Viewer Email Group
This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.
This is the nineteenth archive.
AUGUST 21 1997 TO
SEPTEMBER 05 1997
BEGIN ARCHIVE 19
Nice to see the activity here again.
I have a question on targeting.
I have my best results with targets presented to me personally,.... Paul Smith in class, my wife, a fried and an individual via e-mail.
Web targets have been significantly worse.
"Home-made" targets from a pool of about 80 have been the worse.
I made the pool to insure that I had only targets covered by the training I have had. Each target is on a separate paper in several different formats. 1. Written description with a reference to a feedback photo in a book. (I couldn't get away with tearing out the pages.)
2. Written descriptions with an attached photo.
3. Photos of unknown places or structures.
I select one at random and then assign a target number for reference and have tried not assigning a number at all.
The question is regarding my target pool. As it is made up, there is no conscious knowledge of the target selected. The same would occur if I made a database of targets on the computer and selected one at random. If anything, there is this one big consciousness of a homogenous target consisting of all the targets.
Is this type of target pool usable? Is it more like shuffling through a deck of cards and trying to identify them?
One other problem using the target pool......AOL...its too easy to latch on to one word and suddenly remember one or more of the targets in the pool. Last one I tried, as soon as I got "hot", I was AOLing through my target list....volcano....old faithfull.....death valley....etc.
Your home target pool is an exellent idea, I my self have about 120 targets in my data base. I to struggle with the AOL drive that can come with supplying your own targets. That is going to take much practice to overcome but I firmly belive it is a discipline issue, nothing more. However on the issue of (your) home data base, you need to correct some simple mistakes on your structure of it. TRV or CRV or what ever requires that you place the Photo itself in a folder or envelope writing the (QUE) for the target on the inside of the folder. You must always insure that the Que always remains with the photo. In addition write the target numbers on the outside of the folder on the tab lip so that you can retreve it easly from your data base files. Once you have done this take all the target numbers from the folders and keep them in list form on a seperate paper and that will be where you pull your target numbers from. Remember the Que is the most important part of TRV etc. structure example of a proper Que is Q: Mt.ST.Helens/ Volcano or Q: Death Valley/ Open Search . To keep it short buy folders, get some old magazines cut them up set up a file drawer after all targets have been properly qued attach target numbers, make a seperate list of the numbers and your ready to rock and roll. Good Luck...let us know how it works for you...
my name is Alfons, I heard about RV about one year ago. Unfortunatly, over here in Europe, there are no courses at all, so I donīt practice RV. The only contact with you RVers for me at the moment is eMail. I enjoy reading the eMails in this group and feeling that there is something which could be called friendship between you all.
While reading I was thinking, then writing:
[RV, Astrophysics; SETI]
>1. Conversation with not-humans in other dimensions
youīre right, this actually is mixing apples with tires. For my sources about RV a pretty poor I wanted to know definitly how much mysticism is involved into RV - as I learned not even the thought of it. I welcome that a lot.
>2. More than human
If someone is merely ahead of time it will catch him up one day (Ludwig Wittgenstein). Even as beeing an electronical engineer I become more and more frightend about our technologie. At one hand there are more and more people finding they way to themselves and to love. On the other hand I see my collegues and researchers going cold-bloodedly for the pure physics. For them it is not Science-Fiction when they learn about things like "breathing liquids", "autarkic self-instructing robots with the same IQ like 4 year old children", "computer-chip implants in the brain" and so on. Really makes me shiver.
>4.For the first
time, with RV and its history,
>conscious psychic functioning became a potential to a lot of people
>who would never have let themselves believe in it before. It was
>presented as logic instead of religion, as something with factual
>feedback and real-world applications, rather than mysticism
>(which in the mind of most people in our culture equals
Skye, you said not to stick to movies (as well as books maybe) too much. I hope I didnīt pick that up wrong because I live with all the stories and fairy-tales people create. As an example I want to name Michael Ende his book "Neverending story". The people need all this nonsense. On the other hand it is true that people always made a religion or mysticism out of matters they didnīt and still donīt understand (eg lightstrokes out of the sky, floods and tidal wave, the power of speech).
