firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 064
.


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 sixty-fourth archive.


November 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 64

>> I would be interested in learning how others deal with unwanted >> frontloading. Once you have it, how do you get it back in the >> bottle?

>I've had this happen to me when friends want to give me a nifty >target. In nothing flat they've told me exactly what the target is >and what they think about the entire surrounding circumstances. The >only thing to do is dump it. Tell them if they ever want you to do a >target for them, they'll need to get someone to act as intermediary >who knows something about RVing.

Absolutely excellent answer!!! You must remember at all times that "THE VIEWER IS IN CHARGE OF THE SESSION". It HAS to be that way. When someone tasks you and starts telling you all kinds of information, they are, in effect, telling you what to find. They may not mean to, but they are doing it, nonetheless. If this is a friend or someone who doesn't know about RV methods and pitfalls, it is understandable. If, however, it is another viewer, or someone who does, then it is more - it is an indicator that you haven't yet established your "pecking order", so to speak, or your worthiness as an RVer in their eyes. You have to stop and talk the problem out (preferably in a calm manner) and gain that understanding. Whatever you do, you shouldn't just accept the situation. To do so is to say to your own subconscious mind that you are not going to come to its defense when things go wrong. Once it learns that, you will start having problems with it, as well. You MUST, for the sake of future sessions, if not for your own self image, set those parameters to all tasking. Respect yourself and your rights. You'll be glad you did.

Lyn

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


>(big snip) ......But I think there are some things a monitor can spot and >because he is already involved in the dialogue of data-feedback he >can more unobtrusively speak and bring to awareness what is >happening. A gentle nudge toward self-awareness of a particular >omission/comission can bring a big move forward.

Shelia has touched on one thing that everyone seems to be missing: There are THREE types of work in CRV: there is actual work, there is practice, and there is TRAINING. While the three all have basically the same methods and protocols, they also have very different needs, purposes and end goals.

Should you give in-session feedback in a real-world tasking? No. In fact, you can't. If you knew the answers, you wouldn't be doing the session.

Should you expect a beginner in the first days of training to adhere to the rigorous, and meticulously nit-picky protocols of an old-time pro? Do that, and your student won't stick around long enough to become an old-time pro.

We can talk all we want to about the rightness of working double-blind, the fairness for frontloading, etc. The fact is that each of the factors and practices of CRV have been created and/or survived because there is some point in the CRVer's development where it is needed.

The rightness or wrongness of any of these practices is not nearly as important as knowing when they are (and aren't) appropriate to get the job done - whichever that job may be: training, practice, or real work. The rightness and wrongness of any tool is in knowing how to use it to fix the problem at hand.

Lyn

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


Hi, all.

I haven't logged onto my computer in many days, so will probably be inundated by all the list mail which downloads when I send this. Will be glad to get it.

I have been packing and packing and packing, etc., trying to get ready for the movers. Much of what I am doing is dividing things between what will be kept and what will go to the local church which has a "goods for the needy" program. Where did all this stuff come from?

Anyway, I have the target pictures for the target coordinates I posted. I will send them through as soon as PJ tells me how she wants it done: zipped as a group, individually, etc. She can then post them. I will also have Lael put them up as targets on the CRV home page, as well, for those who missed them.

This will be short. My muscles must have that Irish Alzheimers thing - they have forgotten what this much work does to them.

Leb' wohl.

Lyn

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


>OK...lets go over this again...numbers are left brain constructs so >they don't translate very well in RV...

Gene,

Forgive me for belaboring this topic...but...

Suppose there existed a lottery-style game which had a small number of possible outcomes. Suppose each outcome was explicitly defined by a descriptor which was not alphanumeric. Suppose these descriptors were similar to some targets used in RV experiments. Suppose the game had a regular pre-defined date, time, and place where results were posted. What do you think the chances would be for winning this game successfully by remote viewing?

