[VWR]-Digest: V2 #89
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:09:18
-0400
From: "Joseph W. McMoneagle"
<mceagle@zmatrix.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #84
All potential viewers. This is an
exceptionally clear explanation of
AOL within the context of remote viewing and CRV. There is
probably a
few tidbits that could be added here or there, but they are
essentially unimportant at the moment.
I would add this (sans a few of
the minor details) holds true whether
you are using CRV or any other methodology for learning RV.
Believe
it or not, you can actually apply this just about anywhere with
some
degree of flexability.
Thanks, Palyne.
Warm regards,
Joe
At 09:21 PM 4/26/98 -0500, Palyne
wrote:
[snip]
>An AOL ("analytical overlay") is any piece of data
that is -- OR is
>likely to be -- affected by assumptions, associations,
imagination,
>et al. Data may come to you as one thing but is affected by
YOU,
>when processed by your mind, and by the time you write it
down, that
>data may be something else.
>
>Many AOL's have certain commonalities. These are just types
of
>datas found over time to have a higher incidence of analytic
(or
>other) overlay than others. Static visuals are one.
Comparators are
>another. In CRV, you are taught to recognize data that has
been, or
>MAY be, "affected data," ala AOL.
>
>The common response to this, since AOLs are avoided, is to
assume
>that AOL's are wrong. That's not necessarily true.
>
>It is true that they are avoided, because one of the points
of
>teaching somebody CRV is to help make them aware of how they
are
>processing data. Obviously the point is to learn to avoid
>interfering with (messing up) your info as much as possible.
>
>But AOLs are not necessarily wrong. For instance, something
which in
>an early stage is a label and not a descriptor (e.g.,
"The Eiffel
>Tower," or LIKE the...) would be considered an AOL. But
it may be
>totally accurate as far as the data goes.
>
>Categorizing something as AOL does not mean that you are
saying "It
>is wrong." You are simply saying, "I have this
information, and
>based on the structure I'm working in, there is a high
probability
>that this information has been affected by me in some way and
may be
>inaccurate in part or in whole."
>
>That is first and foremost to cause the student to recognize
their
>own processing and to pay attention to how things are working
>internally to them. It makes them recognize that they have
deviated
>from the planned structure of the session. That may not be a
BAD
>thing; it is simply something that needs to be recognized.
>
>It is second to train them into a more fundamental way of
processing,
>where they tend to allow components rather than complete
'things',
>something that is a learning curve for all viewers (e.g.,
students
>finally begin to say, "flat, flowing, glistening,
wet" rather than "a
>river," which is good, since it may be all the former
but may not be
>the latter). The mind tends to want to package data into a
labeled
>thing and hand it to us, providing us a label rather than
detail, and
>it takes some work to train your mind into simply presenting
the
>literal components of data it receives, instead. This is part
of
>that training.
>
>Thirdly, it is to point out to the monitor and later analyst
what is
>going on with the Viewer. If you say "green garden"
because you had
>a static flash of that, like someone just hung a picture in
front of
>you for a split second, that may not have the same
probability of
>being accurate as if you received that data via a 'sensed
>impression.' (Or, it may; it might depend on the person; but
we are
>working on usually and generally's here.) If you make it an
AOL
>because of how you received the data, that is telling both
the
>monitor and the analyst something about that data which may
be
>relevent.
>
>In CRV, the first real rule is that you have to write down
EVERYTHING
>that you are able to consciously access or notice. That means
>everything, even stupid stray thoughts, even conclusions,
whether
>right or wrong, in structure or out of it, you MUST write it
down.
>And if it doesn't fit in the structure for whatever reason,
it is an
>AOL generally. That doesn't mean it's wrong or even bad
necessarily.
>Just that it is out of the planned structure of data
acquisition.
>
>The rules of CRV aren't there to beat people into psychic
submission
>(though some may disagree <g>) but to work as a support
for the
>Viewer. In training (and some of this depends on your
instructor),
>there is "right and wrong" -- but that is
concerning the structure
>itself. Once you're into regular RV, there is only accurate
vs.