>5.That majority is what has the potential to swing the direction of our civilization
And a minority determines the direction (Source: eg Gomez y Gasset)
I have all those reports but they were actually written for the american assesment of the rv program itself, which as you know was kind of written off, even tho they only had access to a limited amount of research, was it the last five years,or there abouts. It is pretty obvious from Jessica Utts (top girlie) responce to hyman. I know it works. But still I seem to want more. Once I am able to concrete this experience the other areas of research will have more credibility One day I will be satisfied......thanks tho, nice to see some friends out there..
>I have a question on
>Is this type of target pool usable? Is it more like shuffling through a
>deck of cards and trying to identify them?
A perfect example of why you should have someone else making up your targets. One other thing you might try when you do have a friend make up your targets.
Initially learning targets should be:
1. Stand alone (away from other possible
2. Significant and unique (like bridges, churches, overpasses, underground parking garages, etc.)
3. One different from the other.
4. If possible, should have recurrent features (like many arches, many windows, lots of verticals, etc.)
A photograph of the target in an envelope with the words "Describe (target name)" or "Provide information on (target name)" is all that's required.
You should be careful not to identify your pool as targets. My own experience suggests that the more you consider your "pool" a target, the more you will eventually wind up with bleed through from one target to the next within the pool.
Putting your own target pool together is ok, but in order to overcome the AOL problems you are talking about (remembering key words associated with some of the targets within the pool), you need to put more than a few dozen targets in your pool. A pool with 150-200 targets is not unreasonable. If you put together a very large pool, it is okay to use the same targets more than once, as long as you reintroduce them to the pool and then continue to randomly select the target. Beware, if you do, you may get the same target more than once. Not a bad effect actually, since the closer you get it to the last time you pulled it, the more you will instinctively recognize about it RV wise.
Read Mind Trek again, re;
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
>You might want to look at Dean Radin's new book.
Whats the name of Deans new book?
> There are occasions
when having a real experience is not the same thing as
> experiencing something real.
This is a very interesting point,
Can we only distinguish real, or reality by being present physically?
> >This conflates
two different events. Rules of evidence are fairly simple
> and most reports of remote viewing ETs would not conform to any real
> requirements for evidence.
Rules are limitations,
Isn't there enough evidence of the phenomena's credability to work...!
expereinced viewers do not deny ET's. They deny that finding them
> session is enough to prove they exist.
I guess it all depends who you are trying to prove it to..? You are still going to experience it tho, how can you deny it to yourself? What do they say "I cant prove this, so it doesnt exist" IF SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME EXPERIENCE WHAT DOES THAT TELL US. IT EXISTS AT SOME LEVEL Its better than just dismissing it till science proves it, and then it becomes ok
> This is an email
group for remote viewing. RV has a specific
> definition (set of them actually). One of those definitions is, it's
> gotta have feedback.
What do you personally class as feed back,
scuse me for being unscientific,
but if it is backed up by many others....... ..Surely thats evidence even if we are unable to stretch our minds to say its fact
> Aliens and
alternate dimensions don't have
> feedback, which is why they're not valid RV targets. Nobody ever
> said they couldn't be psychic targets, though.
Not valid targets, does that mean
that valid targets are ones that can be
verified in some phsical way? do we distinguish feedback in a limited way?
> The reaction many
> Viewers (including me) have to the 'esoteric' targets has nothing to
> do with personal belief systems (mine are far more far out than
> most). It has to do with the fact that it isn't "remote viewing" per
> se, though it MAY use any given psychic methodology (including some
> that some people have chosen to call RV)
REMOTE VIEWING is the ability to lock on to
a specific target, and
determine the data from it.
Thats what it does,
And if 20 other people experience the same, in there own way, but with such
common coincidences.... Thats good enough feed back for me
If people want to spend there time remote
viewing the wall of china when
they might as well go see it,fine by me. A big red tick, ten out of ten,well done, congratulations, you are now a fully fledged remote viewer. And when you have grown to this point,you will get BORED viewing known targets.
> If you are
> plain psychic work, as opposed to remote viewing work, I can
> recommend email groups for that instead.
PLAIN psychic work,go see ingos definition of psychic and the related info. whatever
One of the things that you have to remember is; because someone has been doing something a long time may imply expertise, but it may also mean they haven't learned anything at all.