Regards,

Michael O'

---------

Moderator's Note: Michael, there's no way to answer a question like that off the top. You didn't specify how many "descriptors" there are, or how many alternatives for each "descriptors" there are, and it would help to know the degree of singularity of the "descriptors" themselves, and that's just the tasking's statistical basis itself. Then there's the issue of the individual Viewer and their general averages per a specific type of data roughly correlated to your "descriptors," the size of your Viewing pool for the tasking, the means of analysis or independent judging used for the raw data, and more. If I had to come up with even a general statistical report on that for a board of directors, for example, I would have to have *tested* numbers (and even those are irregular averages -- combine enough IA's and the resulting numbers are useless) on *many* different elements before I could compile something to say, "Here's the average odds for success with this."

Besides, that's the kind of information that you'd really need to ask one of the scientists, since they're the guys with decades of data on exactly this kind of work. Russell Targ is said to be an expert on ARV, maybe he'll have some input.

A student/layman's very general outline of ARV tasking (as you are describing) and some notes from Joe McMoneagle are here: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/personal/archives/146.html

-- PJ


Dear Lyn

I have only just got around to reading some of PJ's email and the email below reared its head .

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. <snip> > 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...

After reading the Qs and your responses... I became extremely concerned that this person may be in Great Britain teaching RV.

OK so I didn't learn the protocols and struture from one of you guys ..but I have been careful enough to check what has been given to me as Controlled Remote Viewing protocols over the past months by listening to you guys and doing my own research .

I am now confident that I have the basic Stages 1 to 6 firmly embedded and am considering focussing on Monitoring .

There are lots of people who would want to RV but few who would want to or understand the importance of a good monitor (blind or not) and the need for accute listening and observation during an RV session .

If S has been formerly taught RV by someone ...(very doubtful ) ...who would have been so irresponsible to have not taught him the most basic rules of CRV? Or was he taught SRV??

He would seem to be into some kind of Remote control process .....

This stuff is wonderful when do do it right and stick rigidly to a well formulated structure...there have been protocols and structures for developing human consciousness for many years...Now the whole concept of being able to tap into that great storehouse of knowledge is fast becoming public property.....

I am aware that there are many out there who are not aware of the implications of bathing in such waters ...and it is (and can be) as good as it is bad....I do hope that you Ex-operational guys will use your influence in weeding out those teachers of RV who will do nothing but bartardise and cheapen the experience to the dettriment of their students.

Off my soap box. Excuse the bad spelling.

Rudi D


I was wondering if anyone can help me out with some opinions on Ideograms in stage 1. Are single or multiple ideo's best? How many Ideograms should you train yourself to use? At the moment I use six (Land, Water, Movement/Energy, Structure, Object, Lifeform), but when probed I can fit virtually anything into one of the six catagories. Do I need more than this? Or is this good enough for stage 1 contact with the signal line. Also recently some standard Ideo's have mutated in sessions, when I evaluated the session data at the end of the session the ideo has tried to acurately represent the target other than just part of the gestalt. Is this common?

Thanks in advance...

Darryl


>Moderator's Note: As you say, sensei. But I think some of this is >semantics. If you tell somebody "the target is a person," you are >telling them something about the target in my opinion. If you want >to say, "Well the REAL target was the color of their hair, or what >their personality was like," then okay, I guess *technically* you can > say "you didn't tell the person anything about the target."

I disagree. If you said "the target is a person", when the REAL target was the color of the person's hair, then you gave them the wrong frontloading. You should have said, "The target is a color" (at which time you should have been using ARV, not CRV, so the whole thing would be wrong for that type of target).

>..... (Though just the standard *phrasing* of 'the target is a >person' infers you are saying something 'about the target.')

