firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 010

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 tenth archive.

APRIL 26 1997 TO MAY 03 1997

Hi, Paul, Lyn, PJ et al.!

My wife Leveda and I are having fun studying CRV with Paul Smith. A while ago, Paul happened to mention in class that he had some interest in dowsing, which struck a chord because we had played a bit with it too. I've become interested recently in comparing the underpinnings of dowsing and CRV work -- it seems that there are some interesting similarities and some things we might learn from them. For instance, master dowsers are notable for finding lost people and things, not just water. Also, many professional dowsers routinely program themselves to filter the decoding of their incoming "signal line" data (they don't call it that, of course).

They set it up so they will only sense or react to what they're looking for, e.g., an inexpensively drillable well no deeper than a certain depth with potable water at a useful rate that meets health standards. Once that metaprogram is installed, they won't even notice just any old source of water if it doesn't meet those conditions. They do it to save time and effort and don't even think much about it. Walt Woods, the current President of the American Society of Dowsers, wrote a great little introductory dowsing booklet that is famous among those folks, called "A Letter to Robin" (a very worthwhile read at "Robin" has a *most* interesting chapter called "Programming your Dowsing System". It's really about metaprogramming your subconscious to react routinely in specific ways during "signal decoding". I've experimented with it in the dowsing context and it seems to work.

Then people on this forum began to bring up questions about RVing your feedback picture and not the target, telepathic overlay from monitors, etc.; and then on Farsight Courtney announced that he had just discovered "tasker overlay". He said he had discovered "monitor overlay" a long time ago; no doubt after he wrote Cosmic Voyage ;-)) Sorry, couldn't resist. <BG Of course, tasker overlay is hardly new news to the thinking CRVer, because as PJ very carefully noted, the true link between the target and the coordinates is established in the mind of whoever makes up the target folder and assigns the coordinates. So whatever is going on in the tasker's mind with respect to the target at that point just naturally gets to be part of the target. Courtney came up with the idea that the viewer should make the explicit statement "OMIT TASKER ENFORCED PERCEPTUALS" when taking the coordinates initially at each viewing session. (Seems a lot like putting on your "Bubble of Light" every time you get in your car.) When I read that on Farsight I immediately thought of my dowser friends and their simple "self-metaprogramming" approach, which seemed a lot more elegant and straight-forward, though.

One might make the case that by taking the CRV training from Lyn or Paul (or perhaps by lots of diligent self-study/practice using very good material, e.g., written by them or Ingo), and by learning and adhering to the prescribed structure, one is in effect already doing a lot of useful CRV metaprogramming of the subconscious. I don't think there is much mystery to all this, it's "just" a matter of setting a clear and firm intention when communicating with the subconscious about the process of detecting/decoding the signal line data and getting it into consciousness and onto paper without analytic distortion. Another name for it is conscious habit-formation, I think. The only fundamental difference between self-metaprogramming and what Courtney is advocating seems to be that he feels the need to invoke his little tasker-screening program explicitly at each viewing, rather than having it as a standing part of the process and trusting it implicitly as the dowsers do.

Wouldn't it be interesting and useful if we CRVers could develop and install a program in our subconscious that automatically screens out during our viewings all forms of telepathic overlay, from whatever source -- whether from the tasker, the monitor, other viewers, the culture, etc.? The same program could include explicit instructions to always view the target site itself, not the feedback picture, much less anybody's ideas about the site. No doubt, we would have to reinforce it from time to time, but not every viewing, I shouldn't think. It should become habitual after a while.

An alternative or supporting approach would be to program the subconscious to send an overt warning signal of some kind when it is encountering telepathic overlay or other target distortion during a viewing. (I submit that the subconscious is very aware when this happens, but just doesn't have any instructions what to do about it, so it typically doesn't do anything except maybe make the stomach a tad queasy.) Jim Schnabel mentions something like this awareness in his book in a couple of places, unfortunately both involving Ed. One of them culminated with the notorious "Santa Claus viewing" episode in which the guys in the unit played a great prank on Ed after they became aware of his habit of analyzing their responses and "leading" the viewers while monitoring them during operational viewings (p. 364). Another instance occurred when Schnabel was doing some RVing in Albuquerque with Ed monitoring, and he realized that he was getting data seemingly too easily, so suspected monitor overlay (p. 378). So it is possible to detect consciously, we just need to amplify that. Maybe the warning signal could be something obvious, like the perceived target transforming into a big red flag as a sign that the session has been irredeemably corrupted... (only partly jesting).