The idea here is that remote viewing differs from other forms of psychic functioning because it is always done (hopefully) under an acceptable control--that's what makes it remote viewing versus psychic functioning. Acceptable control means there is feedback, or some other method by which accuracy of information can be determined. If you are remote viewing aliens, UFO's, or other planets, that's fine--but the results can never be more than science fiction, unless they are validated as correct through some form of feedback, or through some other form of valid and acceptable information collection technique. In some examples of remote viewing, the remote viewer has waited for in excess of ten to fifteen years for feedback. When the feedback arrived, it became good remote viewing. Until the feedback arrived, it was good grist for a SCI-FI novella. It may be fun, it may be interesting, it may even be believed by some to be true, but it won't be remote viewing until it has been verified.
Multiple viewings by multiple viewers all saying the same thing is not a validation of the information. Even if everyone under the sun believe what they are saying.
One would hope that someone using remote viewing to address the alien problem would provide a place, date, and time, at which "proof" of aliens could be collected. Until this happens--SCI-FI!
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
Thanks for your answer to my target pool question.
I had talked to someone at the Rhine Research Center several months ago and they said you took part in a Reader's Digest taping on RV. Do you know when it will be released?
Heard that it has already been shown on Discovery channel, but did not see it myself, so don't know. Otherwise, they don't tell me that sort of thing.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
>>I feel that the importance of feedback is a nessacary part of rving, but the amount of influence it has over rving as a whole is not balanced.
I think I see what you're saying. The point to keep in mind is that at no time did anybody say that one could not use any given methodology (including some normally used for RV) to gather information about any target, even those with no feedback. In fact, most remote viewers do "psychic" work as well.
"Remote Viewing" is a term that by definition -- and I don't mean the definition everybody wants to invent for it personally, I mean its CREATION definition -- means, psychic work within a certain controlled situation. The term was invented in a science lab in the early 1970's, and like all science terms, has a very specific definition. That definition may evolve as the science does of course. Were it in greek or something, anybody with a basic education would understand this, and they would not try to use a science term with a specific meaning toward something else. But because it's sort of a "hip term," everybody figures it means whatever they want it to mean, including its face value -- seeing something at a distance -- and that's where confusion starts.
Frankly I think the term could be improved anyway. It's far more sensing than seeing. It is my hope that someone will invent something so stupendously boring as a description that nobody will try to make into something else because they don't want it.
"Anomalous Cognition," as parapsychology is now called, is a good start. Whoever invented that, tell 'em we need a new term for RV!
The reason "remote viewing" was credible enough to be used in the laboratory and for gov't intelligence is purely because of the controlled situation that the term requires. Psychics have been around since time began. They did not become a formal government program in this country until the controlled conditions of RV made it possible to properly measure, properly record, and properly validate that psychic data.
So, people want to learn and be involved with remote viewing because it has really been validated. But you gotta understand, that validation is based on the controls. Without those controls, it's no different than any other form of psychic work, and you can go to your local metaphysical bookstore and be in the same league.
>>If a target has been remote viewed and you have no feedback, this does not take away from the rving session at all. It was still remote viewed. Data was still aquired, it just remains unconfirmed at that point by that remote viewer.
You're correct, inasmuch as the psychic session exists regardless of confirmation. 'RV' as a term usually doesn't apply to psychic work until it has feedback, because feedback is one of the controls.
There's nothing wrong with psychic work. But think of it this way.
Say you invented a work product that is highly detailed, very specific, has component parts all validated within certain precise tolerances, and in general is a lot of work and a good technology. You put decades and millions into researching and developing it and are very proud of it. You built it into a blue box with your logo. As you began to sell it, the product became known as dependable and high quality. You invented a product name for it and the quality of the product got the name a lot of attention. You were proud and felt your investment was worth it.
Now say three dozen competitors come along who make something different, but a little similar. Doesn't have the specific specs or components your does, hasn't proven itself dependable as yours has, and in fact their products have tons of flaws that your company paid to research and solve a long time ago. In short, it's still a good idea, but the end result is very inferior to your product, mostly because you are so precise in your manufacturing.
Now say they then put their products in a blue box -- with YOUR logo -- and then SELL it to the world calling it the same name you call YOUR product -- your product name that you worked hard to build a reputation for.