I disagree, again. This is why you have the process of "Getting together outside and away from any and all sessions to set neutrality." (I know that I repeat that several times during the course, but I probably don't stress it enough.) The monitor and viewer MUST establish the neutrality of any and all frontloading, monitor responses for each stage, break taking, question asking, etc. etc. etc. If any one of these things carries meanings, then it pollutes the session. Frontloading which is for any other purpose than telling the monitor and viewer where to put their efforts is bad and shouldn't be done. However, >>>if and only if the neutrality of frontloading can be established between the monitor and viewer, it tells the viewer nothing >>>except where to put his/her efforts.<<<

>But I would still say that the definition of 'frontloading' as 'when >you tell the Viewer something about the target in advance' would not >be totally inaccurate.

Sadly, >>>in practice<<<, I wouldn't either. Frontloading, like every other part of the CRV process must be a learned and practiced skill. Left to amateurs and do-it-yourselfers, it usually gets messed up.

>.....I accept your greater definition as 'when >you tell the Viewer something about where to put their efforts.'

Ah! Sweet victory!

>In my opinion however....

Scratch that victory part.

>......that is not a "double blind" situation by any >fair definition of that control, and the direction to focus on the >person should be reserved until the Viewer has actually said, THERE >IS A PERSON in the session, or something along those lines, and then >the monitor could direct the Viewer to describe the person. As >opposed to telling the *Viewer* what it is right out of the gate.

As far as the viewer goes, that is personal preference. I would tend to agree with you, though. However, if the monitor is blind to the target, with only the >>>properly performed neutral<<< frontloading that they should put the session efforts on "person", then I still say that the session can still be considered double-blind.

>As for the subject of monitor blinding, I didn't mean to suggest that > any frontloading of the Viewer inferred the monitor was non-blind to > the target overall, I must've said it wrong. I made up the term "directed tasking" (I >think) to mean in my head "when the tasker directs the Viewer toward >a specific thing," and didn't mean to include in the phrase the basic > direction that a monitor can give a Viewer throughout the session >(which technically could be called tasking I guess). My own lack of >clarity, sorry about that.

Not actually. That is a very good point, and to get nit-picky about it (REALLY talking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, here), even when the monitor is totally blind to the target (with no frontloading, him/herself), and the viewer says, "people sounds", the monitor, to that extent, becomes frontloaded >>>by the viewer<<< to the rest of the session.

In other words, in this frontloading question, the only totally pure answer is to have no monitor at all..... at which time, the viewer comes up with the impression "people sounds", and in the process frontloads him/herself to the rest of the session. That is the reason for the hardest rule of all in CRV: "There is no session above the line you're on." In other words, total self-discipline. And, if you have such total self-discipline, then theoretically (but not in practice, I know), it doesn't matter what the monitor knows or says, you are disciplined enough to ignore it and go on.

Wouldn't it be nice if theory and practice actually got together for a while? Nah!!! They'd fight like cats and dogs.

Lyn

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

------------
Moderator's Note: OK, okay. You drive me crazy but it looks like you won this round! :-) (If you weren't nearly a foot taller than me and a trained soldier I might be more stubborn, but I know when it's better to be safe than sorry. <g>) (Actually... I agree with you, given this explanation. Though I think there is a large issue regarding "monitor rights" that ought to be addressed.) -- PJ


>Traditionally, it (psi ability) runs in families. Depending on the > talent, it acts like either a recessive trait or one that skips generation.

Sorry, Rusty, but this brings us back to the old argument of where behaviour comes from, inheritance or environment. That can of worms has yet to be worked out. If you have any definite proof of what you wrote, we'd like to see it.... so would all the psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, psychiatrists, teachers, etc. in the land.

Lyn

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


<< Maybe I should just increase my descriptives and that would solve the problem. >>

Bingo Vickie... working on your descriptives is what formal training is all about... People like Lyn and Paul will roast you alive every time you describe an apple as anything else but smooth, firm, small enough to hold in your hand, organic, bright colored, sweet, juicy, mushes when you chew... etc.etc... the fact its an apple is immaterial actually... there are probably a thousand different words for apple in the many languages of the world... why do you think you are viewing in English anyhow... who knows... maybe you are viewing in some ancient language yet unknown to all of us... give descriptions a chance to work for you and you will find you will begin to become more and more proficient at avoiding AOL and "positively" describing your targets so that your monitor (who hopefully is doing this "blind") can name the target for you... Regards... Gene Kincaid......