I'd be interested in what you think about all this, both the underlying connection between RV and dowsing and also the prospect of installing screening/warning programs against overlay/distortion. I think the dowsers are onto something.

Cheers and Happy CRVing,


Hiya Rich.

<<I also wonder how long your RV sessions last. The ones I tried on Lyn's targets all seemed to be over within 2 or 3 minutes. The best "hits" came within the first few seconds. Everything after that was straining and whatever felt like a possible hit was almost always a miss.

Let me "me too" that one. My practice sessions have been similar, probably averaging about 4 minutes. So you've been having some success? Just curious to rap with other folks getting started as I am. :)

I think you mentioned in an earlier message that you ordered Inner Vision's manual? If you don't mind, please let us know how it turns out for you!

PJ mentioned longer sessions which expand upon the information received in the first few minutes.

PJ, regarding the actual process of elaborating on this initial info., do you continue to focus on the target number, or do you use each bit of incoming data as a stepping stone to information of greater depth? Am I making sense here?

- Mike

>>Let me "me too" that one. My practice sessions have been similar, probably averaging about 4 minutes. So you've been having some success? Just curious to rap with other folks getting started as I am. :)

Let me ditto the part about a felt "hit" being a for sure "miss." That is...if you're identifying the target! The one time I felt sure I'd nailed the sucker I was so far off-base, it was my worse session yet. And yeah, I'd gotten lazy and started jumping to conclusions about the nature of the target. (Don't do that.)

I'm just getting started like you folks. I'd say my sessions are about 10 mins? Dunno, that's just an impression. The first info I get is often *not* accurate. That first flash that Lyn calls "Preview of Coming Attractions." I often get a very complete picture/flash, but often I can track where it came from -- some expectation based on something or other, or something related to what I'd been experiencing in real life. I write it down, but often I know it isn't right, it doesn't have the right energy to it somehow. So it's easy to ignore.

What happens next is a hodge-podge. Often I'll get a basic geomeric shape. That's like a focal point and I do draw that. At the same time, I'm getting bits and pieces of colors, sounds sometimes (although those usually come a couple of minutes later), and a sense of proportion.

If I don't make a big deal about getting it, I often can nab a sense of other shapes relative to the initial one -- sketching them relative to the first. These are very quick in coming, but subtle. I make little notes like, "sense of congestion" and scribble-scrabble a section of darkened area where the "congestion" is. (In that session the "congestion" turned out to be a bunch of foliage/bushes nearby the main structure. To me that's what all this practice is for. I'm learning that a "sense of conjestion" is -- actually physical objects with a certain "role" relative to the main elements of the target.)

Once I get the basic layout of things, I go through a mental list of other senses and see if I can get anything on those. I'm dead lousy at temperature and if anyone can tell me how to focus on that better, I'd appreciate.

One other thing I've been playing with is "listening" for words. Like keywords to describe whatever this is. I've had a lot of past experience with "voices" and often I got very solid information this way. So I've experimented with just letting whatever words come. I write them down, even though they often have made no sense. The ones that were literally a voice in the head I put quotes around. The ones that are just lightly there, I don't "quote."

Can't say this has been much of a success, although it's hard to say. Sometimes the nature of the information is such that I can't confirm it or not, based on the feedback. But, I'm continuing to experiment because I sense that this will eventually play a big role in the RVing process for me. I guess the point here is that you have to draw from your own past experience or sense of yourself and see how this can work for you. This process definitely needs to be individualized.

After I get all the basic layout and sense of things, in a physical sense, then if it hasn't become apparent, sometimes I ask myself if I'm inside or outside another structure. This relates to establishing what the scale of the drawing is. It's been pretty easy to sense whether there's a structure over my head or not.

I then ask myself if there are any people at the location or dealing w/the object (if this isn't given in the frontloading or if I don't have any frontloading). This has never been immediately apparent to me. At times I've gotten a sense of where they are located, relative to the physical sketches I've drawn, at times I've come close to knowing exactly how many were there -- if it was a "countable" number. Anything more than about 8 becomes "lots" and that's it until you get to more than 30-40 and then it becomes "crowded" or "a crowd." Something like that.

Then I ask myself what the emotional tonality is of the situation/people. Sometimes I'll get fairly detailed ideas about this and I just write all that down. If you have trouble identifying this, it might help to momentarily pretend you are one of the people and ask yourself what you're feeling. This may not be standard CRV tech, but since I haven't taken the training yet I feel like I've got the right to do whatever seems to work. <g>

In one case I had a flash of pain in my right wrist (not "my" pain -- there was nothing wrong with my wrist), and it's possible that you could get a momentary feeling within your own body that relates somehow to the target. In that particular case, given the nature of the target, it was quite possible that someone at the target *did* have a hurt wrist, but of course I have no way of confirming that.