Eventually, you realize that despite all your work, and despite the quality of your product, everyone is sure that the product name simply means "a blue box!" Any competitor could package ANYTHING in a blue box and call it by your product name. Your attempts to explain that your company invented the name, and that it means a specific product, fall on deaf and annoyed ears. If you try to educate people about the quality of your product, you get seminars full of people who are sure that THEY know how to make "a blue box" and so know more than you do. In short, you just spent decades, millions of dollars, and came up with a brilliant product that's reputation has been annihilated by the sloppy boxes of your competitors and the lack of education of the public.
In the real world, that's why people trademark names for new products. In the science world, no such thing is considered necessary (unless it has gone into patent-marketing-sales), because in science, if a term is coined in a science lab and means a certain thing, every scientist knows that. College students and graduate students spend tons of time learning science terms and their specific definitions, so they can talk about them intelligently and use them properly.
So, "Remote Viewing" was a science term. That's why it wasn't trademarked. But when it got more and more popular in the media, psychics all over the world -- whom you might call competitors to the process (though not really... I don't see it as competition) began insisting that THEIR box was "remote viewing" and that the originator of the term and product had no right to claim exclusive use of the term.
And that's where we are today.
>>I feel that for remote viewing to adapt and evolve we will eventually have to get away from the wanting of immediate feedback, and have to concentrate on the acceptance of data. This would probably be after an extended period of time where the rviewer trained and recieved feedback until a belief in the data results would be evident.<<
From my own experience and that of others I know, I'd say that most remote viewers believe in their data. When they get data they're not sure of, they usually know it. Of course, their data that they believed in may be wrong. You can feel right about something, and it may not be right. You can ask a remote viewer how they did after a session and their interpretation of it may or may not actually match how good they really did. Even experienced Viewers.
The idea has been presented in the media (ad nauseum) that in short, anybody with "proper training" can be absolutely correct and always know what is 'right' and what is not (for any reason including their own influence on data or interpreting it), et al. I see this all the time. I'm sorry to disappoint anybody, but this is simply not so, and it is creating some belief systems that are not correct as a result. A tremendous amount of practice at this and getting to know yourself and keeping detailed records can certainly improve your functioning (your innate ability maybe not, but your functioning can at least be maximized). But there is NOBODY legitimate that I know of, including the best documented and most accurate Viewers around, who will make this claim to "complete" accuracy or "always" knowing exactly what's right and what's not. In short, it doesn't matter how good a person becomes -- feedback is still necessary.
Yes. Some people are really good and based on averages alone can be pretty much counted on -- to whatever degree. I would consider their data. I might even take precautions based on their data. I would certainly not risk my life based on their data.
There are too many variables concerning probabilities and reality itself for anybody at this point in time to get a grip on WHY data is often incorrect -- or, in more cases, incomplete.
Thoughts can be targeted -- thoughts are real. As real as a kitchen table as far as being psychic is concerned. They're both just a conceptual grouping of energy. So if a person, a thousand people, a million or billion people believe in something, how real is it? It's real from a psychic perspective. Whether or not it's real from a physical perspective is another story. The energy still exists, we just don't biologically register it.
Many of the targets -- e.g., aliens -- people are talking about Viewing, those are fascinating psychic targets. But their "reality" from a psychic perspective may or may not mean they have any "reality" from a physical perspective.
>> this cannot be ascertained by the feedback picture.
The best targets are live sites. Then you can go to the site immediately after the session and get full data.
>>The purpose of feedback can only be to help the viewers development,
To go back to my 'blue box product' story, although feedback IS indeed part of helping people develop their skills, the _primary_ purpose of it is to validate the product -- remote viewing. Just like you machine things to specific tolerances in manufacturing, not because you necessarily have to, but because when that product is done, you want to be able to say, "We guarantee that if it has our product name, it has been manufactured to these specs and has been approved by our quality control department." That's why it's called remote viewing and not psychic work. If it's remote viewing -- real remote viewing -- you can depend on that 'quality control' -- it was checked out in accordance with at least partial facts and determined to be 'probably' valid.
>>If you go down the path of saying without feedback its not rving then nothing has ever been rviewed unless the feedback has included every aspect of the target that could be r-viewed, and it has'nt.
It was never specified (you perhaps assumed this) that every single possible aspect of a target had to have feedback. You cannot after all be completely certain about many concepts; smells; et al. And that's certainly the case if the only thing you are getting as feedback is pictures (like I said, good targets are local sites). What was specified was that the target in general had to have feedback. This could be a verbal description of the target, as well as a photo, as well as visiting it in person.