>inaccurate -- and you don't know that till the feedback. Once
you've
>demonstrated, as a student, that you work well in the
structure (have
>learned to process and communicate according to those rules),
from
>then on, YOU are the Viewer, and YOU are in charge. If you
want to
>list 17 AOLs in each stage of your session, fine -- but in
that case,
>you'd just better be RIGHT. ;-)
>
>- -- PJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph W. McMoneagle -- IIA, Inc., P.O. Box 100, Nellysford,
Virginia 22958. 804-361-9215 FAX: 804-361-9056
"Courage is the best
Slayer." Thus Spake Zarathustra, XLVI--The
Vision and the Enigma; Friedrich Nietzsche (pub. 1917)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:09:06
-0400
From: "Joseph W. McMoneagle"
<mceagle@zmatrix.com>
Subject: [VWR] Re: ERV
> E(xtended) R(emote) V(iewing)
was understood in the following way:
[snip]
Appreciate the explanation, Paul.
Yes, that sounds like some of the
stuff that I was doing back then. I believe we were into the deep
relaxation mode at the time. However, to be honest ERV didn't
just
happen. To honestly reflect what was going on, one would have to
go
back to 1978 and describe the PRE-ERVD method, followed by the
PRE-ERVC, PRE-ERVB, and initial PRE-ERVA method as well. As I'm
sure
you know that when it all began, no one knew what in the hell
they
were doing anyway. One would also have to talk about the six
subsequent trips I made to SRI where I was further tranined in
"other
things," as well as the Monroe Institute "in other
things," and then
some of the jaunts that Ken and I made to other places for
"other
things." I guess the point I'm trying to make here, is that
I've
always viewed the method I used as sort of a singular development
of
my own, perhaps called "JECS (Joe's Ever Changing Style). So
there is
no confusion, there was also a MECS (Mel's Ever Changing Style),
and
a HECS, and a KECS, and...well, you get my drift. So, I've always
had
a problem with the generalization that the term ERV implies. You
can
blame us for the dental chair, the floatation tank, tons of
plants
and grow lamps, dark rooms, heavy carpeting and sound-proofing,
even
the occasional beard, which really ticked the boss off. By the
way,
the "mush" sounding voice was sometimes M&M's...a
habit I picked up
from a wonderful young lady at SRI. Always gave a distinctive
jolt of
energy right when one needed it during the drawing.
Seems you might have stopped just
short of some real enjoyment. That
being--taking a nap AND remote viewing simultaneously. :)
Thanks,
Joe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph W. McMoneagle -- IIA, Inc., P.O. Box 100, Nellysford,
Virginia 22958. 804-361-9215 FAX: 804-361-9056
"Courage is the best
Slayer." Thus Spake Zarathustra, XLVI--The
Vision and the Enigma; Friedrich Nietzsche (pub. 1917)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:09:13
-0400
From: "Joseph W. McMoneagle"
<mceagle@zmatrix.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #84
>From: "Liam "
<liam@zmatrix.com>
>Liam here. Good to see you back Joe. I was getting worried
about
>you. When a person reaches your age, Joe, he ought to check
in with
>his friends every now and then to let then know he is OK.
It's called long in tooth, Liam.
>[snip] avoid AOLs in ERV (I
have watched you work and know you are an expert
>at this, and I do not think I do a bad job of it myself). I
also did
>not mean to imply that AOL does not happen in CRV. I believe
that
>AOL takes place in each style about equally. The difference
is the
>para visual aspect of CRV. Plus, Ingo developed a way in CRV
to
>identify and deal with AOL. He went further and developed a
method
>where in stage four and five AOL is used to obtain
information about
>the site. I agree that AOL is no greater problem in ERV for
an
>experienced, good, viewer than it is in CRV. But for most of
the
>people on the list who are new; AOL will be a greater danger
in ERV
>than it is in CRV.
This is where we will have a minor
disagreement, as in my observation
it is about the same. Just that people may show a preference over
the
other.
>The basic difference you and I
have in this Joe,
>is that you are carrying the baggage of over 20 years
experience and
>research in this field. This causes you to make objective
decisions
>based on empirical evidence. I, on the other hand, carry no
such
>baggage. This gives me the freedom to make subjective
comments based
>on personal experience and "gut feeling." The
bottom line is RV is
>magic, and Magic is by definition not definable.
Thanks. I definitely agree that RV is magic.
>It is Liam, back again. I am
afraid I missed the point here Joe.