Somewhere in all this I usually get completely caught up in a "stray cat" that I can't shake and that's it. Once my imagination gets too engrossed, it's all over. I give up in frustration and go get the feedback.

BTW, when I feel like the session was too short, like there was more there to get, even of a superficial nature, I sometimes do a second session for the same target maybe a day or two later. This has been interesting. In one case a specific geometric, just popped into my head. That's all I managed to get, but in viewing the feedback it turned out to be a very definite element from the target and one that I hadn't picked up the first time around.

Also if I have gotten stuck on a stray cat in the previous session, I have found that sometimes it's gone by the time I do a second session and I can get back on track.

That's how it's been for me. Love to hear from other people who are trying this.


Hi Mike,

<<PJ, regarding the actual process of elaborating on this initial info., do you continue to focus on the target number, or do you use each bit of incoming data as a stepping stone to information of greater depth? Am I making sense here?

I think so. But... well, remember, despite that I answer questions, they're only my perspective; I am _not_ an expert at this stuff (in fact, I am not even qualified to call myself more than "a beginning beginner"). So take anything I say with a grain of salt.

I don't think I ever DO "focus on the target number." I'm trying to consider how I would explain it. I simply accept the target number as a sort of "prompt" to provide information (the answer; data) which I know is there inside me waiting. I await it like a runner does a starter's gun; but I don't really focus on the sound or instrument of it, I just recognize that it is my "link to beginning." I think I'm describing this badly. I haven't really done enough CRV to lecture about this, and Lyn or Paul would probably have a better answer about what or how one best focuses at that critical target-cue point.


to lyn and/or paul,

i have a time line (future) crv question for you. what are the possiabilities, practicalities, and problems with the following scenario?

a "team" of engineers plan to work on a developing technology i.e. computers, with the goal of gaining 20/20 hindsight of how a computer designed in the year 2000 for instance would have been best designed to allow for greatest adaptability to the hardware developments that would take place over the next 15 - 20 years. part of this plan would include knowing that the work they will do/ are doing will be crv'ed by other members of this same team. the purpose being to help eliminate waste from millions of pieces of obsolite hardware (or whatever benevolent goal and particular technology you choose to explore).

to try to get to the point, is there any experience, theories, cautions, or realistic hope that, without "stealing" technology from the future, such an endeavor could be carried out with a raesonable expectation of success?

if anyone is interested, i have several ideas for procedures to help foster communication of basic ideas thru time i.e. ways to use crv to collect basic directions such as do not proceed with this endeavor, these efforts are worth while, etc.

i will leave the protocols to the experts until i'm qualified to pursue a project like this.


Not that you asked for my opinion, but here it is...

It would theoretically be possible to borrow "future" technology today. Therefore, the practical result of this is that "today" becomes "the future," but a particular future. Obviously if the "future" tech is brought into our timeframe, then the future that results is a different one than the one we originally borrowed the technology from. (I think we've got to accept the idea of parallel realities, or this becomes a hopeless mess.)

This seems, on the face of it, like a hopelessly fragmenting situation -- these activities would spin off an infinite number of futures and pasts. There's another way of looking at it, though, and it has bearing on this whole idea of remote viewing.

What remote viewing is teaching us is that we can access any information anywhere in space-time. We can know exactly what we need to know, when we need to know it. If all beings in all timeframes practice that, then pasts and futures become a blur, become one, in terms of the information and/or technology that resides in them.

But...if technology is symbolic of where a society is in terms of social institutions, politics, psychology, spirituality -- all the human and humanistic elements -- then it would be impossible to bring a bit of technology into a society, to introduce it "artificially," because if the society wasn't "ready for it" or "consistent with it" then that particular technology would not be understood and wouldn't "stick" in that society or that timeframe. It simply wouldn't fit.

To take an example from our timeframe, and this is just my interpretation, of course...we burn up a bunch of dead dinos and plants (old things from "The Past") and call that power. In our way of looking at things, there is limited power. Some individuals or groups have it, some don't. There is the assumption that there is a limited supply and so we have to fight over the meager offerings. Also there is the assumption that one's power is drawn from the past (bloodlines, personal history and education, etc.). I would suggest that we will not have a free energy device freely available on this planet until we have integrated the idea that power and energy is infinite and is freely available (and equally available) to all. And that power can be drawn from the present or future, as much as from the past.