Of course, one would not call data without feedback 'accurate data.' They would merely call it 'data.'
Also, as Joe has already mentioned, a Viewer may wait decades to get feedback on a session. That doesn't mean that they didn't DO the session in the first place. It means that it was "psychic work" when they did it, and 15 years later when they got feedback, it became "remote viewing" by definition -- because now, in accordance with required RV protocol, there was feedback.
[Archivist Note: Something I did not mention is that the RV protocol does not specify that the Viewer has to get feedback. Only that there has to be feedback given to somebody who can compare the Viewer's session data and the answer. The Viewer may, in fact, never get feedback.]
>>To be this dependant on feedback is hindering any future expansion of rving.
OK, that's an interesting insight -- tell me what you have in mind. What would you like to do that needing feedback prohibits?
Again, there is no limit to psychic ability, or targeting choices. There is only a limit to what fits in the term 'remote viewing,' which has a specific meaning. Remote Viewers can happily target all sorts of non-feedback things and learn constantly from the experience. They just wouldn't (or shouldn't) call it "RV", is all.
What have you heard but not seen Joe?
Are you THE Joseph McMoneagle? Who worked for INSCOM/DIA program of RV?
One and only.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
I was thinking about some of the posts recently, and the comments about targets with and without feedback.
It occurs to me that many people interested in either remote viewing, or methodologies related to remote viewing, or psychic work in general -- including me -- are very interested in ... unusual, anomalous, future, or simply "non-current-feedback" targets.
I don't want to discourage people from that interest. These things often 'open us up to our souls' (and to some WEIRD %&@! too), and they are part of a natural curiosity to be expected of anybody.
In particular, Farsight Institute has certainly presented remote viewing in the light of using... say, "non-traditional" targets. Many people who've heard of remote viewing, heard of it in that context -- in the media, for instance. So, that's where their interests may lie.
Here's the deal: this list is for remote viewing, and that means "traditional" remote viewing if you want to call it that.
But I would be willing to consider making a separate email group specifically for the discussion of psi and non-traditional targets. (My diplomacy just overwhelms me.) It's a small expense and some setup, but since we (Paradigm, my husband Lu and I) do this sort of thing, it's less trouble for us than most people.
Be aware that I would not moderate it (don't have time), and would probably not be very involved in it, but on the other hand, there are a lot of enthusiastic Viewers, from SRV/TRV especially, who might prefer that. :-)
I'll have to get a minimum of 35 pre-registrations in order to feel there's enough interest to set it up. Registrants can be anybody, they don't have to be on the [VWR] list.
Send email to : firstname.lastname@example.org
In the body of the email, put:
subscribe psi your_email_address
(Replace "your_email_address" with YOUR LITERAL email address, such as "email@example.com." I can't believe I have to say this, but you would just be amazed...!)
And then in this group, we can get back to the apparently boring discussion of proper RV...
>>So I guess my argument lies with, Is it feedback that makes it R-Ving? or is it protocols and structure? or maybe we are being a bit stubborn and its a bit of both.
From your comments, I would say you are calling the "methods" "protocols." A lot of people teaching _methodologies_ REFER to them as "protocols," which only confuses the issue. The protocol is a set of controls. A method is "how you go about getting data."
So, issues such as all people involved in the session being blind to the target, and having feedback, those are controls -- they are both part of "the protocol." That protocol was developed in the science lab.
Issues such as whether you use SRV or CRV or whatever, that is your "method." Those methods were, are, and will be developed by individuals.
If your data feels differently acquired via an RV method than it does acquired via psychic means, I don't know how to respond to that, except to consider that maybe you're new to RV. Usually once you really get into remote viewing -- past stage 3 and into good target contact -- psychic is psychic. RV methods affect what order you try to get it in and how you write it down... but during good target contact, psychic data is psychic data.
The experience of acquiring it may be very different for me based on whether I'm using CRV or just 'tuning into' something, but the data -- except in the early stages of both methods -- is not.
Haven't actually heard that before, about psychic data "feeling different" in and of itself based on a method. I'll have to think about that....
You wrote: <<So why is everyone having such a hard
time believing in
>> aliens and other dimensions? Simply, because it challenges our
>> limitations of belief.
