns, ghosties, ghoulies, and the basic goodness of man.
May the force be with you
[Archive Note: Liam, former U.S. Intell RV]
Moderator's Note: And I'm one of those, but I'm not telling which. -- PJ
Thanks for clearing that matter up for me Gene. I would say that I feel much better about things, but since I started this whole RV thing, I don't think that I could say for sure that the little finger on my hand is really there. Or was it there before I was? Hang on, I'm getting dizzy again. 'Happening a lot lately.
Maybe some of my more learned mentors here can explain a problem for me?:
Last night I had a terrific target. It was the sinking of the nuclear sub, USS Thresher in '63. The target was written out in text on a piece of white paper that had been folded and put in an envelope for me without my knowing by my wife some weeks ago. The signal felt very strong in the session and I felt pretty good about my accuracy afterward. (For a change.) But when I opened the envelope and read the target, I had never heard of the sub, nor the wreck. Well, I searched the net and found a picture and description of the incedent. What bothers me about the whole thing is that when I saw the picture of the sub (Surfaced, moving across the Atlantic, circa '61) I knew instantaneously that that is what I viewed. In the session I sensed nothing about the wreck or anything else. I just knew (afterward of course) that I had viewed a military boat moving through the water. I'm pretty sure that it wasn't that I missed the wreck, but that I was viewing what the boat was doing at the exact time that the picture had been snapped.
Why this bugs me: If I had never seen or heard of the sub before I viewed it, how is it that I viewed a picture that I would only view afterward? How do the two events relate to each other? Is that a paradox; one creates the other irrespective of time? Did my unconscious mind allready know that I would find the picture afterward and targeted that instead? I'm having a very difficult time rearranging my concept of time-space. It is difficult, but I know that to continue to grow I must redefine my view of how we, humans, relate to time-space. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I would appreciate any thoughts, mee-tto's or even a few "get out of the house and get some sun you kook."
Moderator's Note: Oh boy. Feedback is yet another subject that there is quite some debate about. But like other subjects, such as monitor blinding, there has been a LOT of work done in the science lab to study this. I'm sure you'll get a number of responses to this. --PJ
I believe that I read in Ingo's book "your Nostradamus Factor" that basically, without being consciously aware of it, that we all remote view (and he didn't use that term) the future in our decision making process...that there are some number of possible futures that we check out to see what the outcome of possible actions are and make decisions using that faculty.
Of course, it might turn out more to our liking if it was a conscious process...but then again, we might not learn as much.
My subconscious has guided me through some pretty unpleasant stuff...none of which I would like to do again. But had I not been through that, I would not be who I am, and from my present perspective, I am aware of the lessons I got from it, all of which were needed to make me at least a fairly decent human being.
So if it is true that there is a part of us that does this, while, I haven't always enjoyed the decisions that part of me has made, I can see the value in the choices.And if it had been a conscious process on my part, who I was then, would most certainly have not done the things that I did because they turned out to have very painful consequences. Therefore I would not have reaped the benefit of "the straightening by fire" that the process brought me. But then, if I had been awake( conscious), I probably wouldn't have needed it.
So, I learned to trust the process. And it is nice to be able to learn from life now without the old two -by- four between the eyes.
Moderator's Note: Hi Leveda. You wrote >>there are some number of possible futures that we check ut to see what the outcome of possible actions are and make decisions using that faculty.<< Jane Roberts's "Seth" books talk about this quite extensively, as well as about many aspects of psi. If you haven't read the Seth books (or haven't in a long time), they are worth perusing. -- PJ
>Why this bugs me: If I had never seen or heard of the sub before I >viewed it, how is it that I viewed a picture that I would only view >afterward?
I'm just grasping at straws here· could it be that as a result of the presentation of the incident on the Net, the "idea" was currently present among a lot of people? Making a "bright spot" in the <unnamed> that drew your attention? The image on the Net perhaps being the handle these people had to the event? BTW some months back in a BBS conversation one thread I followed was on the Thresher, and several old Navy types had some things to say about it.
Another possibility might be that you turned away in self-defense from the immediate disaster · which took some time to conclude, and the crew knew what was happening. And latched on to the image on the Net as a surrogate....
>>Why this bugs me: If I had never seen or heard of the sub before I >>viewed it, how is it that I viewed a picture that I would only view >>afterward?
Another possibility may be simply that you got some of the information correct and some of it wrong. We already know that almost no remote viewings are ever 100% correct (extremely rare); we also know that one bit of information is not contingent on the next (what this means is that there is no flow of logic within the average remote viewing--especially if it is working).
You got a ship, maybe got a sub, but you just simply missed the info regarding disaster.