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


Hi PJ

>This proves what Werner Erhard said, once removed: When you sign >up >for the seminar, IT STARTS!

Q: What has Werner Erhard got to do with RV?

My reason for asking is that I'v wondered what he got up to after EST. RV fits into his world perfectly .

Yes ....I was and still am an est graduate. I enjoyed his workshops in the 70's and can see their structure and protocols.....even now!

Rudi

---------
Moderator's Note: I didn't write the line you quoted. Can't remember who did. -- PJ .


<< So, for me, and for others who want to study things seriously, to a professional status, what is the best way to go about doing so. >>

Address your mail to this BBS and ask to speak to Paul Smith... he is your light at the end of the tunnel... Regardz... Gene... BTW... loved the sucking up... it happens so rarely at my age...

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


Skye... I use to teach downhill skiing about a million years ago... I was an International Ski Patrolman in my spare time... When I came upon a really busted up skier wrapped around a tree or with their leg up around the nape of their neck... one of the first things I would ask was how long they had been skiing (as a sport... not just that day)... then I would ask how they learned.... Guess what the answers were? "Well Mr. Patrolman, I have been skiing for two years now and my dad / mom / girlfriend or boyfriend taught me... and oh by the way I am a good skier"... Well, if they were that good why am I here putting them in an Akea (wire litter) and skiing them down the mountain to a waiting ambulance at no small risk to myself. On the other hand, I rarely took care of really bad accidents for skiers who received professional training by professional instructors who emphasized the need for phased learning and progress. Oh, sure... took care of lots of sprained things with even really good skiers... but usually this was alcohol related or they got mowed down by some out of controller who was taught by a friend... Get the picture!!!... Two years of skiing usually translated to two or three days last winter and two or three days this winter... maybe 30-40 hours of slope time... the first twenty of which were being taught by a non-professional who usually spent more time picking them up off the snow or showing off in front of them... the next 20 hours were spent figuring our where the "really hard" runs were located... that's usually when they met me... RV is not a sport... don't get me wrong... but there really aren't any effective shortcuts to proper instruction and absolutely no excuse for someone taking on the responsibilities of imparting knowledge and skills when they may not have a full appreciation or background in those skills themselves... it isn't a question of teaching something which may injure them... but consider this... bad RV habits are almost impossible to break... you may, inadvertently be preventing a potential "great RV'r" from ever attaining their full potentials even if in the future they have the ability to attend professional training... You need to re-think the idea of an RV "short course" for friends... there just aren't enough RV Ski Patrolers out there to clean up the mess you might create... Regards... Gene Kincaid...

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


Shelia,

Loved your post!

That IS the "Dance", isn't it? Learning to live in the paradox- to live in the world of separateness and the world of union simultaneously. BOTH. Can one exist without the other? To accept the duality as necessary to experience the dialectic.

Maybe "quantum" mysticism is being separated/united (like particle/wave) simultaneously. Certainty through Uncertainty.

Miss ya. Tell sister Tricia Hi! Thanks again for all the love and support in Austin.

Blessings, Vic


Hello - I had an incident where at the beginning of a session I felt a very strong energy at the start of the session. I was very confident that my sub was gathering accurate data. It turned out that my Sub was doing an excellent job on a different mission than the intended target. Of course, the Sub went to a much more interesting site than the historical boring target that I had in mind. Any advice? Aloha, Stephen


Thanks Lyn,

(RE: New thought processes regarding "influencing.")

That helped. Not only has it given me something to think about, but the advice never to turn the photo over and look at the back has greatly improved my accuracy. Thanks again! (not that I was amazingly accurate in the first place, but anything's an improvement, right?)