So, to return to our idea above about borrowing technology from different timeframes. If all the different societies up and down the timeline are borrowing technology from each other, and they have made all the sociological changes consistent with having that technology, then there ceases to be any distinction between "past" and "future." Anyone visiting those societies would find them remarkably similar, at least in certain core respects. (Given enough of the right kind of technology, they might even go visit each other.)

I suspect we would no longer view society as a linear idea progressing from "past" to "future," but rather we would find ourselves part of a matrix of societies, existing in different space-times, but who are similar in their unifying principles such that they naturally find themselves drawn to each other and mirroring each other. On the other hand, societies developing along different lines would find themselves communicating with different pasts and futures. For them, too, there might be no difference between the past and future, but it would be a different one from the societies that are part of another matrix.

In short, our idea of "a society" would become far broader than how we define it today. (And it would be OK to mess around changing pasts and futures, because those changes would be consistent with the overall driving unifying principle of that social matrix.)


Mike, PJ, and anyone else interested--

The coordinate is the "address" to which the viewer is going to "go" to obtain desired information. That's its only function. In that sense, it IS a prompt of sorts, in that by writing it down you launch yourself into the acquisition mode, targeting the location/object/whatever for which the coordinate stands.

Once solidly on the signal line, each bit of data perceived and objectified (spoken and written down) does act as a further prompt along the signal line, leading to additional data. And it can be amazing how well it works!


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

>>Once solidly on the signal line.....

My question is; who creates the signal line?

Do you the viewer create the signal line or is it the target setter?



>My question is; who creates the signal line? Do you the viewer create the signal line or is it the target setter?

It isn't created by anyone. Actually, the signal line is the hypothesized "carrier wave" that brings the informatin "to" the viewer. There is no concrete evidence it exists (other than successful remote viewing), but it does provide a useful explanatory model to help one visual a possible system within which CRV operates.


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

>>It isn't created by anyone. Actually, the signal line is the hypothesized "carrier wave" that brings the informatin "to" the viewer. There is no concrete evidence it exists (other than successful remote viewing), but it does provide a useful explanatory model to help one visual a possible system within which CRV operates.

In my work the training of councilling facilitators, the signal line is the most important line in the session. I call it the "data message concept line." It is the line between the viewer and his minds.

For example:

A facilitator asks: Where did you go to school when you were thirteen?

Client: Looks inward, (utelizing their signal line) sorts through his mind data, locates the files, then describes where, when, etc.......

If you are looking at the person you can observe them actually turning their eyes in the direction of the data files.

I consider this "signal line" the most important ability to train my students on. Without this line working the client cannot go in session.

The development of the "data message concept or signal line" is a tremendous tool for increasing people handling skills.

BTW special thanks to all of you for educating us "newbies."


>>Well, briefly, the first three phases (stages -- different words for the same thing) are sort of summed as follows:

The summary PJ wrote is a good working summary. More important, and I'll quote this in its entirely because it is so important:

>You determine the phase by the type of data you are getting and your degree of contact (and some specific markers built into the structure of CRV). So for instance, it isn't like you do 12 minutes of {xyz} and then youre in Stage 3; rather, "when you get there, you'll know it."

Also, PJ's summary of the Basic course is probably one of the best and most accurate looks at the process from a student's point of view.

Lyn Buchanan

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

>>Targets that do not exist. Prudence Calabrese at Farsight has said that when they target things that do not exist they get data signifying not real or fantasy and other indications like that. Target examples were the Loch Ness monster and Jack & the beanstalk.

That doesn't seem to compute with the experiences we had at the unit. What we got when tasked with "things that don't exist" (terminology manual: "lies") was a sense of irritation, but impression-wise, just all kinds of garbage until we suddenly locked onto something (in our imagination? Who knows) and began describing a site. Sometimes, what would happen would be that we would describe a site, get our feedback and find out that we had been lied to - excuse me - tasked with non-existant targets, and then some time later, we would see something around us or get into a real-life situation and realize that this was the real feedback for the target we had viewed. That is, in lieu of viewing a target which didn't exist, we would just jump to some future event that would exist and viewed it, instead.

>>Another Farsight claim from 2 months ago is that they have developed a method for viewing numbers including lottery, license plates, etc. There has been no further discussion on the BB regarding that.