Sounds like you had some contact with the target, and that is good. Sounds like you are right in there with the rest of us however and are still working out the bugs on getting more right than wrong.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
>picture had been snapped. Why this bugs me: If I had never seen or >heard of the sub before I viewed it, how is it that I viewed a >picture that I would only view afterward? How do the two events >relate to each other? Is that a paradox; one creates the other >irrespective of time? (snip)
I would like for you to consider another way of thinking for a moment: there appears to be a phenomenon in RV work which, for lack of a scientific name (I'm sure some lab has a more impressive title which lets them get grants) is called "Influencing the past". The written feedback, not being satisfactory to you, caused you to basically continue the feedback part of the session and go looking for more feedback. In seeing the photo of the sub >>>taken at a time when it was just cruising on the surface<<<, you in effect, influenced your own session, influencing backward in time, to cause information about a boat cruising on top of the water to be injected into the session.
When we used to do "outbounder" exercises, there was a very strict rule that, on the feedback trip, we would ONLY go to the target site and then return for the debriefing. THEN, if we had somewhere else to go, we could do so after the session were totally completed. I have seen that rule violated several times, and every time, strong aspects of the other place visited were found in the viewer's session. Many times, the entire session described the alternate place, and not the targeted one.
I always tell people who are making up targets to paste them onto a sheet of paper so the viewer can't turn the target over and look at the picture on the other side. (Someone the other day wrote about at problem with that.) The added feedback >>>will<<< influence the past session, and inject information into it. Never turn your target over and look at the back!!!
How do we know that we're not just viewing the most interesting feedback? (looking more forward, rather than "influencing the past?" This is an extremely hard thing to prove, and probably can't be proven. But then, after all, I'm only asking you to try a different way of thinking.
I have been conducting an experiment over the last several years in which I have been testing the theory of "influencing the past". I started out by logging in all decisions I made for a year, and going back and judging them as good or bad once I had enough hindsight to know. Then, I spent another year doing the same, but at the time of judging, I would sit down and do a quick session, trying to influence myself to make the right choice. Of course, I didn't change anything. The wrong ones were still wrong and the right ones were still right. I couldn't >>>change<<< the past. However, if >>>influencing<<< were real, I could influence the tendency to make the right decision. The answer would show up in the statistical averages of right decisions compared to wrong ones. The statistics I have gained over the past 3 years all indicate that simply sitting down and performing a remote influencing session on myself, targeting myself in the past, influencing myself to make a right decision instead of a wrong one, works.
The ultimate goal, of course, is to go through life without making a single bad decision. That's not likely to happen, but so far, the percentages of good decisions has risen sharply, and is still progressing.
Does this prove that I'm influencing the past rather than just viewing the future? Not really. I could just be learning to subconsciously "check" the future for feedback before making a decision. However, it is important to understand that for CRVers, the time/space concept we learned in school is pretty well outmoded. What I'm proposing here is just that you try another way of thinking for a moment or two, which will hopefully help you more fully understand the new paradigm. The concept of result THEN cause is not foreign at all to CRVers.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Hello, noting Lyn's comment: I could just be learning to subconsciously "check" the future for feedback before making a decision. just a comment from a dreamwork veteran: this is exactly what the dreaming mind is doing... checking out the future, relating present/future/past, playing with alternatives, and attempting to bring the derived information up to the conscious mind. I like your methodology....seems that once one had some advanced degree of proficiency with RVing this could be a very productive approach. Getting quality information from dreamwork doesn't happen overnight either, so I realize it'll be some time before I could even attempt to apply RV to this end. But thanks for the insight on yet another RV application, Shelia.
Have heard/read multiple statements made (Joe McMoneagle & James Spottiswoode for ex.) stating or inferring that RV training is not effective, or to that effect.I hope I'm not misrepresenting the intended communication. Perhaps I heard incorrectly. Was it meant that RV training couldn't affect one way or the other a person's NATURAL PSI abilities? I'd like to know what came from lab results.
A year ago I don't think I could have described a target in a sealed envelope with any repeatable accuracy, if at all. After training with three ex mil guys (just to get as many methodology tools as possible), and a LOT of practice, I feel I can describe to a fairly good consistency and moderate accuracy. To me, that is truly the training of mediocre PSI talent to become a Remote Viewer of at least beginner level. Isn't the training and practice result accomplishment EVIDENCE of RV being trainable?
No, I don't think I am very good at RV. Yes I do believe I've LEARNED through TRAINING and PRACTICE how to describe targets, not very pretty, but good enough for validation of target acquisition with enough other information to yield marginal operational value. AND I believe I can and am still improving on the session content including visuals, conceptuals, meanings, etc.
Please forgive my bull in the China shop approach. I simply believe most anyone can learn to RV to the level of natural talent they bring in the door. IN ADDITION, I'm also VERY SUSPICIOUS that the PSI talent, once awakened continues to GROW WITH USE.
OK, Flame me............
END ARCHIVE 59
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page