Since, I already have your ear, (and any other friendly, knowledgeable ears out there,) I wonder if I might impose on you for another bit of confusion? I had read over the weekend that some of the experiments conducted ar SRI were done in a room that was shielded to prevent magnetic or electrical energies from entering or escaping. That seems to blow my past theories out of the water. (Which is probably best because I was just about to break my own arm, patting myself on the back for my imagined cleverness.)

I had previously considered that, operationally, CRV/RV/Psi was somehow linked with the human brain (subconsciously) acting as an "antenna" of sorts; with the ability to translate complex fields of linked particles to recreate the original electrical stimulus. I.E. I have a fight with my wife yesterday, some one else views the event and is somehow recreating or intrepreting, on a subconscious level, the electrical/magnetic fields of anger, matter,whatever that my wife and I had created by having our fight.

But if CRV can be performed without a seeming connection from the head to these "fields," then what's going on?

I would love to hear some imput from anyone. And, If I haven't said so publicly recently, I would like to sincerely thank everyone in the group for your insightful, experienced advice. (This means you - Lyn, Paul, Joe, PJ, Skye, Robert, Neal, Gene and Liam!) Needless to say, it has helped immensely.

Sincerely, Eric B

-----------
Moderator's Note: You're welcome, Eric. -- PJ


...maybe it's time for me to (very gingerly) tiptoe into this minefield. Skye--WHY don't you want to make any money by training RV? Have you not heard that "the laborer is worthy of his/her hire" (it's somewhere in one of the Gospels--don't remember where and don't have time to look it up ;-)? Frankly, I encourage qualified people to get into the RV teaching business. Sure they're competition for me. But my ultimate goal is to see the current paradigm changed. Can't do it all myself. However, note I said QUALIFIED people.

Many of you may think what I'm about to say is self-serving, since I AM commercially involved in this stuff, but I really believe this: despite what PJ has seemed to be saying, I don't believe a person (with a few rare, and I mean rare, exceptions) can adequately learn to remote view on his/her own. Recent history is strewn with the "corpses" of those who have tried--either from a basis of no knowledge and much presumed talent (sometimes real, sometimes imagined), or from a little knowledge and the same degree of talent. Even Ingo Swann, who is the one perhaps most directly responsbile for the existence of remote viewing itself, and certainly numero uno when it comes to CRV, took years of research, along with many false starts and wrong turns before he hammered out the current version of the methodology. When you get right down to it, remote viewing is not about psychic talent which, after all, everyone has in some degree; it is about the CONTROL of psychic talent.

While it is certainly POSSIBLE that someone could develop his/her own approach to this control issue, I have serious doubts that such an attempt would be successful very often, since few if any of us have the time, resources, or talent that Ingo had. Sure, a person can have some pretty brilliant psychic episodes now and again--and may even reach a modest level of consistency over time. But I truly believe that there is no substitute for a qualified teacher if you want to learn CRV right (not to mention sometime before the end of the next millenium!).

Yes, I understand the bind this puts many of you in. From a certain perspective, training is expensive (in fact, believe it or not if I were in the market even I couldn't afford my own training right now). Worse than that, it is usually far away from where you live, and it's often hard to find a window in a teacher's training schedule.

But you also have to understand the logistics of it. First, even at the relatively exhorbitant prices I charge, I'm still getting paid less than a cheap lawyer. Then when you figure the minimum 40% that comes right off the top for taxes (and I'm not even counting overhead/business expenses), it gets even less rewarding (those of you out there who are self-employed understand this very well). But it is still rewarding enough, both financially and personally--otherwise I couldn't afford to do it. But I don't know yet if it's rewarding enough to support my further dream--which is a serious remote viewing institute--structured somewhat along the lines of the Monroe Institute--where CRV (and perhaps also ERV) and monitoring skills can be taught (and yes, also RV tasking, analysis, and reporting) to live-in students for significantly less per student than I can manage today, yet with equal quality of instruction.