This has nothing to do with our belief systems. My own is probably considered pretty radical by a lot of folks. What it is about is the credability of RV. RV is finally starting to be accepted by a portion of the populace as having some value. Aliens and the 4th dimension is still considered to be part of the lunatic fringe. When we start talking about "greys" "time travelers" and "UFOs in comet tails" the public lumps us together with all the other kooks out there. RV as a whole loses credibility and the acceptance that a few people have worked hard to gain over the last 20 years goes down the drain.
Joe and PJ are absolutely correct. You can not use RV to prove RV, except to other RVers. If 100 Catholics have a dream the Pope is infallable, that may prove it to other Catholics, but a Southern Baptist is still going to have his doubts. Thousands of Irishmen have seen the "little people." I saw one after 12 pints of porter one night. That may prove the "wee folk" exist to some other Irishmen, but the world in general just considers us superstitious drunks.
I am not saying aliens exist or do not exist. I am saying this is not a format for discussing them. There are other forums or sites that are set up for doing this, as PJ has mentioned. I am not hostile, I do have worry that RVing and UFOs will become linked in some people's mind. I also do not like to see us spending our time trying to prove the unproveable, as Joe has mentioned.
May the Force be with you,
[Archive Note: "Liam," former U.S. Intell RV]
>>I still dont quite understand, why is it not acceptable to trust the information...
I didn't say you couldn't trust it, I said that it will always be viewed as SCI-FI until it has been verified. I happen to trust a lot of stuff I've collected that has never been verified, but never-the-less, I cannot say that it is proof, established fact, or meaningful beyond my own belief in it. What I did say, was that hopefully, RV material will at least provide a place, date, time, or something that can be "used" or in some way will help to verify itself--e.g., assist in establishing proof. But, alas, to date, at least with regard to UFO's and Aliens, that hasn't happened. In fact, most of the predictions I've seen over the internet with regard to Aliens (their exposure/contact/etc., etc.) have turned out to be inaccurate--hence SCI-FI, or inaccurate psychic predictions, but not remote viewing.
My intent here is not to ridicule, or denigrate, only to point out that RV (and all of its terms) was designed to either provide proof (with feedback) of psychic functioning under controls, or reversed, provide information that would lead to confirmation of intelligence.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
Im deeply honoured
I heard a rumour that your now working with
Perhaps you could share with me your current area of investigation?
Are you currently working for any of the rv institutions?
Ive ordered your new book MINDTREK, but I have still got to wait a couple of weeks before its shipped over from the states. Cant wait.
Thanks for the compliments.
Have worked with Dean Radin for many years.
Am currently still a Research Associate with the Cognitive Sciences Lab of Palo Alto; and yes we are continuing to do research.
Most of what I do is proprietary until it ends up published somewhere, which eventually it does.
Hope you enjoy the book.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
Sorry to really hammer this point out, thanks for you patience.
I also believe people who are using the proper ways of remote viewing, should keep a good system of records, that will be important in the future.
Maybe it is the only way we are able to access and have communication, with these entitys, and the only feedback or knowledge of understanding would be through the people who have viewed them using the established set of rv protocols.
The information from these sources would become of great importance.
I feel that being visited by other life forms is one of the most important happenings in the world ever.
We all have a responsibility to this planet and its safety.
I happen to generally agree
with your points.
Now you just have to have fun doing it.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
>I feel remote
viewing is a part of something much larger, a new concsciousness
>4th dimension, this is a major part in our futures evolution.
Actually, most of the evidence (as least indicative from the research side) is that remote viewing is the last vistages of "a much older talent." It probably has more to do with survival than evolution. We are probably evolving out of "psi-functioning" rather than evolving into it.
I personally believe that if the growth of human consciousness has to rely on psychic ability (or its development), then we might as well as jump ship now. I believe such growth will be, and is going to be, birthed from a greater understanding of our responsibilities to other human beings, and a stark reduction in daily personal needs. We've got a long way to go I'm afraid.
I like your concern about evolution; I also like your impatient desire to get there--its the mother of invention.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
Hi all, this is kind of a thumbnail report about what it's like to be trained by Paul Smith in CRV "all the way through". Hope it isn't too long for you.
My wife Leveda and I just completed our last CRV Advanced Course class-session with Paul the day after the movers came for his furniture, a couple of Tuesdays ago. Talk about timing, getting in under the wire before he ran off to Austin!