I would REALLY like to see that method. More importantly, I'd really like to see the data for the sessions in which the method was developed, then tested under rigorous controls, and then put into real-world applications. Such a method would be a godsend for them because it would provide the ability to view and immediately have detailed feedback (proof) of viewing accuracy and ability. There would not need to be any "concensus reporting" - just sit and view and immediately test (prove) your viewing skills. Most people suspect that viewers don't generally want to be tested because they are afraid they couldn't do well enough. The problem is often that they realize that the tests are flawed, and therefore the results of such a test can't be trusted. Most viewers would love to know exactly how well they can do with no ambiguities, no waffling, etc. Numbers training would help in that respect. Shoot, if they have solved the numbers problem, I'll go sign up for their training. I'm not reaching for my checkbook yet.

Lyn Buchanan

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

>>Regarding your statement that laboratory research has shown no radiation associated with the CRV phenomena. Would it be appropriate to qualify this statement with 'no known radiation within the capabilities of our existing technology to measure' or something like that.

Absolutely. To close the door to this or any other possibility before all the facts are knows would put us right back into the dark ages. There is a man - I believe up in New Jersey - who is doing work right now to see if "scalar wave" radiation (not defined as what the popular press and news media are calling the term) might be the medium for mental transfers. There are still wonders to be discovered.

>>..... We might argue whether our physiology is actually the sensing mechanism but we cannot dispute the fact that our brain transduces this 'sensed information' into a form we can communicate.


>>...... There has to be a biological interface or perhaps a superconducting/biological interface.

There are a lot of people who would argue with that concept. They feel that the interface is totally outside the physical (and therefore biological) realms. The debate goes on over that one - with neither side gaining ground.

>>......Otherwise we wouldn't be enjoying this discussion,...which is great by the way. Thanks.

Thanks. I'm enjoying it, too.

Lyn Buchanan

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

>>Lyn, I noticed in our manual on page 8 in the "General Terminology" section that it states that anything that is set aside must be dealt with after the session is ended or the subconscious mind will not allow setasides again. I did not remember that and am not sure how to go about dealing with the setasides after a session. I am having difficulty setting aside E.D.s (and Stray Cats) and wonder if that could be the problem. How do I jolly my subconscious back into cooperating with me?

The beginning set-asides are those which get you into a session. You are worried, for example, about finances, something in the stove, or an expected phone call. These are things which are important to you outside the session, and which you will usually pick up again automatically when you come out of session. It is sometimes a good idea to go back to page one after you finish the session and read over those things which bothered you, just for the purpose of keeping your promise you made to yourself when you set them aside by saying "...but for right now, I'm not going to worry about that, I'm going to set aside ______!"

The in-session set asides, however, are a different thing. Within the session, you tell yourself "...if it's real, it will come back in proper structure, if not, it won't, so I'm going to set aside _____ and see what happens." The in-session set asides don't have to be picked up again at the end of the session. These include emotional destractions, physical distractions, STRAY CATs, some visuals, and other out-of-structure impressions. Those are mental pollution and you just want to get rid of them so the "pipes will stay clean". Usually, simply labeling them as what they are and writing them down on the right side of the paper will get rid of them. It is only when they keep coming back that you have to set them aside.

BTW: Here is a small (but not complete) list of the session interruptors, with some examples:

ED=emotional distractor: irritation with the target, yourself, the monitor, etc.

EA=emotional attractor: the tendency to dwell on a pleasant part of the target

PD=physical distractor: needing a bathroom break

PA=physical attractor: for the good of the session, get a less attractive monitor

STRAY CAT (AOL): the need to name the target overwhelms you and you begin to identify.

Visual: If the visual is static and clear, you should probably set it aside

AI=Aesthetic Impact: a sudden reaction to your involvement with the site (this contains an emotion, but is different from an emotional, since it is also your first awareness of "being there".)


BTW: I don't know if you are signed up for the CRV mail list yet, but this is a very good question, so I hope you don't mind me posting it there. If you don't already belong to it, take a look at:


Lyn Buchanan

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


>>I'd like to just respond to the most direct issue raised -- Brown's specific phrasing, "Omit Tasker Enforced Perceptuals."

It seems to me that the viewer, or viewer/monitor should come up with their own phrase or slogan, that wouldn't leave any underlying residue on the session.

The concept that Dr. Brown put forth is great, but if the words aren't right for us, there shouldn't be anything wrong with picking our own phrase that is meaningful for us.

Just my $0.02 (cdn).