Since CRV training is instructor intensive (the Monroe Institute can manage with one or two trainers for 25 students; I figure the absolute maximum for quality CRV training using the approach I do is one teacher for every four students), such an institute is going to require a good pool of qualified instructors from which to draw. By qualified I mean this: 1) Completed training through Stage VI, with a substantial body of advanced CRV sessions done in proper structure; 2) Successful passing of a comprehensive test on all aspects of CRV; 3) a demonstrated ability to teach CRV, as evidenced by successful student teaching (to include monitoring of individual sessions) of a Basic (or as appropriate Intermediate or Advanced) CRV class under a qualified instructor's supervision.

If this sounds daunting and expensive--it is. But you ought to check out what it takes to become a certified hypnotherapist, martial arts instructor, or even, for that matter, a qualified massage therapist (we have a friend who is becoming one, and it's no snap!). Why should RV allow lesser standards? Indeed, I don't believe it should. I don't, however, require my students to sign anything about not teaching. (Note: I know that this is Lyn's approach--at least as far as teaching for money is concerned; for all I know it's the best one; but I'm trying a different approach to the problem. We'll see if it works! :-). What I tell them is that if they DO go ahead and try to pass the training on before i deem they are ready, I essentially disown them--they MAY NOT use my name as having trained them because i don't consider them qualified as CRV instructors. Once they DO complete certification, though, I will stand behind them 100%, as long as they adhere faithfully to the CRV methodology when they teach the basics (i.e., up through Stage VI).

After all, if the institute does happen, we'll need quality people to staff it. [Hey, Skye--maybe by my standards you're not "instructor qualified" yet <g>, but it seems you have just the skills and experience needed to help get this thing off the ground. Ever thought about relocating to Austin...?]

Paul

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

ps--well, maybe I didn't exactly tiptoe in... Well, okay, I'm awaiting the blast. (Dang! Why do I feel like I'm in Bosnia, all of a sudden? ;-)


Let me jump into the minefield too. One thing that seems to be unique in RV training is the lack of examples. RV is usually compared to martial arts or music, however in those fields the instructors often demonstrate the proper techniques repeatedly. For all the reasons Paul has mentioned that make RV classes difficult, most students are off on their own perhaps sharing sessions with other students, often students of other "versions". Usually (at least in my experience) everyone quite a bit "off key".

I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps posting some past sessions with some analysis, showing some of the pitfalls as well as some "good" ones. Maybe a small number of samples would suffice, covering different types of targets. I think something like the Farsight demo sessions that were posted could help if accompanied by commentary and analysis.

-----------
Moderator's Note: Not a bad idea Rich! I have lots of half-finished stuff for the Viewer Forum along those lines, personal sessions etc. (Anything CRV that did the above would have to go in the private Viewer Forum, not in public.) We could probably talk Lyn and Paul and maybe Liam into providing a few "in structure example sessions" for me to HTML and put online. Squeaky wheels.... just keep asking 'till they do. I'll do the work if they give me the materials. P.S.: One could provide commentary on a student session, but any real analysis would probably require a *very* indepth session, or numerous Viewer(s) sessions on the target. -- PJ


> >Why is it I have the feeling you already have the answers and are > >just taunting us? <<< I really hope you were joking. > Just a short note to say I would never knowingly do that! > All my Qs are asked with a genuine need.

Mary, didn't mean it *that seriously*, but more like an acknowledgement that you do have an intuitive feel for this and therefore your answers are probably as good as any around here.

> Talent without knowledge has no application.

But when you're talking about psi, talent and knowledge tend to go hand in hand! ;-)

> Skye, your response to me for example, > regarding the beginners/intermediate/advanced targets, explained so > much!