>Gene has monitored both ERV and CRV. I have worked both CRV
and ERV
>(I think it safe to say we both prefer ERV). So we have
driven both
>kinds of cars. All cars have certain strengths. A Camaro is
great
>for driving down the autobahn (freeway) at 100 mph. If you
need to
>go to the store to pick up a lot of food and booze, than a
van is
>better. If you want to go courting in Georgia, you need a
pick up
>truck. ERV is better for certain sites and CRV is better for
certain
>sites. The ideal is for the operations officer to have the
ability to
>work each target using both styles of RV.
I just needed to hear you say
this. As did all those out there who are
trying to learn. :)
>Liam again; Joe, I will tell
the story one more time. At the
>project we worked sites two ways. One way was CRV. We called
the
>other way ; "Joe Style." [snip]
>We do not need a DNA test, because it has your
characteristics all
>over it. ERV is really "Little Joe."
I would have to share that honor
with four people who are dead and
two people who are alive (Ken and Mel). I would also have to
refer
everyone back to my previous post about the JECS-ERVA,B,C,D. I do
appreciate the kindness however. I like to think I was always
moving
onto something that improved what I was doing--still am.
>[snip] definition I was
comfortable with. Every definition I came up with
>left me with more questions than answers. I suggest we all
post on
>what we believe ERV is. Maybe by comparing and relating we
can come
>up with a definition we can all live with, if not for the
world, than
>at least for this group. Is anyone else willing to join in
the
>endeavor? Will you play Joe?
See my previous post. I agree
here, is the reason I've been having so
much trouble as well.
Thanks for the sparkling response,
Liam. You've not lost your respect for
your cousins!
Warm regards,
Joe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph W. McMoneagle -- IIA, Inc., P.O. Box 100, Nellysford,
Virginia 22958. 804-361-9215 FAX: 804-361-9056
"Courage is the best
Slayer." Thus Spake Zarathustra, XLVI--The
Vision and the Enigma; Friedrich Nietzsche (pub. 1917)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:08:59
-0400
From: "Joseph W. McMoneagle"
<mceagle@zmatrix.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #82
>From: Curran2106 Curran2106@aol.com
>and
>From: "Paul H. Smith" phsmith@rviewer.com
The only reason for my earlier
response, is that I didn't want to see
large assumptions based on a lack of fact. I also didn't want to
see
statements which perhaps apply in training, also being applied to
the
basic overall understanding of this stuff we are calling RV. As
there
is a difference.
There seems to be a great
assumption about ERV taking place here.
This assumption being, that someone who does ERV, is or has to be
in
some form of hypnogoggic/hypnopompic state; and therefore is
somehow
"out of control." Which is not true. If it were true,
then the
"drawings" which are done as a matter of course within
any ERV
effort--and which in some cases constitute a majority of the
valid
information collected in an ERV session, would be bogus. I offer
most
of mine, and many of the other ERV'ers drawings (Mel, Hartley,
Ken's
especially) in counter-argument.
Also, it implies that somehow the
ERV form of RV is less than
adequate as the remote viewer "requires" someone who is
able to
"steer" them through the maze of AOL pitfalls. Whereas
in CRV, the
viewer is more able to identify these AOL pitfalls themselves.
Again,
not true.
I have observed just as many
times, someone being smacked up against
the side of the head while attempting CRV because they had
strayed
from the given format and slipped into AOL. I have also observed
these same slides into AOL while someone is doing CRV after
training.
I think that sometimes you may forget that CRV was developed
within
the hollowed halls of SRI and was taught there for years. I saw
very
little difference in the AOL pitfalls with CRV and other
methodologies. I did see that to some extent it was a highly
polished
technique which was more easily transferred through training. But
just because someone has a greater familiarity with one than the
other should not denegrate the other method as inferior, during
or
following training. There were and are times when ERV has proven
to
be superior to CRV for targeting and collection purposes...and
times
when other methods prevailed. As an example, without dowsing, no
one
would have found the TU-122 Bear Bomber, Dozer, etc., etc. I
would
add that formal testing in the SRI Lab showed that regardless of
technique or methodology utilized, most viewers were unable to
consistently identify AOLs when asked to identify them prior to
feedback. I have to say most, because "a couple
viewers" were able to
do so during significant runs--but this is inherently talent
based
and not the general or common rule.
All of you have implied and you
all have voiced a distinct distrust
in "visuals" as a result of these beliefs regarding
methodology.