Saw some discussion here about teachers & prices, etc. Kinda get what you pay for, is my feeling. After meeting Skip Atwater and Joe McMoneagle at Monroe Institute a few times last year, both of us really wanted to seriously study RV. Found out about Lyn from Joe, as being near to us in MD and reputable. Got the video of Lyn's workshop at Rutgers, seemed like he'd be an ok teacher. Tried to get started with him but he was backlogged to the hilt. Then he mentioned last January on his webpage that Paul had retired from the Army and was starting again to teach CRV, as he had done at the DIA/Army unit.
We contacted Paul and really hit it off with him, he's great to be around and really an interesting and enthusiastic guy! We began the Basic in February, then did the Intermediate and have just now finished the classwork for the Advanced. Got lots of assigned practice targets yet to do, though, before we're really finished. The whole experience has been great, we feel really privileged to be the first of Paul's post-Army students to get the "whole load" of CRV from him. It was kind of a hoot taking the training from the original 1986 DIA/Army Instruction Manual (that he was the main author of and is in the process of re-writing for his RVIS Inc.). In the training, Paul tried to be as faithful to Ingo Swann in underlying concept as possible, passing on what Ingo taught him, and he was careful to point out what was later developed by the Army unit or by himself. We feel really solidly grounded in CRV theory and practice -- the stuff that has really worked.
Paul has been a great teacher, very clear, articulate, patient and supportive, and has spent LOTS of time with us in the past six months. He is top-flight, absolutely knows his business as well as anyone in the field, and has stayed active in RV work ever since he left the unit, so the experiences he shares are fresh. CRV training has been hard work, though he has made it very interesting. When you do a full-up CRV session thru Stage 6, you know you've done some work, and you don't want to do more than one (well, maybe 2 if you have to) per day even when well rested. I think by now we each must have around 60 sessions under our belts, and feel that there is absolutely no doubt the stuff works for us. When you build a clay model that *looks* like the target picture, all doubt dissipates! Paul has assigned absolutely no targets without full feedback. As a professional adult trainer myself, I fully agree with Paul and the others that full and clear visible feedback in training is essential. In the class, he personally monitored each of our sessions. After having extensively "suffered" Ed Dames' monitor overlay in the unit, Paul was very careful about avoiding that with us, however. Leveda and I have monitored each other for our practice sessions (we get along really well!). We don't have much experience with solo sessions, monitored ones are a lot more fun and productive for us. So I guess we're a little different from most of you, having each other to study and work with.
Don't know too much detail about the other styles of RV training, though we do have some reflections based on our own experience. Looking at Courtney's manual, he has added a lot of ritualistic exercises to get ready, added the questionable sub-space stuff, and apparently lopped off Stages 5 & 6 (at least the modeling part). I think that preparation stuff is ok but not needed, the sub-space suffers from the no-feedback bugbear and IMHO is very bad for training therefore, and dropping S5&6 is a shame as those two stages have been very helpful to us in getting good information. From what I can gather, Lyn has been fairly faithful to the Army method, but has lots of his own twists especially in terminology. One thing I understand is that Lyn has the students monitor each other all the time, while Paul has monitored us in class because of his insistence that we learn what it feels like to be "on the signal line". I think that his "catapult" approach has helped us to get consistently good results early on and since.
Joe pointed out in a recent posting that particular brain-waves (alpha/theta) haven't been very closely correlated with RV results. They haven't seemed to for us either, though we have used Hemi-Sync Metamusic tapes sometimes to settle down with. I do think attending Monroe Institute resident programs (Gateway, Lifelines, and especially Guidelines) has helped us a lot, and Paul seems to think so too. Once recognition of the feeling of the signal line happens consistently, a lot of the "ritual" stuff about cooling down etc. can drop away.
Bottom line (I could talk for weeks about our experiences, so will shut up): After spending all this time (and admittedly the $$) with Paul, we feel well on our way towards becoming professional RVers. If that's your goal, go for the high-priced spread!