Thanks! But those details aren't nearly as important as the intuitive feel for the overall. Everyone around here is always arguing about the details anyway...clearly there must be some overall understandings that are more important.

Skye

------------
Moderator's Note: Good point. It's my feeling though that most 'overall understandings' -- meaning a conceptual grokking of the underlying nature of things -- come about as a result of one actually getting into, and finding the relationship between, the details. So maybe an initial focus/confusion on sorting out the piddly stuff is necessary before a person can really move into a space of understanding. At least, I hope, or we have wasted a lot of time here. ;-) -- PJ


>Why is it I have the feeling you already have the answers and are >just taunting us?

I really hope you were joking. Just a short note to say I would never knowingly do that! All my Qs are asked with a genuine need.

Talent without knowledge has no application.

OK, I may have worked a few things out for myself, by the time I do get some responses, but if not, I repost, as you have seen.

Skye, your response to me for example, regarding the beginners/intermediate/advanced targets, explained so much!

Each and every one of you is adding in considerable measure to the quality of my life.

I recognise 100% that peoples time is valuable, I know mine is, and I appreciate beyond measure _all_ the answers I get. I would never knowingly waste someone's time.

This leads me nicely on to the Lottery issue. See how my original Q immediately got ignored, and the money/greed issue took over.

No, I'm not singling anyone out or calling names. Its only human nature and herin lies the rub. Rving the Lottery, and yes I expect we all do it, <G>, is IMHO more akin to "fortune telling" (spit, spit, spit,) than RV.

And what if you _did_ win.

My advice FWIW, would be to keep your mouth tight shut about it, because sure as eggs is eggs, people would be queued up around the block for you to tell them their winning numbers. And the man whose little girl has been raped and abducted, will be stuck at the back of the queue and never get to see you. And he would give all the money he has in the world to get his little one back. I sure as hell know who I would prefer to help. So there.

MaryD.


Hi Robert, Howdy All,

Sorry, it has taken me so long to write back to your message. I have not replied to many of the kind folk that don't mind giving me some free advice and new paradigms. (Lyn, P.J.) The truth is simply: I've been thinking about it.

I still think I'm having some difficulty in seperating the observer from the observed, but when you mentioned Boson's thoery in your last mail, something clicked. (Watch me make an idiot of myself here, while I extrapolate on genius-level ideas:)

If two neutrinos can occupy the same space time, the "present," could it be said that human minds could posess the same ability? Would this bring in a concept of dimension that we have not discussed, as yet? I wonder if you could remote view yourself at the present? What do you think? How would this effect (or affect) the idea that two things can occupy the same space at the same time? If two things can exist so, do they exist in the same dimension, i.e. did Boson's experiments inadvertenly become a measure of dimension and not necessarily space?

Anyway, now that I've proabably given you all a good laugh, could you say more about "Phase Harmonics?" Sounds interesting.

Thanks,

Eric


Eric wrote: > I wonder if you could remote view yourself at the present?

Hi All,

In my meditations lately, I've been getting about 3 versions of myself at the same time. One is me in my auric field (me-1), one is me outside my auric field (which generally feels much better than inside)(me-2) and a third is me-3, helping me-2 to look after me-1.

Of course, this doesn't exactly count as a remote view but Ingo talks about the whole system trying to help itself survive (Nostradamus Factor). So maybe i'm not entirely off the mark here.

Deb - (or perhaps more correctly "Debs" <g>)

---------
Moderator's Note: I was having a good time imagining Eric's sort of infinite-psychic-mirror scenario when you went one better. ;-) Maybe if you consider these 'aspects of yourself' and treat them like fairly independent sentience, you could learn to use that. -- PJ


<< I am sure that if we ask some of the highly-skilled RV professionals at this site to elaborate on their personal experiments in the areas of gaming, lottery picks, race and dog track winnings, Inveestment stocks, football picks, and even finding a suitable date that we would get some very practical and interesting comments. >>