Lyn, you wrote:

<<Is it possible that the fields actually do have a frequency, which, when matched, allow for the sharing? I don't know. No one does at this point. I was sitting at lunch with a group the other day and one man in the group took it on himself to explain CRV to me (I always just love this). He said in no uncertain terms that it is the "vibrational energy that connects us all". Now, usually, I agree with people and change the subject. That day, however, something clicked and I began asking him for definitions. "Vibrational energy" actually has no definition, when you get down to the very basis of it. It just is or is not, depending on one's personal cosmology. Fields can be measured, and according to the popular literature, personal fields appear to have been measured, as well. "Vibrations" in radiant form can also be measured, but try as we may, we can't seem to find any associated with the psi phenomenon. At any rate, this may be quite a bit off of the stated CRV topic, but is really interesting, and may someday prove to be so tied into the whole phenomenon that it and CRV will be inseparable. Who knows? I don't know the answer! What am I - psychic or something?

? Thanks for reporting! What is comes down to is we don't know. Yet we search for a model. And we make use of the ability without knowing the mechanism. Not that we really need to know the mechanism. Knowing the mechanism though might give us clues as to how to enhance the ability. It seems like we're working at this backwards. Maybe making use of the ability is knowing the mechanism. Maybe our attempts at 'describing' the mechanism is an aspect of something else. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.



I realize this is not in line with your current topic. I'm new on this list and I have a question:

Do any of you have a tendency to be drawn to the more violent targets, those that are more sensation oriented?


Hi Vickie,

Welcome to the list. I am just starting at remote viewing, especially controlled remote viewing and I have a lot of bugs to work out to say the least and I am not sure about "violent targets" but I do know that I have a high propensity towards targets that may have strong emotions involved at the site or surrounding my general beliefs about the target. I often times get bogged down in them or they jerk my attention from the target itself and off to something else and I have to just tell my subconscious to put these emotions aside for now and I will deal with them later. I don't know that this is what I am supposed to do since I am in the very (and I mean very) early stages of learning even how to stay within in the lines of controlled remote viewing but I am committed to learning. But I definitely have a strong pull in regard to emotionally charged material and I guess targets also, so I could see how others might be drawn to more sensation oriented targets. I say this because often when I am attempting to view a target I can't really tell at this stage which sensation I am feeling and I may sense and emotion as a color or something equally unusual to me at this point...but just keep in there and I assume eventually we will all know a little more about what we are doing.

By the way, I have really learned a lot from this list so you might want to check out the archives from past posting...there is a lot of info there.

Happy viewing!


Hi Vickie,

<<I realize this is not in line with your current topic. I'm new on this list and I have a question: Do any of you have a tendency to be drawn to the more violent targets, those that are more sensation oriented?

Actually, it's well in line with the list, feel welcome. Conversation doesn't have to be limited to what's already being talked about -- if nobody began new threads there'd be no talk at all. :-)

I'm not clear on what you mean, as there could be a number of ways to read that sentence.

1. There is being drawn to CHOOSING those types of targets for yourself or others;

2. There is being drawn to those ELEMENTS in a target if they exist;

3. There is making "better contact" with targets that involve that element;


4. There is tending to create an INTERPRETATION of session data (during or after) that violence is involved.

Regarding #1: assuming one does _not_ choose their own targets, as they wouldn't be blind in that case, nor choose targets for others when one is working as the monitor (as there's still a non-blind element); but might choose them for people out of interest... that's just a personality thing, I suppose.

Regarding #2: there is always a tendency for a Viewer to be drawn to those elements which either most impact them or which most interest them. While both impact and interest may come up during a session, part of training is learning to recognize that and refrain from letting one's affectedness influence the overall data in a negative way.

Regarding #3: there is also some evidence that "high-impact" targets (from Auschwitz to the Great Pyramid) seem to be easier to make contact with and often are a more intense experience (as a Viewing project) than mundane things. Violent events, particularly war scenes where many people were involved, and/or where decisive turns in history were made, would probably be some of the strongest things.

Regarding #4: the point of training and proper structure is to minimize analysis, and of course, it is assumed that the after-session analysts are totally objective. However, personal interpretations (on the part of anybody involved in the Viewing process) is certainly a big danger and has been known to demonstrate itself well on many occasions.

Number 2 is probably the most common tendency in Viewing, as many targets will have some elements that scares or fascinates or impresses the Viewer. Number 4 is probably the biggest danger, as this kind of subjective influence can not only make a session's data worthless, but can make it more harm than help (it's better to not know than to know the wrong thing, at least so I would assume).


APRIL 26 1997 TO MAY 03 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.