Hi! As Gene was so generous to share his wonderful experience training with Paul H. Smith, I'd like to throw in my two cents! My husband & I have taken the beginner's course from Lyn Buchanan. I don't have time to go into as much detail as Gene did, but I would like to say that we enjoyed it immensely, felt we learned a great deal from it, and are presently preparing to take the Intermediate course. My understanding is that Paul & Lyn worked practically side-by-side for many years, and that their course is just about identical. Lyn has changed some of Ingo's terminology, only because Ingo requested it, and Lyn is honoring that request. Otherwise, he teaches Ingo's method down the straight and narrow, just as it was taught in the military. He worked with us one-on-one, teaching us how to monitor through the "basic on-the-job type training", sitting with us and correcting our mistakes as we went along. We both feel he was born to teach, and is an extremely gifted teacher. He continues to monitor our progress, and we stay in touch via e-mail and phone. He is always very happy to talk to us, and is really encouraging. We send in our data sheets to him regularly, which he studies, and enters into a data base, which keeps track of our strengths and weaknesses. We feel very fortunate to be working with him, and apart from the phenomenal results we are getting in our sessions (in spite of having 9 children in the house and two full-time jobs!) we have gotten really close to Lyn, and consider him a true friend.
I rambled longer than I had intended to, but I hope having two testimonials about Paul and Lyn will help those who are making a decision. If Lyn is closer to you, and cheaper, his course is excellent. If Paul is closer, and you can afford it, Gene's experience and Lyn's endorsement make me think that Paul's course would be an equally good choice.
I've heard only good things about you from Lyn! My husband & I took his beginner's course in April. We thoroughly enjoyed it, and are hoping to be able to take the Intermediate course in a few months if everything works out as well as we hope. We're working hard in the midst of mass parenting and full time jobs to reach the point of development we need to be in to take it.
Meanwhile, welcome to Texas! We're happy to have you near us! I travel to Austin frequently, and would love to meet you on one of those visits, if you would be open to that! I haven't had any Monroe Institute stuff, but I think we're learning what works and what doesn't
Well, it's getting late, so I'll sign off. Thanks for your interest.
> I believe such
growth will be, and is going to be, birthed from a
>greater understanding of our responsibilities to other human beings, and a
>stark reduction in daily personal needs.
Question, Joe? What do you mean by "daily personal needs?" Do you mean psychological needs that drive so much daily action and interaction? Or do you mean the "survival stuff" that keeps most of us mice every spinning on the treadmill? ;-)
I mean three more phones--so you don't miss anything; bigger cars, the third TV in the bathroom; more quick food in throw away packages; continued destruction of resources for GREED; profit margins over relationships; investors over employees; run away populations, and generally not giving a damn about who's starving because one might have a different ideology than your own. Those kinds of issues. Pretty much anything that makes us feel like we are trying to empty the swimming pool with an eye dropper between rain storms.
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
>One would hope that
someone using remote viewing to address the alien
>problem would provide a place, date, and time, at which "proof" of aliens
>could be collected. Until this happens--SCI-FI!
I feel that the importance of feedback is a nessacary part of rving, but the amount of influence it has over rving as a whole is not balanced. If a target has been remote viewed and you have no feedback, this does not take away from the rving session at all. It was still remote viewed. Data was still aquired, it just remains unconfirmed at that point by that remote viewer.
I feel that for remote viewing to adapt and evolve we will eventually have to get away from the wanting of immediate feedback, and have to concentrate on the acceptance of data. This would probably be after an extended period of time where the rviewer trained and recieved feedback until a belief in the data results would be evident.
But to say that rvied targets without feedback are SCI-FI, I cannot agree with on the basis of no feedback.
When we rv a target, get the data then open an envelope and look at athe target picture, even if the picture matches the written data we can not be sure of the acuracy of most of this data. Because some data is gathered from smell, touch, taste etc, etc and because this cannot be ascertained by the feedback picture. After all its only a picture and cannot accurately give results on any data that is not visually in the picture. A picture cannot tell you the smell temp texture, etc. It can only give a guessed indication of a possibility of what it could have been. It can only for the purpose of the rver themself to help pursuade the mind of the existance of rving, and not for accuracy.
The purpose of feedback can only be to help the viewers development, the data that cannot be usually seen in the feedback pictures and therefore not accurate data is the aspect of remote viewing that is the essence of it. It's data that we should not under any rational thought have access to , but we do.
If you go down the path of saying without feedback its not rving then nothing has ever been rviewed unless the feedback has included every aspect of the target that could be r-viewed, and it has'nt. To be this dependant on feedback is hindering any future expansion of rving.
All the best... daz
END ARCHIVE 19
AUGUST 21 1997 TO SEPTEMBER 05 1997
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page