OK... lets go over this again... numbers are left brain constructs so they don't translate very well in RV... ask an RV'r in the altered state to read an address on a door at an office and he/she will rattle off a group of numbers... they may be correct or not... but more troublesome... if they are correct are they in the right order and how is the viewer "looking at them" what is the number 19 viewed upside down and who says the viewer is not looking at it upside down... Is 13 really 31?? Just a bit of RV "translation"... now try that with a lotter number... lets say... 16 - 31- 18 - 41 - 51 - 12... now just reverse each number once and then just reverse each number separately i.e. make 16 a 61 but keep the others and do the same with all of the other numbers, then do a few upside down drills and well.. you get the picture... all of the numbers are there (presuming the Viewer actually got all the numbers) but the order and dimensionals are all screwed up.... Why should numbers be any different that the rest of things Viewers report? "I'm in a long hard metal tube... there are people here... this thing has great power... it moves through something.... is propelled... there is high technology here... maybe even weapons... it moves by a spinning action... it is steered... people here wear uniforms... they move so they can't be detected...." OK... what am I in... what am I viewing...??? Is it a submarine or a long range bomber? Only the shadow knows... See how difficult it can be... Forget lotteries and the stock markets... if it worked all of us old dinosaurs from the old military group would be millionaires... we aren't... trust me on that...!!! Regards.... Gene Kincaid...

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

-------
Moderator's Note: "OK... what am I in... " Eh..... A New York elevator, replete with uniformed man, the spinning wheel in the machinery, people, weapons... ;-) -- PJ


>How can you tell when a session is over?

It is over when the viewer says it is over. The viewer is in charge of the session. That sounds simplistic, but there are times when the viewer has gotten all that the tasking needs, and the monitor calls an end to the session (He/she should do this by >>>asking<<< the viewer if the viewer wants to end the session, or at least >>>suggesting<<< the session end). However, let's say the viewer's interest is piqued and wants to continue. The session continues. Even if the monitor stops the formal session, I can guarantee you that that evening, that weekend, or whatever, the session will continue. The session is over ONLY when the viewer says it is.

>How can you tell whether you have got all there is to get. >How can you tell when you have got all there is to get.

Easy questions!!! You >>>never<<< get all there is to get.

>Also, should you, can you intentionally call a halt, and return >later.

Yes. It's called a break. In fact, this is one good way to let AOLs dissipate. A break can last for any length of time, and you can even do other sessions on other targets in the interim before coming back to this one.

>Should you call a halt if you become personally/emotionally involved >and feel the need to detach.

Yes. Again, the session is over when the viewer says it is. If the viewer doesn't want to continue, it probably means that the subconscious mind doesn't like the target, and will start throwing in trash rather than view it, or whatever. At the very least, it means that the results will be less than standard. If the viewer doesn't want to continue but feels obligated to, then the viewer is letting the situation be in charge of the session. I can't stress the importance of the viewer being totally in charge. However, let me add that if you just give up immediately, you're doing yourself a disservice. At least try to dissipate the emotional involvement first.

>Should you call a halt if you find yourself feeling physically ill or > overwhelmed, or push your way through it.

The answer to that is a very definite yes, no, or maybe. You at least owe it to yourself to figure out why you are feeling that way. Are you sensing something at the site or reacting emotionally to it? If you're reacting emotionally, you should/could either "set it aside" or end the session. If what you're feeling is a sensation from the site, itself, just report it and move on. The physical sensation will dissipate by itself once it has been reported. Either way, even when it is proper to quit, I like to suggest pushing just a little bit farther, at least for another perception or two. It strengthens you and makes you stronger the next time it happens. If you establish a pattern/habit of giving up at the first sign of negativity, you will wind up a great viewer of pictures in envelopes, but will be pretty useless for helping police, etc. You can live through a little nausea. In the words of (everyone seems to be taking credit for this one), "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger."

Lyn

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


END ARCHIVE 64
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.