Which may be an appropriate stance to take during training for
any
methodolgoy, but certainly not one you should take following (in
either CRV or ERV). If one continues to hold this belief, then
they
would be discarding significant amounts of information which
could
and do sometimes have near "overlay accuracy" relating
to specific
targets. I remind you all of what is termed the
"AH-HA". If it were
not for the Ah-ha's, there would not have been a program.
Instead I would offer that the
degree of "monitor" interaction is
most certainly a difference in style, but essentially the same
amount
of interaction is required in either CRV or ERV training. One may
seem to be easier than the other--but only as regards an
individual's
preference. The degree of AOL which occurs is significant in
both--but again, only as determined by individual preference. It
is
not displayed in double-blind testing.
In the testing (post-hoc training)
of RV methods, that is the actual
collection and evaluation of information using CRV or ERV or
other methods,
following training, I have seen no significant difference in the
number of
mis-identified AOLs, reported AOLs, or AOLs following analysis.
They all
spike all over the place. Giving someone an impression that there
is a
significant difference is essentially saying that one method is
better than
another, which again isn't true. One method may be individually
preffered
over another, but it just simply isn't displayed in testing.
I've always viewed ERV and CRV as
different stepping stones in trying
to understand how one's mind works with regard to information
processing or production. Both have their value, but neither are
ends
in themselves. From a training standpoint, I do agree that one
should
stick with whichever they have chosen to get round the bases,
especially at the initiation of their journey. But, ultimately,
the
person's innate talent and ability to sort and fit what works to
their own internalized mechanism of processing is the telling
differentiation in demonstration.
At the end of the road, almost
anything is right when you have
finally come to understand that it is an inherent part of our
nature
and then you just simply can do it. Did someone say Magic? I
agree
imphatically that it is.
Less any of you out there trying
to learn all this think that this
relaxes the rules, it is just the contrary. Pick whatever method
you
intend to pursue and stick to it like glue. CRV is an excellent
way
of cutting through the ash and trash in getting around the bases.
ERV
is probably a bit more difficult, but only because it requires a
highly trained or qualified monitor. In either, AOL is a fact of
life
and this will always be so. Those of you who can eventually see
your
way to controlling your inner-driven or more personalized
prejudice
while internally processing will probably improve somewhat in
reducing AOLs, but AOLs will never entirely go away. As always,
the
above is subject to change in the next three to five minutes.
Warm regards,
Joe
P.S. I have to comment on this
continued "Need to Test" RV. I can
understand that Proof in principal is still required from time to
time by those who can't for some reason or another accept what
general science now agrees is probably true--that paranormal
functioning exists and is real. That's fine.
However, if that is what they are
after, they should understand that
setting up a "simple RV test" over the internet is
filled with
protocol problems, and is probably the least effective way to go.
This almost automatically tells me that they haven't done their
homework. They should also understand that what they are testing
vis-a-vis the internet is the least common denominator in a very
weak
anomaly to start with (that is, they are having an expectation
that
the average human on the street will display a significant
varience
from the norm), again an approach which seems preferred by the
skeptics and debunkers, but not by those who are truly interested
in
the outcome. Historically, the argument has been--if it is real,
then
the subjects selected for study shouldn't matter. Well, that's
like
saying we can determine the batting averages of a professional
baseball team by testing the batting averages of ten people
selected
at random then stood up against a pro-pitcher.
Paranormal researchers are already
moving on to the the very
significant problems of determining how, from where, to where,
psychic transmission might be taking place. In my own humble
opinion,
if there is an expenditure of money, time, energy, and effort, it
should be taking place there and no longer being wasted in the
proof
of pricipal arena. There are seven or eight labs with tens of
thousands of examples that can be studied post-hoc. As regards
current research, let's just get on with it already.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph W. McMoneagle -- IIA, Inc., P.O. Box 100, Nellysford,
Virginia 22958. 804-361-9215 FAX: 804-361-9056
"Courage is the best
Slayer." Thus Spake Zarathustra, XLVI--The
Vision and the Enigma; Friedrich Nietzsche (pub. 1917)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[VWR] Remote Viewing Discussion Group [closed and archived. see firedocs.com/remoteviewing/ home page for new list]
Moderated. Join-approval required. List Owner PJ Gaenir,
palyne@sciencehorizon.com
VWR archives are at Firedocs:
http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This list is now closed. See firedocs home for current list.
End of [VWR]-Digest: V2 #89